Talk:Israel/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Comment

How about a section on Arabs wanting to wipe Israel off the map, shooting rockets into the country, not accepting peace treaties and not accepting Israel's right to exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.128.28 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't write articles that way. Both sides' actions are reported, under relevant sections (like history, etc). Remember, though - this article is about Israel, not the conflict, so the Arabs actions are reported only briefly. There's more to Israel than the some Arabs' hatred of it. If you have a specific point that you think should be, but isn't covered right now, please suggest it here. okedem (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Because, although several Zionist groups are working very hard to make it otherwise (and succeeding, for the most part), Wikipedia is not supposed to be a propaganda wing for Israel. It's supposed to objectively discuss Israel. And that means not lying and presenting everything with a pro-Israel slant as you just suggested. Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

if you are refferring to the Iranian president allegedly saying that he wanted to "wipe israel off the map", that is a total misquote and his words translated from Persian say nothing of the sort. and besides, Israel is the one with nuclear weapons and refuses to declare them. Not Iran. Griffinde (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The proper and accepted translation of the quote to english is "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." I think that has been cleared up numerous times, but here it is again. As for accusation of nuclear weapons, allegations against Israel and Iran are both unproven, so do not be hypocritical and correct one mistake and promote another. Avinyc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Griffinde, I do think it is worth mentioning at the same breath that Iran is governed by a type of dictatorship, just recently killing tens of it's own citizens (as was shown by twitter). Wheres Israel (quite violent against Palestinians) does not stop inner criticism in violent ways. Israel "left wing" (e.g: people who are trying to promote peace) is having less then half of the power in the current government - but more then 30%. How many of the Iranian government said something like "we accept Israel right to exist"? Talgalili (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Curious that in the section on The State of Palestine wiki editors saw fit to show diplomatic relations with other countries and produced a map showing which countries recognized Palestine, didn't recognize the state, or established diplomatic ties without full recognition. Why don't you do the same for the State of Israel, there are countries that don't recognize Israel to the same degree? Is there some perceived bias or real bias here, please discuss. To the poster at the beginning of comment: this whole article downplays the atrocities committed by Israel/zionists...even to the degree of not mentioning the Nakba or the King David Hotel terrorist bombing...and you think it is unfair?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a very clear pro-Israel bias here, because several pro-Israel groups (for example) use this page as a propaganda device. No, they don't mention any of the far more numerous atrocities that Israel has committed, simply because that does not fit in with their agenda (i.e. making Israel look like a victim of the evil, hateful Arabs whose land they took by military force). If you'd like to work on cleaning up some of the more blatant lies, misleading comments, and biased statements, I'd be glad to try to clean the article up with you. I've recently added the POV tag to the top of the article for exactly this reason. Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Before you edit this article and make any more comments could you read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions so that you are aware of the sanctions in place covering this article. Can you also read WP:SOAPBOX. The Israel-Palestine area in wikipedia is already a shitstorm so it's better to keep your comments focused on how to improve specific aspects of the article based on reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BCE

Can we please change this to just BC? BC is much more accurate and BCE was only recently invented by revisionist historians that hate Christianity. 24.143.53.154 (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:ERA recommends leaving the era format as whatever it starts at if it's needed at all. Although there is some indication that consensus to change can be sought, I feel that a change is particularly inappropriate for an articel on a country where only 2% of the population profess to be Christian.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Transportation

I can't see why to refer reader to the article on transportation in Israel without at least having a bit elaborating here. NTBAG was chosen as one of the best in the world in the category for airports of similar size (or even the best if I'm not mistaken) and Ayalon photo could give readers better impression on how one of the most extensively used road in Israel look like.--Gilisa (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Illan Ramon in science in Israel section

Illan ramon being the first Israeli austronaut is not a scientific achievment of Israel. I think that it's a trivia detail that maybe woth mentioning in some other part of the article but not in this. Israel achivements in space science are much more relatd to its ability to self design, build and launch top-qaulity satelites--Gilisa (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Hebrew university is consistently ranked among top 100 in the world by the Chinease ranking method (which is the most profesional one, by far)and also the Hebrew university is ranked among top 100 according to the education supplementary of the Times in 2008. Pleasemake the needed modifications.--Gilisa (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Water crisis in Israel

This site: [Water] talks about the water crisis in Israel.Agre22 (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

There was no large scale expulsion after the Bar Kokhba revolt

"Jewish presence in the region dwindled after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE and the resultant large-scale expulsion of Jews."

