Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Thank you

I briefly glanced at the latest round of "capital" discussions, and I would like to thank you all for reminding me why I took Jerusalem, an article I helped bring up to featured status, off of my watchlist and never came back. You couldn't get consensus among editors here that the sky is blue if the Israelis and Palestinians didn't agree it were so. I seriously hope that you all eventually come to the realization that what happens on this particular webpage truly doesn't matter and that you may find yourself less stressed by finding something else to do, either on Wikipedia or in the real world. -- tariqabjotu 03:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

It is clear that some still have problems with part of the introduction, so the neutrality tag is going to have to remain in place for some time. I think it should therefore be put in the correct location, it is the whole of the sentence "is the capital of israel, though not internationally recognized as such", that is disputed. Not just the first part of it. So the neutrality tag should be placed to cover the whole part of the sentence that this dispute is over. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No, there is a specific NPOV issue with the claim that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, which is presented as fact, when it is only one of several viewpoints that have been published in RS. Some RS refer to this as a "claim" or "designation" by Israel, not as a fact. Until that issue is resolved the tag should remain in place for that specific claim. Dlv999 (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with British Watcher and I already pointed this out. The current form represent disruptive editing. Also there is a NPOV issue with the abstract wording of "internationally recognized as such" this should be replaced with UN GA, as international community represents everyone, and as this discussion is going to be prolonged I am preparing to formally challenge the neutrality of this claim --Tritomex (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I would make over 50 edits to this page if I thought a few of them might stick, on issues regarding what I see as its non-neutrality, which applies to the whole article. The tag applies to the whole article. The Jordanian exclusion of Jews from sites and their destruction of Jewish buildings is not balanced by the fact that immediately post 1967 several thousand Jerusalem Arabs had their homes demolished, the Mamilla graveyard is being destroyed, the whole Muslim and Byzantine period is systematically dug through in archeological excavations to showcase the putative capital of the theoretical kingdom of David, the Mughrabi quarter and its medieval mosques were destroyed, and rules disallow Palestinians under 45 from praying on Friday at the Temple Mount, harsh restrictions make West Bank access to Jerusalem (except this summer) extremely difficult. Two sides of the one coin, only one of which is displayed, etc.etc.etc.etc. The UNGA bit is rubbish, again. We write to sources (Sally J. Cummins (ed.) The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state, Digest of United States Practice in International Law. 2006 International Law Institute, Washington ‎2008 p.537, to cite one of hundreds of sources). There are NPOV problems all over the article. --Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani What you are promising here is nothing less than edit warring and more POV, in unbalanced one sided way of editing. Would you for example mention the massacre of Jewws in 1843,1929 or 1936, the fact that 38 000 ancient Jewish tombs were destroyed between 1948-1967 or that 58 out of 59 synagogues in Jordanian occupied part of Jerusalem were destroyed and desecrated while Jews who were close to 70% of Jerusalem population in 1948 were (as the Palestinians from other section) expelled from Old City? Also where are the facts regarding the destruction of Herodian buildings on Solomon Stables section of Temple Mount in 2007 where ancient Israelite, Hasmonean, Ptolemaic and Herodian artifacts were systematically destroyed by Islamic Waqf and dumped as garbage to the Kidron Walley. Would you mention dozens of suicide bombings in Jerusalem which killed or wounded hundreds of innocents, including children. Would you like to include to this article some of the most important archeological places in Jerusalem like Hezzekiah tunnel, the Broad wall, Siloam Inscription, Israelite tower, ancient tombs, Second Temple period tunnels and buildings, or you are interested only to present the Palestinian issue from 1948 and from 1967? I have nothing to do with Israel or with region personally, I live far from it, however I will protect here and elsewhere the neutral and balanced approach toward Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I fell obliged to protect also the right of Israel to be equably treated and presented as the Palestinians are. Considering the source you have mentioned it is fine as much as it is the source regarding Jerusalem as Israels capital.--Tritomex (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to protest one's absolute neutrality while invariably editing or commenting over many pages from an uninformed and identifiable POV angle on one topic. People can read, you know. In fact the problem here is reading, and I don't mean only RS books, whose use in an article like this should account for 99% of the references (make an analysis of sources). By reading I mean stuff like this.

After 1948, since the old walled city in its entirety was to the east of the armistice line, (a) Jordan was able to take control of all the holy places therein, and contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, denied Jews access to Jewish holy sites, (b) many of which were desecrated. (c) Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites.[136] (d) Of the 58 synagogues in the Old City, half were either razed or converted to stables and hen-houses over the course of the next 19 years, (e) including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue. (f) The Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated, with (f) gravestones used to build roads and latrines.[137] (g) Israeli authorities razed many ancient tombs in the ancient Muslim Mamilla Cemetery in West Jerusalem to facilitate (h) the creation of a parking lot and public lavatories in 1964.[138] (i) Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were demolished and replaced by modern structures.[139] (j)During this period, the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations.[140

If you translate this into 1967, you could write

After 1967, since the old walled city in its entirety was taken by Israel, (a) Israel was able to take control of all the holy places therein, and contrary to international law, expropriated houses and evicted Palestinian residents. Muslims under 45 were denied their right to pray on the Haram on Friday prayer eventually, and were denied access to many areas where they traditionally dwelt in. Two mosques were levelled, in line with a general practice throughout the occupied territories of destroying Muslim religious shrines, which were converted into IDF war memorials, synagogues, yeshivas, in total some 100 mosques where levelled in Palestinian villages, six converted to residential use, sheepo-pens or stables, carpentry shops, storehouses; six serving as museums, bars, and tourist sites,, and two converted in part for Muslims to pray in though banned as places of muslim worship (Benvenisti 2000:289). The Mamilla cemetary was desacrated.etc.

Neither the first nor the second is anything but grievance writing. The first gives several details of mainly Jewish grievance,(a)(b) (c) (d) (e) (f), and 'balances' this with two generic points (h) (corresponding to (f), and a generic (i). Then you get the concluding but sentence (Jordan and Israel destroyed each others sacred sites, but only Israel allowed its enemy's sanctuaries to undergo renovations.

This kind of poor writing, the consequence of POV battling, is all over the page.--Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The introduction is correct, it has nothing to do with point of view and everything to do with facts.--Savakk (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Introductions aren't 'correct'. They either conform to reliable sources, or balance points of view. You are ignoring that as a contested city, this is all about balancing points of view by meshing what reliable sources which refer us to the positions of Israel, the international community, and Palestinians, say.

No need to move the tag. It will be removed once the discussion has died and clearly failed to reach consensus, which is not long from now most probably. This is the WP on the matter. The tag only indicates an ongoing discussion. --MeUser42 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are repeating claims thoroughly discussed. In short, the international community is not the definition of the word. It's objections noted, but the language stays the same. Please discuss the matter at the proper thread (after reading it) where it can be in context. --MeUser42 (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to write comprehensive English, and avoid vagueness. 'It's' = 'Its', as any kiddie in elementary school learns. Nothing you wrote above says anything, except articulating an opposition.--Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, I don't understand you. Do you want another topic ban for misrepresenting sources, flouting Discussion page guidelines, and insulting other editors? Because it seems like that's what you want.—Biosketch (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

'Seems like' introduces what is known as projective wishful thinking. Your three links are meaningless for the cast of intention you attribute to them. And now to Sunday lunch and good company.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nishdani, I wouldn't want my messages to cause you such distress. Please account for only the last sentence. --MeUser42 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani by inserting your comment in Savakk comment, you have altered the meaning of his comment in way that is unacceptable by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Savakk comment was referring to my previous comment and not to yours, as it looks now, after the insertion you have made. Therefore I ask you kindly to revert.--Tritomex (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not just the term international community is abstract term but in this case is factually fraud term. All countries that recognized Israel, recognized its institution in accordance with Israeli law. 22 countries have specifically recognized Jerusalem as Israel capital and never revoked this recognition. Although by the latter of international law there is no specific need to recognize the institutions of the state, if the recognition of the state is already done, this countries have did so. What they objected was 1980 annexation of EJ, not the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel capital. See (Mosheh ʻAmirav,Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City, Sussex University Press, 2009 p.27) The term international community in this case is POV.--Tritomex (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you cited that admirable book by Amirav, which I'm familiar with. It serves to kill two birds with one stone

Biosketch said earlier I was distorting sources, which was nonsense. My source said Israel declared West Jerusalem its capital (Michael Dumper) the prior source just said Israel in 1948 declared 'Jerusalem' its capital. Dumper is correct. The 1948 declaration did not declare that the capital of Israel was partially in Jordanian territory. It declared that its capital was in that part of Jerusalem held by Israel. Amirav again clarifies:-

'In 1948, Al Quds came under Jordanian rule, while the western part of the city, which was declared the capital of Israel, became known as Jerusalem p.21

'what the Ben-Gurion government did in the 1950s when it declared West Jerusalem to be the country's capital.' (p.26)

In other words, Biosketch accuses me of misrepresenting a source, when the source I added says exactly what I said it did, and a further source, by a Jerusalem policy expert, confirms that when Israel declared Jerusalem its capital, it referred to the western sector. This is what I mean by refusal to look at RS, refusal to compromise when RS clarify terms that are ambiguous. You are all culpable of a stubborn refusal to accept what RS that are not generic, but specific, written by Jerusalemite urban planning experts, or authorities on the city, quite clearly say.

To address your specific point.

• 22 countries have specifically recognized Jerusalem as Israel capital and never revoked this recognition. Although by the latter (sic?) of international law there is no specific need to recognize the institutions of the state, if the recognition of the state is already done, this (sic?) countries have did (sic) so. What they objected (sic?=to) was (sic =the) 1980 annexation of EJ, not the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel(sic=i/'s) capital. See (Mosheh ʻAmirav,Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City, Sussex University Press, 2009 p.27)

It's understandable that your English is somewhat awkward. Unfortunately, this means you are a poor reader of what English books say, which, when added to your frequent WP:OR hermeneutic divagations, makes following your argument a laborious task. One can hardly argue with someone who cites a book and twice capsizes its its evidence and argument.

You confuse the past present tense (have) with the past tense. Thus Amirav says 24 countries 'agreed to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and transferred their embassies there' (p.26) in the 1950s. He then says 'Twenty-two of the twenty four countries that had previously recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel moved their embassies out of the city' following the passage of the Jerusalem Basic Law of 1980.(p.27) The remaining two, Costa Rica and El Salvador, joined the boycott in 2006. So you have utterly distorted your source, and interpreted a withdrawal of recognition by 24 countries in the source into a recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It is a rather monstrous thing to do, this WP:OR interpretation of Amirav, which changes documentation by Amirav that 24 countries reneged on their recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital into 'What they objected was 1980 annexation of EJ, not the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel capital.'

Your editing, and arguments here, are troublesome because they are poorly explained, distort sources, and press rather vigorously for 'solutions' that strike many other editors as negligent of WP:NPOV. It's very difficult to sustain a dialogue if this pattern of distortion and neglect continues. Most people indeed seem to have dropped out of the discussion, and I can understand why.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the issue of the neutrality of that line is being dealt with partially here, if you are following the details.

Please move this discussion to the proper thread ('Better Wording'). --MeUser42 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I now see what Tritomex is doing. He is, as with his argument about Annexation, also here not looking at sources. He is reading a wiki page, and culling sources from that page without even verifying them independently. In this case, his incomprehensible ref to 22 countries recognizing the country comes from the Jerusalem article before I just now changed it (which used the figures 20-22). He cited Amirav without checking it. This is fundamental to editing. Wikipedia, to repeat what I said earlier, is not a reliable source, and editors should not pretend they have read a source, when all they have done is read the wikipage citing that source.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think now there is a need for administrative intervention regarding the edits of Nishadani. This is going beyond POV, and misinterpretation. Here is the online editions of the book [1] nowhere the wording "withdrawal of recognition" is mentioned. The relocation of embassies was in protest of Israel annexation of East Jerusalem and there was no "withdrawal of recognition" I do not think that Nishadani do not know the difference between relocation of embassies and withdrawal of recognition. His reacting to arguments shown here by directly and immediately making edits in to the article based on his own believes and by misinterpreting different sources without even looking for any consensus. For example he directly translated "relocation of embassies" in to "withdrawal of recognition" I will not engage myself in further dialogue with him.--Tritomex (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Smoke in the eyes. You quoted Amirav for the following statement:'22 countries have specifically recognized Jerusalem as Israel capital and never revoked this recognition.'

