Talk:Jerusalem

WP:NPOV - status of Jerusalem

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

• "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.
• NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.
• Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Partial explanation of editing from a neutral point of view:

• "Avoid stating opinions as facts."
• "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."
• "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."

I'd say that:

• The status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is not universally accepted, which is related to the non-acceptance of Jerusalem as Israeli territory.
• Reliable sources state that that status is not universally accepted and explain why.
• It's probable that the non-acceptance is the majority view.
• Some editors here, in some cases for years, have, contrary to the neutrality rule, been arguing that one point of view, the Israeli one, is a fact rather than a point of view.
• The job of editors is to fairly represent what the reliable sources say, not to argue that one point of view is correct by advancing arguments based on dictionary definitions or carrying out votes on who thinks that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel etc.
• Not only does the first sentence of the Lead breach the neutrality rule, it doesn't even properly summarise the body of the article.
• It has already been explained to the editors breaching the neutrality rule that they are breaching it (in some cases repeatedly over a period of years).
• The editors who have been breaching the neutrality rule will probably go on quite happily breaching it.

Therefore, I think that it is time to start reporting editors to AE for failure to abide by one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   18:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the AE process is capable of dealing with issues like this ? I'm not sure. I've filed a couple of AE cases specifically to test the process without success, in the sense that I didn't learn much from the results. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive114#DionysosElysees was to test whether a violation of a guideline, WP:POINT, presented in the context of the active arbitration remedies statement "After being warned, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process may be blocked up to one year, topic-banned, further revert-restricted, or otherwise restricted from editing." would result in sanctions. The editor was blocked for sockpuppetry before I could find out. The other test was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive87#Uruandimi to address "non-stop soapboxing and refusal to get the point on the talk page." The test did show, in my view, that AE is not well equipped to deal with situations that involve reading a substantial amount of evidence and making the effort to understand it in context. The editor stopped editing, so again, no result. I would have liked to have filed a lot more test cases to address specific issues but it's time consuming. Soapboxing and original research on talk pages in the topic area is an important one for me. I think there should be a very high cost to editors for doing that. At the moment the cost is paid by everyone else having to wade through it/address it. That is just wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking to myself that this page isn't busy enough and what it could use is a hollow threat and some discussion about the failings of AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to consider how to proceed with this issue as the discussion above has been closed with a finding of no consensus. While I don't agree with everything the closing editor said, I accept the finding and I'm grateful he dedicated the time and effort to look at the issue. The options I see now would be to consider this a content issue and pursue mediation, or to consider this an editorial conduct issue and involve ArbCom. --Dailycare (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

[EC] I think that it's clear that the current wording is not neutral and that it results from long-term point-of-view pushing, point-of-view pushing which it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that it is such. What the latter takes is showing how editors have insisted on presenting something that is not an established fact, that is, in Wikipedia terms, an opinion, something reliable sources don't agree on, as a fact. First you establish that there is disagreement about the status of Jerusalem, then you list the reasons that the various point-of-view pushers have given for why the Israeli point of view is the "correct" one. I think that could be achieved simply and clearly. As far as I can see, there are two, complementary, approaches that could be used to get out of the current situation: to have problem editors removed and, if necessary, to ask for adjudication. To simplify things at AE, I would suggest taking problem editors there individually, one at a time, rather than making a request against a group.     ←   ZScarpia   20:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia, in all fairness (and, as you know, I support removing the word "capital" from the lead), you are misrepresenting the argument of the pro-capitalists. They contend that calling Jerusalem the capital is the neutral point of view - that, in the ordinary, everyday use of the word, Jerusalem is the capital. Moreover, they argue that removal of the word capital would be a capitulation to political opponents of Israel, thus rendering the lead non-neutral. So the argument is not between neutral and non-neutral positions but over what is neutral.

While I disagree with the pro-capitalists' position, I respect that they are arguing for what they see as neutrality, in an arena where neutrality is, I believe, a pipe dream. I also believe that with a little flexibility on both sides, the issue could be resolved. However, the rancor that has become injected into the discussion renders that impossible, at least for the time being. So I say, give it a rest. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that many editors are arguing for what they see as neutrality, but that is the problem. Content is being defined by what editors can see rather than by the rules and the sources. We already know that time won't bring flexibility. There's nothing to lose by trying something different. I think the rancor is just a way of avoiding addressing the content issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Three questions: have opinions been stated as facts; have seriously contested assertions been stated as facts; has the relative prominence of opposing views been indicated? If the answer to any of those is No, then the article is not neutral. I think that the answer in each case is No and that the reason is that a number of editors have been pushing the Israeli view for a very long time. Imagine if the article was to state that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel but that Israel disagrees! Point of view pushing happens when editors are so wedded to a particular view that they cannot admit that it is only a view and that is what has happened here. The status of Jerusalem is disputed. It does not matter if some editors feel that their own point of view is a neutral one; if they fail to present their point of view as a point of view, they are point-of-view pushing. The wording of the first sentence has been argued over for years. We came close to a resolution a year or so ago, but it was blocked by someone with more hardline views. I think that some editors have already made it clear that they are not prepared to be flexible.     ←   ZScarpia   12:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll stick my neck out. I've no doubt 'Jerusalem' is the capital of Israel. I've no doubt 'Jerusalem' refers also to East Jerusalem which is not a part of Israel, has never been formally annexed, and is disputed occupied territory. In this sense, that East Jerusalem legally does not form part of the capital of Israel, since you cannot place your capital in land not belonging in international law to the state. The conceptual confusion is elementary. I understand why several editors in good faith find objections to the use of capital suspicious (the anti-Israel/antisemitic perspective used to interpret almost any attitude not consonant with Israel's self image) and counter-factual. I understand why many editors in good faith find the use of capital to denote an area that is belligerently occupied and not a legally constituted part of the state of Israel, dubious, a form of preemptive ideological annexation to tilt world opinion into accepting the status quo as in fact legal. The NPOV crisis lies precisely here, in the refusal to allow that, given the denotative ambiguity of 'Jerusalem' (in Israeli rhetoric 'unified': in international law 'divided') any sentence on the status of Jerusalem must be finessed in order to (a) provide a nuance which copes with this ambiguity or(b) eliminate the word 'capital'. The division is between those who face the problem of denotative ambiguity, and those who refuse to (often on what they regard as commonsense lexical grounds (that ignore the ambiguities).Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the individual views of editors about the status of Jerusalem are irrelevant. What matters is that the status of Jerusalem is disputed and therefore any statements about it should be presented as points of view. However, in relation to the status of Jerusalem, there are undisputed facts, such as that Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in Israeli law or that Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel. I doubt that anyone has a problem with those as statements of fact. Something that is disputed, though, is what the article states, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The view of what we term for convenience the international community is that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Until agreement is reached, Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any country and that no country can unilaterally, as Israel claims to have done, change its status.     ←   ZScarpia   13:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So what people are proposing is not just to alter the introduction of this article to give undue weight to the Palestinian point of view, but a fundamental change to the entire way the article on Jerusalem is handled and indeed potentially dozens, or hundreds of other articles on wikipedia. This is an absolutely massive and fundamental change from many years of wikipedia handling this situation a certain way... yet the small minority of editors on this page demanding change cannot even get a majority to support a alteration to the introduction of this article? Incredible. The introduction IS balanced and i take offence at suggestions those of us who oppose alterations are some how supporting a biased article. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though not internationally recognised as such. That is a balanced statement of fact that is fully in line with wikipedia policies. If such a fundamental change is to take place it will need a major discussion involving editors from different pages and wikiprojects. This single articles talk page would not be appropriate for what some people seek to impose. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered that you might be wrong ? Everyone should do that. Can you prove that you are right, that the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is fully compliant with policy using sources that discuss Jerusalem ? That's the problem I have with the statement, a statement that is certainly consistent with lots of sources. I don't think I would be able to prove that it is an undisputed fact based on a large sample of sources that discuss Jerusalem. So for me at least, there is something fundamentally wrong, and that is enough for me to think that there must be better ways out there. It has nothing to do with the numbers of editors and their views, it's about the sources and policy. I think Nish summed up the problem quite nicely. Actually I think what is required to solve this is probably very little. I think that is clear when you look at ZScarpia's statement above - "in relation to the status of Jerusalem, there are undisputed facts, such as that Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in Israeli law or that Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel." Those are undisputed facts that could be stated in the encyclopedia's voice in full compliance with policy. But people are so tied to stating as a fact that 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' for reasons I don't really understand, no matter what, no matter how disputed it is, no matter that much of this capital of Israel is across the green line, no matter that it's the most contentious city in the world and the most contentious issue in a decades long conflict that has cost thousands of lives. People just need to go back to the sources, and if it can't be done here, it needs to be done somewhere else, in arbitration for example because this issue is clearly not going to go away. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The status of Jerusalem is disputed. The neutrality policy says: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Therefore, to insist that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is point-of-view pushing (as would insisting that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital).

