Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Population growth

Contrary to a recent edit summary, the lead is not the only place that consensus applies. An attempt to push in material without so much as a token attempt at justifying it here should be the sort of thing that leads to sanctions. The other thing that should lead to sanctions is making things up. The recent edit says: After the Six-Day War, the population of Jerusalem increased by 196% The Jewish population grew by 155%, while the Arab population grew by 314%. The proportion of the Jewish population fell from 74% in 1967 to 72% in 1980, to 68% in 2000, and to 64% in 2010 manly as a result of Palestinian migration from West Bank to Jerusalem and high fertility rate among Palestinians sourced to this publication of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. As far as I can tell, the words West Bank never appear in that paper, though even if looking for Judea and Samaria, Judea, or Samaria does not lead me to find one sentence in that paper that mentions Palestinian migration from the West Bank to Jerusalem, much less giving it as a cause for the growth rate. The section of the paper on immigration as a cause for growth discusses Jewish immigration exclusively. The internal migration section doesn't break it down, but based on the places mentioned, mostly settlements in the West Bank, I think its safe to assume that it is mainly Jewish "internal migration" to the West Bank, but even without that assumption the article doesnt say anything about specifically Arab "internal migration". I can find nothing in the cited source that supports that sentence. Accordingly, Ive reverted the edit. Yall have been, for years now, removing anything that resembles an accurate representation of the city's political status for lack of consensus, you cant ignore that same requirement now that it doesnt suit your interests. nableezy - 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact you are right regarding one of two issue nableezy I red two sources in the same time. Considering my edit After the Six-Day War, the population of Jerusalem increased by 196% The Jewish population grew by 155%, while the Arab population grew by 314%. The proportion of the Jewish population fell from 74% in 1967 to 72% in 1980, to 68% in 2000, and to 64%" is directly taken from the source provided. The source of Palestinian population growth from internal migration from West Bank to Jerusalem comes from The Politics of Planting: Israeli-Palestinian Competition for Issue 236

By Shaul Ephraim Cohen page 90 [1] to be specific estimates are that between 10 000-80 000 Palestinians migrated from West Bank to Jerusalem since 1967 not including illegal immigration (about what I did not wish to edit and which was estimated at 50 000 by third source)--Tritomex (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The change in the Palestinian population in Jerusalem, according to the first source, from 1967 to 2010 was 68.6k to 283.9k. That is a difference of 215.3k. You think 10-80k "migrants" are a major portion. Especially when the source that you bring here for the inclusion specifically also says There are no firm numbers for the size of this migration and later there is a range of estimates for the number of legal Palestinian Jerusalemites who have had to leave the city for the surrounding area in order to find adequate housing.? nableezy - 06:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A problem with these numbers is that the growth of Arab population certainly takes into account "reunification of tbe city" and the absorption of the Arab population of East-Jeursalem. This should be clarified what they refer to exactly. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Mor2 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, you seemed to have missed Pluto's objection. The sentence as written is incredibly ambiguous. Does it mean that immediately following the 67 war the number of Arabs in the same place tripled? No, it doesnt. The definition of Jerusalem as used by the Israeli government, and unfortunately this article as well, changed, not the number of Arab residents. Please self-revert your edit. You and some others have been quite liberal in reverting material due to some mythical consensus being lacking, ignoring that requirement for material that you want in the article doesnt look all that good. nableezy - 20:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No of course I did not mean, nor I have edited that "immediately following the 67 war the number of Arabs in the same place tripled" nor the current edition imply such context. Although we all know that the only section which requires consensus is the lead, I really do not understand why we should go in detailed explanation for the reasons of population growth. In the RS article used as reference, there are no references for the claim that the "definition of Jerusalem" influenced demographic trends. So the inclusion of such claim would be original research. More so if we are going in to the reasons of population growth, regarding Palestinians I found humerus sources which points to high fertility rate, immigration from West Bank, family reunification (until recently) and illegal immigration. As this sources of population growth are mentioned by many sources, if we would go in to explaining the reasons of population growth, this have to be included in the article as well. However, due to my intention to avoid any misunderstanding regarding this issue, I proposed as per source to avoid detailing the reasons of population growth. Otherwise all the reasons have to be included WP:NPOV.--Tritomex (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you saying nonsense like we all know that the only section which requires consensus is the lead? Your source has as part of the "growth" in Arab population the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem that was counted as residents of Jerusalem following the 67 war and not prior to it. Do you not understand that? nableezy - 16:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What is "Jerusalem"?

Could the people who insist on the current lead wording please explain to me what "Jerusalem" means? Is it a place in Israel? Does it include East Jerusalem (including the Temple Mount)? nableezy - 07:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I already pointed out that such question may rise if the lead is changed. The current definition of Jerusalem used in this article includes municipality borders defined by Israeli Jerusalem law, while Jerusalem borders from 1948 legal status, would include about 3 time smaller city, without 80% of all of Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem which are currently considered part of Jerusalem, based on Israeli law, Legally in 1948 they were considered villages outside of Jerusalem. So Jerusalem from its 1948 status, would have today about 400 000 inhabitants of whom roughly 70 000 Palestinians.--Tritomex (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem in the sense of this article is everything that reliable sources choose to say in connection with "Jerusalem". That includes things like the Caananite history and also various disputes about borders. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The operative word here is history and various disputes, but this article is still about the Israeli capital city. Yes its eastern part is outside of the 1967 armistice line and its annexation in 1980 was deemed illegal by the UN, and it is claimed as capital by the state of Palestine aswell since 1988, and currently the PNA exercise some authority within the Eastern parts etc etc but those are details. When the Israelis and Palestinians will unlock their horns and reach agreement, we will be able to write about Jerusalem as the capital of both sovereign states, but not yet.--Mor2 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as references to the city in the later UN resolutions are concerned, the Jerusalem borders defined in the '48 Partition Resolution are still significant.     ←   ZScarpia   17:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

<- "Jerusalem" in the lead must refer to the same spatial object as "Jerusalem" in the title of the article. If the same word is being used to refer to 2 different objects then that needs to be made clear in the lead. Since this isn't the West Jerusalem article or the East Jerusalem article, and the article content covers the entire city, it follows that "Jerusalem" in the lead refers to the entire city. There is nothing to indicate that it refers to something else. So the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" clearly means that it is a fact, according to Wikipedia, that the subject of this article, the entire city of Jerusalem, is the capital of Israel. If that statement is true here in this article, it must also be true in every Wikipedia article that refers to Jerusalem, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. Many other "facts" follow from this that are obvious policy violations. For example, if it is a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, then it is also a fact that the Rockefeller Museum is in the capital of Israel, and we should be able to say that using Wikipedia's voice. But we can't say that without violating policy anymore than we can say El Aaiún is in the Southern Provinces of Morocco or the South Pars field is in Qatar. The "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" statement of fact has all sorts of problematic consequences that are conveniently ignored and not cascaded down to articles about places inside this "capital of Israel". The statement has to be changed and it is easy to fix it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Id like to avoid having the entire argument in each comment. Tritomex gave an answer that Id like to delve deeper into, but Id like further participation from others on the "pro-capital side" before doing so. So, to ask directly, Tariq, BW, Hertz, NMMNG, could you please tell me what "Jerusalem" means and if it includes East Jerusalem, which would include the Temple Mount. nableezy - 18:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is entrapment. No matter what I say, you'll twist that into something that supposedly supports your side. No, sorry; see you at arbitration. -- tariqabjotu 20:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is why it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you. You wont answer a straightforward question. Does "Jerusalem" include "East Jerusalem" is an entrapment question? Really? I could twist a yes or no into something that supposedly supports my side? And you think I am the one with an arrogant, uncompromising position? Thanks for that. Is East Jerusalem a part of the "Jerusalem" that is the topic of this article? Can you give a simple answer to a simple question? nableezy - 21:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not obligated to answer your questions, just as you weren't obligated to participate in mediation. There is no other reason for you to ask this banal question, especially directed at people who support the current wording, unless you wanted to use a response here as ammo for holding your position. Sorry, not interested. As I told you awhile ago, I'd be perfectly happy if you didn't keep butting in. And, yet you persist in doing so and using my lack of response to your directed questions as evidence of stubbornness. No, it's recognition of the futility of doing so. A third party is needed here, and you rejected that offer when it was made available. That's fine, but for you to then feel it incumbent upon me to answer you directly in a less controlled setting is absurd. -- tariqabjotu 23:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that you have no defense for supporting the blatant violation of WP:NPOV in the lead? PerDaniel (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You might think it's cute to keep responding to me with your pithy baiting remarks. But I don't. Find something better to do. -- tariqabjotu 18:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