Where on p.27 does Amirav say that? Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

To all editors: page 49: "24 countries recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" AND all moved their embassies to Jerusalem. Clear indication that the recognition and relocation of embassies are two different process which do not need to be combined and can not be used as synonyms.--Tritomex (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked you where on p.27 does Amirav say what you quoted him as saying in support of your thesis. Now you refer me to p.49. In any caase, you are ignoring with snippets Amirav's context, which I bolded. Secondly, you are engaging in WP:OR which only underlines you are unfamiliar with the topic. It is WP:OR to make an inference, as you are doing, from two distinct passages and then declare thee inference to be either a fact, or what the author thought. Secondly your inference is wrong, as even a slight familiarity with the diplomatic and legal literature will show. It's original research and bad research at that.--Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also OR to interpret "had previously recognized" to mean they revoked their recognition. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Shlomo Slonim, Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy, 1947-1997, Martinus Nijhoff.The US Consul General in Jerusalem in 1958 wrote to the State Department ‘Many other countries mark their respect for the internationalization resolutions by establishing embassies in Tel Aviv thus avoiding recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and, by implication, as Israel’s de jure sovereign territory.’ p.186.

That's an old one I've chosen because it reflects the diplomatic interpretation of those gestuire in the 50s when Tritomex's 24 countries did what they did. There are dozens more that people who make bold to assert inferences should familiarize themselves with before they broach the subject. Everyone in the diplomatic, historical and political world knows exactly what the Security Council of Resolution 478 (1980) on 20 August 1980 asked and how its first and second points led to relocation by states. Not the UN. It was the Security Council by a 14-0 vote. If you don't know the background you can play all the games you like. People are fixated on the lead, and ignore fixing the body of the article. It isn't even true that Costa Rica and San Salvador kept on there till 2006. They originally withdrew, and then reconsidered. There's tons of stuff like that to care for. No one reads articles. They read the leads alone, apparently.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, can you confirm that you understand that that section of the book is talking about West Jerusalem ? When we say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" are we referring to West Jerusalem ? If so, we should change it to say that. This article is about the whole city though, including East Jerusalem, so when we say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", we are referring to the city described by this article, the city "complete and united" that Israel has declared as the capital, which includes both West and East Jerusalem, hence the neutrality dispute. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course I understand that Sean. Can you give me the definition of East Jerusalem borders which is not based on Israeli Jerusalem law? If such definition, regarding seize, population, exists we would know what he have to exclude from the current wording. Do you know that A-Tur, Jabel Mukaber,Ras al-Amud Beit Hanina, Beit Safafa,Shuafat, Sur Baher etc are considered part of Jerusalem only based on the same Jerusalem law? So should we than redefine East Jerusalem borders to the recognized boundaries of 1948 and adjust this article in accordance with this, or should we keep this article in factual situation created by Jerusalem law?--Tritomex (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, this article is about the entire city of Jerusalem, whatever that means over its long history. There is an article about West Jerusalem and an article about East Jerusalem. For the PNA, East Jerusalem is part of the Jerusalem Governorate and I don't know what criteria they use to distinguish between city and not-city, but it isn't relevant to the disputed issue here. The dispute is caused by ignoring the green line and stating as a fact that the city described by this article is the capital of Israel including the parts of the city of Jerusalem across the green line. That means we are saying they are in Israel. Think about the consequences of that statement if we cascaded the spatial relations that follow from that statement to other articles. It follows that the Western Wall is in Israel, the entire Old City is in Israel etc. Those are not facts according to RS. We have contradictions in spatial relations between articles. It isn't clear why the people who advocate the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" as an NPOV compliant statement don't do it properly by adding "complete and united" or "including East Jerusalem". What's the problem ? Why not cascade the spatial relationships that inevitably follow from that statement to other articles ? If it is a fact that the city this article is about is the capital of Israel, many things follow from that simply because of topology. Apparently the only people with the balls to make those kind of changes across article space, to say that the Old City is in Israel for example, to explicitly label places across the green line in East Jerusalem as being in Israel etc are so sure that they are right, so sure that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a fact, that they are willing to be blocked and topic banned for it. They might be wrong according to reliable sources but I admire their commitment, consistency and honesty. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a source that says a capital can only be in territory a country has de jure sovereignty over. Until you do all your assertions are nothing more than your personal opinion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That is an odd request. That line of argument will take you somewhere you don't want to go. We know that a city can be proclaimed/declared/designated/pick-a-word as the capital (and consequently be described by sources as the capital, the proclaimed capital, the declared capital etc) without there being de jure sovereignty over the city or even de facto control. We know that's possible because that's exactly what both Israel and Palestine have done and reliable sources talk about it. We have a source, Israel's basic law, that explicitly states as a fact that "Jerusalem", the subject of this article, is the capital of Israel, and another source, Palestinian basic law, that explicitly states as a fact that "Jerusalem" is the capital of Palestine. Neither case establishes that it is an undisputed objective fact that Jerusalem is the capital of anything to the extent that we can present it to readers as if it is the same as saying 1+1=2. It's obvious that these are not facts but the positions of the parties to the dispute and need to be presented that way. We already know something is wrong here because we have a source, an important source given that it is from one of the parties to the conflict, that explicitly contradicts, or at the very least, calls into question the factual nature of the statement in the lead, and that is without even looking at the thousands of independent reliable sources that deal with this issue in a whole variety of ways. What normally follows at this point, as soon as sources are mentioned, is the policy violating, time wasting, nonsense of using dictionary definitions of the word capital to "prove" that the entire city described by this article is the capital of Israel and only Israel as a matter of fact. This is of course original research and not allowed. But what is worse for me, setting aside the policy violation, is that it's a method that doesn't even work. A city isn't, as a matter of undisputed objective fact, a capital because it matches one, many or all of the attributes dictionaries use in their definitions such as "city...that is the official seat of government in a country...", "city...that functions as the seat of government and administrative centre of a country...", "the seat of government of a country" or whatever. We know this because the method fails for various cases such as the Netherlands. A method only has to produce an invalid result once to know that there is something wrong with the method. Editors surely know this so it really is very odd for editors to try to use a method that doesn't even work to violate a core policy here of all places.

I think the problem for you and everyone who wants to retain this statement of fact are the policies WP:V and WP:NPOV. If you want to make an unattributed statement of fact in this article, it's you who has to prove that the city described by this article, the whole city, is the capital of Israel as a matter of undisputed fact. I don't think anyone here has ever done that, or knows how to do it, and given the nature of Wikipedia's rules and the variation in how sources handle this issue, I don't think it is even possible. There has been a failure to demonstrate that the statement of fact complies with policy. It nearly complies but falls short. Reasonable alternatives that could end this dispute once and for all have been suggested.

I'm not sure where you think my opinion comes into this. You have said things like this a couple of times without pointing out precisely what you are referring to. Perhaps you mean my opinion that the statement "X is the capital of Y" where X is a city and Y is a "a country or other political unit" implies the spatial relations Y contains X and X is within Y to the reader in Wikipedia's voice. I think that is a reasonable assumption about how readers will parse that kind of statement because that is how things normally work for capital cities. I suppose an exception might be Kinshasa-Brazzaville if the combined name becomes more widely used, 1 city in effect, 2 capitals, both within different countries.

While you are pondering the next "Please provide a source that says..." question to ask editors, why don't you find a source that says that a city can only be designated as the capital by the country/political unit with de facto control over the city. Perhaps the international community can decide what the capital of Israel is. Perhaps a basket of red herrings can make the decision. Without a source that says they can't, someone could argue endlessly that it's hard to tell and more time would be wasted not just looking at how sources deal with this issue and applying Wikipedia's content rules to it. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I gather that the tldr of all that is "no, I can't provide a source". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you gather incorrectly, but you have reminded me why trying to resolve disputes through discussion doesn't work. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not just if the wording "not internationally recognised" is accurate or not, the problem is there is still a dispute on this page if that belongs in the opening sentence like that. The entire sentence has some neutrality concerns by people regarding different parts (some on the capital of Israel and some regarding stating something in the first sentence that is already stated more clearly further down the article intro). For that reason the neutrality tag warrants encompassing both points. At present the tag position suggests the fact Israel is the capital isnt seen as neutral, yet the next part of the sentence is entirely accepted. That is not the case.. Clearly putting the tag at the end of that part of the sentence still encompasses the fact the whole issue arond Jerusalems status has concerns. Its the only reasonable wayto be balanced. Of course ideally as there is no consensus for a change, no tag should be kept there. Most oppose the changes a small number of editors are demanding.BritishWatcher (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

POV tag on lede

I've added a tag to the lede section. Within the first paragraph, the lede needs to represent both the Palestinian and Israeli view in order to remain neutral, given the fact that the "UN and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital." Here is what was reverted:

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm) is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,

and is sought by the Palestinian Authority as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world and is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. It is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included. with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km² (48.3 sq mi).

According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 208,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is also a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The revert was fully justified.

• Only East Jerusalem is "is sought by the Palestinian National Authority" as the capital of a future proposed Palestinian state
• Dead links were used as sources
• Most importantly, intentions of any state or future state do not goes into the lead. Vatican intend to see Jerusalem as international city under UN or similar administration. That does not mean that we should include this intention of Vatican in the first sentence. --Tritomex (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The State of Palestine declared Jerusalem its capital, not East Jerusalem. nableezy - 14:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but is that the city's primary role? Is it really the best idea to start the article by bluntly stating Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel? The opening of the article ought to define the article's subject, and "a major city in the Levant" serves the purpose just fine. Jerusalem's capital status could then follow that opening phrase. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 18:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The way it was seems to be the common, standard way of writing articles about capital cities on Wikipedia. Compare with Paris, Cairo etc... EscEscEsc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a blatant attempt to bias this article in favour of the Palestinian POV and it is totally unacceptable. The introduction is balanced at present by saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though not internationally recognised as such. That balanced, giving both sides views and providing the facts. Attempts to try and add the fact there is a palestinian claim to the first sentence is just unreasonable, as has been debated extensively above. There is NO consensus for certain changes being proposed, and there is no reasonable case for an entire POV section tag when there is already inline neutrality tag for the primary issue people seem concerned about. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"There is a blatant attempt to bias this article in favour of the Palestinian POV and it is totally unacceptable"..no, sorry, but that simply isn't true as far as I can tell. The evidence suggests to me that it's the other way around. Where is the Palestinian POV in the introduction ? The international community isn't Palestinian. The Palestinian POV doesn't appear until the 5th paragraph of the lead despite the Palestinians being the other party to the dispute with an equal claim to the city as their capital as far as RS are concerned. Frankly I think it's lucky the Palestinian POV is mentioned at all given that we have so many contributors here whose ability to deal with this issue neutrally is apparently damaged beyond repair or who are insufficiently informed about the issues and their policy obligations. If editors followed the advice at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Editors_counseled this would have been sorted out years ago. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Im saying there is clearly an attempt here to insert Palestinian POV, not that the current article is Palestinian POV. Whilst i would prefer to see some changes, i believe the current wording is balanced, making clear Israel is the capital of Jerusalem, but this is not recognised by the international community. That is perfectly balanced and reasonable. What is not reasonable and what is blatant POV pushing is the attempts to try and make out like a claim to the city is somehow worthy of being in the same sentence as the fact it is the capital of ISrael. The proposal above is the latest flawed proposal, yet there has been even worse ones in recent months too. It is simply not appropriate for the first sentence to be vandalised with POV. There are many disputed states and territorial claims, the first sentences do not tend to put a claim in line with the factual realities on the ground. For example.. Northern Ireland says "Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland. It is variously described as a country, province or region of the UK, amongst other term.". It does not say, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and claimed by Irish republicans who want a united Ireland." To do so would give undue weight. Same applies in this case, the palestinian claim is clearly explained in the introduction already.. it does not need to be pushed into the first or second sentence, which will give undue weight. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use an entire section POV tag for the introduction. Use inline tagging for the specific claims people have concerns about, the vast majority of the facts and information in the introduction is accurate so people should not be confused about how accurate any of it is. Undermines the entire article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a blatant attempt to bias this article in favour of the Palestinian POV and it is totally unacceptable.British Watcher

The international community isn't Palestinian. The Palestinian POV doesn't appear until the 5th paragraph of the lead .Sean Hoyland

Im saying there is clearly an attempt here to insert Palestinian POV, not that the current article is Palestinian POV.' British Watcher

BW. In short, you are not listening, but rehearsing your position. There are 3 POVs. (a) Israel's (b) The international community's (the legal lie of the land based on corpus separatum); (c) the Palestinians'.