Regarding consensus, a few points to bear in mind:

• "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
• "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."
• "Many of these [consensus-building] discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight."
• "In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole. Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process inappropriately."
• "Tendentious editing: The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."
• The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct noticeboard may be used "to critique a long-term failure of an editor to live up to community standards."

    ←   ZScarpia   21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia Stop please repeatedly threatening editors for voicing their opinion, which you don't like, with different administrative sanctions. This is against Wikipedia rules.--Tritomex (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In what way have I threatened anybody? Where have I complained about editors who were just voicing their opinions? Who have I threatened? Why should anyone who feels they haven't broken any rules feel threatened? Quote the rules that I, personally, have violated?     ←   ZScarpia   23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You have said "Therefore, I think that it is time to start reporting editors to AE for failure to abide by one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia(NPOV)." and you continued latter "Until agreement is reached, Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any country" West Jerusalem is considered by international law to be part of the State of Israel. To declare entire Jerusalem, including West Jerusalem, as outside of any sovereign territory can be seen as POV.--Tritomex (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Therefore, I think that it is time to start reporting editors to AE for failure to abide by one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia(NPOV)." That is a statement of an opinion of mine. What threat does it contain? Note that it doesn't say that unless particular editors do, of stop doing, something, I will do such-and-such.

West Jerusalem is NOT considered by international law (or the international community) to be part of Israel, but nor, unlike East Jerusalem, is it considered to be occupied. It was exactly the same with East Jerusalem and Jordan up until 1967. The BBC rules for reporting on Israel and the Occupied Territory explain the situation.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the state of Israel's capital. Nobody has yet provided evidence of how a country requires international approval for its capital city, or that a capital is only somewhere that foreign countries have their embassies. You are being selective by simply focusing on "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", the introduction clearly states it is the capital of Israel but not internationally recognised as such. That is fact and it is balanced. It is the small number of editors on here that are demanding radical changes to this article and indeed dozens of other articles, who are making a big fuss when they cannot even get majority support for a change to this introduction. How long has this article said that Israel is the capital of Israel in the way you dislike? And why all of a sudden has this become such a problem it must be changed, when there has been numerous debates on this matter in the past? Just because some editors do not like the current wording, is no reason to justify radical changes that remove facts simply to bias the article in favour of palestinian POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a fact is something which is not disputed. The status of Jerusalem is disputed, as stated in sources which have been provided. Therefore, as far as the rules are concerned, whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel should be presented as a point of view. You can say, the Israeli position is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (that is a factual statement about a point of view which nobody will argue with), but you cannot state, as a fact, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Everything you say is either erroneous or irrelevant.     ←   ZScarpia   23:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that a state cannot determine its own capital city? if it views it as its capital, treats it as its capital, and it is declared its capital in law.. how is it not the capital of the state of Israel? It is clearly fact that it is Israels capital, but its not recognised internationally and its future status is disputed.. this is ALL made clear in the introduction already. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That's all totally beside the point. We're not here to adjudicate what the position should be, but, since Jerusalem's status is disputed, to neutrally present (ie. not making claims about the rightness or wrongness of views) the different points of view. Explain to me, though, by what right should a country expect others to accept a city is that country's capital if it chooses a place which is not in that country's sovereign territory? You don't stand a bloody carcass's chance in a piranha pool of producing something neutral if you go on using partisan arguments to argue that a point of view is more than a point of view.     ←   ZScarpia   01:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

""Avoid stating seriously contested assertions " - It is not an assertion.. it is a fact, the state of Israels capital city is Jerusalem. It is also fact that this is not recognised by the international community, so the two points are combined into a very clear first sentence that was a reasonable middle ground. Some would rather that second bit had no place in the opening sentence at all, but it is the moderate centre ground position for the current wording. Some do not respect the fact Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland which is a country of the United Kingdom. So should we go and make lots of changes to those? Belfast is the claimed capital of Northern Ireland, which is claimed to be one of the countries of the United Kingdom, but this is not recognised by everyone with some believing it is a city in one of the 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland? Where will it all end? We should not give Undue Weight to Palestinian POV by in anyway suggesting it is in a similar situation in terms of being Palestines capital compared it being the State of Israels. The key issue is the fact it lacks international recognition, something the introductions first sentence makes very clear. It is not the fact that Palestinians claim it as a capital for their future state. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) As far as "the international community" is concerned, Jerusalem is neither sovereign Israeli territory nor the capital of Israel. Therefore, in Wikipedia terms, it is not a fact, but a point of view, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I'm sure that you could provide sources which say that Northern Ireland should not exist, but please provide ones that say that the geopolitical entity with that name doesn't exist, nor that Belfast is its "capital".     ←   ZScarpia   00:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with BritishWatcher. Jerusalem(West+East) under its legal status from 1948, hase only 300 000 inhabitants today, including only 50 000 Palestinians. It does not include almost all East Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods, do not have the seize mentioned in this article. I do not think that international community(although this wording is abstract) can legally determine the capital of any state, it can refuse to recognize it, therefore the current wording is absolutely neutral--Tritomex (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that's tough, because the international community says differently, which is why we're in the territory of presenting points of view (Israel's point of view is such-and-such; the international community's view is such-another; those in the middle don't have a point of view). As far as the international community is concerned, any unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, including declaring it a capital, are (and were) illegitimate and have no standing.     ←   ZScarpia   00:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's go back to the sources for moment. What are we meant to make of a source like the BBC ? It says "Israel and many of its supporters regard a united Jerusalem - Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967 - as its undivided capital. Most major powers do not, including the US which, like many other countries, has its embassy in Tel Aviv."[1] We can't ignore it and its approach is very different from ours. We have to factor sources like this into our decision making, and there are many of them. BW/Tritomex, what do you propose we do with sources like this given that ignoring them isn't an option ? If sources like this, or sources that explicitly state that Jerusalem is the capital, are ignored in a discussion, we have a serious problem and we need help to solve it. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The other thing I'd like to say is that AE isn't just about smiting editors. It's about fixing things, behavorial issues, so that everyone is forced to comply with policy and guidelines. The original research/synthesis, personal opinions and analyses, arguments from first principals, arguments based on dictionaries, soapboxing, bickering etc etc all has to stop. It's not how we are allowed to make content decisions. AE is meant to be able to help with things like that, enforcing compliance with the rules, although I'll admit that I'm quite skeptical about that. AE could be a positive thing in this dispute to force people to focus on the sources and policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia,Sean.hoyland I have personally nothing against inclusion of third party in any dispute resolution in accordance with Wikipedia rules. ZScarpia What is in your opinion the capital of Israel? or is there some source which states that anyone from outside can determine the capital of another state? Just to repeat we already pointed out that Jerusalem is not recognized by "international community" as the capital of Israel(this is my answer to Sean question), so the only question which remains are:

1) If there is possibility (under international law or international agreements ) that some institution, state or entity from outside could determine legally the capital of another state

2) Did it happen in the case of Israel and what was determined as Israeli capital? Tritomex (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have no view on what the capital of Israel is, not that my own view, or the view of any other editor, on the matter has any relevance to Wikipedia. What I think the sources show is that the capital of Israel is disputed. One viewpoint is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Another viewpoint is that it isn't. Some sources used to state that Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel; I don't know if more recent ones still do.