That is incorrect.

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-rivkele-there-wasnt-roman-exile-of.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.173.19 (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding POV tag until this mess is cleaned up

This article is blatantly POV (pro-Israel), and needs to be fixed.

For instance, look at this (from the lead):

Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders leading to the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states,[15] and in consequence, Israel controls territories beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Some international borders remain in dispute, however Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success.

The message I read from this is the Zionists have tried very hard to make peace with the Arabs, but the Arabs won't accept it. They attacked Israel, and as a result Israel has constantly been at war with them. Thus Israel has gained all of its territory from them while defending itself. ... I am aware that this is the POV that Israel pushes, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. This is a clear example of lying by omission, and just outright lying. Israel controls much of its territory because it has forcefully displaced Palestinians from their land. This has nothing to do with "wars with neighboring states" -- it is just land that they took from someone else without provocation. Why is this not mentioned in the lead? (That's a rheotorical question -- I already know the answer, which is "Well, of course, because we're trying to make Israel look good here, and make Arabs look irrational and evil -- so that doesn't fit in with our agenda")

This is just one example from the lead. There are dozens of similarly misleading and dishonest sections in this article. I have seen numerous people in the talk page and the talk archives complaining about the lack of neutrality here. Until we've reached consensus that the article is not POV, I think the neutrality tag should stay up. Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the facts, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be written. Nothing here is "omitted", and all is true. okedem (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with facts, as long as we don't selectively choose them in order to push a certain POV. One thing I'm not fine with however is stating falsehoods as facts -- for instance it is not a fact that Israel got all of it's land as a consequence of fighting wars with neighboring Arab nations. They have annexed large amounts of land by placing settlements in the occupied territories after forcing the Palestinians that live there to leave. I'm not claiming that facts shouldn't be written. I'm claiming that lies shouldn't be written. And I'm claiming that all relevant facts should be presented, rather than just selecting facts that either make Israel look good, or make Arabs look evil. I'd just like to see some semblance of balance here. Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think JR was making the point that the text doesn't reflect the facts. He does have a point in that the article is quite kind to the zionist viewpoint, wiki articles about countries don't in general on the other hand dwell excessively on negative points. I encourage JR to edit the page to correct the perceived bias, however paying attention to not swerve to a different kind of bias. --Dailycare (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

..and I'm going to repeat the comment I made in a section above. Before you edit this article and make any more comments could you read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions so that you are aware of the sanctions in place covering this article. Can you also read WP:SOAPBOX. The Israel-Palestine area in wikipedia is already a shitstorm so it's better to keep your comments focused on how to improve specific aspects of the article based on reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Sean, I saw your comment above, and I am familiar with both policies. The reason I am commenting in the first place is that this article is violating Wikipedia policy, and I would like to help fix it. I will make sure to provide reliable sources for any changes that I make, and will be glad to discuss them here if anyone disagrees with them. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what "control" means. Israel currently controls all of the West Bank - settlements and Palestinian cities/villages. It came into control of this territory in a war with Jordan. That's what this means. Settlements came after this. Israel didn't gain control of any territory because of settlements - it was able to build settlements because it was in control of this territory. (Note - "control", meaning the de-facto status, not that it rightfully belongs to Israel. This wording was very carefully chosen, as mostly everything else in this article). okedem (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he is probably referring to the extensive and ongoing demolition of Palestinian homes and appropriation of land to build settlements together with the associated security and transport infrastructure. It doesn't matter though because this discussion is not specifically addressing aspects of the article and proposing improvements based on reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits, Jrtayloriv. Firstly, there's always someone who thinks the article is POV. You can discuss on the talk page, but placing a tag won't get us anywhere. Many people, from both "sides", have worked on this article, and their various POVs created a compromise, which is what you see now. Don't trample it. Make suggestions for changes here, if you like.

Your claims and edits show a serious lack of understanding - beyond your above-mentioned claim about "control", you claim all the border are in dispute - but they most certainly are not, as evidenced by the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, finalizing those borders, and ending all dispute over them.