To be more precise if the source denying Israels right to define its capital would be found, (based on 1980 Jerusalem law) than we cant just selectively pick up what we like and dislike from that law. As the Palestinian definition of East Jerusalem lacks equally international validation and there are no international (UN-security council) recognition of Palestinian sovereignty in East Jerusalem,If we go fully in denial of 1980 Jerusalem law implications , we will have to redefine East Jerusalem (Israel was accepted as full UN member based on 1949 borders including West Jerusalem) based on its 1948 municipal borders.--Tritomex (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide some sources for your claim that "Israel was accepted as full UN member based on 1949 borders including West Jerusalem." Israel was admitted to UN membership under Resolution 273. That resolution recalls Resolutions 181 of November 29, 1947 and 194 of December 11, 1948. Resolution 181 calls for the creation of a Corpus Separatum containing Jerusalem. Resolution 194 calls for areas including Jerusalem and surrounding villages and towns to be placed under effective United Nations control, for the Security Council to take further steps to ensure the demilitarization of Jerusalem and for detailed proposals for a permanent international regime for the Jerusalem area to be presented.     ←   ZScarpia   00:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as far as I know Israel admittance into the UN did't validate its borders and/or the status of Jerusalem, infact the Israel rejected that Jerusalem had been proclaimed as part of the State of Israel at that time. As for the rest, is your lack of other objection means you agree with it?--Mor2 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, your beef in the mediation is with the users that actually rejected it, those being the ones listed as parties and not accepting it. Ive asked you above to stop saying the patently untrue statement that I rejected mediation. No, I rejected being involved in mediation. And yes, you do need to address concerns on the talk page of an article that you edit. That you wont answer the simple, straightforward question posed to you is an example of an, oh what was it, arrogant, uncompromising position. nableezy - 05:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And as far as your wish that I stop butting in, sorry, but I cant oblige. Youve invigorated me, given me a reason to edit. I thank you for that. So, if you wouldnt mind justifying your position, could you please tell me if East Jerusalem is a part of the "Jerusalem" that this article discusses? And, just so you cant accuse me of entrapment, Ill even give the follow up questions. Is East Jerusalem in Israel? Is East Jerusalem in the Palestinian territories? Is Jerusalem a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories? nableezy - 05:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take your offtopic mediation beef to your talk pages and if you feel so invigorated that you must troll for a response, at least try to butting in after his post or start a new section, not dump it in the middle of the discussion.--Mor2 (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but start a new section? I opened this section for these questions. You and others have gone off on unrelated tangents, and now accuse me of being off topic. If you need have the same argument in multiple sections of this talk page, do it in a different one. This section was opened to establish if the people who support the current wording agree or disagree with the statements that East Jerusalem is in Jerusalem, and following that if they agree or disagree with the statements listed. nableezy - 06:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Im going to ask again. Tariq, on my talk page you accuse me of not understanding what AGF means. Please demonstrate that you do by answering the questions, asked in good faith. You question why I only direct the questions at those holding a specific position; easy, the others already agree that there is a problem with the first sentence. The point of these questions are simple. I want to know why the first sentence of this article should be Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such instead of Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Which could then be followed by Since 1967, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it as part of its capital city. Which could then be followed by Palestine has designated Jerusalem as its capital, though neither the Israeli or Palestinian claim have garnered international recognition. Then it could say something like Among the oldest cities in the world, it is holy to the three Abrahamic religion ... And go on from there. The entire fourth paragraph could be whacked, the next sentence incorporated along with the largest city bit elsewhere. You get a relatively straightforward sentence saying that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, I get an actual explanation of the issue, the lead actually begins to resemble the beginning of an encyclopedia article, who isnt happy here? But all of that is predicated on the agreement that Jerusalem, if it includes East Jerusalem, is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. So do you agree to that statement? Do the others who support the current wording in which Jerusalem is, before anything else, Israel's? nableezy - 06:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not answering your questions without a third-party observer or mediator, and your statement demonstrates exactly why. You have been involved in this discussion to varying degrees for years, and the position of those who support the current wording has remained fairly consistent throughout. And, yet, somehow, you still think you've found a counter-argument through this series of questions. You still go off track with these grand questions as if they have anything to do with the capital statement. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you refuse to participate I cant make you, but without a valid rationale against the edit I will make it. You cannot both ignore a discussion and force the article to abide by a certain position. This is not your playground and you do not make the rules. nableezy - 18:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And it will be reverted. See title of section two sections up. -- tariqabjotu 18:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ive made the edit, if you want to revert it you need to explain why. You cannot claim "no consensus" and refuse to participate on the talk page. nableezy - 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I love this fundamental question

I am a middle-aged white man. This is something which nearly everyone who meets me will identify and fundamentally agree with, even if they are blind. My politics will quickly become evident not long after I open my mouth; I am not one to shy from controversy. In between the time it takes for me to establish my presence and state my position, the tone of my voice, body language and chosen words will give some clue about where it is I have been. In this spirit, and in my best understanding of policy, I offer the following: "Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, a place revered by the traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and since 1948 it has been the subject of a geopolitical controversy: whereas Israel claims the city including East Jerusalem as its capital, the majority of the world's nations do not recognize it as such; and whereas Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their nation's capital, many nations defer to the United Nations position that the city should be placed under international rule, eventually becoming the capital of both Israel and the State of Palestine." Feel free to throw stones at the middle-aged white man. ;) ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is a good compromise. PerDaniel (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll just add a slight correction to what you have written. Both parties claim "Jerusalem", using that word, as their capital in their basic laws. People often say here that the Palestinians claim East Jerusalem but their basic law says otherwise. See comment at 12:46, 1 December 2012 above for the source. The Children's World Atlas (ISBN 978-0756675844, p. 81) gets it right with the very simple "Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital."Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Per Sean.hoyland, so amended. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Add to that Yasser Arafat as a primary source interpreted through a secondary. Unless we see a definitive shift per Abbas. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! for the middle aged white man's suggestion!Alertboatbanking (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

At my ears, that sounds exactly the same as what I proposed. These are just facts and reflecting WP:NPoV. Those who disagree with this version say both Palestinian and Israeli claims cannot be considered equal but that the Israeli one has more due:weight because they occupy the city and they established the facts on the grounds. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've phrased this in such a way as to treat both as minority views considered separately and each one contrasted with the majority. The continuation of the article, which could be prefaced "The political reality..." further balances the Israeli claim vs. the Palestinian claim without WP:BATTLE by virtue of just talking more about Israel's actual governance thereof. It is also inherent in naming Israel first and naming Judaism first, which should please people who support the "we were here first" appeal. East Jerusalem is intentional to give WP:DUE to a predominant worldwide view about sharing it. This is an article which will be talking predominantly about Israel and displaying their actual authority. Any fatwas yet? ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And if they don't agree with you, identifying you as much younger/older or as an ugly woman, will this change the fact that you are a middle aged man? Similarly here the controversy doesn't change the fact that this an article about the Israeli city/capital. Your wording ignore a basic fact(and most of the article) and put emphasis on the geopolitical controversy since 1948(part of the history section).--Mor2 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A large portion of this article covers something that is not an Israeli city. nableezy - 23:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting because other than the standard history section, all of the article seem to cover Jerusalem as defined by current Israel municipal borders.--Mor2 (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Israel's position on what is in Israel is not the final say in the matter. East Jerusalem is not in Israel. That is a super-majority viewpoint. nableezy - 05:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No its not, nor is its status as occupied territory change the fact that Eastern Jerusalem is still part of Israel, or more importantly part of Jerusalem municipal borders, which is this article is about.--Mor2 (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I cant make out what your first no its not references, and "Eastern Jerusalem", more commonly known as "East Jerusalem" is outside of Israel's territory and it is in the occupied Palestinian territories. That is something that Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention has affirmed, as has the International Court of Justices, and it is something that countless sources can be brought to document. Israel's position in the matter is an extreme minority one, despite the fervor of its supporters on Wikipedia. nableezy - 06:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was meant as "No, Israel's position on what is in Israel is not the final say in the matter and East Jerusalem is occupied territory. However, neither change the fact that..." the rest is the same. The article is still about the city Jerusalem within its municipal borders. Nothing you added change that. --Mor2 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose this wording. "claims" again this goes back to the suggestions we add proclaimed capital. If we are going to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.. then what happens to the rest of the article? If this is not an article on Jerusalem which is currently the capital city of Israel, does the Israeli city flag, emblem and mayor have to be removed from the infobox? Someone has now taken this matter to arbcom so i guess we will wait and see the outcome of that. At present there is no consensus to change the long standing wording of this article introduction. Your proposal would be slightly better if it actually included the fact Jerusalem is israel's dejure and defacto capital, rather than just the entirely open to interpretation "claims" which could mean pretty much anything, ignoring the situation on the ground. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC) "whereas Israel claims the city including East Jerusalem as its capital, the majority of the world's nations do not recognize it as such; and whereas Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their nation's capital," - this is one sided, and gives undue weight to the Palestinian POV. It treats the claims as though they are equal, ignoring the defacto/dejure situation as mentioned above. And worse it goes out of its way to dispute the israeli "claim", but not the Palestinian one. I do have to agree with Pluto2012 though, this is pretty much what he proposed. Which many opposed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion! I really like your suggestion, and I don't mean at all that Israel should have equal weight to the State of Palestine in this sentence. Please just keep in mind that the aim of the sentence is to describe the controversy framed from a worldwide view of Jerusalem's political status, something that I think will likely happen, since Wikipedia is not censored. The point of ignoring the defacto/dejure situation is that in the very next breath, we're going to break that down. If we use "proclaims" then the weightiest proclamation of note is that "Israel proclaims the city including East Jerusalem is forever under its sovereignty as its capital..." per Bibi. That gives tons more weight to the Israeli side of things. Would that be fair to you and the many who opposed Pluto2012's draft? ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to issue an unqualified statement about infoboxes in QPQ if I see that there is a clear atmosphere of cooperation going on. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I object for the same reasons I objected to Pluto's proposal (which this is pretty much a copy of). It's nice to see 2 out of 4 people who support it are socks. If only we had people who really really care about socks around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As you clearly have no intention to follow WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:NPOV I really don't understand why you are here.PerDaniel (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How did you know I was talking about you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea that your lunatic raving was about me, but as one of my favourite poets wrote: "Du må ikke tåle så inderlig vel den urett som ikke rammer dig selv". PerDaniel (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but i believe the current wording in the article is far more neutral and covers the issue the fairest and clearest way. It is a compromise position that was introduced a couple of years ago, before that the article did not even mention the international recognition in the first sentence, and there are still some editors who object to that being there.. especially as it is repeated in the introduction in another paragraph too. Your proposal even with modest changes is unlikely to reach consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No More Mister Nice Guy. your statement of sockpuppetry is unsourced and unverifiable. Normally in this context, I would consider it to be a violation of WP:NPA. I only ask that you please use WP:V and WP:RS to back your assertion. Is that okay? As for your statement as to the likelihood of consensus, BritishWatcher, I must believe that you are correct, as you have already spoken for the other editors once before. I am a realist. I only ask that you and your friends try to work out some kind of a counteroffer before any ArbComm case decision. I really do prefer it if you continue to speak for them, rather than letting civility break down in here. Thank you very much for engaging me. Is there anything else I can help you with? ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of RS that back up my assertions have been brought up in the previous discussions. Please check the archives. Is there anything else I can help you with? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please. The archives are quite large. Since it's your statement, would you mind terribly backing it up yourself? I hate digging when I don't know what I'm looking for. Thanks :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to do your homework for you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have evidence of sockpuppetry or any ideas that might lead to the discovery of evidence by people good at doing things like that, provide it to the "people who really really care about socks", you know who they are. Otherwise you are wasting your time mentioning it unless you know that simply mentioning it is enough for them to abandon the account. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow... really?