We're not in the business of arguing the rights or wrongs of the various positions, just trying to neutrally present them, so, unless you can point to a binding decision made somewhere on Wikipedia that, in the matter of capitals, one side's viewpoint gets to predominate, then your question about institutions has little relevance. Even if, say, there was an Institute For Specifying Capitals Under International Law, if Israel still insisted that Jerualem was its capital, we would still probably end up having to write something to the effect that Israel says that Jerusalem is it's capital, but the IFSCUIL has determined that, under international law, it isn't. Note that the various UN resolutions don't state what IS the capital of Israel, they stated that, without agreement from other parties, Israel cannot change the status of Jerusalem, including making it its capital, which is different. If arguments based on your questions were used to contend that, despite the international community's view, Jerusalem is, undisputably, the capital of Israel, that would be, in effect, trying to circumvent the neutrality rules using arguments not based in policy, that is, point-of-view pushing.

A question for you: Do sources dispute whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital?

    ←   ZScarpia   14:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Some more questions:

• Scenario: Some sources say that the duck-billed platypus is a mammal, others that it is a reptile. Question: Would it be neutral to write: The duck-billed platypus is a mammal, though some say it is a reptile?
• Scenario: Some sources say that the egg came first, others that it was the chicken. Question: Would it be neutral to write: The egg came first, though some say the chicken did?
• Scenario: Israel says that Jerusalem is its capital, the international community says it isn't.Question: Would it be neutral to write: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though the international community disputes that?

    ←   ZScarpia   16:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Would it be neutral to write: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though the international community disputes that?" - Yes it would be neutral and balanced.. and that is exactly what the introduction already says. We express the facts... It is Israel's capital de jure and defacto, provide us with evidence that says a country cannot determine its own capital? But at the same time we explain very clearly in the very first sentence that this is not recognised by the international community. That is extremely balanced! Can i suggest that you guys demanding radical changes for this article make clear proposals on what wording you want in the first sentence and also what other changes you want for the article. For example what will be done to the info template if you guys had your way? Would we remove the Israeli city flag and emblem if we are wanting this article to pretend this isnt an israeli city?

Instead of asking pointless, irrelevant and meaningless questions.. how about clearly state your proposals and then we can all scrutinise them. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And your answer to the question: "Do sources dispute whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital?" There are years' worth of proposals in this talkpage and its archives. Read back and see if there's any that you fancy. One proposal was to add a single word, changing the text to read: Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel. Perhaps your claims of radical change are a bit exagerrated? I hope you don't mind me saying so, but it looks to me, from reading your answers, as though you're suffering something akin to a WP:IDNHT condition. My reason for mentioning that is to (gently) remind you that I've already stated that I think it's time to start reporting editors to noticeboards. I'd also like to point out (to nobody in particular) that I'm not about to be drawn into another long-conversation-to-nowhere with editors who wipe their bottoms on the principles which are supposed to govern how things are done around her.     ←   ZScarpia   02:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Instead of making more hollow threats, why don't you go ahead and start "reporting editors"? This is, what, the 3rd time in a week you are talking about unspecified editors you'll report somewhere? You can start with me if you think you have a case. Nobody here has done anything worthy of sanctions, except maybe you with the continual threats against basically anyone who doesn't agree with you. Threats that you can't follow through with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

See the response I made on 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC) above. Now, this is what I think a threat looks like (Remember it? Though I suppose you'd like to call it a warning.). It says that, if I don't do something, then the person issuing the threat will do something unpleasant to me. Here, I haven't said I will do anything; in particular, I haven't tried to coerce anyone into doing anything by saying I will do that thing; lastly, I haven't directed my comments at anyone in particular.     ←   ZScarpia   14:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. Let me know when you "start reporting editors to noticeboards". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

An insult? Am I supposed to care?     ←   ZScarpia   22:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where you see an insult there, except maybe in the sense of when someone calls your bluff and you feel foolish. You're not going to "start reporting editors to noticeboards" because of the discussion here and your attempt to intimidate editors who don't agree with you has failed spectacularly. We're not impressed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It was a question. The question was made because I was trying to figure out whether you were making a misguided attempt to offend me by writing the word "yawn" - misguided because I would only care about the opinion of someone I felt any respect for.     ←   ZScarpia   01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't say that! Your respect means so much to me! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Predictable! But I suppose that predictability has its positive aspects.     ←   ZScarpia   02:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. For example, I predicted you'd come back to edit your post to get it "just right". It's important to you because you don't respect me. And you only did it twice! So good laughs for all involved. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think that intimidation and bluffing are more in your line. I'm not trying to get anyone here to do anything they wouldn't normally do. In fact, the more the problem editors block, filibuster, refuse to compromise and generally make arseholes of themselves, the easier it'll be be to have them kicked out.     ←   ZScarpia   02:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. Don't forget to let me know when you "start reporting editors to noticeboards" "to have them kicked out". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia Concerning your question "Do sources dispute whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital?" many RS do not dispute it, contrary to us, by our at minimum already balanced description of Jerusalem status as " not internationally recognized as such" Examples can be found at National Geography [2], CIA factbook [3] Country Watch [4] Maps of World, even official US documents (State Department documents) [5] academic papers [6] or [7] Some geographical sites states Jerusalem as the capital of Israel with fuss note that foreign embassies are located in Tel Aviv, without even mentioning the dispute regarding international recognition [8]....etc I found sources (mostly political newspapers) which are explaining the lack of international recognition of Jerusalem status as the capital of Israel, as we did, but I did not found RS which categorically states that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel and which claim Tel Aviv or other cities to this position. Also, I would agree with other editors that threatening other editors who do not share your opinion, is serious violation of Wikipedia guidelines, therefore I kindly ask you again to refrain from continuing to do so.--Tritomex (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