Your claim about why the Arabs rejected the plan are nothing but an interpretation, with little validity over others. Stick to the facts, not the motivation some people claim. The facts are that there was a plan, Arabs rejected it. Their reasoning is up for debate, but certainly not in this article, which is just a bird's-eye view of Israel, and can't go into every detail of history. okedem (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

you claim all the border are in dispute - but they most certainly are not, as evidenced by the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, finalizing those borders, and ending all dispute over them. -- I never claimed that they were all in dispute by everyone. But they are all in dispute. While agreements might be in place between the national governments of Israel, Egypt and Jordan, there are still many who don't believe in the validity of these agreements, in addition to many that feel that Israel should not have a right to exist at all, since it is situated on stolen land. Thus, while not everyone disputes all of the current borders, many do, so all of the borders are in dispute. But I'm sure that the Israeli PR teams here won't allow that viewpoint to be expressed, regardless of how many reliable sources I provide.

Your claim about why the Arabs rejected the plan are nothing but an interpretation, with little validity over others. Stick to the facts, not the motivation some people claim. The facts are that there was a plan, Arabs rejected it. Their reasoning is up for debate, but certainly not in this article, which is just a bird's-eye view of Israel, and can't go into every detail of history. -- No the facts are in the United Nations document that I cited. Their reasoning is not up for debate, because it's explicitly laid out in the document. If you don't want to put their reasoning in there, then that's fine. I understand the desire to not allow any reason to be ascribed to any of the Arabs' actions. But it's not my interpretation. It's what they said for themselves to the U.N.

Anyhow, I'm done with all Israel related articles. I realize that I'm just wasting my time. Congratulations. Jrtayloriv (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdated info on Wikipedia

I know Hebrew very well so I entered the "Hebrew Wikipedia" and there it said the population is 7,465,000‏‏‏ as of december 31st 2008 So just letting you know, trying to make wikipedia more accurate. Turns out, they calculated the data from the webpage and added a little of their own, saying that the report did not include the population without the israeli Identity document. They said that the number of people living in Israel without Identity documents is about 270,000.. Since the page is locked, I cannot edit it, but, accoding to this link, there are 7.4 million people living in israel (or 7,465,000‏‏‏ to be accurate)

I don't understand your point. No one added anything, they just took the number from the webpage. The footnote there explains what that number includes. Anyway, that source is slightly out of date, as is ours. I'll update it. okedem (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Angela Merkel and Iran

This site: [Iran] is from an Israeli newspaper and talks about what Angela Merkel thinks about Iran.Agre22 (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Currency

do we have any sort of currency in the initial info on the right hand side table? Melara... (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

Science and education in Israel

I think that, while the disparity between Arabs and Jews is a very important aspect of the educational system - perhaps the most defining aspect - this subject is perhaps a bit detailed for the overview page. As Okedem says, it could be expanded on the Education in Israel page. However, it can't be completely ignored here. Can we agree on a reduced version? Arikk (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The version I restored devotes two sentences to the topic. How much more can it be reduced? Tiamut^talk 19:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There's something to that. Okedem, can we leave those two sentences in? Arikk (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of latent discrimination in budget allocation are universal; in Israel, for example, they are made regarding pretty much every group, including the majority group. So the sentences are banal and uninformative. Additionally, there's a reliability problem - they seem to be sourced to Electronic Intifada, and a potential WP:UNDUE problem, as opposing views aren't cited. I could change my mind if I were shown examples of other country articles where this kind of stuff is mentioned. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Which countries are you thinking of that have or had de facto segregation in their education systems that have been addressed by the highest court of their judicial branch ? I'm struggling to know where to look for analogues in other articles (and I assume you aren't thinking of South Africa under apartheid). If the sentences are banal and uninformative then we should be able to improve them. I don't think anyone is suggested more than a sentence or two. That seems reasonable for an issue that a) affects a large percentage of the children of Israeli citizens b) has been addressed by the highest court in the land and c) is reported on quite frequently. Regarding EI as a source, see this somewhat surprising info but I assume that source can be replaced easily (e.g. US State Department's 2008 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories which says 'The government maintained unequal educational systems for Arab and Jewish students.'). Regarding Okedem's reasoning in his edit summary 'the sup court addresses thousands of cases; we're not gonna discuss them all here. this might be relevant for Education in Israel, but definitely not here'. Is that accurate ? Are there thousands of cases addressed by the Supreme Court with national scope ? One of the main issues faced by Israeli society and addressed by the Supreme Court is terrorism and I think the number of rulings related to terrorism is in the tens rather than the thousands. You can access the 3 published collections via this link. Are there opposing views that in fact there is no budget disparity and that the government is not required by the Supreme Court to eliminate certain aspects of discriminatory funding ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The sentences are banal and uninformative not because of the way they're written but because of their content. For comparison I was thinking cases like of African-Americans in the United States or Roma in Central European countries, but if you insist on countries with different languages of instruction ("de facto segregation", as you call it), then check out, say, Canada, Switzerland and Belgium. In any case, the minute Electronic Intifada was used as a source for information about Israel, someone should have stopped and said "actually, that's not how encyclopedia articles are written". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The supreme court addressed thousands of cases. Sitting as the High Court of Justice, many of its decisions have national scope.