The Palestinians are not some discarded pariah element in the equation. Their claim has parity per WP:NPOV, but is textually downplaced, repudiated, or absorbed into that of the second party. If you wish to challenge that, use policy and RS-based arguments. not personal opinions.--Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The palestinian claim to Jerusalem is already mentioned in the introduction. The question is here about preventing [{WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] by biasing the introductions first sentence with Palestinian POV. A claim to want to control the city at some point in the future is very very different to the fact it is the capital of Israel and acts as such. We ensure balance by including very clearly after that this is not recognised by the international community (which includes the palestinian view). The claim by palestinians to jerusalem is better handled in the other parts of the introduction as at present. You will find many articles saying that Israels capital is Jerusalem but that this isnt recognised by the international community/, yet do not go on to say in the same sentence or paragraph about palestinians wanting it as their future capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh come, now. Please try to make a cogently coherent argument. The point made by several editors is that Israel's claim is in the first sentence, the Palestinian claim isn't. So what on earth has WP:Undue to do with the fact that in violation of WP:NPOV, one of the three parties is not represented in the first sentence? You are saying that compliance with WP:NPOV would violate WP:Undue, one of the most extravagantly queer twistings of policy I've encountered in 6 years of editing. --Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources do mention the Israeli and Palestinian claims next to each other: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've re-added the section tag. In order to adhere to NPOV, the Palestinian viewpoint needs to be represented in the first paragraph, just as the Israeli and international viewpoint is shown. (BW, inline tagging is not possible because this is a structural dispute.) Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I support Somedifferentstuff's assessment. Israel's viewpoint is given in the first paragraph, as is the viewpoint of the international community. The Palestinian viewpoint should not be relegated to further down the page. As Dailycare has shown Reliable source coverage of this topic present the Israeli and Palestinian viewpoints on this issue consecutively. The current arrangement is not neutral and does not represent how the issue is handled by RS - thus it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A more precise description based on the sources Dailycare provided would be that some RS occasionally also mention that the Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. I don't see how not putting that in the first paragraph of the lead is an NPOV violation, considering it's an aspiration, not something that's actually happened it doesn't deserve the same weight. Just like the article about Taiwan doesn't mention the PRC's claims and aspirations over that territory in the first paragraph of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is also the already well labored point that significant RS describe Israel's position on Jerusalem, not as a fact, but as a "claim" or a "designation", that has been rejected by the international community (or some similar formulation). Dlv999 (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is also the already well labored point that significant RS describe it as fact, while no significant RS say it's not a fact. That some RS take no position ("claim" or "designation" doesn't mean it's not a fact) is not a reason to water down the language here when we have RS that do take a position. Non-recognition, the significance of which nobody has found a source that explains, is already right next to the statement of fact, which is supported by RS. All the POVs are represented in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A source saying something is a widely rejected claim is not the same viewpoint as a source saying something is a fact. As the article stands only one of those viewpoints is presented in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. Non-recognition is mentioned in the lead. I'll remind you again that we don't know if that has any bearing on the factuality of Jerusalem being the capital, since we have yet to see a source that explains it. Apparently neither do the sources using "claim" otherwise they'd just assess whether it's a fact or not rather than take no position. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

2 POV issues, both in the first paragraph. My suggestion to avoid having a permanent POV section tag on the article. First, rewrite the lead -- Jerusalem, located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, is one of the oldest cities in the world.[1] According to the Israeli government, Jerusalem is the nation's capital (although it is not internationally recognized as such.)[ii]

The second POV issue, the Palestinian vacuum in the first paragraph, also needs to be remedied. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it quite fascinating that you think there will be a "permanent POV section tag on the article" if you don't get your way. Putting that aside, your first suggestion has already been made and has failed to find consensus. To recap, it looks like all articles about capital cities state that in the first section of the lead, so there's really no reason to deviate from that. There's also no reason to introduce "according to the Israeli government" when we have RS that state it as plain fact.

The "Palestinian vacuum" in the first paragraph is also on par with other articles. We don't tend to give aspirations the same weight as facts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There will be a permanent POV section tag as long as the article continues to violate that policy. Israel's claim of capital status is not recognized by most of the world, which is precisely why the term "Israeli government" is essential in creating a neutral lead. Pretending that Jerusalem is "just another capital city" is laughable at best. And ignoring the Palestinian vacuum within the first paragraph will not lead to a consensus, I assure you. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The POV tag will be removed once the discussion is concluded one way or another. If you think you can keep a tag on an article until you are personally satisfied with the text, you are mistaken. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. In order to remove the tag you need to look at the general consensus (all editors present). If the general consensus is not to do so due to a continued violation, then the tag remains. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that if there's consensus to keep the tag, there would be consensus to make the edit and then the tag wouldn't be needed. Tags don't stay on articles indefinitely. There's a discussion and it will be concluded one way or another. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The palestinian viewpoint appears in the first sentence already as they do also not recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Their claim to the city cannot be given equal weight by being placed in the first sentence when there is clearly a massive difference between one entity claiming the capital for a future state, compared to one serving as the capital of a state, despite lacking recognition. There has been no consensus on previous attempts to bias this introduction by giving undue weight to the palestinian claim. I never said that the palestinian claim is never mentioned in article on this matter, i said there are many that do not because the primary two factors are "Jerusalem is Israels capital" and "the international community do not recognise this". The palestinian claim is handled in the introduction still, it is not as though there is no mention of it, but the view has rightly been it does not warrant inclusion in the first sentence.

I fail to see why in line tagging does not solve the issue people claim to be unhappy about. People are saying they just want a change to the first sentence.. the first sentence is tagged with the neutrality. How does that not cover the issue? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

BW, if sources mention the claims consecutively, why can't we? I think the "massive difference" or lack thereof is something that ought to turn on what sources say, not on editors' opinions on the matter. --Dailycare (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It already is mentioned! It is detailed in the introduction, it does not all fit nor can it be stated in a neutral way if its put in the first sentence, it simply does not work. It will be gross bias to try and treat the fact its the capital of Israel in law and in practice, just not recognised by the international community... with the fact the Palestinians claim it for their future state. It just cannot all fit fairly. And every single proposal we have seen in this latest round of the attempts to add palestinian POV have been proposals that are very clearly bias and which is obviously going to be unacceptable to many on this page. There was a vote above.. it showed support for the current wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind of the capital issue is moved out of the first sentence overall, in fact not nearly all sources place Israel's and Palestine's "capital claims" in the first sentence. --Dailycare (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though it is not internationally recognised as such. There is no justification for removing this from the first sentence. We are not hiding facts simply because people are demanding the Palestinian POV be added and given undue weight. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

My vote is to move it out of the first sentence. It's a contentious issue and will be better suited with a move. The following first sentence is one of the best, if not the best, first sentences I've seen: "Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس al-Quds) is an ancient Middle Eastern city of key importance to the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert by Tritomex

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is no consensus for the change introduced by Dailycare. This discussion is long, convoluted, and has taken place against the backdrop of other ongoing discussions on this page which make arriving and a productive conclusion difficult. However, I have taken all viewpoints into consideration, and when disregarding those which are irrelevant, I can see that there is some weak support for the current status quo.

To start, Dailycare's initial edit was made with the edit summary "after discussion on talk". However, discussion on this page has been far from clear. I feel it is troublesome to unilaterally arrive at a "consensus" viewpoint by method of disregarding comments from other editors which one deems to be invalid. The arguments in opposition can be summarised as:

1. The change introduces unnecessary repetition to an already complicated and difficult-to-read lead, since the controversy over Jerusalem's official status is already amply discussed.
2. The sentence in its original form was already balanced, as it states that Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as the capital.

The arguments in support of Dailycare's change can be summarised as:

1. Dailycare's original justification that his edit was based on the result of talk page discussions (a claim I find hard to ratify).
2. The fact that the edit introduces repetition doesn't matter, as there is already a lot of other repetition in the article and we would need to remove all that too.

I find the first of the arguments in opposition to be valid, if only weakly compelling. I do not find any of the arguments in support to be valid, particularly the second.

The latter half of this discussion derailed into a long-winded discussion about semantics and the morality/legality of Israel's seizure of East Jerusalem. I find this part of the discussion to be irrelevant to the outcome of this discussion, since the sentence in question makes no bold claim about the legal status of East Jerusalem. I find attempts to derail the discussion by speculating what is implied by the sentence to be particularly unhelpful.

For reasons of clarity, I feel it important to declare (to those who do not routinely investigate) that I am not an administrator and as such this is a non-admin close. However, I have no iron in this fire and have never edited in this area before. I have done by utmost to be impartial. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Tritomex reverted an edit of mine here. However the edit summary merely says "no consensus" and "not acceptable" which isn't sufficient, as on the talkpage no substantial policy-based objections to the edit came up in discussion, above. Unless such objections surface here in a couple of days, I'll re-do the edit. Comments along the lines of "I support the current version", "I don't support any change" etc don't carry any weight per WP:CONSENSUS ("The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.") Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You know you had no consensus for that edit. It had exactly nobody supporting it and at least one person objecting to it, and that's putting aside the people who said they think the current version is fine. You do not get to decide if other editors' arguments are valid or not. Luckily for you someone reverted your edit before I saw it but if you do it again I'll be going straight to AE with no further warning. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The same goes for Ankh's removal of though not internationally recognized as such. nableezy - 18:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

where is this consensus?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If you dont want to look I wont do the work for you. But the fact that the line has been in the first sentence for two years should help you figure it out. Edits like this should also help you. nableezy - 19:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're the one making the claim so you have to support your claim. I did notice you tracked down a bunch of diffs from years ago so I see some work was put it. However those diffs don't really support your claim. I'll remove it now pending support for your claim, of course. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I promise you, AE is the next stop. You know full well you have no consensus to remove material that has been in this article for years, and if you do so knowingly then we can see what happens. nableezy - 20:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My edit was proposed long in advance and nobody has yet explained why the repetition is necessary. What does the phrase I removed add more than that which is already mentioned in the 4th paragraph? Ankh.Morpork 19:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that any neutral editor who just read the section above would even waste a moment of their life to consider taking what you just wrote seriously? I have not seen one objection to your proposed edit on the basis of anything else but the following: [2] [3]. I don't find this amusing and I can guarantee that any more application of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will not be addressed through this forum. -asad (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Isnt it also mentioned in the fourth paragraph that under Israeli law Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Why didn't you remove that bit of repetition from the first sentence? Oh, thats right, it wasnt about removing repetition, it was about removing what you dont like. I get it now. nableezy - 19:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to understand why the personal attack is necessary. Ankkmorport doesn't like it as much as you like it. Everyone has ulterior motives except for you. Disgraceful.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack? Preceding all that? Wow. nableezy - 20:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand personally why should we have repetition about the status because later the legal matters are thoroughly explained. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So why should the sentence on it being the capital be in the first sentence? The point is that saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is a non-neutral statement, it omits a rather important POV on the topic. So if you want to remove the sentence on it being the capital and just have it in the fourth paragraph then fine. What isnt fine is only removing material that The Greatest State would like to disregard. nableezy - 22:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Threatening AE here and on another user's talk page multiple times. Knock it of Nableezy. We all know you aren't going to AE since the edit wasn't bad enough to warrant it and you would just get a boomerang. Stop trying to wield it like a big stick since you have successfully used it a handful of times to knock off editors who deserved it. You are next on the chopping block anyways. The proposal a couple sections above is perfect and everyone should chill out and consider how it could be a benefit to the reader. It would also save a lot of bickering.Cptnono (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, say the same thing to NMMNG and I might take you seriously. Actually, probably not then either. Your belief on who is next on the chopping block is one of those things in this world that do not matter, even a little bit, to anybody besides yourself. nableezy - 13:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As I was honored personally in the name of section I feel the need to reflect on few assumptions.