So, at least you would agree that sources explain that the status of Jerusalem is disputed?     ←   ZScarpia   14:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The introduction makes clear the status of Jerusalem is disputed.. Nobody is denying that. Above you said maybe i was exaggerating about how radical the changes to this page would be if you guys got your way.. but that seems to be the position you are taking. Do you accept that Jerusalem is a city in Israel? No.. so do we need to remove the Israeli city's flag and emblem from the infobox template or put silly disclaimers? This article would need completely changing, far more than just adding a single word or two to the first sentence. This is why we need to know details of what exactly you are proposing. Are you and all the others happy with the neutrality tag being removed and this debate resolved if we simply add the word is the "declared capital of Israel" instead of just capital? Im prepared to debate that and im not entirely against such a change (as putting declared and linking to the Israeli law could make sense) though i do not think such wording is required. But some of the recent proposals have been totally unacceptable. And yes ive read some of the past debates on this matter. Just because there has been past debates does not mean after a few days of you being unhappy with an outcome you can take this matter somewhere else to complain. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we have more or less everyone here on the record with the arguments that they've advanced. My suggestion is to proceed, one question I have is if we decide to proceed to mediation, can some editors prevent the mediation from going ahead by not consenting, or prevent the mediation from succeeding by claiming to "not support" the mediated edit after the fact? I recall hearing of editors who didn't participate in a mediation opposing the mediated result after the mediation concludes. Is that possible? --Dailycare (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start a new talkpage section for a discussion about mediation?     ←   ZScarpia   22:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should rather decide where we want to go: mediation, AE or ArbCom, and then go there. If we decide mediation, then we can start a new thread on details but we need to decide what we're going to do first. --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, I hadn't appreciated exactly what you were trying to do.     ←   ZScarpia   21:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good compromise to say that "Israel considers (all of) Jerusalem to be its capital, but the international community disagrees"? After all, Israel is the one currently governing all of Jerusalem. Futurist110 (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that (though I'm unsure why the part in brackets is necessary). It contains two factual statements, both of which are undisputed by sources (assuming that the term "international community" is accepted as shorthand for resolutions made by the UNGA and UNSC), which is the problem I have with the current wording. The other issue to think about, given that the sentence is in the Lead, is whether they summarise the contents of the article well (which I don't as yet have an opinion about).     ←   ZScarpia   19:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose "considers" if we are talking about the first sentence. Id maybe not oppose "is the declared capital of Israel" linking to Israeli law.. But saying considers is totally not appropriate for the introduction. Otherwise every article on a capital city would start.. State considers it its capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as no other country's capital is disputed, your last sentence is untrue.     ←   ZScarpia   00:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus disputes that Nicosia is the capital of Northern Cyprus, so it's your statement which is untrue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right? In Cyprus, it's not recognition of the status of a city which is in dispute, but a whole "state". Only Turkey recognises the breakaway Republic of Northern Cyprus. The Lead of the Nicosia article says: "The northern part of the city functions as the capital of the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ... ." Since you made the comparison, perhaps you'd accept comparable wording for the Jerusalem article: "Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel." That looks factual to me.     ←   ZScarpia   02:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Recognition of the capital is part of a wider dispute. Not unlike the situation we're talking about here.

Not that wikipedia is a reliable source for anything, but I'd be happy to consider your suggestion, if you'd explain to me what the difference between "functions as the capital" and "is the capital" is. Without resorting to OR, naturally. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My question was ironic. It was pointing out that, in the article on the comparison you chose, the "IS the capital" wording, which is in dispute here, is not used. Do you really need the difference explained? After all, it has been explained on this talkpage many times before. In Wikipedia you can only state things as facts if they are not disputed in sources. That Jerusalem "is the capital" of Israel IS disputed. As is well established, there is a raft of UN resolutions which reject Israel's moves to change the status of Jerusalem. They state that Israel's laws on the matter are null and void. Therefore, the more neutral sources are careful to explain that, though Israel's position is that Jerusalem is its capital, the international community rejects that. As has been pointed out, the BBC issued an apology and made a correction when one of its sports reporters wrote an article in which it was stated that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Whereas it is disputed that Jerusalem IS Israel's capital, it is not disputed (as far as I know) that Jerusalem functions as/serves as/is de facto Israel's capital. If that is not disputed, then it is permissible to state that as a fact, rather than a point of view, in Wikipedia. However, I was not suggesting a form of wording, just pointing out a flaw in your argument.     ←   ZScarpia   10:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As you pointed out in your response, it contains two "factual statements", the first being Israel considers it its capital, the second the international community disputes this. I agree it wouldnt need the second statement, but it is a statement of fact if the UK considers London its capital city. Perhaps it would start the United Kingdom and the international community consider London the capital of the UK? Still waiting for any evidence that says a country cannot determine its own capital. Also if we did put "considers" in the first sentence, do we go and add that word everywhere.. Israel considers this the flag of the city of Jerusalem, Israel considers this the emblem of the city. Israel considers this person to be the mayor of the city, Israel considers this to be the city government.. I bet if i looked i could find dozens of locations in the article where wed have to put "considered" if we go down this path that Jerusalem is not a city in Israel and its not its capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for these fine gentlemen to decide if they want to go to mediation or Arbcom or AE or whatever and not waste time on suggestions that have been rejected in the past. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Before you withdraw into silence, would you answer the same question I addressed to BritishWatcher: "Do sources dispute whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital?"     ←   ZScarpia   10:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources say that Israel declares the city its capital, and that the international community do not recognise this. Just because the international community do not recognise something does not imply it is not a fact. Several people have asked on a number of occasions, where is the evidence that suggests a country cannot decide its own capital city? No definition i have yet to see has stated that it is decided by the international communities recognition of a city, rather than the state itself. The introduction clearly states the status of Jerusalem is disputed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Very few sources dispute that Jerusalem is the capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. Are you including those which present the view that Jerusaslem is the capital as the Israeli point of view or only those which say, definitely, that Jerusalem is not the capital?     ←   ZScarpia   21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However, there are also sources which say that is only the Israeli view and that the international community do not accept Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. And the rules say that points of view, which is what we have here, have to be presented as points of view.     ←   ZScarpia   22:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, there are sources say that the international community does not recognize it. Your interpretation of what that non-recognition means is OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand in the UN, most of the world's countries have said that Israel's attempts to make Jerusalem its capital are "null and void". The plain reading of "recognize" is clear on its own, for example when the international community didn't recognize Iraq's annexation of Kuwait, it meant that it didn't consider Kuwait to be a part of Iraq. Similarly, as France for the time being doesn't recognize the State of Palestine, it means France doesn't consider that state to yet exist. I don't see any reasons why non-recognition would have a different content in this case. (The Security Council said of Iraq's annexation that "(...) annexation of Kuwait by Iraq (...) has no legal validity, and is considered null and void; 2. Calls upon all States (...) not to recognize that annexation". Sound familiar?) --Dailycare (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What sounds familiar is you presenting your opinion rather than a reliable source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• What exactly do you want citations for? Hopefully, after all the discussion that's preceded this, you're not asking for one for the first sentence. Have a look at: UN Resolution 476 of June 1980 (uses the "null and void" phrasing), Resolution 478 of August 1980 (uses the "null and void" phrasing), Resolution 252 of May 1968 (declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “invalid” and called upon Israel “to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”), Resolution 267 of July 1969 (noted that Israel had since “taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”; it reaffirmed “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible” and deplored Israel’s further violations of U.N. resolutions, censured “in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, and confirmed “that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status” and urgently called on Israel to rescind the measures taken to annex Jerusalem), Resolution 298 of September 1971 (deplored Israel’s continued violation of U.N. resolutions, and confirmed that Israel’s attempts to annex Jerusalem “are totally invalid”, Resolution 452 of July 1979 (again deplored Israel’s continued violation of Security Council resolutions and again emphasized that Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”; it again also noted that Jerusalem is included in “the occupied Arab territories”).
• From the Recognition section of the Online Britannica article on International Law: Recognition is a process whereby certain facts are accepted [my emphasis] and endowed with a certain legal status, such as statehood, sovereignty over newly acquired territory, or the international effects of the grant of nationality.
• Question: Does the non-recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital mean that , as far as the international community is concerned, Jerusalem is not Israel's capital?
• Earlier, I wrote that "the international community do not accept Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." You insisted that "the international community does not recognize it," calling my wording original research. Note that the Online Britannica description of diplomatic recognition defines it as "a process whereby certain facts are accepted and endowed with a certain legal status." That is, recognition is defined in terms of acceptance, the word I used. Rephrasing sourced facts is a normal process in Wikipedia (necessitated by the need to avoid copyright violations); it is not, as you claimed, original research. I've told you before that your interpretation of what constitutes original research is incorrect.
• Question: Is the use of dictionary definitions in order to justify claiming that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel original research?