You know it is bad when I think you are being foolish. Mediation failed to have the parties involved involved. Some of you should take another swing at it. Narrow the invite list down to those who both want and deserve to participate. Someone mentioned above that this is all a behavioral issue now. I agree and am guilty myself. However, I would like to think there are a few editors discussing here who could have an actual discussions among themselves. Plenty of tags on the article, a hindered reader experience, and surely ARBPIA3 are the alternatives.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance - what is ARBPIA3? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I filed the original mediation request and was quite inclusive in selecting the editors who would be "involved". I don't know how many parties mediations usually have and how involved someone needs to be to be "involved" in the sense of mediation. If someone knows that we could re-file the request with a shorter list, I encourage that person to do so. On the other hand, would excluding someone from the request who is later considered "involved" be seen as abuse of the procedure? --Dailycare (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBPIA2 are the two ArbCom cases that have occurred regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the former being in January 2008 and the latter being in March 2009 (and not being as broad as the first ARBPIA). So, WP:ARBPIA3 is the potential third ArbCom case. -- tariqabjotu 19:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the set of people who would be considered significantly involved and the set of people who don't deserve to participate overlap. -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And who "deserve" to participate? Those who agree with you? PerDaniel (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

People who aren't going to respond to simple statements by being an ass, like you just did. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that people who are able to comply with WP:CIVIL would "deserve" to participate. PerDaniel (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In regards to dailycare's response: I did not agree with the wording of the RfM but you should be applauded for the attempt. Everyone was involved to a certain extent. I chose to decline since I did not want to be part of what I assumed would be a mess. Some editors here could pull it off, though. Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Last revert

Has to be justified. What exactly was wrong with that edit. You cannot say "you dont have consensus" and "I refuse to participate to stop their from being any consensus". NMMNG, justify your revert on policy based grounds. nableezy - 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And PerDaniel, that last revert doesnt help either. nableezy - 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't it?PerDaniel (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasnt trying to solve this through edit-warring. nableezy - 18:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of refusing to participate? Diffs please. Also, do I need to dig up a diff of you explaining that something that's been in the article for years has consensus and you need to show consensus to change it before doing so? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I am saying that you have not justified the revert. You have only claimed "no consensus" without giving a reason for your lack of agreement. I dont honestly see what fault people could find in the edit. And because Tariq, and others, have steadfastly refused to answer my questions I do not know how I can find what fault they see in the edit. I have, as best I could, addressed each argument. You want the article to say as a fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", check. You do not want the Palestinian "claim" given equal weight to the Israeli "claim". The article says that it is Israel's capital, and that it has been designated Palestine's, so check there too. Others have a problem with the repetition of the political issues, gone. On the opposing side, there is a clear explanation that a. the status as capital of Israel is disputed internationally, and b. that portions of "the capital of Israel" as defined by Israel are not in Israel. What exactly is wrong with the edit? That it doesnt have consensus? Thats it? nableezy - 18:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And now Hertz. You have to justify the revert. This game of saying I dont agree so there is no consensus and because there is no consensus no change can be made is getting more and more tiresome. Please cite policy justifying the last revert. Im done playing the game, you need to rationally back up your position, not fall back on these wikipediaisms about consensus, especially given your rather elastic interpretation of when consensus is needed. nableezy - 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus can change. If you've read the policy, you guys know what is suggested next. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A refusal to back up the revert is in my view disruptive behavior covered by the existing discretionary sanctions. Both Hertz and NMMNG have made a revert without giving any explanation why they did so. Ill wait a day or so for them to do so. nableezy - 19:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

When there is a contentious issue that has been discussed for more than nine years, you can't just make a proposal and then immediately institute it. My refusal to discuss this without a third party is neither agreement nor disagreement with your proposal. It has some good points, it has some bad points, and I'd honestly say more good than bad. But either way, you can't just put it in like that. It will get reverted, as it did. In a situation like this, there need not be any reason provided for reversion other than the fact that it was never the subject of discussion. Requesting such or requesting that there be some sort of observed process, which doesn't look too far away if you'd just let the RfArb run its course, is not stonewalling. -- tariqabjotu 19:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What? Immediately institute it? I instituted it after you refused to discuss it. What am I supposed to do, wait for you to decide when it need be discussed? there need not be any reason provided for reversion other than the fact that it was never the subject of discussion? It was the subject of discussion, you just refused to discuss it. You say now there is some good and some bad with the edit. Great, a comment on the content. What was bad about it? And, for the policy minded among you, read WP:EW, specifically the line When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. nableezy - 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. There are other editors on this page, and none of them, not even those who agree the current wording should be changed, have commented on it. And before you come back with another arrogant retort, no, eleven hours is not enough time to allow objections to a hidden proposal to be lodged. Stupid breaching experiments like this present yet another reason why a third-party observer is necessary, and presumably why you rejected one. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested that you stop distorting, and I am being kind by not using the word lying, what happened at mediation. Three users rejected mediation by being listed as parties and not accepting, none of them me. I declined to be a part of it, I did not reject its use. And as far as the rather funny line hidden proposal, cute. You dont pay attention to what people write, but its their fault for not making the text blink. And for a user who claims that others do not understand what AGF means, you seem to have a curious understanding of the topic. Meaning, you dont. Can you please, please, please, please say what you think was wrong with the edit? Thats the only thing that counts, not whether you, of all people, think that I am arrogant, or that I ran a breaching experiment. You said there was good and bad in the edit. What was bad about it? nableezy - 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand what a third-party observer is. Is that the issue? Otherwise, please stop asking me to engage with you on this point directly. With time, one will be provided, and you will not have an opportunity to reject it. -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem is that an excessively arrogant user who thinks that he knows more than anybody else and sees himself as the owner of the article thinks that he can, through just saying NO NO NO, stop any changes being made to a Wikipedia article. This remains the talk page for the article Jerusalem, and if you are incapable of discussing the article Jerusalem then you should find yourself another pissing ground. Can you or can you not identify issues with the change made? Because without people justifying the revert it will be restored, and Im down to let AE deal with anybody who thinks that they are above the standard procedure for resolving disputes (ie you). nableezy - 21:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I will no longer reply directly to those who twist the meanings and intentions of my words, whose civility is questionable, and whose patience with the discussion process is sadly lacking. My revert was, as stated, on account of the edit's aggressive violation of the consensus-building process. No consensus for any such changes has emerged from the discussions at hand. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That emphatically is not a justification for the revert. Please explain what fault the edit has. For years now you have reverted changes due to a lack of some mythical consensus. I for one am through playing this game, either explain your opposition to the change or get out the way. Absent actual reasons for the revert I may well restore the change. nableezy - 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So far no policy/evidence based reasons have been given for reverts by Hertz and NMMNG. Hertz, could you please explain what evidence you have that this attempt by Nableezy to move the article forward is "agressive" and in what way it violates consensus building. Per BRD if you have a problem with a bold edit you should state what your policy/evidence based issues are. Simply stating that there is no consensus, but not stating what your policy/evidence based issues are with the edit is disruptive. Unless you state what valid issues you have with the proposed edit, how can we move forward towards consensus? Dlv999 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I resent your calling my behavior disruptive. With very much unresolved discussions in progress and a long-term stable version in place in the article, proper procedure would be to introduce the proposed edit here and allow ample (I stress, ample) time for discussion. Instead, it was aggressively sprung full-blown in the lead. The burden is not on those trying to restore some normalcy to the procedure. Even if the proposed edit were given on this talk page, it is unrealistic and inconsiderate to expect editors (all of whom are volunteers) to drop everything else and engage in instant analysis and discussion. I suggest that it is time for cool heads to prevail. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Its been several years that you have been reverting changes to the lead based on "no consensus". Exactly how much longer do the cooler heads need? And its unreasonable to expect that people immediately discuss material that they have time to immediately revert? Really? nableezy - 21:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean that everybody agrees to a certain wording. A user, or a set of users, even a majority of users, cannot filibuster change by claiming their acquiescence is required for "consensus". Policy-based reasons opposing the edit are required, and there has yet to be a single policy-based reason for either NMMNG's or Hertz's revert. nableezy - 20:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds familiar. And most likely, no matter what is said, you will never be satisfied that a policy-based reason has been provided. This is such a joke. -- tariqabjotu 20:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that isnt true. And for a user who has repeatedly faulted others for failing to understand what AGF means, you seem to be incapable of showing that you do. What are the policy-based reasons for reverting the edit? Without one being provided I will reinstate it. nableezy - 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And then you will be reverted and/or reported to WP:AE. See title of section five sections up. -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about doing the same thing to you. You cannot refuse to discuss the issue and then say that the article may not be changed because it has not been discussed. If you want to revert you need to justify it. And if somebody else reverts without providing a policy based reason they will be brought to AE. Im calling your bluff, mostly because you have no case, and also because AE should really see a user saying others should consider themselves lucky that he would entertain such a notion as including well sourced material in an article, and then calling others arrogant and stubborn. nableezy - 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The quite obvious policy based reason to reject this change to the lead is that it doesn't summarize the body of the article, and removes proper summarization that's already there. There are others, but let's start with this one, shall we? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we can start there. What in the lead as I wrote it is not summarizing what is in the article, and what summarization that's already there was removed that is needed and not covered? nableezy - 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it would be easier if you showed me which part it is supposed to be summarizing? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not the one that says it isnt summarizing the article, now am I. There arent exactly that many changes between the current lead and how I wrote it, and if you think it isnt a proper summary say why. I dont know how clear I need to be in saying that I am not playing this game anymore. Justify your revert please, and an attempt at wittiness is not a justification. nableezy - 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for this kind of brinksmanship. An editor proposing an edit doesn't need to guess what your objection is. If you have one, describe it in a calm, respectful manner. If you don't have one, then don't revert the edit to begin with. This isn't rocket science. Likewise, you shouldn't be shy about sharing your objection just because you're afraid others might disagree with it. Be a tiger, discuss the content and don't speculate on others' motives. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The edit in question