I don't know what entitle anyone to qualify its personal point of view as "substantial" and to disqualify the majority opinion made by six or seven editors as unsubstantial. The evaluation of the "quality of arguments" is beyond any objective measurement and as far as I have noticed no one who opposed changing of current wording seems to be impressed by those arguments. As many editors here I have opposed any change in current wording, especially double negations, based on my assumption that the current wording is already reflecting balanced and neutral position. To in force someones personal view or other motivations on this or any article through force or WP:EW is against Wikipedia guidelines and could constitute WP:VAN --Tritomex (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is a line-up parade. The opinion that this is 'neutral and balance' is predictably identified with one set of editors, whose belief is opposed by another set. There has been, in this tiresome rehearsal, only one editor who has tried to rise above the fray and propose creative solutions, successively modifying his proposals to reflect input. Despite this, they were worn down by absurd filibustering. Thus, everything is stalled. If people will not come to some fair adjustment, the lead should remain as it was, i.e., as satisfying no one. No one is replying to the lockstep proposals and votes because they are meaningless, and even arguing here is a waste of time. The only way to fix this, given the lack of goodwill, would be for admins to tell everyone to fuck off, and put in accomplished article outsider FA writers to fix it.--Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Saying I "knew" there was no consensus for the edit is wrong, since exactly one person commented on the proposal, by opposing it on the basis that, wait for this, it would change the meaning of the sentence. This isn't even remotely a substantial policy-based argument, and therefore doesn't affect the existence or non-existence of consensus in any way. I challenged the user to identify a policy he was referring to, which he failed to do. In this thread, by the way, I currently see exactly zero policy-based objections to the edit. Therefore not only did the edit have consensus to begin with, it still has consensus. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting theory. We'll have an opportunity to test it at AE if you make that change again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You to, huh? Not to appease Nableezy but simply to mention it to you both that threatening AE over and over again is not helping anything. Aren't you guys suppose to be working together to settle the settlement issue? This talk page is a trainwreck. I'm going to enjoy a sandwich and marvel in the calamity. But that one well thought out proposal above is stil better than anything else that has happened here in years. Can we start ARBIA3 yet?Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare What you currently see or do not see is your personal issue. Seven editors here do not see that you have a right or consensus here to make changes which you try to enforce above all of us. I have said and I will not repeat my self every time you come back with threats to report someone, or to force upon everyone your personal believes and impressions. Jerusalem is a capital of Israel (Fact) it is not recognized by most of international community as such (Fact) Those two facts function independently from each other and the neutrality of this sentence can be achieved only by combining them. As the first half of sentence may look problematic to you, the second part has even more bases to be challenged by others. This is why the current form is balanced and neutral. --Tritomex (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, is it a fact that East Jerusalem, the part of the city that is across the green line, is part of Jerusalem ? I think we would all agree that the answer to that question is "yes". If "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a fact, and East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem, it follows that it is a fact that East Jerusalem is part of the capital of Israel. But it is not a fact that East Jerusalem is part of the capital of Israel because it is not a fact that East Jerusalem is in Israel. It is the opinion of the State of Israel that East Jerusalem is part of the capital of Israel. Can you see the problem ? There is a contradiction. It's shining brightly. Please can you confirm that you can at least see it ? It seems to me that many editors cannot see it or choose to ignore it, whereas many reliable sources recognize this contradiction and deal with accordingly through careful wording. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, Jerusalem was declared capital of Israel in 1950, so this fact has nothing to do with the annexation and extension of Jerusalem city borders in 1980. East Jerusalem had only 6,4 square km in 1967-under Jordanian occupation, which means that if we would fully ignore Israeli Jerusalem law of 1980 we would have an article about a city with 300 000 inhabitants(internationally recognized East+West Jerusalem) and 55 square kilometers. Also we should refer to almost all Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem as villages outside Jerusalem (this is their legal status from 1948 and even from 1967 Jordanian occupation) as they were declared part of Jerusalem unilaterally by Israel, under Jerusalem law. Also such Jerusalem would have only 50 000 Palestinian citizens. However we have article here which use Israeli Jerusalem law referring to the city of more than 800 000 inhabitants and 125 sq.km.

Again, the extension of Jerusalem is as much (Il)legal as the annexation of East Jerusalem, as it is based on same law, which was not recognized by UN or by most of international community. So technically speaking, yes the borders of Jerusalem, its population and neighborhoods, could be as much in dispute as its status. However, the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel predates the 1967 war and this fact is independent from international recognition or negation.--Tritomex (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You're extremely confused. When Jerusalem was declared the capital in 1950 it was not a declaration that Jordanian Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. (b) there was no formal annexation of Jerusalem in 1980 according to authoritative legal opinion (c) you appear to be wholly unfamiliar with WP:NPOV, which obliges editors to respect neutrality, even those editors, as your above screed shows, who can see only one side, Israel's, to a complex question. Whatever Israel determines as its 'facts', is a partial perspective, and per policy, must be balanced by other perspectives, be they of the international community or the Palestinians. The refusal to acknowledge that there are two perspectives here is getting rather blatant. The policy reads:'This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. It's a curiosity that administrators never force compliance with this non-negotiable policy in this area.--Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, don't fall into Sean's trap. His assertion that "But it is not a 'fact that East Jerusalem is part of the capital of Israel because it is not a fact that East Jerusalem is in Israel" is nothing more than his opinion. You may have noticed that some editors like to redefine the word "capital" to include all kinds of limitations and conditions that don't actually appear anywhere the word is defined. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, East Jerusalem is in Israel now? nableezy - 19:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a trap. What you have done there is assume bad faith. There is no reason to do that. I think you have also misrepresented me. Can you point out where I redefined the word "capital" or any other words such as "Jerusalem", "East Jerusalem", "green line", "Israel", "fact" etc ? As far as I'm aware I'm using all of the words in the same way you or anyone else would use them. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani I am very much familiar with WP:NPOV and I do adhere to it. I am also sometimes surprised "that administrators never force compliance with this non-negotiable policy in this area" As for example in the case of your main page, where you are narrating solely the Palestinian perspective in a way that is a clear example what WP:NPOV is not.

Please familiarize yourself with the terminological meaning of annexation. [4] Annexation as occupation is unilateral move and an established fact regardless of authoritative legal opinion or the legality of such act. This mean that annexation can be legal or illegal as well. In its terminological construct annexation do not allude or determine the legality of such action, (although it imply to unilateralism) it simply reflect the action without its repercussion. In this way annexation cant be non existing if it happened. What I have pointed out is that this article is using geographical, population data based on Israeli Jerusalem law regarding seize of Jerusalem and its demographic composition. As we have said already everything in this dialogue and there is evidently no consensus I do not see any reason to artificially prolong it. Although I reserve my right to respond I will not take part anymore in the artificial prolongation of this debate especially as I have already stated my opinion on this subject.--Tritomex (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Assertions count nothing against evidence. You are apparently not familiar with basic editing protocols. You ignore the obligations of WP:NPOV, and now you cite a wiki article Annexation as evidence for a fact, again showing that you are unfamiliar with what all practiced editors know, i.e.,Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You are consistently ignoring policy, and confusing an identifiable political-partisan position with facts. Israel's position is one of several facts, and NPOV requires that in composition, the other "facts" be included in order to avoid passing off one tilted perspective as the only one that counts.Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, you rely in your argumentation on what you call facts. This is in fact not in-line with what policy states, since we should rather edit based on what best sources say, than on what we consider to be the facts. However, arguendo, do you think it's not a fact that Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law? Applying your fact-based theory, it seems that my edit is in fact better in-line with it than the longstanding wording, since it's a noncontroversial, bland and universally non-contested fact that Jerusalem is, under Israeli law, the capital city of Israel. On the other hand, the General Assembly has recently passed, with overwhelming support, a resolution stating that the proclamation of Jerusalem as capital is "null and void". To the extent that you're advancing your fact-based theory as a policy-based objection to the edit, which policy are you referring to? This source, by the way, describes objections to the notion of Jerusalem as Israel's capital already before 1967. --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

UN GA has no power by its charta to pass biding resolutions, as such power lies only in the domain of UN SC. As in the previous case mentioned, international recognition, do not change facts such as occupation, annexation, declaration of independence, and facts regarding capital of each state. Political opinion has its dynamics [5] and as I will say this for the last time, if the wording that Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel (which is in my opinion POV against Israel, due to the abstract meaning of the term "international community" and due to absolutist wording of this claim) is included in leading sentence, the avoidance of further POV could be achieved only by keeping the current form. By inserting double negation, this article would be transformed from good NPOV in to Palestinian political pamphlet. Definition of capital [6] I do not see any connection between the substantial meaning of this term and international recognition of the same. --Tritomex (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, the negation of the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' is the statement "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel'. As far as I'm aware, no one has proposed that a negation of the current statement be used. That is not what the vast majority of reliable sources do so there is no reason to do it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare, if you will again make a change to a 1RR article after it has firmly and extensively been established that there is no consensus for it, as you are aware, I will request you will be blocked. --MeUser42 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The level of discussion on this talk page seems to have hit rock bottom. It may be helpful if we all go back to basics: Assume good faith and stick to discussion relevant to improving the article based on policies and evidence. Dlv999 (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree DLV999, Dailycare was fully aware there is no consensus and this is a 1RR article. This can't go on. --MeUser42 (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The change made by DailyCare was totally unacceptable and was rightly reverted. There is no consensus for such a change and it was obvious that would be the case considering the extensive debates that have been taking place on this page. Strongly oppose any change to the current introduction at this stage. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Reading through this thread, I still see zero policy-based objections to the edit, so it appears to still have consensus. As noted above, saying "no consenus" or "I object" doesn't affect the presence or absence of consensus in any way. In detail, Tritomex, who reverted the edit, has failed when challenged to name a policy he's referring to. A self-revert on his part to restore the edit would therefore be in order. MeUser42, I'm assuming you're genuinely under the impression that consensus is determined by some kind of vote. This isn't the case, and I invite you to read WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As there haven't been further entries in this thread, I've requested closure by an uninvolved party to determine if there is consensus for the edit. --Dailycare (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DC, as you constantly demand "policy-based objections", I'll give you a few. Attempting to misuse, contradict or reinterpret the meanings of terms defined in the dictionary to serve your own agenda appears to violate the policy against original research, and is POV. It must be said again: Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital, and Israel is governed from there. That much is well sourced. It is not sourced that recognition or approval by any outside party is relevant to what makes a capital a capital. Therefore, adding a modifier such as "under Israeli law" is restrictive and misleading. Repeatedly ignoring, or branding as invalid, arguments that contradict your position, and falsely claiming consensus for a change (or that none is needed), can be seen as disruptive—another policy violated. You recently (11 Oct.) claimed (with astonishment) that an editor objected to your edit on the basis that ("wait for this", you said) it "would change the meaning of the sentence". Strange, I can't find that phrase anywhere in this discussion. However, controversial edits often do seek to change the meaning of a text, and that is indeed the effect of your proposed change. I hope your "uninvolved party" will readily see that the existing text is a proper representation and that consensus to change it is lacking. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The edit says "Jerusalem (...)is the capital of Israel under Israeli law". Which dictionary meaning is violated, and which OR conclusion is drawn? Israeli law does state Jerusalem is the capital, something which is also sourced in the edit. The edit doesn't say that recognition is needed for anything, so we don't need sources for that. You objected to this edit in your comment timestamped 20:06, 2 October 2012 by stating "Adding "under Israeli law" would be restrictive and a major change in the meaning". I'm sure you agree, that isn't a policy-based objection and indeed when challenged you were unable to name a policy that says we can't change the meaning of text in articles. To the extent you seem to me making the same argument again, I challenge you once more to name a policy that says we can't change the meaning of text in an article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ask the same basic questions over and over, you are likely to get the same basic answers. Once again, you can't change the meaning or usage of words as defined in the dictionary and use them as you please. That would be POV and OR. As Jerusalem is both designated by Israel as its capital and where the government institutions are located, it complies with the commonplace dictionary definition of a capital city and is simply the capital. You keep insisting on altering that simple statement with superfluous, limiting modifiers.