    ←   ZScarpia   01:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Question - Are you the only one allowed to ask questions, and if people answer your questions, will you consider answering ours? You ask about the international community.. They do not officially recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The issue is, does their lack of recognition stop Jerusalem being the capital of Israel? You have provided NO evidence that shows a capital is only what the international community endorses. It is notable that the international community does not recognise Jerusalem as Israels capital, which is why it is clearly stated. Now here is my question.. You do not believe this article should say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That being the case... Do you propose we remove the city flag and emblem and mayor of the city from the infobox? If we want to pretend that this is not an Israeli city then all these things have to go too. If we can take the position (seen as it is the reality on the ground) that this is a city in Israel despite a international dispute.. then why is it such a big jump to stating it as the capital? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Question: Iran does not recognize the State of Israel. Does that mean that Israel is not a state? How do you suggest we change the lead of the Israel article to accommodate this fact? We can't just say it's a state if someone doesn't recognize it, right? How about Taiwan? Is that a state?
• Question: do you have anything other than OR and SYNTH to offer? Because that's what your long post above amounts to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer your first question, NMMNG, yes, that is correct. Are you not aware that if the whole world were to ignore someone, he actually disappears? I know a guy that happened to. -- tariqabjotu 03:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the use of dictionary definitions in order to justify claiming that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel original research?

I'd really like to see a definitive answer to this, because the concept of the use of a dictionary constituting original research is new to me. -- tariqabjotu 02:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, see this comment from the earlier discussion. Using a dictionary to circumvent the fact that sources actially dealing with the subject present the issue as a substantive dispute isn't correct. See also this comment on happy Amsterdam. Concerning the Iranian recognition question, the answer is that as far as Iran is concerned, Israel isn't a state. Now that doesn't mean that Iran is necessarily correct in this, and in fact most countries do recognize Israel. Note, that no-one is proposing to edit the article to say Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital, so the question misses the point. The proposed edits are e.g. that Jerusalem is the capital according to Israli law, or that Jerusalem functions as Israel's seat of government. --Dailycare (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but you are. The proposed edits are tantamount to saying it is not simply the capital. That's equivocation and dilution. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your first edit hinges on the fact that (a) one accepts that dictionary definition [there are no doubt many definitions that rule out the conclusion you make] and (b) one accepts your interpretation, which -- to be honest -- I don't. For your second edit, I'm sure I'm not saying anything new when I say that that comparison to the Netherlands is not apt because Israel has declared its capital as the same city in which its governmental institutions are located.

As I said in my response to Ravpapa below, it is not incredibly unreasonable to believe that recognition is a pre-requisite for a city being a capital. (I'm not one of those people, of course.) My point is that you're making yourself look silly by hinging your position on the idea that looking at a dictionary is OR. Surely you can do better than that. -- tariqabjotu 23:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Amsterdam article specifically notes that it's the capital despite not being the seat of government. If the two weren't normally connected such clarification wouldn't be necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, we have highly reliable sources that clearly state Jerusalem isn't "simply" the capital. In fact, I just discussed them with you in the above discussion. Tariqabjotu, those considerations apply equally to using a dictionary to arrive at the conclusion Jerusalem is the capital. NMMNG, the situation with Jerusalem is even more unusual than with Amsterdam and the other capitals that aren't seats-of-government. For example, there is no disagreement as to which country, if any, Amsterdam can be found in. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

@BritishWatcher (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC):

The issue is, does their lack of recognition stop Jerusalem being the capital of Israel? From the point of view of the international community, yes it does. Israel's unilateral moves to change the status of Jerusalem are seen as illegal. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the real issue is whether the status of Jerusalem is disputed by reliable sources, which it is. Here, if some thing is disputed, it cannot be presented as a fact, but only as an opinion (that is, a fact about an opinion). As the status of Jerusalem is disputed, it cannot be stated that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel. Nor can it be stated that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. What can be stated is that, from Israel's point of view, Jerusalem is its capital. Also, you can state as facts things that are not disputed, such as that Israel declared that Jerusalem is its capital or that, under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Personally, I have no problem with the flag and emblem being in the infobox. You say that it is a pretence that Jerusalem is not an Israeli city. Of course, here, it is not editors' views of what the facts are that count, but the views expressed in reliable sources. Again, the sovereignty of Jerusalem is disputed and so we are, once more, in the realm of presenting facts about points of view rather than pure facts.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC):

Apparently, a number of countries do not recognise Israel as a state. As indicated repeatedly, if reliable sources dispute some thing, which I assume is the case here, that thing should not be stated, unqualified, as a fact in Wikipedia. However, with regard to Israel's statehood, there are undisputed facts that could be presented, such as that Israel is a member state of the United Nations and, that being so, under international law it is a state.

Do you have anything other than OR and SYNTH to offer? Present specific examples (and, just to make sure you understand, WP:SYNTH is a specific type of WP:OR, making what you wrote a tautology). Otherwise, as I've also told you before, stop wasting everybody's time by making accusations you can't substantiate.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@tariqabjotu 03:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC):

I'm sure that Nessie, the Yeti, Robin Hood, the biblical Kind David, King Arthur and King Lear would be upset to find that their existence is presented in Wikipedia as something other than a fact.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how this has anything to do with what I said. -- tariqabjotu 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My comment was intended as a reminder of the nature of facts on Wikipedia. If you can't see the connection to No More Mr Nice Guy's comment and your reply to it, not to worry, it wasn't that important.     ←   ZScarpia   08:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@tariqabjotu 02:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC):

In Wikipedia, editors are supposed to be neutrally presenting what sources say, not determining which of a number of disputing sources is correct.

Part definition of the term Original Research: original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." One source, a dictionary, contains a definition of the term capital city. Another source says something about Jerusalem which matches the definition given in that dictionary. Using a synthesis of the two sources, editors argue that, despite the majority view to the contrary, it is a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. As synthesis is a form of original research, by definiton, orignal research has been used.

There are difficulties attached to using dictionaries as sources. Dictionaries attempt to describe how words are used, they do not prescribe how they should be used. Many words don't have precise meanings, which means that different dictionaries define them in different ways and that the definitions given may not fully cover all the different meanings given to the words. The word capital, as applied to cities, is one such word. Conveniently, editors found a dictionary definition which matched an undisputed fact about Jerusalem, that it's Israel's seat of government. However, other dictionaries contain less convenient definitions. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the meaning of the term as "the head town of a country, province or state." From the international viewpoint, of course, because Jerusalem isn't seen as being part of Israel's territory, it's dubious that definition would be seen as applying. But then, fortunately, since, as Wikipedia editors, we're not in the business of determining what the facts are, only of presenting what sources say the facts are, none of that matters to us.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That OED definition seems perfectly in line with calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel. And I'm not going to repeat my opinion about the absurdity of these Original Research claims.

And, again, as has been said a million times over the years, there are tons of sources that say that few or no countries recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. No one denies that. But there are few or no sources that say these countries don't actually believe it's the capital. I honestly can't understand why this is so difficult to understand. Saying you're not recognizing something is the not the equivalent of saying it doesn't exist. If a country, for example, were to say they don't recognize the State of Israel, it doesn't mean they don't believe a State of Israel exists; obviously, it does, they just refuse to give it any credence. Unless the body doing the recognition is the definer of a concept, that recognition does not make the claim invalid. So, what the article says is what the sources support -- that most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, but it is.