To make this clear, and in the hopes that people can actually address the edit, Im posting the current lead and my rewrite here:

There has been a claim above that the new lead does not summarize the body of the article, and removes proper summarization that's already there, though an explanation of that has yet to be made. Can people please explain why they object to the rewritten lead? nableezy - 21:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Palestinian territory" is an abstract and undefined term (used by different subjects for different meaning) which do not exist in reality and do not have intentional validation, despite having an article in Wikipedia with plenty WP:OR and WP:SYNT.--Tritomex (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Palestinian territories exist and the term is not abstract or undefined. That is an objection entirely without merit. nableezy - 00:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is no single legal document that define the Palestinian territories.(which is one of the reasons why there is no sovereign state of Palestine) --Mor2 (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You mistake a border treaty with a definition. The Palestinian territories, as documented in countless sources, are the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. And, actually, that is not the topic under discussion here. nableezy - 06:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

But it is about borders, you need a defined a geographical region and If you refer to the Palestinian territories, they are defined by the 1967 "borders". A better question would be why you put Israel and the 'Palestinian territories' and not Israel and the 'West Bank'.--Mor2 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no. A border would be formed through a formal treaty between Israel and Palestine. The boundary that separates Israel from the Palestinian territories is the Green Line. Why did I not put West Bank? The same reason I did not put Jerusalem District. nableezy - 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My main issue about it is being treated below in a "worldwide view" context. The world, which does not recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel nor Palestine says it should be shared under international rule and eventually capital for both Israel and State of Palestine. This worldwide view has a greater prominence that the view that Israel should rightfully control Jerusalem itself - which in turn is more widely held than the view that the State of Palestine should control it unilaterally. The draft does not solve that problem. Indicate the relative prominence of views in defining geopolitical status in lede, please. :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that simplifies a number of views on what the international community thinks should, legally or otherwise, happen to Jerusalem. And I dont think it is necessary to get into what is right in the lead, just what is. I wouldnt be opposed to adding another line about the political status of the city, but, as Ravpapa has reminded us repeatedly, Jerusalem is more than the center of the Palestine-Israel conflict. It shouldnt overwhelm the lead, and that is what I tried to do. But if you have a specific suggestion on what to add, then, please, go at it. nableezy - 00:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Question for Nableezy If "Palestinian territory" do exist as defined entity, do Palestinians (proclamation of the State of Palestine) seek their capital only within the boundaries of "Palestinian territory"?--Tritomex (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The actual Declaration of Independence in 1988 made no mention of any borders. The most recent diplomatic endeavor, that being the UN GA resolution, said Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. Abbas has repeatedly said that he wants East Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine. So by that measure, yes. But it depends on which Palestinians, some dont recognize any part of Israel as anything other than occupied Palestine. But that isnt the issue here. The term Palestinian territories has a well known, unambiguous meaning. It is the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. That isnt up for debate here. And I dont plan on getting drawn into that discussion. If your objection to the proposed lead is that the Palestinian territories dont exist, then your objection has no merit. nableezy - 02:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nb: the 1988 Alger Declaration refers to Jerusalem as capital of the State of Palestine. The last sentence is "(...) Jerusalem, the capital of our independent Palestinian State. source Pluto2012 (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Im aware, however it did not define Jerusalem and I am unaware of al-Quds referring to western Jerusalem, but it may. nableezy - 19:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG below makes the following comment, which I, for ease of responding in a sane section, have duplicated here:

You've not answered any of the issues raised regarding your massive, not previously discussed, change of a lead that's not only under discussion but is at ArbCom and you'll take anyone who reverts it to AE? It's going to be me, so don't get your hopes too high about Tariq. You can start writing your request right now, and we'll see how that works out for you. In the meanwhile, since you don't seem to understand the question I asked about your change, here it is more explicitly: what's the source for "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories"? What part of the article is this summarizing? Why did you remove the sections you did (do I need to quote each section or is this general hand waving sufficient)? Eagerly awaiting your answers, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The source I provided for Jerusalem partially being in the Palestinian territories is:Imseis, Ardi. "On the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Harv. Int'l LJ 44 (2003): 65. The quote from that article is: ... the State of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, collectively known as the Occupied Palestinian Territory. What summary have I removed? I condensed the legal status into the first paragraph, and removed some unimportant trivia. You want to re-add the last paragraph removed? Go right ahead, I dont care. So what else? And yes, if you dont respond to this I will be restoring the edit. nableezy - 19:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Another source for East Jerusalem being in the Palestinian territories is: Orna Ben-Naftali, Aeyal M. Gross, and Keren Michaeli, Illegal Occupation: Framing the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 23 Berkeley Journal of International Law. 551 (2005), p. 551:

In August 2005, Israel pulled out its settlements and military forces from the Gaza Strip. The question whether this amounts to the end of the occupation in this area remains open and its determination depends on factual and legal considerations relating to the notion of "effective control," which are beyond the scope of this article. Even if one assumes that Gaza is no longer occupied, our discussion applies to the rest of the Palestinian territory, which Israel continues to occupy, i.e. the West Bank including East Jerusalem, which constitutes a far more substantial area both in terms of territory and the extent of Jewish settlements.

NMMNG, do you challenger the reliability of either the Berkeley Journal of International Law or the Harvard Journal of International Law as reliable sources? nableezy - 19:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In the article, you put "Jerusalem...is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories". How does either of your sources support this without SYNTH? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources provided directly support that Jerusalem is partially in the Palestinian territories. I admit that they do not support that Jerusalem is partially in Israel. Do you challenge that Jerusalem is partially in Israel? nableezy - 20:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports what you put in the article? So far it seems the answer is "no". By the way, your source says something about East Jerusalem (seems like a proper noun with all the capitalization there), not about Jerusalem, which may or may not include the part your source is talking about. Unfortunately your source doesn't specify. No SYNTH or OR please. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is such an inordinately silly argument that I fear I do not have it in me to respond as though it were not. So I've brought that issue to WP:OR/N, and you can attempt to make the argument that despite this article including East Jerusalem in Jerusalem that sources that say East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories cannot be used for SYNTH reasons. nableezy - 21:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is, by far, the worst objection you could possibly come up with in response to the proposed wording, and I have no idea why you've spent time raising it and defending it. -- tariqabjotu 21:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Might as well start at the beginning and move on from there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This isnt a game, please say what other reasons you have for reverting. If it was the OR issue then you have no case. nableezy - 03:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Im still waiting for the next objection. Without one I will be restoring the edit, and blanket reverts without even a nod to policy will not stand. nableezy - 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. You took this to the OR noticeboard, so obviously there was more than a nod to policy (but do continue to obsessively quote me, it's fun). That was yesterday. So far only one person responded there (that would be your "self-blocked" overly dramatic friend), but this is what, the 3rd time you threatened to restore this material in less than 24 hours? Did I miss something obvious, or do I need to dig up a BRD quote for you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats somewhat disingenuous, now isnt it? Two editors have responded to your specious "reasoning", one of them here, and that one cannot by any meaning of the word friend be called one of mine. His view of your objection is that it is the worst objection you could possibly come up with in response to the proposed wording. By all means, dig for the BRD quote, but heres one that I like: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. nableezy - 19:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion: instead of "capital city" we say "capitol". Whereas one may argue the social-construct over whether or not a capital must include international recognition by the placement of embassies, it cannot be our fault if our readership cannot see the plain English distinction that we mean something more specific and tangible. This lede would still satisfy my most basic arguments of giving voice to a worldwide view and avoiding placing a POV in footnotes. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't work. Capitol refers to a building, not a city. So, the "capitol" would be the Knesset building. -- tariqabjotu 15:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This proposal goes toward the "seat of government" idea which is on the table. It's what the BBC uses at least on occasion. --Dailycare (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont think there is any problem with saying that Israel includes EJ within its capital city. nableezy - 22:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Sources that state Jerusalem is the current capital of Palestine

The comments above are still going round and round in circles with those who are proposing change to the introduction refusing to take onboard the key points being made by those opposed. I asked Pluto above a few days ago a simple question, and they basically accepted they could not answer.