OR and POV-pushing come in when you maintain that embellishment (in this case restrictive language) is called for, rather than the simple, direct statement we have in place now. Israel's capital, not just "under Israeli law". The capital, period, full stop. The recognition question is related because without that factor there is no justification for a restrictive statement and your edit would be pointless. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I repeat my question: which dictionary meaning is violated by saying that according to Israel's laws, Jerusalem is the capital? The Basic Law states plainly that it is, and the edit doesn't say that according to other laws it isn't, so it's not in any way "restrictive" either. (not that using a dictionary like you're proposing is a valid argument to begin with, or that there would be anything wrong in restricting meanings)

Concerning your claim that Jerusalem is "simply" the capital, I'd like to hear how you square it with e.g. this source which says "While Israel calls Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital, few other states accept that status." Or for that matter this one, which says "Although it's evident that functionally the city is the Jewish state's capital, even close allies such as Britain say that to give formal recognition would be to legitimise the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem when talks with Palestinians are meant to decide its status, even if an agreement looks a distant prospect." According to sources Jerusalem is anything but simply Israel's capital. Which brings me to my next point, namely do you think that sources matter to begin with? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking sources to prove a point is not exactly good faith editing. Have you forgotten there are sources that state as fact that it's the capital and none that say it isn't, or do you think that sources that don't agree with the agenda you're pushing here don't matter to begin with? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I cited some sources, let's see what Herz has to say about them, and I'm of course also curious to see what his dictionary says about Israel's laws. Concerning your question, no, I haven't forgotten but you do seem to have forgotten that I've addressed that point here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

One way or another, we've been over basically this same ground before, all too many times. Along the way I have expressed my policy-based objections as requested, and won't repeat them here. What makes a capital a capital is readily ascertainable, and applicable. Anything further added to the statement in question is obfuscation, and irrelevant. It may be technically correct to say "under Israeli law", but unless you intend to add "and in every other way", or the like, you would be "poisoning the well", because saying "under Israeli law" implies "only under Israeli law", as I'm sure you know or ought to know. Such tendentious errors of omission are not "good faith" editing. What Britain (& other outside parties) may have to say is also irrelevant; they can disapprove, but they cannot make it not be the capital. If it could be shown otherwise, I think it would have been by now.

You may be willing to misapply or selectively use sources and disregard elementary logic to make a point; I'm not. That does not mean I disrespect the policies on reliable sourcing, as you repeatedly imply by your questioning. Don't bother asking for details or posting more interrogatories for me; I've said all I care to say, and can't spend all my time on this. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I gather you mean to say that yes, you do believe that sources matter. You don't, however seem to be able to square your claim that Jerusalem would be "simply" the capital with the sources cited that in fact say the whole thing is really rather more complicated than that. In other words, you can't maintain both that sources matter and your "simply the capital" theory. Concerning the "Israeli law" point, the idea there is precisely that the edit doesn't take a side, rather it describes the sides. The edit doesn't say that Jerusalem "really" is or isn't a capital city, it simply states facts that are not in dispute. WP:NPOV states "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." The notion that Jerusalem would be the capital is rejected by the international community. It is not disputed or rejected that Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law. --Dailycare (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What I can or can't do is not appropriate content for this page. Don't make assumptions about my abilities. Per my point that capital is a well-defined term (one that you keep trying to obfuscate and redefine), the existing simple, direct statement is not a point of view.

I ask you again not to keep coming back with further posts directed at me. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, The problem is, your own personal opinion about what constitutes a capital (and the conclusions about Jerusalem you draw from that opinion), are not supported by what scholars say on the matter. See for instance Daum, Andreas (2005). Berlin - Washington, 1800–2000 Capital Cities, Cultural Representation, and National Identities. Cambridge University Press. p. 31. ISBN 0521841178. While a seat of government can evolve into a capital - as the case of Washington demonstrates- the distinction can remain quite clear. The Netherlands' seat of government is the Hague but its capital is bustling, commercial Amsterdam, the national cultural center. (p. 31)

I think it may be useful for you to consider that others that do not share your opinions, or are putting their opinions to one side and simply basing edits (and proposed edits) on what RS have said about the topic of this article are not behaving tendentiously, they are simply following our WP:NPOV policy.

(Sorry for responding to your post, but if you are going to make comments you have to accept that other editors are at liberty to respond to what you have written). Dlv999 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This is how the BBC does it.

"Israel and many of its supporters regard a united Jerusalem - Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967 - as its undivided capital. Most major powers do not, including the US which, like many other countries, has its embassy in Tel Aviv."[7]

Note the use of the word "regard" and the unambiguous description of Jerusalem as "united", "undivided" and including East Jerusalem. This is about perspectives not facts. Regarding "What makes a capital a capital is readily ascertainable, and applicable." No it isn't, but that doesn't matter, because more importantly, an argument/objection based on a dictionary definition of a word like capital isn't a policy based argument, it's a policy violation, so we can forget about that. These dictionary based synthetic arguments have never been and never will be relevant to this dispute. They need to be put aside so that people can focus on how sources deal with Jerusalem. Putting the dictionary based OR aside doesn't change anything in the sources that deal with Jerusalem, so it's no loss to anyone. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A request for closure has been made here]. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit request on 26 October 2012

According to a World Bank report, the number of recorded building violations between 1996 and 2000 was four and half times higher in Jewish neighborhoods (17,382 violations in West Jerusalem, compared to 3,846 in East Jerusalem) but four times fewer demolition orders were issued in West Jerusalem than in East Jerusalem (348 administrative demolition orders for buildings in East Jerusalem compared to 86 such orders for buildings in West Jerusalem); Arabs in Jerusalem were less likely to receive construction permits than Jews, and "the authorities are much more likely to take action against Palestinian violators" than Jewish violators of the permit process.

Astypalea (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the journal. Does the paper cite the world bank as the source for the quoted figures? Dlv999 (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The World Bank report (here) is already cited in the Jerusalem#Urban_planning_issues section. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It would seem pretty uncontroversial then, from what I can make out the only change to the text is the addition of the figures from the World Bank report. Dlv999 (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. The request is confusing. Please be more clear what you want added/changed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 November 2012

216.165.253.27 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC) I believe that there is a spelling error in Section 15 'Notable residents'. 'Mediaeval' should be spelled 'Medieval'.216.165.253.27

It's a permissible alternate spelling, as shown, e.g., in the lead line at Middle Ages. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 November 2012

The article states that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,though not internationally recognized as such"

Jerusalem is internationally recognized as the capital of Israel, the only time it is not recognized is when it is someone's personal belief. However internationally, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Please change this. 152.71.178.51 (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. From the sources I can find[8][9]Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel, Tel Aviv is. If you have a reliable source to prove otherwise please provide it. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur and am closing request;. Please provide reliable sourcing as the basis for a discussion to determine if there is consensus for such a change. Rivertorch (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur a third time, request wasn't closed. Closing for now. gwickwire | Leave a message 19:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Of course what the article says is true, but it is also meaningless and POV. Countries don't "recognize" each other's capitals, so you could say the same thing about Moscow, London, Rome, Dublin or whatever. Kauffner (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Placing one's embassy in a particular city might be considered tacit recognition of a capital. Rivertorch (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A question

I noticed the flag, coat of arms, and mayor of Jerusalem in this article are all Israeli which makes me wonder, has Palestine given the city a flag or coat of arms? And should not the Israeli mayor of Jerusalem be stated as such as the current article gives the impression he is the mayor of all of Jerusalem, even the half located in Palestine. Any information would be appreciated.

And I do feel it necessary to voice my opinion that the lead is currently highly biased towards the Israeli perspective, though that seems to be par for the course on wikipedia. Sepsis II (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All of Jerusalem is not part of the Palestinian territories, only East Jerusalem is. If there is a Palestinian flag or CoA, it's the flag/CoA of East Jerusalem, not Jerusalem. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so if the Palestinian flag or CoA is just for East Jerusalem, that would mean the Israeli flag and CoA is just for West Jerusalem, as East Jerusalem is not in Israel. We should change this in the article than clarify those flags are Israeli and look at adding the Palestinians symbols, with parentheses to state for Palestinian Jerusalem. Sepsis II (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Proclaimed capital

Just hoping this is a compromise that satisfies both sides. Alertboatbanking (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but it has already been shown not to do so. Please familiarize yourself with the lengthy and intensive discussions above on this Talk page (which also extend into the archives). The existing wording itself is the result of a compromise. There has been no consensus for further changes in the wording. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What was the compromise? When did it occur? How have you been measuring consensus?     ←   ZScarpia   17:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A link to a conversation on Hertz1888's talkpage where he defends the current wording. Paraphrasing, the wording is as it is because, despite opposing viewpoints, a group of editors believes that, factually, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Ignoring what other laws and principles may apply and what other parties may say, as proclaimed by the Israeli government, countries, including Israel, have the right to declare any place they want as their capital. A particular dictionary definition definitively prescribes how the term "capital city" is used. The implication is, somehow, that the "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" neutrality rule has not been breached or that it does not apply.     ←   ZScarpia   17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your paraphrasing leaves much to be desired as an accurate representation of what was actually said in the discussion cited. Rather than get into particulars here, however, I prefer to defer further discussion to the pending mediation, with one exception. You asked (above), about the compromise and when it occurred, and in the Sept. 2011 discussion you stated, "The current wording isn't the result of agreement, but of stonewalling." A compromise was indeed struck, here, that apparently was a further compromise on an earlier compromise. The resulting wording, agreed upon in Oct. 2010, has been in the lead ever since, more than two years' time. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

From that discussion, let me quote Dailycare:

This compromise would align the text with what we agreed on Israel after a long discussion and I'd be OK with that. It's not perfect, but much better than the current wording. For my part, I'd be OK with removing the tag and can promise to not raise the issue again or push another version for a long time if it's adopted.

I'm increasingly under the impression that there is no point of mediation, considering Dailycare's obvious inability to keep a promise or shortsighted definition of "a long time". And that's just assuming this is the first time he's raised the issue since then, which I doubt is even true. -- tariqabjotu 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I made this exact same point weeks ago. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement under discussion is the one which asserts that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. However, the conversation here pointed to by Hertz1888, and quoted from by Tariqabjotu, offers no compromise on the wording of the part of the first sentence where that statement is made. True? As to whether mediation will be worthwhile or not, that'll depend on whether the editors who have been pushing the Israeli point of view as a fact decide to desist, I think.     ←   ZScarpia   23:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The compromise involved diluting the impact of the first part by adding the second part, and rejecting modification of the first part (specifically by the addition of "proclaimed"). The wording of the first part had stood for three years previously, and two more to date makes five. And yet, here we are again. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Diluting the impact! The article is asserting that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, isn't it? Tell me, is that assertion agreed on, or disputed, by sources?     ←   ZScarpia   00:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What did I just say? "I prefer to defer further discussion to the pending mediation". Hertz1888 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, it is not a foregone conclusion that the mediation request will be accepted. There are understandable reasons that it may not be, namely that certain people have not agreed to participate. -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A Yes, No or Maybe is too much to ask for?     ←   ZScarpia   13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no point repeating the "Is it supported by the sources?" question. I know you say no, and you know I say yes. We've been through that. The question was about the compromise, and that has been answered. Presumably you were not part of that discussion, so you aren't really under any obligation to agree with what came out of it. However, there comes a point where those who were involved, and those who acceded to its results (and that includes Dailycare), have an obligation to defend it, even if that's not ideally what they want. There's no point in agreeing to a compromise if they'll continue to push for more as soon as the next Tom, Dick, or Jane comes in questioning it. -- tariqabjotu 00:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