Your use of the word "segregation" is simply wrong. Israel operates an Arabic language school system out of respect to its Arab citizens - Israel doesn't want or try to make them study in Hebrew. In the Arab schools they study in their own language, studying their own culture. Regardless, parents are free to send their children to whichever school system they choose - if they want their kid to go to a Hebrew-language school, they can (and sometimes do). To call this "segregation" is simply inflammatory and absurd.

If you want to mention budget disparities, try mentioning that a significant part of the education system's budget, especially for enrichment activities, comes from the municipal authorities. Arabs are generally poorer, and so a fair comparison would be to Jewish towns of the same socio-economic levels, and not the state average; but beyond that - Arabs simply pay less municipal taxes. The percentage of people who bother paying these taxes in Arab towns is much lower than in Jewish towns, and the municipal authorities don't bother collecting the money, perhaps due to their own corruption. Much of the funding coming from the Ministry of Education is matched with municipal funding (50-50) - if the residents don't bother paying their taxes, they can't operate these programs. So any discussion of claims of discrimination should contain these facts, as well.

If you wanna talk discrimination, we can talk about the ultra-orthodox schools, that get enough funding to operate really small classes (10-15 students, vs. 30-40 in secular schools), and don't even bother teaching the state curriculum. All fascinating things, really, but not for this article. Way too in-depth.

I'm deleting both these claims, and the "Hand in Hand" - both aren't important enough. okedem (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I said de facto segregation which I think is an accurate description. I'm not making any moral or ethical judgments. I just saw an NPOV issue. What I think the article should mention (in one or two sentences) is information from reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, there's de facto partial separation, not segregation, which is a very loaded word, with a strong political meaning. No one is being forced to do anything - most Arab parents want their children to study in their own language and culture. It's basically a no win situation - if Israel had only one monolithic school system, it would be lambasted for forcing Arabs to forsake their language and heritage. It has two, so you call it segregation. Great.

Just having a reliable source (EI isn't one, but whatever) isn't enough. This article can't discuss everything, and for a fair discussion of the condition of the Arab education system, you gotta have more details than what you wrote. There isn't room for that here. In such a high level article, you simply can't delve into details like this, which is why I also removed the information about the relatively little known bilingual schools. okedem (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware that Wikipedia policy is to remove well sourced and relevant information just because you feel it is too detailed for the article. Perhaps the fact that the bilingual schools are little known is a good reason for having them mentioned. Similarly, the disparity in education (not segregation, nor separation) is a central issue in Science and Education in Israel. It is not appropriate to remove it, as long as it is presented in a NPOV. Arikk (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So, in your view, all of our articles can become 5GB repositories of every piece of information ever written.

Well, that's not what an encyclopedia is. Within the five paragraphs devoted to science and education, there's simply no room for such detailed claims, especially when a fair discussion would take up at least a paragraph. It isn't a central issue, but just another issue, along with the preferential funding the ultra-orthodox Jews get, and other issues. This is why we have top level articles, like this one, and specific articles, like Education in Israel. You can't write everything in the top-level article, or even in the specific article. Editorial judgment must be exercised, or we're doomed to become a database, instead of an encyclopedia. This doesn't require any specific policy to spell this out for you. okedem (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

5Gb? We're talking about two sentences. And two sentences about the preferential funding of haredi schools would be appropriate too. What I have a problem with is that people added well sourced and relevant content, so you should have a very good reason for removing it. That's how to avoid edit wars. Arikk (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, by your rational, we'll get to 5GB soon enough. You claim: "I'm not aware that Wikipedia policy is to remove well sourced and relevant information just because you feel it is too detailed for the article" - so any piece of information, no matter how specific and detailed, can be placed in the article, if it comes from an RS. That's what you claimed. You don't seem to accept the very idea of top-level articles, and specific articles; of editorial discretion, notability, and undue weight.