Another thing I don't understand is why a wording nearly identical to what's currently in the first sentence of Jerusalem gained support as a compromise in the Israel article in February 2010 (and essentially has not been challenged since), while this is still a problem here.

But, please, let's not continue this too much here. It's not going to be resolved in the next couple days. Let's see what comes out of the mediation. -- tariqabjotu 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Overlooking for the moment that, here, facts should be properly sourced, not inferred by editors from dictionary definitions, the point made with the OED definition is that, using it, conclusions drawn about the status of Jerusalem will depend on opinions held about whether Jerusalem is Israeli or not.

There are different types of non-recognition. With what we could call implicit non-recognition, no statement is made about whether something is accepted or not. With what we could call explicit non-recognition, definite statements are made that something is not accepted. As far as the status of Jerusalem goes, the international community has stated that unilateral moves by Israel, including declaring that city its capital, are illegal, null and void. That is, the international community has made an explicit declaration that, as far as it is concerned, the Israeli moves have had no effect on the status of Jerusalem and that its true status is as was declared in previous resolutions, that is, an international city. To that effect, we have, as primary sources, the UN documentation itself and, as secondary sources, ones detailing and explaining the UN resolutions. In addition, we have secondary and tertiary sources which attempt to describe the status of Jerusalem neutrally in terms of points of view, with the position that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel as an Israeli view which is not recognised (accepted) by the international community. Northern Cyprus, which was brought up earlier, is an example of explicit non-recognition and you'll see that in the article on that place it is, reflecting that non-recognition, described as a "self-declared" state. You wrote, "But there are few or no sources that say these countries don't actually believe it's the capital." That's wishful thinking. The sources described show clearly that the international community rejects Israel's claims, both that Jerusalem is Israeli and that is is Israel's capital. Insisting in the article that it is a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, based on extrapolations made from one dictionary definition, violate Wikipedia's fundamental neutrality policy.

I wasn't involved in the discussion at the article on Israel and find it a bit startling that the current wording is being called resulted from a compromise.

It would be nice to believe that mediation would lead to a common position being reached, but I suspect that what would happen is a re-hashing of the arguments that have been put forward for nine years, then a failure to reach a decisive result. I'd prefer to go to some kind of arbitration, where neutral editors examine the arguments and rule on their merits.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)(redacted -- 10:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

You know I disagree with nearly everything you said, but, as I said, I see no point in explaining why at this stage. Your dismissive approach is very off-putting though. There is no "wishful thinking". What I think many of the people who support changing the wording fail to understand is that it's not like we don't know that the sources you reference exist (UN documents, the "null and void" declaration, etc.); we just disagree on their interpretations and implications to the reality of whether Jerusalem is actually Israel's capital. Perhaps a mediator will assist with toning down arguments that boil down to "can't you see these sources?!?!" and get to the root of the issue -- interpreting what these sources mean. And, yes, I know you're going to call original research, but if several well-meaning people can come to different conclusions about what a source means, obviously some interpretation is necessary (and, frankly, is a part of any writing that isn't just direct quoting).

And, yes, that was a compromise. Many editors, including Dailycare, who were staunchly in favor of removing the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel agreed with the wording in the article. Perhaps it may appear shocking that this was a compromise because there was the issue of how much weight to give to the Jerusalem capital issue in an article about the entire country; here that's less of a problem as it's the Jerusalem article and its status is capital is much more relevant.

Unfortunately, the Arbitration Committee does not do content disputes, and there is no forum for binding content dispute resolutions. So, unless you believe there are user conduct issues here -- which would be a highly controversial and inflammatory assertion -- mediation is all we've got. I'm not optimistic that will resolve this dispute, but you never know; maybe the mediator will have a different approach to solving this. -- tariqabjotu 21:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your 'reality' is only a point of view ... and a minority one (in the world at large) at that. 'Truth' isn't a justification for violating the neutrality policy.

Arbitration on content issues, at least informally, does happen. The outcome would be no less binding than that from mediation. For me personally, it would carry more weight and therefore be more final. I did write about 'some kind of arbitration', not the Arbitration Committee specifically.

I didn't question that a compromise had taken place. It's just that I would have hated to have seen what the original wording, or the suggestions of more extreme contributors, were. I'd meant to state that I found it startling that the wording was a compromise, not question that it was a compromise.

I do believe that there are user conduct issues here.

Thank-you for your comments on my approach.

    ←   ZScarpia   09:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC) (redacted -- 10:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

I can already tell that this mediation is going to be my least favorite experience ever on Wikipedia, and I regret returning to this page. I hardly said anything furthering the debate in my previous comment, but you found something out of which you could manufacture an issue. If you reread the sentence with the word "reality", you'll realize it also includes -- just two words later, if you can get there -- the word "whether". That was a general statement about perception of reality, with the word "whether" indicating that there were multiple options (namely, it is or is not the capital). Obviously, because you're not new here, you know my position, but how you saw that as an indictment of your position and call for you to tell me once again in your conceited tone how right you are is unclear. But because you seem intent on getting the last word in, no matter how little it contributes to resolving this issue (how many times have I said that now?), I'll let you invent one more excuse to repeat your position and repeat said position in a comment to which you will receive no response from me. -- tariqabjotu 11:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, congratulations for pointing out a fundamental flaw in the anti-capital argument. It is a flaw that illustrates the level of prevarication and subterfuge of both sides of this argument.

It is absurd to say that using a dictionary definition to justify a lead is original research. It isn't (unless the editor is also the author of the dictionary). On the other hand, it is certainly a very flimsy justification. Dictionaries are not references that give in-depth analyses of all the linguistic, political, and legal ramifications of a word. The laconic dictionary definition of "capital" - "seat of government" - doesn't come near to defining all the constituents that make up a capital.

The anti-capitalists certainly know this. The trouble is that there is no clear policy against flimsiness, only against OR. So they have, completely artificially, attached the OR standard to the dictionary argument. For most of those arguing on this page (I hesitate to say all), this appeal to an irrelevant standard is simply a way of promoting their own political agendas.

The pro-capitalists are no better. They are perfectly aware that the dictionary definition does not capture the complexity of the term capital. Otherwise, why are they so adamantly against using what the dictionary considers synonymous - "seat of government"? The reason is clear: they believe that if they say "capital" loud enough and long enough, it will somehow become true.

No, it is clear that both sides are using specious arguments of policy to grind their own political axes. The complete lack of dedication to the principles of neutrality, as Wikipedia dreams of it, is glaring throughout this discussion.

If the sides could, for a moment, put aside their political zeal for a moment, the issue, I believe, could be easily resolved. But it seems that is asking too much of mere mortals. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to request that you not repeat the characterizations and suggestions you made in your last two paragraphs. There are no doubt, I'm sure, people who hold their respective positions because of political zeal, but there are no doubt people who hold their positions because, after reading the opinions presented by those who disagree with them, still believe they're correct.