But, the question being asked is, "Do sources dispute that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," not, "Do sources say that Jerusalem is Israel's capital?" Looks to me as though Dailycare said that "the compromise" was a step in the right direction, not that it was an acceptable overall solution.     ←   ZScarpia   13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, in that case I know you say yes, and you know I say no. The positions of everyone who has commented on this matter are well-known. I don't know why you keep asking the same thing over and over. And, no, please do not respond by telling me I'm wrong. I know you think I'm wrong, and you should know that I think you are as well. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not even close to true. here is the version of the article with the tag included. Notice where it is? After the discussion linked to above, conveniently titled "Compromise on the first sentence" (emphasis mine), the first sentence was amended. That was the consensus Dailycare ostensibly agreed to. Pretending that doesn't include the whole first sentence is so dishonest I'm surprised even you would do it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Some compromise! That was magnanimous. I had forgotten, I admit, that the first sentence, prior to 2010, didn't even mention the international community's view. However, the wording added after "the compromise" made no difference to whether or not the article was asserting that Jerusalem is, no matter what, Israel's capital, which is the point under discussion, isn't it? I don't think that Dailycare is under any obligation to attempt to block further changes to what he regarded as a partial solution.     ←   ZScarpia   13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Total nonsense. He explicitly agreed to the compromise twice -- once here and once on the Israel article. Yes, he said he didn't think it was perfect -- but that's the point of a compromise. Notice that there were some (e.g. NMMNG) who said they preferred the previous wording, without the clause about international recognition. But, do you see NMMNG suggesting we remove it, two years later? No, because he agreed to the compromise and he now has an obligation to defend it over his ideal solution. If you think it's okay to come back a couple years later and ask for more, you don't know what a compromise is. If Dailycare didn't think the wording was acceptable (and I said acceptable, not perfect or ideal), he shouldn't have said so back in 2010. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hertz188:

Well, users can decide for themselves how accurately I've paraphrased, can't they? The central issue is that you've avoided facing the fact that on Wikipedia you cannot state as facts things which are seriously disputed such as whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital of Israel. You said: "To you it's an opinion and a viewpoint, to others a fact." As pointed out, it doesn't matter an iota's dangleberries what editors think about Jerusalem's status. What matters is that it is disputed in sources. Therefore, stating as a fact in Wikipedia that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is pushing the Israeli point of view as a fact.

In a conversation about whether the article should state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, if you point to a conversation where you say a compromise was made, the conversation should actually discuss the wording of the bit of the article which currently asserts that Jerusalem is Israel's capital.

Editors can judge for themselves whether stonewalling was employed by looking at conversations such as the one which started round about Archive 13, continued through Archive 14 and came to an inconclusive halt in Archive 15 (1, 2).

Apart from very quickly performed reverts, the article has been pushing the Israeli view for over nine years now. I think that if the editors responsible don't quickly mend their ways, they're due for a spell in the Wikipedia naughty spot.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting really tired of these threats. The complete inability of some in favor of a change to see anything valid in their opponents' arguments is undeniably aggravating, and -- again -- I have no intention of entering any sort of mediation with someone who holds such positions. So if you plan to bring with you the stance that your opponents should be sanctioned rather than heard, please let that be known sooner rather than later. Agreement to mediation is an agreement to mediate in good faith, and I'm seeing concrete evidence that you and Dailycare did not understand that when you signed on to participate. -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about the threats. He makes them so often while never actually following through that it has become a running joke around here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So you say. And, as pointed out before, you seem to have a habit of making comments about other editors which you can't or won't justify. So, where are all these "threats" which I've failed to follow through? Coming from someone who I think is more given to making threats which are actually threats than me, your comment is pretty cheeky. As you'd expect, I'm not really going to get even a tiny bit het up over the idea that editors who I regard as point-of-view-pushing scumsters are having a snigger at my expense. If anyone whose opinion I respect tells me that I'm making an arse of myself, though, I'll make a reformed character out of myself.     ←   ZScarpia   13:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

For editors so dedicated to dictionary definitions, you and NoMoreMrNiceGuy seem to take a pretty broad interpretation of what a threat is. As far as inabilities to see merits in opponents' arguments go, perhaps the fault doesn't lie on the side you think it does? The situation here is very simple. The article can assert statements about points of view, when something is disputed, or statements of simple fact, when something is not disputed. Editors are refusing here to either present Jerusalem's status in terms of points of view or in terms of undisputed fact, such as that Jerusalem is the proclaimed/declared capital of Israel or the capital under Israeli law. Despite talk of compromises having been made, that does seem fairly uncompromising.

My agreeing to go to mediation, is an indication that I accept that editors are given another chance to explain their position. However, pending what comes out of mediation, I do think that heavy-duty POV-pushing has been going on here for years and that, rather than let it carry on indefinitely, the behaviour of the editors responsible should be brought up at one of the appropriate venues. I do hope that editors participate in mediation in good faith.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're the one who's unaware of what a threat is. The mediation is likely not going to be accepted, so make your move rather than repeating these allegations of misconduct in the hope that your opponents will change their opinions. If you think the actions of anyone here are unacceptable or if you think some of your opponents are "point-of-view-pushing scumsters", bring it up at that "appropriate venue". That "appropriate venue" is not this talk page, and unless you proceed to do anything other than obliquely refer to misconduct in response to simple statements, your threats are just that -- threats. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, what I wrote in 2010 was that I found the new wording better than the previous one, and agreed to not challenge the compromise wording for a long time even though it's obviously still not compliant with WP:NPOV. Two years is a long time, and this whole time the hatikvah brigade has had the wording in the article, the wording which is, again, against a core principle of Wikipedia. I referred you to WP:AGF only very recently but it seems that yet again you're having difficulty maintaining appropriate behaviour. You should try harder or find another hobby. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare, I didn't ask for your defense or opinion, as I see no value in them. Speak to someone who cares. -- tariqabjotu 23:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bring it up at the "appropriate venue" already. We can do that and the mediation at the same time. Put up or shut up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the mediation rules. I think they say that, mediation cannot proceed alongside arbitration. But, in any case, the mediation request has just been rejected.     ←   ZScarpia  

Jerusalem is the self-declared capital of Israel, unrecognized by the rest of the world and the UN

It is important, as a statement of fact, to mention in the first sentence of this article that "Jerusalem is the self-declared capital of Israel". By stating that it is the "capital of Israel" the article is not making a factual statement as capitals, like states, need to be recognized in order for them to be so. The annexation of Jerusalem by Israel is illegal under international law and its self-declaration that it is the capital remains unrecognized globally and in the United Nations. The annexation was declared null and void by UNSC Resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 465, 476 and UNSC res 478. More than thirty years after the self-declared annexation, almost all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv in recognition of this fact.

Suggest to reword the first sentence to make it an objective statement of fact and explicitly state that it is the "self-declared capital of Israel". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.49.42.128 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You may want to add your declarative theories to the Capitals article.--Mor2 (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon

Which pages in Sharon: The Life of a Leader support the section pertaining to Sharon in the Division and reunification 1948–1967 section? Ankh.Morpork 11:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that, and if no one else does, an alternative source is the article "settled", an excerpt from the book. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is not any more an entity

One of the argument put forward not to treat Israel and Palestine the same way regarding their chosen capital Jerusalem was that Israel was a state whereas Palestine was an entity.

Palestine has been recognised officialy has a State on 29 November and its chosen capital is Jerusalem. We could even say that the choice of East-Jerusalem as capital of Palestine is recognized by more States in the world than the choice of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

As a consequence, there is no more reason to treat both information totally the same way per wp:npov :

Jerusalem has been chosen as capital both by Israel and Palestine. Nevertheless, Israel's choice is not recognized by the international community and Palestine has no adminstrative control on the city. The final status of the city is expected to be determined by a peace agreement between both states.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the State of Palestine claim East Jerusalem, not Jerusalem, as it's capital? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, both parties say Jerusalem is their capital in their Basic Law. Article 3 of Palestinian Basic Law says "Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine." (see 2003 Amended Basic Law) And that fact is absent from the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw this in the recent UN vote[10], "the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States". It is highly bias to continue to only state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital while disregarding that Palestine also states its capital to be Jerusalem, especially when practically no nations regard it as Israel's capital or even regard the city to even be in Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop the presses. Did the UN just explicitly state, in a resolution supported by the vast majority of countries, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (and Palestine)? This really supports what a lot of the supporters of the current wording have said all along -- that the non-recognition does not change the understanding that Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel. At the same time though, I'm still uncomfortable stating that Jerusalem is the capital of both equally alongside each other, when you consider that Palestine has no government buildings in the city. Pluto's wording gets close to an accurate description about the issue, but something seems off about it. -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's that in the sentence "the final status of the city is expected to be determined by a peace agreement between both states" the words "by no-one" were missed out. Formerip (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tariqabjotu. No they stated that a it Should become the capital for both Israel and Palestine at some point in the future: "...emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States". That is not even close to recognizing it as a capital for either country. PerDaniel (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The words "should become" are not in the portion you quoted, a portion I read earlier. Your interpretation is conceivably correct, but not necessarily so. -- tariqabjotu 01:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to "translate" the diplomatic language used in the document to standard english. I am not able to see any other way to interpret: "Reaffirming further its resolution 66/18 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, and emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States,". If you think that it means something else, please share it. PerDaniel (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, it's kind of a strange wording. It doesn't say "the status of Jerusalem is the capital of two States", it says "emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States". I read that as "a negotiated two-state capital is the optimal resolution", as in "it isn't the capital of either now, but hopefully will be someday if the parties can agree". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel"...I guess actually doesn't mean a lot here. I did suggest a few weeks/months ago saying that it functions as Israel's capital but that was rejected. I forget the details.Sean.hoyland - talk 19:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the suggested wording above. It makes an equivalence between the country that actually controls the territory and runs its government from there, with someone, who, well, doesn't do any of those things. One is only a proclamation and should not get the same weight.

What's going on with the mediation, btw? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't understand what you say.

In any case, the equivalence is total. Both Israel and Palestine are states, both have been recognised as such by UNO and by a great majority of states. Both have a capital. It is Jerusalem. For both this choice is discussable. For Israel because nobody in the world recognises this (which is not anecdotical). For Palestine because they don't have contorl of the country (which is not anecodtical). Numerous States and UNO explained their recultance to support more openly one or the other claim because all the conflictual issues between Israel and Palestine must be solved throught negociations. All this is clear and I don't see which of the affirmation here above is false (even if nuance is always welcome).

I don't think there is the need of any mediation. There is no conflict. More, since Palestine is now a State and no more an entity, most of the arguments of the opponents of the perfect parallelism have been thrown away.

Some modifications or rephrasing can be done but blocking the movement is not acceptable.

What is to be modified to improve the proposal ? Pluto2012 (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It makes an equivalence between the country that actually controls the territory and runs its government from there, with someone, who, well, doesn't do any of those things.

It's simple. One clan had land, and it was indwelt by their members. Another took it after clan warfare broke out, and exercised full control over it, while both sides made a claim to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court didn't decided anything for donkey's ages, but the respective petitions were given due and equal weight in the appeal process because both claims to title in law, by use or prior occupation, cannot be prejudiced before a final determination is made. It would be sheer nonsense in a court of law to allow the victorious clan to present itself as owning the land, and the dispossessed clan as only 'claiming' to own the land.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a court. Please stop blogging. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

? You state your opinions here, but if I reply, it is blogging? What's your problem?Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. One party has de facto sovereignty over the city and runs its government from there. The other has only a proclamation. The two are not equivalent. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Make an argument, not a personal deduction. And ps. to make an analogy from law, is not to argue a law case in court. Try to focus on the technical issue of NPOV and avoid personal dislikes.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@NMMNG : like Germany from 1945 to 1949. It didn't prevent at the time Germany to be a State.

The last argument is to refer to the 'de facto' occupation and control of Jerusalem but this 'de facto' occupation is illegal and the occupation and annexation of Jerusalem by Israel have been recognised as illegal. It is totally wp:undue weight for an encyclopaedia to give weight to a point of view that is consiered as illegal and in parallel denying the other one. Parallelism is total and the point of view of the international community is now that the final status will result of peace discussions between parties. My proposal is perfectly neutral and in total accordance will all wikipedia principles. The only point to discuss is on potential nuances in order to improve this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't address the issue of whether it's a state or not (but Germany was a state after WWII because it was a state before WWII. The situation here is not the same). The issue I was talking about is that they don't control it or run their government from there. It's their capital in proclamation only. It is Israel's capital, assuming we want to use the normal definition of "capital".