For those who demand this article say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine, please provide the clear sources here that say Jerusalem (not just East Jerusalem) is the current capital (not proposed future capital) of a Palestinian State (not future state).

I have been involved in this debate for some time now, i am still waiting for those demanding change to provide this very basic and fundamental information. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I don't subscribe to the view that the article should say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine, because to do so ignores all of the sources that presents both of those claims as claims. We aren't allowed to ignore sources. I don't see any point in asking people to provide sources that represent specific subsets out there. Both Israeli and Palestinian basic law make explicit statements of fact that Jerusalem is the capital and there will of course be other sources that present these claims as facts. But so what ? This isn't a zero–sum game to see who can most successfully employ confirmation bias using google. At some point, editors need to deal with the data in the sources, not just some of it. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with additional text being added to the introduction in the last couple of paragraphs that handle the situation in detail. That should include a statement of the Palestinian proclamation. Something that would fit in nicely with the line "Currently, Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's "undivided capital"". But i believe it would be gross undue weight to act as though that proclomation should be handled in a way that seeks to put it on the same basis in the first sentence of this article as refers to the situation with Israel. Jerusalem is the defacto and dejure capital of Israel, and it holds effective control over the entire area. That cannot be said about the Palestinian side and to try to put the two as equal as some have.. would clearly be biased and pushing the Palestinian POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sean.hoyland. That is a deformation of what is discussed. Considering Jerusalem as a whole entity doesn't reflect the facts and what you advance is not at all what is said here.

• Anyway, there are sources for this too : UNGA resolution 43/177 of 15 december 1988 recognizes the Declaration of independence of Palestine which states that : "The Palestine National Council hereby declares (...) the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem." There is no reference to East Jerusalem. The choice of Jerusalem as capital as well as the choice of East-Jerusalem as capital of Palestine has more international recognition than the choice of Jerusalem as well as the choice of West-Jerusalem as capital of Israel.
• Regarding the fact that Palestine is a State : here a source on the UNO website that says that Palestie is a State. Maybe that according to some, UNO has no legitimacy to give the status of State to a country BUT it is a WP:RS source to say to wikipedian editors what is a state or not and this WP:RS sources says it is a State.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not ask for sources saying it is non-member state of the United Nations, or even a sovereign state in my question. This is about what sources specifically state Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine today. I do not accept that "Acknowledges the proclamation" is accepting and agreeing with everything contained within the proclamation. And did the state of Palestine exist back then on that declaration or is it only since it became a "non-member state" of the UN? It is certainly still not a sovereign state. I would just like to see reliable sources stating Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Many sources have been provided showing tha is the case for Israel,albeit with many sources also recognising that the international community do not officially recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You have got what you asked : sources that consider that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and even if you didn't ask this that Palestine is a State.

Now that is not the point.

Pluto2012 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you posted your arguments here as well. I already disproved them, so all just add that in-light of UN long standing position about Jerusalem, on which most(if not all) the argument disputing Israel claims here are built, you must have a real grasp of the situation, to bring UN as sources to prove its recognition of Jerusalem as Palestinian capital.--Mor2 (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who BritishWatcher is referring to, but I don't think that the article should say that Jerusalem is the current capital of Palestine. What I am most concerned with in the article is the unequivocal statement in the first sentence that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". This is an israeli POV, not an undisputed universally accepted fact, and therefore a breach of WP:NPOV. I think that the best way to follow WP:NPOV is to have the first sentence be something completely neutral and don't mention anything about claims to the city or who currently occupies the city until at least the second sentence. What the neutral facts in the first sentence should be is open to discussion, but I would suggest that it could be it's location, that it is one of the oldest cities in the world or its importance in the abrahamic religions. PerDaniel (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well i am glad that a number of responses here seem to be against stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. Sadly that is what some have proposed in recent months unless i was dreaming it. You say "the first sentence that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". This is an israeli POV, not an undisputed universally accepted fact, and therefore a breach of WP:NPOV.", the trouble is you only quoted half the sentence. The whole sentence reads - "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii] and one of the oldest cities in the world." That first sentence is not biased or in violation of NPOV. It quite clearly states the international view which is not to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. This was an argument that people won 2 years ago when demanding changes to the introduction which at the time did have a first sentence saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but with no clarifying points for balance. The article has that now. the introductions first sentence is neutral ,and the introduction itself has a large amount of text on the legalities and international view of Jerusalem. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I translated the norwegian word "setning" with "sentence" (which is the usual translation). After a little searching I found that the meaning og "setning" that I wanted to use is not covered by "sentence" in english, but by "clause". What I meant was the first clause of the first sentence, which I qouted. I understand that you think that the second clause of the sentence "though not internationally recognized as such" is enough to make it comply with WP:NPOV. I disagree for (at least) two reasons: Firstly because the minority POV is mentioned first, and secondly because using the word "is" (in the first clause) we are declaring that it belongs to Israel. To qoute WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". I would be agree to using "Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel" or "Israel has unilaterally declared that Jerusalem is its capital", but not as the opening clause. I have not delved into the history of the article, but if what you write is true it was even more unbalanced before. That does not justify to abstain from improving its balance now. PerDaniel (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I am against stating "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine" for the reasons provided above. The reasons provided also rule out stating "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" or "Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine" so I oppose those too. It has nothing to do with recognition, nothing to do with what makes something a capital, nothing to do with who has the right to decide whether something is a capital etc etc. It is simply about not being allowed to ignore sources and inconsistencies between our presentation of information and their presentation of information. It's about objectively sampling and reflecting the information in sources according to the constraints imposed by policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Does the article represent a global view?

Per the tag on the article, I though it would be good if people actually discussed the issue (rather than the reverts and edit warring). Personally, I can see the point that the article doesn't represent a global view, particularly the lead section. Right now, the lead asserts that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel although this is not recognized by most of the world. It then goes on to state that Palestine is not currently a state although most of the world does recognize it as such. I could see an argument that we should present all views in the lead (per NPOV), but the lead isn't doing that either. The lead should either reflect the global POV, or present all 3 POVs equally – global, Israeli, and Palestinian (as per Pluto2012's suggested wording). Relegating the other POVs to notes or qualifying add-ons doesn't adequately address the problem, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A solution which will represent the relative prominence of views will conform to WP:NPOV. Thank you for summarizing and participating! ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked you to clarify what you think Pluto's wording is, as it's not immediately clear unless you read through it. More clearly. The following is not Pluto's suggestion (it was actually mine):

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm) is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, Jerusalem 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). Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.

And this was Pluto's:

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm) is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jerusalem is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea with a total population of around 800,000 people. Due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the city was divided in 1948 in West and East-Jerusalem. In 1967 Israeli took the control of the East side and annexed it in 1980. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital but the international community requires that the question is settle by peace talks between both parties.

I'm fine with the first version (obviously) [as far as it addresses the capital point; I don't care about the population issue], but (speaking only about the capital issue) Pluto's removes a key point -- that Israel has its government in Jerusalem and Palestine does not. This modification specifically was met by objection from several people (myself included), and yet -- assuming you really were talking about Pluto's proposal in your comment above -- you said those objections were just us unhappy our POV isn't in the article. In addition to (once again) expressing great offense at the remark, I don't know how you could argue that when there is nothing disputable about the fact that Israel's government is situated in the city and Palestine's is not. And, perhaps you disagree, but I think that is a major distinction when talking about capitals. -- tariqabjotu 00:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's how policy says we should look at that view. Evidently the point escapes most of the countries of the world. The first two sources are primaries from the U.N. on their position historically and presently that Jerusalem belongs in international rule. I can see that you are saying that there exists a view that placing one's government in a place makes that place a capital when people discuss Jerusalem. I think I have demonstrated that this is a minority view, although it should be supported through prominent adherents per Jimmy Wales so as to be distinguished from a fringe view. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's majority view about defining capitals: they are usually where the seat of government is. The exception to a rule does not disprove the rule nor the exception. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? The point that Israel's government is located in Jerusalem is not a contestable point. The point that Palestine's government is not located in Jerusalem is not contestable either. What the U.N. or any country believes the future of the status of the city should be has nothing to do with the fact that Israel's government is situated in Jerusalem. Note that I did even not say it has nothing to do with the fact that it's its capital; I do believe that to be the case also, but that wasn't what I said above, and not the point of my remark.