Your own description of the two sides seems to more clearly get at the problem here. There is nothing in the dictionary (or in the general definition of a capital) that makes recognition a prerequisite for a city being a capital, but there's also nothing in the dictionary saying it isn't. Likewise, there is nothing in the dictionary (or in the general definition of a country) that makes recognition a prequisite for a region being a country, but there's also nothing in the dictionary saying it isn't. Yet, in the latter case, I'm sure most here would agree that without recognition, a country is nothing, and really is not a country at all. Does the same apply to capitals? Well, we have limited situations in which this is even a question, and unfortunately the primary situation is this one, coming in the context of a bitter, and ultimately stupid, conflict. I personally think the same standard does not apply to capitals, as there is something physical (e.g. government institutions, place of residence of the head of state) to denote the capital. But if one operates under the belief that a state (and we all agree Israel is one, right?) can be without a capital, then maybe one can believe that recognition is a pre-requisite for capital status. Okay. I don't believe that, but go ahead. -- tariqabjotu 12:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa, I'd prefer not to be characterised as an anti-capitalist. My view is not that it should be stated that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, but that it should be presented as a point of view that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. You can call me an anti-pro-capitalist, though.

The view of the international community is that Israel's unilateral acts, such as declaring Jerusalem its capital, were illegal, null and void. To circumvent the neutrality rules, which require, when something is disputed, that it is presented in terms of points of view, a dictionary definition has been used as the basis for stating that the Israeli view is factual and that Jerusalem is its capital. Now, the dictionary definition doesn't mention Jerusalem, so, to produce the conclusion reached, something akin to "analysis or synthesis", part of the definition of what original research is, must have been used. If you don't want to call it original research, what would you call it? Dictionaries have their legitimate uses in Wikipedia, but using them to establish facts, other than facts about the definitions and usages of words, isn't one of them.

    ←   ZScarpia   08:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A general question: is there any precedent for (which would justify) deleting the disputed sentence from the Lead, leaving the (undisputed) description given in the body of the article to explain the status of Jerusalem, until a more generally accepted form of wording is agreed on?     ←   ZScarpia   12:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[edited: 22:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)]

The sentence is the result of a specific consensus. You need consensus to change the STATUSQUO as your friend Dailycare informed me repeatedly in the past. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus for removing that sentence so attempts to remove that sentence will be reverted. Especially if the sentence is removed then we are bogged down with months of mediation over something that has been in the article for many years. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, you're an involved editor, are you willing to participate in mediation? --Dailycare (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

When you decide if you want to go to mediation or not I'll decide if I want to participate or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What's with this brinksmanship? Mediation is not an indictment against editors. There are no sanctions that can come out of mediation. The proceedings of the mediation are privileged, and so they can't be used against you in the future. So why is this a big deal? Why are people insisting that there be some agreement that mediation goes forward? Why are people using "mediation" as some sort of threat and treating it as one? I don't think this issue has ever been to mediation before, so putting it to ArbCom -- which generally doesn't deal with content disputes -- will be seen as premature, while lesser forms of dispute resolution have us spinning in circles. So clearly MedCom is the answer. Do you need help creating the mediation request? If not, just do it already. -- tariqabjotu 12:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well i would be ok with some form of mediation but i am unsure if it will resolve anything. This has been debated extensively in the past couple of months, attempts to change a consensus that has existed for a very long time. And radical and totally unacceptable proposals that would totally change this article were rejected. A vote took place above some weeks ago showing majority support for the status quo. A small number of editors are demanding change after years of this article addressing the issue a certain way, trouble is they refuse to even put a specific proposal for us to debate. They insist on having in line tagging of a disputed sentence and a disputed introduction template which tarnishes the entire introduction just based on the first sentence which is already tagged anyway. I propose the editors above arguing for change, create a new section with a very specific proposal that we can all specifically discuss and debate. All the mediation is going to do is try to bring us together to discuss the situation, frankly we could do that without wasting other peoples time too.. if those demanding change actually said exactly what they want. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I can only put it in negative terms: Isn't it fairly obvious that what they want is some way, any way, not to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Or, at the very least, to qualify or dilute the direct statement more than it currently is by its juxtaposition of the "not internationally recognized" phrase. To this end they bring in one extraneous argument after another, and try to redefine the meanings of words. That indulges in OR and POV advocacy; referencing the dictionary meaning does not. The torrent of words here, year after year, does not change the simple reality. I think we would be better served by a reminder of the duck test criteria, rather than by recourse to arbitration or mediation, and wouldn't be wasting other people's time (not to mention the time of people here). Hertz1888 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep talking about dictionary meanings as though that were the only thing that mattered. How about the definition of occupied territory? How is that less relevant to Jerusalem's status than the proclamation, rejected by every other competent party, by one state? nableezy - 17:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good examples of extraneous red herrings. As far as I can tell, the definition of a capital (i.e., what makes a capital a capital) does not depend on either criterion (occupied/non-occupied status, universal approval). I didn't know that editors were allowed to change the meanings of words as they please. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that isnt extraneous and isnt a red herring. You, and a number of other editors who are adamant about the word capital being used on the basis of the definition of the word, have quite the history of ignoring other words that have plain meanings. You support what you like, and oppose what you dont. It has exactly squat to do with what the dictionary says. You ignore things that dont toe the Israeli party line, and support to the hilt what does. Thats fine, lots of people are like that. But at least drop the act here that this isnt what it so clearly is. nableezy - 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Editors accepting sources that present the information in a certain way, as a statement of fact, and ignoring sources that do not present this information as a statement of fact is wrong. It's wrong because it is inconsistent with our content rules. When editors stop doing that, we might be able to address this issue properly. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. So if, for example, I were to provide sources that do not present as fact that the State of Palestine is a state, or that actually say it is not a fact, you'd support changing the lead of that article? Do let me know, maybe we'll do a test case over there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with saying Palestine is a "declared" state in that lead, as it isn't even nearly universally recognized. Concerning mediation, I certainly didn't earlier intend to issue any threats by suggesting mediation as a possible way forward and it's a bit tragic if editors got that impression. However, speaking for my behalf I have very limited experience from mediation, I recall that the first hurdle is to get all involved editors to agree to it which is why I asked. --Dailycare (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Surprise me and put a POV tag on that article like you did here. Don't forget to insist it stay up until the issue is solved to your satisfaction. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Both these cases must be analysed at the light of WP:DUE WEIGHT.

Not what people think is the truth.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Due weight is important yes, and the current introduction has the right approach. The proposed changes some are demanding would give undue weight to palestinian POV and bias this article. Jerusalem is israel's capital, but the international community does not recognise this. That is stated extremely clearly in the first sentence of the article. For us to pretend that the reality on the ground is not the case, there must be clear evidence that a "capital" is only a "capital" when it has international recognition. No such evidence has been produced. It would be undue weight to treat a palestinian claim to the city as their future capital, in exactly the same way as we treat the fact this is Israel's capital. Quite clearly at present it serves as the capital of the state of Israel, de jure and de facto. No sovereign state of Palestine in control of the territory exists. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I finally got around to filing the request for mediation. There are a number of parties, if I missed someone s/he can be added. --Dailycare (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the statement "capital of Israel" results in many others taking offense, why not include the phrase "self-declared" in front of it? Just like the article on Somaliland. Otherwise, it really depends on a point of view, as Jerusalem is the de facto (it is the seat of the Israeli government) and (by Israeli law) de jure capital of Israel. Assassin3577 (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wordings such as that Jerusalem is the de facto capital, the capital under Israeli law or the declared capital have all been suggested previously, and rejected by those who insist on using the current, unconditional, version.     ←   ZScarpia   18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to try and avoid people taking offence. Its not our job to shield people from realities in the world they get angry about. Jerusalem is Israel's capital, dejure and de facto. Nobody has provided any evidence that says a capital is determined by international recognition of it being a capital, and that a country cannot determine its own capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the summary of relevant Wikipedia rules at the head of this article. We're not here to establish whether Jerusalem is or is not, objectively, the capital of Jerusalem. We're not interested in the reality on the ground, but on what sources say. Any assertion which is disputed by sources cannot be presented as a fact on Wikipedia. Editors insisting that the article states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel have admitted that the statement is disputed, yet they seem to think that it is permissible to then go on to argue that the Israeli view is factual and that any other should be discounted.     ←   ZScarpia   18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I rather think that there's a lot of unnecessary wrangling over a simple statement as whether it is Israel's capital or not. To quote the article on Tskhinvali, South Ossetia is "a disputed region which has been recognised as an independent Republic by Russia and another four UN members, and is regarded by Georgia and all other UN member states de jure as a region within Georgian sovereign territory". This format would arguably be acceptable for Jerusalem, sans the part about international recognition. Anyway, in my opinion, de facto control of an area constitutes the best argument for the wordings on Wikipedia regarding the status on Jerusalem - namely "self-declared". Assassin3577 (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, the article Israel should state the capital as something else, or it should be with POV. Within Wikipedia, there are two different/wrong information.