I didn't know wikipedia considers whether something is legal when deciding how much weight it should get. Could you give a link to the relevant policy/guideline? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, you write above that "One party has de facto sovereignty over the city and runs its government from there". If this is your argument, are you OK with saying Israel's government operates from Jerusalem, instead of the current wording? Along the lines we've discussed above, "using a definition" inherently amounts to violating WP:SYN: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C". In this case A would be "Israel's government is in Jerusalem", B would be "The location of a government is a capital" and C would be "Jerusalem is Israel's capital". Of course, we have several examples of cities that are seats of government but not capitals, so B isn't a comprehensive definition to begin with. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the usual dishonest argumentation. You forgot to announce again that you have consensus because everyone who disagrees with you is not making valid arguments. I'm not interested in discussing this issue with you outside of mediation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi NMMNG,

Where is the wikipedia policy that explains that a State must control a territory to establish its capital there ? Because that is your only point. I add that when it was pointed out that East-Jerusalem was not in Israel and that nobody recognized it as a capital, it was argued that a State is the only one to decide where it establishes its capital.

You ask me what is the policy considering whether something is legal when deciding how much weight it should get. It is wp:npov. Because all countries of the world have laws and majority of people are expected to follow them. When a point of view is majoritary, per wp:due weight, we consider this one in wikipedia.

Once more, how can we improve what is proposed ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How can the current proposal be improved? Well.. "Jerusalem has been chosen as capital both by Israel and Palestine." is totally unacceptable, giving clear undue weight to a non sovereign state that does not control the territory and wants the city as its future capital, compared with a sovereign state in full control of the city and which has it already acting as its dejure and defacto capital. "Nevertheless, Israel's choice is not recognized by the international community and Palestine has no adminstrative control on the city. - Thats totally unacceptable because says Israels choice is not recognised but does not say the same about Palestinians.. this blatantly plays perfectly into the viewpoint that Jerusalem is Palestines capital but Palestinians dont control it. That is TOTALLY biased and unacceptable. " The final status of the city is expected to be determined by a peace agreement between both states." - WP:CRYSTALBALL much? And a general point about the whole proposal, it is absolutely terrible for what would be in such a prominent position of a city article. Wikipedia would be a joke if every article with some element of dispute started with such weasel sentences. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, if you don't explain yourself properly then the editors here have every right to ignore your posts. You can't keep filibustering this forever with cryptic comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this threads original proposal and all attempts to muddy the waters of this article. Jerusalem is Israel's capital. until those demanding change produce evidence that international recognition is required for it to be called its capital, there is no case for a change to the wording. We give a balanced point of view by explaining it is not internationally recognised. We are not going to change this article to Jerusalem might be israels capital. If a change is made, everything else on this article needs changing too. You cannot pretend this article is not about Israels capital without also removing other elements that reflect Jerusalem is a city in Israel.. such as the city flag, emblem and mayor. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The proposal that is made still state that Jesuralem is Israel's capital. It remind that Jerusalem is also Palestine's capital and the rationale for this is given.

So, "I strongly oppose to your strong oppostion".

Unless you or NMMNG start a fair discussion about how to improve the proposal, I will introduce this and after you revert me, I will go to the ArbCom because the refusal to work a constructive way is obvious.

By the way, if you want that we write that "Jesuralem is the capital of Israel and Palestine" instead of "have been chosen", it is ok for me and I think for most people. In fact, it is exactly the same for those who consider the "choice" is predominant on the international recognition of the choice. It would be wp:npov to keep "choice" for those who consider that the "choice" is not predominant on the internationl recognitation. But never mind. It will be less pov'ed.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you plan to take unilateral action by trying to introduce this wording that lacks consensus, go ahead. it will be reverted. This proposed wording is one of the worst that has been discussed in the past couple of months and i have given very specific reasons why it is inappropriate. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also you seem to imply that to be constructive we must agree with your proposed wording or suggest alterations to it. Well im sorry but i dont agree with any of your proposed wording and i support the current version. To suggest that it is unacceptable to support the articles very long standing wording would if right have massive implications on wikipedia. It is simply not the case though. Some support change, others oppose change. It is for those who want change to justify a change and propose wording that gets consensus (as the current wording had some time ago when it was agreed). BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, I'm going to repeat what I said to ZScarpia: Don't make threats. If you want to bring this matter to ArbCom, bring this matter to ArbCom. Issuing ultimatums and proposing conditions, especially ones that you know will be met, that will lead to a request for arbitration accomplish nothing toward resolving this issue and instead raise the temperature.

Moving on, I'm not entirely sure your proposal does say it is the capital of Israel. It's still hedging. And, more importantly, it seems to, for someone without background information, present the two claims to Jerusalem's status as capital as nearly equal. While it rightly states that Israel's claim is not universally recognized and Palestine has no control over the city, it omits two points. First, it doesn't say that Palestine's claim does not have universal recognition either. The final status of Jerusalem is subject to negotiations, and the current status does not fit the concept of a capital for Palestine beyond a simple desire. One way you could fix this is by simply stating that both capital statuses see limited recognition and that their final statuses are subject to negotiations. Second, it omits the point that Palestine has no governmental institutions in the city. By using the phrase "chosen as capital" (or "is capital", as you've proposed as an alternative) for both Israel's claim and Palestine's claim without highlighting this second point, you give the misleading impression that their claims have similar manifestations. We know that's not the case. These two points, especially the latter, are particularly important. Your wording seems like a step in the right direction for a more detailed discussion, but that's already done in the appropriate section in the body anyway.

But I don't know how much can and should be said in the lead. I think some reordering could be done in the first paragraph; unlike with many other capital cities, when people think of Jerusalem, its status as capital of Israel is not the first thing they think of. The first sentence could, at the very least, be more interesting. Nevertheless, as I've said many times before, I think the current wording, regardless of where it's placed in the lead, is fine for a brief summary of this capital issue:

• Israelis claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, and they have their primary governmental institutions in the city (i.e. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel).
• Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel is not widely recognized.
• Palestinians claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, but they have no governmental institutions in the city.

These are all statements supported by sources. The desires to dilute the first point with the word "disputed" or "proclaimed" are just oversimplified introductions of the second point, and do nothing to educate the reader about the situation. Calling Jerusalem a "disputed capital" or "proclaimed capital" leaves the wording open to interpretation (by design, I'm sure), in an unnecessary state given we can just describe what the dispute is -- something that's already done by noting that the capital status is not recognized and providing a lengthy footnote with even more detail. At the same time, if we take the stance that it is not correct or accurate to say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, we leave ourselves with some important questions. Namely, if Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, what is? Is it Tel Aviv? Few or no one in these threads have suggested that -- it's really indefensible -- so that leads us to the question, can a state be without a capital? I believe the answer is no. If it has a government, it has at least one capital. But, if the issue here is with the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" -- and we all know it is -- you're going to have to elaborate on what you believe -- sorry, what the sources say -- Israel's actual capital is, or whether it has one at all. -- tariqabjotu 10:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat the three points, and offer a lead sentence.

• Israelis claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, and they have their primary governmental institutions in the city (i.e. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel).
• Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel is not widely recognized.
• Palestinians claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, but they have no governmental institutions in the city.

I.e.

Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as the capital of their respective states. The former, unlike the latter, has its seat of government there, but its status as Israel's capital is widely challenged.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be equivalent in meaning, but it's unnecessary evasion. I'm speaking mostly about my first point. I can't imagine any other capital city article including the sentence "X claims Y as its capital, and its primary governmental institutions are in the city". That would just be written as "X is the capital of Y". -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand why we need to look at other capital city article[s]. What other state has declared its capital to be outside of its territory? These comparisons all fail because the circumstances are not sufficiently similar. nableezy - 19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sufficiently similar... according to you. I doubt anyone outside of this conflict would hear that a country has proclaimed a city as its capital and placed all of its major governmental institutions there, and then, when asked if that city is the country's capital, ask if that country is legally governing the city according to international law before answering. Because that point is totally irrelevant. -- tariqabjotu 20:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anybody unfamiliar with the conflict would think to ask what country this supposed capital city is located in, because nobody unfamiliar with the conflict would think that a country would, or could, declare a capital in a place outside of its territory. And, to begin the parrot act, the point is totally irrelevant... according to you. Is there another country on the planet that has declared its capital to be outside of its territory? Because if so then you may have a point in your opening rejoinder. If not, well, then it was just an example of why there isnt a point in "discussing" this. nableezy - 20:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, duly noted. You don't have to participate then, just as you felt disinclined to participate in mediation due to your supposed trivial hand in this dispute. So, don't. But I have explained why I think the comparison is apt, and I will continue to use it, without your input at every corner. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

My supposed trivial hand in this dispute??? My hand in this dispute has been raising that the arguments in favor of your preferred wording are based on asinine comparisons that have no basis in the sources. I may well continue to do that. I recognize there isnt a point to doing so, as this article is controlled by a group of people with either the inability or the disinclination to engage in a reasoned and rational discussion. To that point, I have duly noted that you have neglected to answer the question posed to you, that being is there another country on the planet that has declared its capital to be outside of its territory. I understand why you dont want to answer the question, namely because it makes a mockery of the claim that the comparison is apt. nableezy - 21:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "if we take the stance that it is not correct or accurate to say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, we leave ourselves with some important questions. Namely, if Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, what is?", I disagree. That isn't relevant at all. Also "you're going to have to elaborate on what you believe -- sorry, what the sources say -- Israel's actual capital is, or whether it has one at all." No, no one has to do that, nor should they. If anyone is stupid enough to do that, they probably need to be article banned or at least have a nap. No one has proposed that this article say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, so the question simply doesn't arise. The sources say all sorts of things ranging from statements of fact to statements that use words like claim, proclaimed, declared etc and the objective is to reflect them. If intelligent people are genuinely incapable of finding some compromise that reflects the diversity present in the sources then we may as well change it to something like "Just like many other undisputed facts, God is Great, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, God created the Earth in six days, Jesus Saves, and such like, it is a simple matter of fact that the city of Jerusalem, complete and united, including parts that are across the Green Line, is the capital of Israel, and only Israel, although it is not internationally recognized as such." Call me cynical but this seems about the same as the current wording to me, only much clearer. If we are going to present dogma that people value highly and accept as fact using Wikipedia's narrative voice despite the mess in the sources then we might as well be honest and really go for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No one has proposed that this article say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? Oh really? Then what's wrong with saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"? I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that statement but for the fact that they believe there are some sources or some people or whatever who believe it isn't. This has been explicitly stated by some opponents to the current wording. For example, Zscarpia stated "The view of what we term for convenience the international community is that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" (13:33, October 29). Right. So what do they believe it is, if that's the case? Do they believe Israel has no capital? The issue is and always has been the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". How much is said in an accompanying clause or in the following sentences has always been negotiable, but it has rarely been the focus of the discussion because there has been an implied or expressly stated concern that the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not necessarily correct and, by extension, the sentence "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" is not necessarily incorrect, at least according to some sources. Please don't play semantics. -- tariqabjotu 20:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed things like saying, instead of "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", e.g. "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law", "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government" or "Israel's government is based in Jerusalem". These are amply sourced in reliable sources. I vaguely recall that some editors have used "Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital" as a kind of strawman to argue against, but no-one has AFAIK suggested using that language in the article. Saying it is the capital, or that it isn't, aren't the only options. --Dailycare (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I probably didn't make myself clear in my earlier response to you, if you noticed that, so let me say it in a simpler fashion: you have proven your input to be of no value, and so I have no interest in it. If you perceive me as directing any questions toward you or soliciting your opinion or acknowledging a comment of yours, you are wrong. I'm just not interested, and will make zero effort to respond to your comments or positions, here or anywhere else, regardless of their nature, from now on. Consider it a self-imposed interaction ban, and I'd prefer if you'd respect it. -- tariqabjotu 00:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully support the current wording and I do not see any reasonable argument beyond POV to change the lead. Those who refused mediation should in my opinion avoid this discussion.--Tritomex (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No one has proposed that this article say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? Oh really? Then what's wrong with saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"?

