Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jerusalem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note[edit]

Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for all your efforts. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only just noticed this here in all the excitement. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

User:FormerIP, in one of his comments, opposed a draft because it would change a substantial amount of the lead, which would then be binding for three years. If those changes would take place outside the RfC, it would not have the same binding status.

I'm wondering if this is indeed the case, and whether the intro to the RfC should perhaps be reworded to make this clear. The user's comments suggest that there may be a perverse incentive at work here. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think User:FormerIP's comment was intended to suggest an incentive of any kind. I do however think that they made a very important point that everyone else, including me, appears to have missed. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually (though it embarrasses me to note this) I had raised this point earlier here, saying ‘I take Arbcom’s remit literally’ (28 May). I was replying to several worries over drafts that preceded mine which were more ambitious than a narrow reading of the remit might allow.
User:FormerIP took this up three days later in his nay vote on my proposal. Here he only quoted the section of the moderator's presentation at the top of the page which singles out the Jerusalem status issue, and, in my view, overlooked the broad scope of the remit certainly explicitly raised in the moderator’s remarks. So
In reply I noted that his reference to the remit cites only one of two passages, ignoring the the other. The moderator’s introduction has these two indications:

'This is a discussion to decide the content of the lead section of the Jerusalem article.'

'The dispute focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.'

As far as I understand English, these two points are not in conflict, there is a broad, and a narrow remit. The first is to decide what to write in the lead, the second to resolve a specific item in the lead that has proven particularly vexatious. Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, let's not forget the 5th pillar of wikipedia.
I think that the team of contributors who worked on this RfC did a good job in order to move forward on the "issues" of the lead. Many points of views and minds were given. The team may have missed a technical point but the "spirit" of the mission was fully respected. As a proof, important consensus have cristallized around at least 2 proposals.
The 3 contributors that the ArbCom mandated to close this RfC will solve this issue. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, I take my car to the garage and I say: "I'd like you to sort my car out. The horn isn't working, and I'd like you to rectify that". I come back the next day, and I'm presented with a bill for a new horn, a complete service and a re-spray. Am I entitled to be surprised, or would you expect me to simply say: "Ah! I see you've gone for the broad remit"?
But I don't think it's even necessary to analyse the language. Dispute resolution is for resolving disputes, and its focus is always, naturally, intended to be precisely as broad as the dispute. There's never been a dispute on the article talk pages about whether Jerusalem is a "nestled" city, whether or not paganism counts as a type of religion, whether it is a city "divided in time" etc. So, those things simply do not qualify for dispute resolution.
Apart from the principle that it is a bad thing to bind the hands of the community unnecessarily, we're looking here at a potentially unstable outcome. Trying to keep such a large chunk of text nailed down for three years is not going to work. The community will want to modify it. So the question will be where the line is between acceptable and unacceptable modification. How would we handle that? Would we have a special ArbCom process? Formerip (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The community has been requested to make up its mind, over several weeks, after almost a decade of bickering, what to do about the lead. It's had 10 years to arrive at a solution, and has failed. (b) Your analogy is very forced because unnatural. No one with a specific problem goes to a mechanic saying 'I need my car fixed', uh, I mean 'fix the horn'. (c) the proposed draft incorporates the most favoured solution to the specific remit. Note that draft 7 has an opening sentence . . . .and a closing sentence. You're okay with fixing this, but then say leave the meat out of the sandwich, so the 'community' can decide what to stuff parenthetically inside the two. That's an open invitation to edit war because the population/biggest city and its phrasing rephrases the contentions over where it is, in Israel or not. The forseeable outcome of your open-ended solution will be, to employ an analogy, a bespoke jacket draped over a skeleton, and everybody arguing over what kind of flesh and undergarments would be best suited to fill out the frame. Basically, you appear to be reading this as an infringement of editors' liberties. I stress editors' obligations to fulfil their obligations to contribute to the writing of encyclopedic articles, and here, we have been given several weeks, with no one from the community excluded, to do just that with simply one opening paragraph. It is a totally democratic open process, with ample time, to resolve the most contentious issue on the page. As for 'nestle', well, that's no problem: 'located on a plateau in the Judean mountains, it lies on the cusp of two climatic zones, the Mediterranean sea to the east, and the arid desert hinterland westerwards' etc. These solutions are not troublesome, and if, under community purview, they pass muster, it is not denying editors their rights to proceed with the rest of the article, which is what almost everyone neglects.Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FormerIP, my view is that as much a part of the wording used for the capital is how and where it is used. Should it be the first sentence or should Jerusalem be introduced some other way? Should be before its holiness to several religions, or later? Those questions, and more, are as much a part of the purpose of the RFC as what exact wording should be used. And so the drafts that dont introduce the city with the capital status use what they feel should be placed before that issue, and the authors of the drafts do so rightfully in my view. nableezy - 16:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Draft seven, for example, manages this without needing to drag in a a kilobyte of extraneous text, though. Formerip (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Draft 7 as it stands, as I note below, has two sentences joined by punctuation indicating the empty space that editors can work on after this discussion has ended. Technically it leaves a gap to shove in a kilobyte or more of extraneous text. If we approve it as it stands, the lead problems will return in force, and bulk in the parenthetical void.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's think over it experimentally[edit]

I've just popped this into a separate section to avoid disturbing the discussion on the scope. Let's look at the issue concretely.