What is the capital of Israel as per Jerusalem & Israel? It seems to me unreasonableness and no logic. As neural view, in the second line, we can mention that Palestinian authority consider Jerusalem as their future capital. --Anton017 (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

By Israeli law, Jerusalem is their capital. But most, if not all foreign nations are inclined to recognize Tel Aviv as Israel's capital. However, all of Israel's national and state institutions are located in Jerusalem.Assassin3577 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely one suggestion on the table for resolving this issue, namely saying that Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law. In fact, I'm not aware of real policy-based reasons for not doing the edit, so the proposal seems to have consensus by default, but the case is now going to mediation and we'll see how things turn out there. --Dailycare (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare, I don't know how or why you believe you've gone into the mediation in good faith when you hold statements such as "the proposal seems to have consensus by default". There's no consensus among editors here for that or almost anything else. -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering he originally agreed to this wording in order to remove something else he didn't like and is now challenging it, the assumption of good faith is long gone. Not to mention Dailycare repeatedly argued that no consensus for a change means the STATUSQUO stays in place when something he liked was challenged. See for example here or [9] (there are several more such examples in that discussion) and now he's invented some sort of "consensus by default". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, if my comment on consensus is unclear to you, you can simply ask for clarification. There is no need to speculate on lack of good faith, in fact there is a need to abstain from such speculation (NMMNG, this point applies to you too). In this case the point comes across from a plain reading of WP:CONSENSUS as repeatedly discussed above (1, 2, 3). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't be serious. I don't need to ask for clarification of a plainly bad-faith point. I doubt any outsider could read this discussion and say there's consensus for that or anything else. The conclusion you made in the preceding comment can only be made if one assumes that everything you've said in these discussions is correct, a position which, obviously, not everyone holds. The fact that the evidence of your good faith is just three other comments made by you speaks volumes. It's almost impossible to believe that you actually think it's OK to defend the veracity of a remark with three other remarks made by you. Please tell me you're not considering practicing law. -- tariqabjotu 20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, you really need to read WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:AGF which is emphasized in WP:ARBPIA2. If your argument is that you want to understand consensus according to how outsiders would see the concept, and not according to WP:CONSENSUS, I'm sure you agree that isn't a persuasive argument. --Dailycare (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've long ago read both. WP:CONSENSUS is just text on a page; it is not a Magic 8 Ball. Your interpretation of that page is just that, just as mine is just an interpretation. There is no such thing as a "plain reading" of anything, unless you're directly quoting. Your interpretation relies on the idea that no policy-based objections have been provided, when those who support the current wording would quickly cite WP:UNDUE and WP:V. And, guess what? There are people who disagree with our interpretations. It is not anyone's place to say our reading is the "plain reading" and others' readings are not, but that's what you've attempted to do.

That being said, your interpretation, I'm sure, of the facts that lead to the conclusion that there's consensus for your preference is very unorthodox and simply self-serving. We have at least one editor, the one who closed the discussion in which all three of your evidentiary remarks were made, who agrees that it's not the correct interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS, and I'm sure that if we had 100 people come to close the discussion, at least 98 would have come to the same conclusion. As for assuming good faith, I did do just that. I could have believed that you really are so ridiculous that you think providing three comments made by you vindicates a fourth, but I don't. In the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, people say, write, and believe positions that they wouldn't hold in other arenas simply because it backs up their point. I believe you're doing the same thing here. While I'm sure for convenience's sake you'll say it isn't what you're doing, I remain confident that in a less charged sphere, you'd understand the absurdity of the approach you've presented here. -- tariqabjotu 21:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, of course I agree that if editors were to present substantial arguments based on WP:UNDUE or WP:V, those would be policy-based objections that would affect consensus. However, has that happened? Editors who only show up to say "IDONTLIKEIT" deserve to be ignored and their inputs shouldn't delay anything, this is my point which is entirely consistent with the section of WP:CONSENSUS that I've repeatedly referred to. If you disagree with this point with reasons there can be a discussion, if you disagree without providing reasons you'll be ignored. I'm not going to comment on your allegations that my actions here are self-serving or in bad faith since that's not what this page is for. I'll just refer you to WP:AGF, you said you've read it a long time ago, maybe a new read would be in order. --Dailycare (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I suggest you read about moving the goalposts. This is exactly what you're doing. Everything your opponents say is merely emotional appeal, not meeting your impossibly high standards for being suitable for consideration. As a result, you have consensus, and always will, because you will never be satisfied that an opposing position is based on policy. As I said at the beginning, going into mediation with that mindset is bad faith, no matter how you try to spin it. Good luck trying to pass that off if the mediation is accepted. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at that, although I don't see how I'd be moving goalposts any more than WP:CONSENSUS which says that "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view", and "The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." I suggest that instead of trying to predict my future behaviour, we should concentrate on making the mediation a success, provided it goes forward to begin with. --Dailycare (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. Well, let it be known that if you repeat the statement during mediation that your position has consensus because your opponents have never brought policy-based arguments, I am immediately withdrawing from mediation. I have no interest in dealing with anyone with such arrogance and stubbornness, and there is no hope of "success" if I must. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Assassin, just for the record, your statement is not completely accurate. While all but a few foreign nations do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, they also do not recognize, nor are they "inclined to recognize", as you put it, Tel Aviv as the capital. No one has suggested that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For reasons of practicality (and also as a statement regarding the disputed status of Jerusalem), most countries have their main embassies in Tel Aviv. Am I not incorrect to say that this is a an indication that they view Tel Aviv as Israel's capital, given that all foreign embassies usually have their headquarters located in a nation's capital? Or are we viewing Israel in a different light here? Assassin3577 (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

But, believe it or not, we have sources that do say that that is what other countries believe. Sarahj2107 provided two examples of that under #Edit request on 18 November 2012. -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

What do you think if we rewrite as following or refer French wiki's introduction fr:Jérusalem. (Note: The article Israel clearly mention Jerusalem as its capital.)

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. It is a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. --Anton017 (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussions. This suggestion has been made and rejected. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 November 2012

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

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

Edit request on 18 November 2012

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

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

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. From the sources I can find[10][11]Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel, Tel Aviv is. If you have a reliable source to prove otherwise please provide it. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

A question

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

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

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

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

Proclaimed capital

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

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

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

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

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

From that discussion, let me quote Dailycare:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hertz188:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestine is not any more an entity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I saw this in the recent UN vote[12], "the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States". It is highly bias to continue to only state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital while disregarding that Palestine also states its capital to be Jerusalem, especially when practically no nations regard it as Israel's capital or even regard the city to even be in Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi NMMNG,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I strongly oppose to your strong oppostion.

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

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