Plainly, there's a difference between what I would myself say and what I think WP should say. Personally, I happen to think that Roger Moore was the best James Bond and that Chomskyan linguistic theory is fundamentally mistaken. But I appreciate that reasonable people have different views on these questions, so I don't force mine on the leads of the relevant articles in Wikipedia's voice.

I think Dailycare's point is that only one side of the debate is trying to impose their view on the article - the other is just trying to present the issue as one that not everyone agrees about.

That's the beginning and end of the whole thing, really. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I never said there has been an explicit suggestion to include the phrase "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" in the article. That would be absurd, obviously, less so because of its factual inaccuracy, but because of its uselessness. I'm also against "Sydney is not the capital of Australia" being in the lead of Sydney. But the objection to the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" on the basis that there are "different views" implies that there are sources that believe it is not the capital of Israel. Zscarpia plainly stated that he believes "the international community" believes it's not the capital of Israel. At least he was clear. But it is silly to suggest there are "different views" on the issue and state that no one believes Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. One can believe it is or it isn't. There's no in between. This goes back to why simply stating there is limited or no international recognition (which does not necessitate the belief that Jerusalem is not actually the capital) is the most accurate way to describe the issue. If we're all in agreement -- as some of you seem to conveniently suggest now -- that "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" is not supported by any sources, what exactly is the problem here? -- tariqabjotu 00:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not complex. If Jerusalem is the capital of Israel it is also the capital of Palestine given the parallelism is perfect. And if Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel it is also the proclaimed capital of Palestine. Both are recognized States by many other States. Both have been recognized the status of State by the UNGA. Both chose to establish their capital there. One sees this choice rejected by the entire world and one chose a city it doesn't control. Again : parallelism is total. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The parallelism is far from perfect. It is the de facto capital of one side, which runs most of its government from there, while the other side doesn't even have a token government presence there since they don't control any of it. The Palestinians can't use it as a capital because they don't control it. All they can do is say that it is their capital. That's not even close to being parallel with the Israeli situation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This was answered.

Why would a 'de facto' occupation be more relevant than an international recognition ?

You didn't answer to main point of only block the process. Regarding what you say and what is the current version, you are a pov-pusher. I will remind this as an a-priori for all future interactions with you. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Those are also points I made several times in the past. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the foolishness involved in going from Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" is not supported by any sources to arguing that it therefore follows that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" can be stated as a fact using Wikipedia's narrative voice. Regarding "One can believe it is or it isn't. There's no in between.", setting aside the irrelevance of "belief", that is an either-or fallacy that is contradicted by the actual data in the sources that editors are required by policy to deal with in a way that complies NPOV. The simple fact that many reliable sources, the data we are required to use for content decisions, present something as a claim rather than a fact is enough to render all arguments that it is okay for us to present it as a fact null and void. This is obvious and no amount of arguing will change the data. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Once more this discussion is blocked. There are sources that state Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. It was claimed it could not be placed in parallel because Palestine was not a State (despite not from reliable sources) Now it is a State. So there is no reason to state that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. So, there is no wp:rs sources to state the contrary.
Another option is to keep the current wording but just after this add next to the current wording : "Jerusalem is also the capital of Palestine whereas the Palestinians do not control the city."
The discussion proves to be impossible. I personnally consider it is not a content issue but a behaviour issue. What is next step to solve this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You are an experienced Wikipedia editor. You know the tools at your disposal. You are free to use them if you see them as appropriate, but again please don't make threats, even ones disguised as rhetorical questions. Given the increasing number of editors who seem unwilling to treat this as a content dispute, I'm not going to continue commenting on the substance of the current wording (or alternative wordings). This thread, like most others before, is clearly going nowhere anyway, and I refuse to allow my reasonable disagreement to be twisted into "blocking" or "pushing the Israeli view" or "refusing to work in a constructive way". Good luck. -- tariqabjotu 08:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I will simultaneously make a proposal and withdraw my support for it given the atmosphere. -- tariqabjotu 09:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well the proposal is a good improvement on the proposals here which are awful, but i cant support such a change. I believe it is totally reasonable to state in the first sentence Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but not internationally recognised. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what we currently have, of course. This is more about me being on the record, addressing some of the issues I felt the other proposals had. But I'm not currently supporting it; at this stage, there is no point. -- tariqabjotu 12:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but u have to propose something that builds consensus, the fact those demanding that cant because some of the proposals have been so outrageously biased is not the fault of those opposed to change. You say everything has changed.. no everything has not changed. In the eyes of the UN it may be a non member observer state, but it is not a sovereign state and it is not in control of the territory. By the way does the UN recognise Jerusalem as the capital of this "new state"? As for you violation of WP:AGF, suggesting we are somehow misbehaving because we support current wording and reject biased wording is offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you are totally bad faith and you should be blocked from editing wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu: "First, I'm going to repeat what I said to ZScarpia: Don't make threats." Exactly what are these "threats" you keep on claiming that I have made? To me, the first sentence here is what a threat looks like. It says, unless I do something, something unpleasant will be done to me. To me, the first sentence here is what a warning looks like. I suspect some editors may perceive it as containing a threat, though. As a point of principle, I try to avoid writing threats. That is, normally, I don't tell people that I will respond in certain ways unless they do something I want or refrain from doing something I don't want. I'm pretty sure that I didn't mean to convey threats or warnings in anything I have written on this page. If you've perceived threats in anything I have written here, perhaps those threats are products of your own imagination?     ←   ZScarpia   22:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think Pluto makes a valid point above. IMO, this seems a rather simple issue of presenting as a claim something described in sources as a claim. Or not describing an unrecognized claim as a neutral fact, which is a less ambitious but equally worthy goal. We discussed earlier how to proceed and decided above to have a go at mediation. Sadly the mediation wasn't accepted since a few of the 19 parties didn't agree to go along with it. Concerning speculating about bringing the case to AE or Arbcom, I think we should decide what to do and then do it, even if it is then AE/Arbcom. Maybe we could write to Jimbo Wales and ask him to make a ruling that would settle the question? At least, until the two-state or one-state solution finally fixes the real-life dispute. Should we choose instead to continue content discussion here, we might adopt some kind of more formal approach to suppress noise and promote signal. --Dailycare (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree and am happy to go along with whatever way forward has majority support amongst those who don't think the current wording is neutral (short of just throwing in the towel). By suggesting that it might be time to go to AE, I was flying a kite to start a discussion. At the end of the day, what is needed is for somebody or somebodies authoritative to make a judgement about consensus (that is, which arguments are most valid, not just a head count).     ←   ZScarpia   23:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"I agree and am happy to go along with whatever way forward has majority support amongst those who don't think the current wording is neutral " - Your attempts to merely bypass the significant number of editors on this page who support the current wording is offensive and not the approach followed on wikipedia. You cannot simply dismiss the fact the current wording (Which was agreed by consensus and has been in the article for a long time) is supported by a lot of editors and we have given our reasons for supporting the current wording. Again.. it is for those who demand change to propose specific change. So far no proposal has in any way got the level of support required for the article to be altered. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that sentence was in reference to how to handle the alleged misconduct by those who support the current wording. ZScarpia is saying, at least how I read it, that he wants input from those who don't find the wording neutral as to how to proceed with addressing the misconduct he perceives, or at least trying to get the wording changed. Obviously, those who support the current wording will not have anything to say about that (although perhaps we have in saying their allegations are misguided). -- tariqabjotu 22:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My imagination? No, your words. I read your words and respond to them, as written, not as you choose to retroactively describe them. Sorry. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, exactly what are these "threats" you keep on claiming that I have made?     ←   ZScarpia   13:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you haven´t volunteered an explanation, don´t repeat your slur.     ←   ZScarpia   22:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat the obvious to someone who refuses to hear. Multiple people have pointed out your threats, but you reduce these remarks to "slurs". No explanation I could give would satisfy someone who has an answer for anything, so I won't even try. -- tariqabjotu 23:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's simple: I've given a definition of what anything that might be construed as a threat here is and pointed you to an example of a threat made by NoMoreMrNiceGuy. If you can't either point to a fault in my definition or explain how anything I've written conforms to it then keep your insulting personal comments to yourself. Note that the rules specify that you should be able to justify any personal remarks you make. No explanation you could give would satisfy me? Well, that doesn´t excuse you from trying, now, does it? Multiple people? Just because you and NoMoreMrNiceGuy choose to make accusations doesn´t make them true. Who here is refusing to listen? Perhaps it´s the one who has been, and is, pushing the Israeli point of view on the status of Jerusalem as a fact in the article despite what other editors have been writing for years.     ←   ZScarpia   18:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Tariqabjotu presented the following two points:

• Israelis claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, and they have their primary governmental institutions in the city (i.e. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel).
• Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel is not widely recognized.

I'd say that the following present the situation more neutrally:

• Israelis claim that Jerusalem is the capital of their state. It has been annexed to Israel and declared its capital under Israeli law. The primary Israeli government institutions have been moved to the city.
• The international community does not view Jerusalem as either Israeli territory or as the capital of Israel. Israel's unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem are viewed as illegal and of no standing. Legally, Jerusalem is seen as having the status of an international city.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia "The international community does not view Jerusalem as either Israeli territory or as the capital of Israel" this is a prime example of WP:OR. I have no knowledge that "international community" although such thing hardly exist as defined entity, dispute that West Jerusalem is part of internationally recognized State of Israel. --Tritomex (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you don't believe something is the case because you have no knowledge of it. Can you provide a source that says the international community recognize West Jerusalem as part of the State of Israel ? I don't think that is the case, at least in terms of sovereignty. This, for example, is what Ruth Lapidoth says in Jerusalem: A City and Its Future ISBN 978-0815629139, "Most foreign nations have not adopted a clear-cut policy on the status of west Jerusalem...Foreign states were not prepared to recognize the legality of Jordanian or Israeli rule over zones of Jerusalem under the latters' control. One manifestation of this attitude has been that foreign consuls stationed in the city have refused to apply to Jordan or Israel for permission to carry out their functions in the city."(p.72). And also, "To date, foreign states have not recognized any sovereignty over Jerusalem, but they have acquiesced in de facto Israeli control over west Jerusalem, while claiming that east Jerusalem is occupied territory" (p.89). Sean.hoyland - talk 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an Information Clearing House article which gives a convenient summary of UN resolutions concerning Jerusalem. You can see that the resolutions tend to refer to the whole of Jerusalem, not just East Jerusalem. For example, Resolution 252 "declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem 'invalid' and called upon Israel 'to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem.' "     ←   ZScarpia   00:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I provide a source that says the international community recognize West Jerusalem as part of the State of Israel?-I can provide hundreds of sources that Israel is intentionally recognized state within 1967 borders and West Jerusalem is within 1967 borders of the State of israel. Even so I can provide numerous reliable sources which simply states that Jerusalem is capital of Israel, without mentioning the international dispute.

Responding to the unsigned comment immediately above, it's true there are sources that say Jerusalem is Israel's capital. These sources represent Israel's side of the argument and don't change in any way how we should write this article. In detail, they don't change the fact that the issue of whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital is a significant controversy, as we've established from reliable, international, sources, and should (per WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable policy) be described as such, without taking sides. The same applies to sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital, or that Tel Aviv is. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? Sources you don't agree with "don't change in any way how we should write this article"? Funny how that works. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources that say Jerusalem is the capital, like those that say Jerusalem isn't the capital, or that Tel Aviv is the capital, don't change the fact that the issue of whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital is a significant controversy, as we've established from reliable, international, sources, and should (per WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable policy) be described as such, without taking sides. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, A little correction to the common misconception regarding the section title, which refers to the UN vote of 29 November. First in the UN 'Palestine' is the designation for PLO and second the vote only upgraded the PLO observer status in the UN(which it held from 1974). It gives PLO more power in the UN and symbolic but doesn't recognize the state, or more importantly give them sovereignty. Furthermore, recognition is an interesting thing, all the international recognition of Palestinian rights(including the last UN vote) is tied to PLO and its institutions, which leaves negotiations the only way to achieve a change in status, per the international agreements they signed.--Mor2 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)