The first option above does not explicitly say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because its government is located there. Some people here seem to have the issue with drawing that conclusion ourselves by saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" in the first line. Okay, again, I don't know why that's a questionable conclusion, but we can run with that. But then what is wrong with mentioning that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital and that its government is located there and allow readers to draw their own conclusion about whether it can truly be considered its capital? And how is the fact that this city is the seat of government of a country not relevant enough to be in the first paragraph, especially when we're talking about capitals, a concept which in all but one case coincides with the seat government? Also, you realize your "exception to a rule" comment (which is not how the saying goes...) discredits your comment, not mine, right? -- tariqabjotu 01:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What you stated was: "I think that is a major distinction when talking about capitals." Again, the majority view is that it in the case of the concept of Jerusalem-as-capital, it doesn't matter whether Israel has its seat of government in Jerusalem or that Palestine doesn't have its seat of government there. Please establish to whom this has a definite correlative relevance to anyone in this particular situation through WP:RS. Do not engage in WP:OR by making the assumption that one strictly relates to the other. This could be construed as an accidental fallacy. As far as I can tell from any evidence, we should not be discussing Jerusalem-as-capital and Jerusalem-as-seat-of-government in the same breath. Consecutive mention, not concurrent mention, works as a distinction of the weight of predominant views - which is the only way that "distinction" applies per NPOV as far as I can see. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. You can stop throwing around Wikipedia acronyms and the word "fallacy". What is the concept of capital all about to you, if I need to source that where a government is located has any relevance? Not that where a government is located necessitates a city being called a capital; I'm merely talking about that the location of a government has relevance. We do not need to cite that the sky is blue. -- tariqabjotu 02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

'Concept' is specific-to-general, the opposite of the way you're using it, but precisely the way you intend the conversation to go. I do not need to make any further conversation about the generalities of capitals. I have provided the specifics in regards to the topic. And you have made no effort to use reliable sourcing for your argument. To be practical about rather than rhetorical and perhaps get back on point, I prefer tariq's draft as closer to the sources I was seeing but neglecting a definitive statement on the international stance on Jerusalem, making it less weighty than it deserves as a predominant view. If I'm reading the sources right, the international community wants to facilitate a shared Jerusalem.... ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's kind of useful and I will touch on it. Since the mark of good expository writing is to go from general-to-specific in lede, mention of Jerusalem-as-seat-of-government should be mentioned in the preceding breath to Jerusalem-as-capital so as to correctly use the usual generality to focus the writing further with the exception that the world community makes. See? You made me think. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as the international community wants to facilitate a shared Jerusalem, thats an oversimplification. There are a number of positions within the international community, one of which involves an international regime in the city. nableezy - 03:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is excruciatingly unclear what you are saying. Specifically, what does...

I prefer tariq's draft as closer to the sources I was seeing but neglecting a definitive statement on the international stance on Jerusalem, making it less weighty than it deserves as a predominant view.

...mean? -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am so sorry. I think Nableezy got my point and is giving a good critique of it. In general, the consensus of representatives of a few billion people in not only disputing the claims of Israel and Palestine - but also laying claim to the administration of Jerusalem - should have more representation in lede weight by further representing how they conceive Jerusalem geopolitically. Since Nableezy seems to be able to critique constructively misapprehensions about world consensus, perhaps he could source us something that does demonstrate a common ground, or at least a good general Ban Ki Moon quote. Billions vs. millions. The view, where cohesive, should have more weight. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Ban Ki Moon doesn't represent billions of people. Where do you get this stuff from? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You still didn't clarify the part where you said "I prefer tariq's draft". It sounded like you preferred my version, despite running me in circles about the (ir)relevance of a country's government to its capital city. So, I'll proceed with what I was going to say; even if it's not relevant to you (still not sure), it's relevant to those (e.g. Pluto and Nableezy) who do believe that the seat of government point should not be mentioned in the vicinity of the capital statements:

What the non-recognition means has not been nailed down here. Those who are against the current wording say it nullifies the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, while those who are in support of the current wording believe it doesn't. That is a central issue in this dispute. If you are in the first group, you believe the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a false statement or at least a minority statement. Requests to prove the nullification contention have not been met with any proof, and yet there appears to be some willingness in recent threads by those supporting the current wording to let go of such a straightforward statement. But, in that case, it is equally wrong to swing the pendulum to the other side and suggest that there is no standing whatsoever to the suggestion that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is actually true. I requested sources saying Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel or that some other city is its capital or that it has no capital at all, and I was told these points had no relevance and need not be proven to contest the current wording. Again, despite those assertions, we have been willing -- now, somewhat inexplicably -- to let the current wording go. But, once again, there thus remains no justification to eliminate facts [e.g. that Israel's government is located in Jerusalem] that might (or might not, as is the case for some here) lead one to infer Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel.

And such inference, by the way, is not unprecedented. Japan, for example, has no law explicitly stating its capital city (see Keene 2002, p. 189), and yet I'll be damned if you could find an educated person on this planet who wouldn't call Tokyo the capital of Japan -- because its government is located there. You can proceed to claim, based on not too much, that what's good for the gander here isn't good for the goose, but please don't request that we force that upon all readers by intentionally omitting the crucial fact that Israel's government is in Jerusalem -- and Palestine's is not. -- tariqabjotu 03:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, youve attributed to me a position that I have not taken, that being believe that the seat of government point should not be mentioned in the vicinity of the capital statements. I didnt include it in my draft above because the wording gives, in my view, the balance you are looking for. My draft has Jerusalem as Israel's capital and as Palestine's designated capital, so I did not think it necessary to include that it isnt the seat of Palestine's government or that it is for Israel. If youre going to talk about me, it would be better to talk to me. You may be shocked at how reasonable I can be when actually engaged. nableezy - 04:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I seem to recall a thread in which you repeatedly accused me of owning the article for suggesting that a wording that omitted any distinction between the Palestinian and Israeli capital claims was asking too much. Forgive me for thinking you don't just say things to waste my time. -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. I objected to the idea that Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its capital is stronger than Palestine's because its seat of government is Jerusalem. I said then that you are not the arbiter on title to Jerusalem. I did not say that Israel's seat of government is not Jerusalem, and I did not take any position on whether or not it should be called that in the lead. I accused you of owning the article because you wrote You should consider yourself lucky that I, or anyone else, would even entertain the idea of putting the Israeli and Palestinian claims in the same sentence, and you should drop any hope of the article doing so without clear qualification. The reason for my accusation should be fairly obvious to any disinterested reader. This habit of not reading what I write is causing you to repeatedly misstate the record. I did not include it in my lead because I dont say it is designated, or de facto, or claimed as capital of Israel. I addressed your WEIGHT concern through the wording. So now that I have hopefully disabused you of the notion that I say things to waste your, rather than my, time, could you please actually respond to my request that you say what you think is bad about my proposal above? nableezy - 05:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'm not interested in these word games.

No, I didn't reject mediation; I just removed my name from the mediation. No, the people who were listed were to blame; I wasn't listed... because I removed my name from the mediation. I think binding mediation is a great idea, even though I didn't think voluntary mediation was. No, you are required to answer my questions because you edited this article... over two and a half years ago. This was discussed, because I simply brought it up. No, I didn't accuse you of owning the article for saying some are asking too much... I accused you of owning the article for asking people to stop asking for too much. And, this is why we can't get anything done Tariq, because you can't read.

Fine, you win. You're absolutely correct. I can't read. I'm the problem here. You've done nothing wrong, ever. You're doing everything in good faith, while I have just been blocking the whole process. I shouldn't comment on any of your actions or comments, because I'll just misunderstand them. No one should, because you're the keeper of the true meaning and it's ridiculous to make any comments based on what you say the first time. I need to wait for you to repackage your remarks in a way that sounds better to you, but doesn't actually negate what you said the first time.

Are you happy now? Now piss off. -- tariqabjotu 17:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Im going to sotp being polite and ask that instead of misrepresenting the record that you now stop lying about it. What I said the first time is what I said the last, and that you continue to lie about each of those things is just another example of why I dislike dealing with you. Am I happy? No, Ill be happy when you or anybody else gives an actual reason for the reverts of my rewrite. Since its now going on two days since I first proposed it, and, one hand wave at a policy without explanation notwithstanding, nobody has been able to articulate why it should be reverted, Ill be restoring it. And if you, or anybody else, reverts it without providing a policy-based reason for doing so they will be reported to AE. God I hope its you, as I would just love to link to diffs of an admin telling others that they are arrogant, stubborn, and that they should piss off, all while repeatedly, and explicitly, refusing to discuss the content on the talk page. As far as your final request, no. nableezy - 18:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You've not answered any of the issues raised regarding your massive, not previously discussed, change of a lead that's not only under discussion but is at ArbCom and you'll take anyone who reverts it to AE? It's going to be me, so don't get your hopes too high about Tariq. You can start writing your request right now, and we'll see how that works out for you. In the meanwhile, since you don't seem to understand the question I asked about your change, here it is more explicitly: what's the source for "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories"? What part of the article is this summarizing? Why did you remove the sections you did (do I need to quote each section or is this general hand waving sufficient)? Eagerly awaiting your answers, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That is unequivocally false. The only objection raised, prior to this comment, is that it was not a proper summary. I asked you to explain that, and you still have not. As far as what is the source Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories, this article includes East Jerusalem, so you could read Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to establish that EJ is in the Palestinian territories, or Imseis, Ardi. "On the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Harv. Int'l LJ 44 (2003): 65:

... the State of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, collectively known as the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Do you want a source for part of Jerusalem being in Israel? I'll address each of these in more detail above, but unless you want to challenge the Harvard International Law Journal as a reliable source we can wipe that objection away. nableezy - 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't SYNTH me an answer. Show me a source that explicitly supports the statement you put in the very first line of the article. And yes, I asked you to point out which parts of the article your new version summarizes, which you have so far failed to do. You also failed to explain why you removed the parts of the lead that you did. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not synthesizing anything. I asked above if East Jerusalem is a part of "Jerusalem". Not one person said no. East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories, and that can be sourced to any number of places. And I did explain why I removed the banal text about a zoo and other trivialities, and I said that if you want to re-add that feel free. But I did so in the section about the edit. nableezy - 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Keene doesn't support your inference, so I don't know why you cited him:

'By 1877 Tokyo was functionally the capital of Japan, not only because it was the seat of the emperor and all organs of the government but also because the foreign legations were situated there.'(unlike the case in Jerusalem) and of coure Tokyo refers to a site on undisputedly Japanese territory. A good part of Jerusalem is not in Israel. Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't decide what about Jerusalem makes it not Israel's capital. The 1980 UN resolution? Okay, some countries, like Japan, don't even have laws that declare what their capital at all. Okay, but there are embassies in Tokyo, but not Jerusalem. Okay, so Jerusalem was still the capital of Israel the day after the UN resolution, before countries could move their embassies? Or Amsterdam is not actually the capital of the Netherlands because most embassies are in The Hague? Er, uh, no... the Netherlands has two capitals based on an About.com source. Yeah, ok, right. Oh, uh, it's because East Jerusalem isn't legally Israel's. Okay... so if the Israelis left East Jerusalem, would it be the capital? Yeah, more sidestepping. For some reason, some have allowed the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to be removed, despite there being no certainty about what negates that statement. But, there is no basis whatsoever for omitting the fact that Israel's seat of government is in Jerusalem when talking about its capital status. Fear of some readers drawing a conclusion different from yours is not good enough. -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If that tirade is addressed to me, I don't know what your point is. You cited an analogy, and close control of the source showed it failed the test. The word for capital city in Japanese 首都 is a modern calque on the foreign concept of a 'capital city' which was in any case alien to the Japanese. The word itself defined the new reality as Edo was renamed the Eastern-to, as opposed to Kyo-to. What you, from the outset, have systematically elided from your cognitive horizon, like everyone else who has an irrational attitude to source-based editing, is the fact that capital cities all over the world are not normatively sited wholly or in part in foreign countries, states or territories, something which constitutes the whole anomaly, for which none of you have an answer and which generates the POV-driven irrationality of most editors opposing intelligent alterations to the proposition in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Do as I say and not as I do, you know darn well that's an insulting and inaccurate summary of other people's positions. nableezy - 20:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

For someone who seems so aggravated by interacting with me, you sure do a hell of a lot of unrequested, and unproductive, interacting with me. -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed. Maybe if you tell me to piss off again that would work. It would be productive if you, instead of obstinately and arrogantly refusing to say what you think is bad about my proposal, actually responded to the questions and points raised, instead of trying to win the title 2012's Hardest Man on The Internet. nableezy - 20:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Piss off. -- tariqabjotu 20:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, another example of not practicing what you preach. I thought the people who deserved to participate are the ones who aren't going to respond to simple statements by being an ass, like you just did. And again, no. I dont generally accede to requests by wanna be tough guys, sorry. nableezy - 20:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Everyone knows Nableezy has 2012's Hardest Man on The Internet in the bag. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Now arent you just the cutest thing! nableezy - 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Things like this: Corpus separatum (Jerusalem). Revealing the actual intent of the United Nations would achieve more weight in terms of a worldwide view rather than stating alone that a lot of nations don't recognize Jerusalem as a capital. "Y U no recognize Jerusalem as capital?" This is why. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are 5 facts regarding the political status :

• the last legal status for the whole Jerusalem with international recognition is the 'corpus separatum' status but this is in contradiction with the fact that Israel was accepted at the UN member when it controlled West Jerusalem and with the high majority of maps of Israel that can be found.
• the majority view today is that the final status should be decided by peace talks between Israelis and Palestians
• Israel controls and administers both West and East-Jerusalem
• Israel established its capital at Jerusalem (East and West) but nobody recognizes this ; it was even condemned by the internatinal community in UN Resolutions
• Palestine claims East Jerusalem as its capital but do not control the territory ; this claim is supported by numerous nations and the UN (all those who recognized the 1988 Independance Declaration).

I don't think that I forgot any. The only question is to give due:weight to each of this fact. I still think that the fact Jerusalem is one of the oldest city of the world and sacralized in the 3 monotheist religions is much more important than the capital question (wp:due weight).

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Point one, plenty of U.N. members are in violation of one thing or another. The contention that UN membership is relevant legally to legal questions about Jerusalem might be supported. How widely? Point two, no disagreement from me; that is a strong statement from an international view. Point three, I think I was making in a more general notability way rather than being so specific. Point four, interesting - presented as such, it shifts the weight as I had once perceived it; when I brought Pal & EJ up before, I was told they want all of Jerusalem, but a U.N. event-source showed me last night includes a speech by Abbas supporting your statement. Can we establish how widely the claim is supported by nations?

I also agree that Abrahamic POV is more weighty than national views, but less weighty than an overall worldwide view. My draft attempted to cover this in a quick religion-history sentence to establish a general context for the capital controversy. Thoughts? And any criticism of the facts below? I'd be amenable to replacing a statement about corpus separatum with your statement about peace talks if we can support that better with the weight with which you have stated it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not a good summary at all. First of all, Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950. Where does that figure in these "facts regarding political status"? Somehow whoever recognizes Palestine automatically recognizes their claim to East Jerusalem (where does the 1988 deceleration limit this to East Jerusalem, by the way?) but the same doesn't apply to Israel? Interesting. What is the basis for saying "corpus separatum" is a legal status and not just an idea that failed to gain any traction? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I keep this "not a good summary at all" as a 3rd point to keep for the record in case ArbCom : you may consider it is not perfect but certainly not it is not good at all. The only explanation that I can see is a useless agressivity or a WP:POINT with the wish of blocking the discussion.

• Regarding the "corpus separatum", I realized yesterday that the UN resolution that accepted the membership of Israel (see here on the Israeli MFA website explicitely referred to the Resolution 194 of 11 december 1948 that "resolves that, (...), the Jerusalem area, including (...) should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control.
• Regarding the fact that Israel established its capital at West Jerusalem in 1950, that can be added but what does it change exactly ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all states that recognize Palestine recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of that state. Some so, others don't. I'm not aware of any countries that recognize West Jerusalem (or for that matter, any part of Jerusalem) as the capital of Israel although Mitt Romney famously did. --Dailycare (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity they 'recognize' or they 'recognize the rights..' because there is no argument that there are many declarations of recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people(for example the popular UN resolution 69/7), but as far as I seen the actual details are always silverlined with pending final negotiation. Furthermore can you find one state that recognize both and stated that it recognize Jerusalem as palestinian and didn't recognize it as Israeli?(as you seem to imply) --Mor2 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

They didn't just recognized the right of a State but they recognized the State of Palestine.

In Oct 1988, the PLO made a declaration of independance that was recognized by UNGA in November.

Since then more than a hundred states recognized invidually the existence of the State of Palestine, numerous in confirming the choice of East-Jerusalem as capital, some even in specifying the borders of the State.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Recognitions come in slightly different terms, some recognize just a state, some a state and borders, some a state, borders and East Jerusalem as the capital. --Dailycare (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We wasn't speaking about the recognition of state, but about recognition of Jerusalem, try to stay on topic. I asked a simple question. Can you show me a country that recognize both states and recognize the Palestinian rights in Jerusalem over the Israeli?(as you seem to imply by some SYN)

OT: as for the state, the UNGA didn't recognized the state, it "Acknowledged" the declaration, just as it didn't recognized the state in the last resolution 67/9. Please see how to obtain recognition by the United Nations. The rest is no more relevant to case of Jerusalem than UNGA Acknowledgement is.--Mor2 (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would I need to come up with a source like that? I only said that not all countries that recognize Palestine recognize East Jerusalem as its capital, although some do (I provided sources for this above), and that I'm not aware of any country that recognizes West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Fact bullets for Tariqabjotu

In reply to tariq, sourcing aeems to bear out

• Israel's government is located in Jerusalem
• Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital
• "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a minority view
• The international community still sees Jerusalem as an international city.
• The UN has always intended to make Jerusalem a corpus separatum - a separate entity under the administration of its five founding members. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Saying that most nations don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel because the UN wants a corpus separatum now is ridiculous OR.

Making some kind of compromise here just so someone who agrees now will come back later and try to change it is also pretty ridiculous since we already have experience with this sort of behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy. What is ridiculous is that you call it WP:OR. The UN is most nations. PerDaniel (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point about WP:NOR! Amended. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I remember you like to fish google for refs. How does the one you just included jive with UNGA/RES/67/19? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

'Resolving a core issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict namely Jerusalem' does not seem to dispute anything at all. Probably why they phrased it vaguely. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@ClaudeReigns: That is how diplomatic documents usually are written. PerDaniel (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What is OR is that the "facts on the grounds" would have more due:weight than the international claims. What ClaudeReigns say about the corpus separatum is not that "stupid". Some countries, such as the UK, still stick to this position which was the last "legal" one. As soon as there is a protocol on which everbody agrees, it is worth going deeper into details about this. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. An encyclopedia should write about how things should be, not how they are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a personnal attack based on irony. I keep this for the record of the future ArbCom.

This point have already been answered. An encyclopaedia must write about how things are. But the point is that both claims for the status of the capital have their strengths and weaknesses and at the end are equivalent. The occupation and administration of the city and the facts on the grounds are not considered to have values in the way things are because the resort to force in the situation is illegal according to International Law. If you think it is, you have to find WP:RS sources that state the facts of the grounds are to be taken into account but you will not because they are not. And if I am wrong I will be happy to read these. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: The fact is that Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as israels capital: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB. The lead should reflect this, per WP:NPOV. Another fact is that Israel has chosen to ignore this. By stating that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" the current version ignores both of these facts. PerDaniel (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, you just said that facts should not have the same weight as claims, and then you act all offended when I say you prefer claims to facts? For real? At least the irony was acknowledged. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: Are you replying to me or Pluto2012? The placement of your reply makes it look like you are replying to me. PerDaniel (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the 2nd attack that I keep for the record. This is also a WP:POINT in the sense that you block the discussion.