Draft 7Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam [...] 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.

Draft 7 modifiedJerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is considered holy by the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Both Israel and the State of Palestine claim the city as their capital, the former maintaining its primary governmental institutions there, while the Palestinian National Authority foresees Eastern Jerusalem as its seat of power. Neither claim is widely recognized internationally, and its ultimate status is to be determined by negotations.

The problem with draft 7 is that it leaves almost everything suspended, unresolved. The capital claim is addressed, but editors will be able to edit war in between the two phrases to get everything they like stuffed in, changing the $1 buck burger into a smorgasbord bigMac. The opening sentence and the last line remain invariable, but everything else is up for grabs, as we've seen in the past.

  • it is the biggest city in Israel, if, a big if east Jerusalem is included.
  • it is a corpus separatum etc.
  • It was annexed by Israel in 1981 etc.
  • It was unified by Israel, but in international law divided by a Green line.
  • It combines West Jerusalem, and East Jerusalem, the former mostly Jewish, the latter predominantly Arab, etc.
  • it has a population of 801,000 residents, if you count the Arabs of East Jerusalem
  • It has an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi), if you calculate the area by adding the territories putatively annexed by Israel in 1981 and included into the Israeli version of the Jerusalem municipality.

I could go on. Boy, there's tons of stuff you can battle to get into that lacuna. It's an open invitation to hop in and large out. You think my draft 14 has a kb of extrneous text. But here the gate is sprung open to add a kb of text, as yet undetermined.

My draft 7 modification(not draft 14) responded to the various criticisms and reservations by changing Israelis and Palestinians into institutional actors. I also eliminated the gaping hole in draft one. The problem with my revision of only draft 7, adding nothing else, is simply that it violates WP:Undue because the Ist para will be nothing except a name, religion and then a long sentence regarding its contemporary political status. Draft 7 doesn't do this, but unlike my revision of its key sentences, it does invite everybody to start another battle in the lead para, with everyone tweaking and jostling to get due weight to their respective POVs. I think the larger remit is worded to allow us to strike while the iron is hot, and avoid that prospect.Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coda for Mr. Stradivarius[edit]

Thank you again for creating this. It was very important, and I think we have had fair and reasonable discussion here. You deserve a lot of credit for this. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^^^^ nableezy - 21:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation from me too.     ←   ZScarpia   22:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Arabic but I second Nableezy's remarks. The huge amount of work you put into following this for, what is it, almost a year, pouring over squabbling cavils from all quarters, is to be thoroughly commended. It's way beyond the call of duty. I can say that now that the discussion is closed, and we, editors and moderator, are out of whatever decision will be taken, and a long-overdue compliment your way can not be read, as it would have been by some earlier, as an attempt to brownnose. Full marks. You're a credit to the place.Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone! It was a long road coming here, and I know some parts of this process could have gone better, but thanks to all who participated we are now on the verge of being able to finally put this issue to rest. I've learned a lot from my experiences here, and I'll definitely put that knowledge to use in my next mediation project, whatever and whenever that happens to be. Your appreciation means a lot - thank you again. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my colleagues here above. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above, Mr. Stradivarius' willingness to both volunteer to the task and then to follow through to deliver what amounted to a significant effort are hallmarks of an exemplary Wikipedian. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Possibly not an easy gig to take on. Fingers crossed for an orderly and thought-through close now. Formerip (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add my thanks too. You have shown exemplary patience, tact and fairness throughout this long and difficult process. Neljack (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Jerusalem - a few more links[edit]

Perhaps they'll be useful at some later date.     ←   ZScarpia   14:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (amended - 13:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]


    ←   ZScarpia   18:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Closure[edit]

Thanks to all the closers for all your hard work. May I suggest that "Seas" probably needs to be capitalized grammatically? Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, you're right. --Pgallert (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As long as I'm pushing my luck—and I'll admit this one is not quite as black and white: Grammatically, I would take that last sentence and break it into two sentences at the semicolon. As it stands, that sentence has two independent clauses and two dependent clauses, making it long and difficult. I don't think splitting it changes the meaning at all, but the construction is cleaner. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC feedback[edit]

If anyone is interested, I have now opened step six of the moderated discussion that led to this RfC. This is a chance to give feedback about the moderated discussion and about the RfC itself. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem&oldid=1079452328"