I have already answered this point. The facts in the sense of wikipedia are not the "facts on the ground" in the sense of the Israeli's policy but the "facts in the sources". To give due:weight to the different points of views, we have to see how they are considered in sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am more inclined with:

• Jerusalem is official capital and seat of government of Israel.
• Jerusalem is subject of a geopolitical controversy.[ii]
• Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital.--Mor2 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't really add a majority international view, rather censors the controversy by relegating it to footnotes, basically a WP:POVFORK. I like that you mention the State of Palestine though. A footnote is for awkward and barely related things, obscure names and such. Things we're talking about are core to understanding the geopolitical notability of the topic, and can be phrased smoothly, though some may not like to hear it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I see the footnote as a compromise, in which we can present basic facts and yet present the complicated situation, with its various views. Instead of warring about how can we streamline it into a simple statement, that present all views, keep to NPOV and doesn't change the focus of the article from the city to Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--Mor2 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The spirit of NPOV is to show everyone's point of view in proportion to its predominance. The debate over Jerusalem speaks to how the city is defined. A footnote may be defined as "a relatively subordinate or minor part". Encouraged as I am at your willingness to find a good compromise, I do not believe that this is it - I'd rather we broke the rules in finding a common ground. This suggestion, in attempting to relegate a worldwide view to footnote status, does not improve Wikipedia. I would be open to compromises about phrasing, fact and opinion order, consensual violations of policy, and much much more - even breaking the fourth wall. What else do you have which neither limits points of view nor understates the prevalence of this controversy? ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What we have in the article right now neither limits points of view nor understates the prevalence of this controversy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not only is this assertion disputable, it's disputed. Those are the facts on the ground. While the Israeli flag indeed does fly in Jerusalem, this article lede nonetheless continues to be POV-tagged. "Is disputed" yields zero attribution to whom? To the international community. Why would the nations of the world refuse to place their embassies in Jerusalem? The weight of and reasons for this position deserve clear mention. The antecedent assertion "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," which carries enough weight that it is rightfully placed so foremostly in lede, has an alternative view which just has to be fleshed out in lede. Imagine a party where 200 people attend but only 2 are able to get in more than two words edgewise and you'll see where I'm coming from. The clearest solution: quickly strip off the painful band-aid and get down to the other details of the article. I do have other ideas which have precedents in other encyclopedias, but none of my ideas involve sacrificing a worldwide voice. So if that's your main objection, I am of no help. And that disappoints me, because I would be glad to help facilitate positive goals for improving the article to the satisfaction of everyone. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"not internationally recognized as such" is five words, my mistake. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is an analogy that will probably be lost on those who support the current wording, because it's not really applicable, as far as we're concerned.

Using the same analogy, let's say the hosts have two types of wine at the party, Wine A and Wine B. They've chosen to designate Wine A as the Official Wine of the Party, despite also serving Wine B. Nevertheless, everyone but the hosts like Wine B better and say that should be the Official Wine of the Party. Well, it's not, because it's not the guests' party to hold. It doesn't matter if it's illegal to serve Wine A, as they are clearly serving Wine A and they've designated that the Official Wine of the Party. So, while it might be relevant to mention in post-party gossip that Wine A is illegal and that nearly all guests prefer Wine B, Wine A was the Office Wine of the Party. End of story.

But I'm not admitting that this analogy will work for those who oppose the current wording either. As I said over a month ago, there is some perception that an unrecognized capital means it's not actually the capital. In other words, a city needs to be recognized as the capital city by other countries to be considered as such. This point has failed to be verified by a source, despite many requests for one. Instead, we just get a litany of sources that sidestep the issue, without any acknowledgement that these sources generally mention this issue in a tangential manner and would prefer doing so in a way that offends the least number of readers -- even if it's not precise.

Now I'm sure there are other wordings of the first sentence or paragraph, like some of the ones suggested above, that would please more people than the current wording. But there's a balance between tailoring to editors' complaints and being informative to readers, with a greater emphasis on the latter. An argument could be made from multiple angles (both from someone who believes lack of recognition negates the capital status and from someone who believes it doesn't) that we could better inform readers about the situation and appease more editors' complaints at the same time, but this is not a cut-and-dry worldwide view thing. Honestly, I wish people would at least acknowledge the position of their adversaries, rather than simply assume one's own position is clearly correct and, therefore, your opponents are egregiously violating some central tenet. -- tariqabjotu 05:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I have acknowledged that there are facts and opinions which support the Israeli POV, but until we dispense with minimizing the others, the elephant in the footnotes is still there, whether we are brave enough to have that discussion in namespace or not. What you're saying is an argument could be made (in talk). What I'm saying is that we're having that argument (in talk) because it isn't clearly being made (in namespace). There are other solutions which feature the diversity in thought instead of sweep it under the rug. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To Tariqabjotu : "Honestly, I wish people would at least acknowledge the position of their adversaries, rather than simply assume one's own position is clearly correct and, therefore, your opponents are egregiously violating some central tenet"

What is the position that you would like to see acknowledged ? If it is that Jerusalem is currently controled and administered by Israel and that Israel established its capital there, I think nobody can deny this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In Tariq's example, we'd have to assess what sources say about the wines. The idea that we'd have to assess the reality of the officialness of either wine isn't how I at least understand WP:NPOV. If there are major, reliable sources that describe the issue as a dispute or controversy, then that's what we should do as well. If reliable sources overwhelmingly say the hosts' choice is the real official wine, then that's our line, too. We don't need to, and shouldn't try to, decide which wine is really the official one, that's above our pay grade. WP:NPOV says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" (boldface font in original) --Dailycare (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In that light, we are directed to avoid stating, "Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel," qualifier or no. Seriously. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what's missing from the analogy is any suggestion of controversy. What would be our position is a case where the host says that the official wine is vintage Dom Perignon, but all the guests believe they are drinking Babycham? Formerip (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for lede

I have my own little formulation on the lede. The first paragraph of the lede, especially the first sentence, should focus on what makes the city well-known so its disputed status needs to get mentioned as well as its history. Here is my idea of how this should look.

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm) is one of the oldest cities in the world and is the disputed capital of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, though neither claim is widely recognized internationally. It is considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jerusalem is administered by Israel as its seat of government and is the country'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). The status of Jerusalem is one of the core issues in discussions of a peaceful resolution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Saying it is the disputed capital of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which currently represents the declared state of Palestine, covers both nicely in my opinion as the "disputed" wording does not try to convey legitimacy on either claim and is used in reliable sources to describe the capital.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Devil's Advocate,

Why don't you use Palestine instead of Palestinian Authority ? It is not disputed that there is a State of Palestine that is named Palestine.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone recognizes the Palestinian Authority and it serves as the official government of the proclaimed state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. nableezy - 16:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, they certainly act as the government. Maybe it is not official, but that institution is the one that passed the law claiming Jerusalem as its capital.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The PNA is not the State of Palestine, it does not represent the State of Palestine, and the institution that declared Jerusalem the capital of Palestine in 1988 was the PLO. The PNA is a creation of the Oslo Accords, a provisional organization with some governance authority over portions of the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 18:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In the article we cite the Palestinian Basic Law, which has been passed and amended by the Palestinian Authority. Would you please express your opinion on my suggestion as a whole rather than focusing on what is essential a trivial distinction?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Palestinian Declaration of Independence is what established Jerusalem as the capital of the state, not the Palestinian Basic Law passed by a body that does not represent the state. This isnt a trivial distinction. As far as the rest of the proposal, it may be an improvement over what is currently in the article, but it isnt something that I actually support. The line on it being the largest city doesnt give any reason why EJ would be excluded, and it relegates that to after it already says it is Israel's largest city. And there is way too much about the current relatively short-lived conflict for the first paragraph of an article on a city with thousands of years of history. I already made a proposal on what I think is a good lead, and while this one has merit I wouldnt support it over the rewrite in #The edit in question. nableezy - 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think my suggestion actually has less material about the current conflict then the one you mentioned, but no matter. How about the first sentence of my suggestion specifically?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It aint bad, though I like mine more. nableezy - 21:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be an improvement over the current wording. Kaldari (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you just going to randomly interject with your input with disregard for anything said before or after? I've twice directly asked you a question, and you've never responded.

And, no, this is not at all an improvement on what the current article says. The "disputed capital"? Look, we can drop the phrase is capital for the sake of appeasement, but inserting a weasel word is not the way to resolve it. Describe the controversy (briefly); don't just taint the claim with the word "disputed". Also what does "capital of ... the Palestinian National Authority" mean? Since when did governments have capitals? The areas they govern do. -- tariqabjotu 18:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite the hilarity of Tariq being upset that somebody hasnt answered his question, I find myself in agreement with most of his points. Not the disputed bit being a weasel word meant to taint the claim, but after looking at it a bit more I think the word is redundant given that the next clause of the sentence already says who disputes the claim. But it cant say capital of the Palestinian Authority. Im not really a fan of the proposal either. nableezy - 19:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a distinct difference between you repeatedly asking me a question at every (often irrelevant) opportunity despite me telling you that I'm not going to answer it until the RfC begins, and Kaldari not acknowledging that I've even asked a question. I've at least acknowledged that I read what you wrote; it is entirely possible Kaldari hasn't read what I wrote, given he hasn't responded at all to anybody in both instances (to anyone, in any part of the threads). If he wants to respond with "I don't want to answer your question", I'd accept that (unlike you, who would just badger him to try to make him look bad) -- although I'm not sure why he'd do that, given the question is merely "can you confirm which section of Pluto's comment you're responding to?"

This, of course, is neither here nor there, because the sole purpose of that swipe was to just pick a fight and sustain your baseless characterization of me. -- tariqabjotu 20:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Id say thats more a difference without a distinction than a distinct difference, and I object to the characterization of my characterization of you as baseless. nableezy - 20:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

References