Claims and counter claims of discrimination are simply too detailed. I've explained above one of the reasons for under-funding in the Arab system, and you can't place the discrimination claim without presenting this reason, so the discussion quickly expands. Simply too detailed.

Oh, and the reason should be for including the material, not for removing it, especially as we've gone for years without it, and the change is the insertion, not the removal. Oh, and anything by "Electronic Intifada" does not qualify as "well sourced". okedem (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your position, I think you removed material inappropriately: particularly the information on the bilingual schools, which didn't seem to bother you when they were first entered, only after the discussion on "discrimination" became heated. Please don't remove other peoples contributions without consensus, as long as they are (1) NPOV, (2) relevant, (3) well sourced and (4) in good faith. I have replaced the reference from EI with a direct reference to the HRW report, so I don't believe that there can be a serious objection to the sourcing. Arikk (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is required for the addition of new material, if it is in dispute. Don't edit-war this into the article.

I removed the bilingual bit after Tiamut's comment on the subject (in the edit summary).

I'm removing this, again. If you want this in - you're going to have to address the actual issue, and you haven't even tried doing that yet, as you dispute the very idea of having any focus or specific level of detail in different articles. okedem (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut's edit summary said "agree with Sean.hoyland (and the IP) - Okedem, please explain on talk why you want to delete this relevant and reliably sourced material - certinaly more indicative of the reality of Israeli education that the Hand to Hand program mentioned as Israel". Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Tiamut drew my attention to that recently added bit - it's even less important for this article than the newest addition, so they should both be removed. okedem (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from this one place, I can't see any mention of any claimed systematic ethnic biases, not just Jews v Arabs. For example, I can't see any mention of the perceived domination of Ashkhenazim in politics and other high status professions, of complaints about low status of Felashas, etc. Perhaps in the demographics section there could be some mention of this whole complex of issues?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd object to that, I think. About 99% of these claims are pure bullshit. Many of them don't stand up to the most rudimentary scrutiny (lots of Mizrachis at top level government and politics). Many others are based of ridicules notions of "We deserve more". We should stick to facts, not political claims (the Mizrachi claim is most commonly made by the people who benefit from it politically - people like Shas, etc).

I'm not saying I'd object to any mention, but I'm worried that this will open a can of worms, with claims and counter-claims, that don't add anything to the reader. If there's anything specific you'd like to mention, perhaps we could find some neutral phrasing, but it might be detailed for this article. okedem (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The President of the USA is black, but so are too many of the prison population, grunts in the army etc. With regards to the issue in Israel, other people might know more on this. But isn't the decline of Labour associated with it being perceived as elitist? I thought a lot of Begin's success was based on his mobilising the Mizrahi vote?

There are many ways of looking at historical events. Marxism, for instance, tries to place everything in context of class war. Other theories use different perspectives. While Begin used the Mizrachi vote, and a lot of rhetoric, the Labour party's decline has a lot to do with its dysfunctional and corrupt politicians, rather than ethnicity. Sure, a discussion of the place these claims take in Israeli life and politics would be interesting (an important party, Shas, is completely built on them, regardless of veracity); I just think this article isn't the place. okedem (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

<- Jalapenos, had the US Supreme Court after eight years of hearings issued a unanimous decision by all judges ruling that the government's decision ".does not conform to the principle of equality, as it results in discrimination of members of the Arab" African-American "sector." then it would be a valid comparison. Regarding, 'the minute Electronic Intifada was used as a source for information about Israel, someone should have stopped and said "actually, that's not how encyclopedia articles are written". I disagree. What should happen is that editors should examine the information dispassionately and find further sources if the issue merits some research. It's no different from people finding info in JCPA or NGO Monitor and then exploring the issues raised and looking for alternative sources. In this case EI are simply reporting on HRW's Letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon which I'm sure they are quite capable of doing in a reliable way but as I've said alternative source are easy to find. Apart from the US State Department there are many, many sources that address this issue. Here's a random selection; a Jpost piece about the HCL ruling, the Haaretz piece, HRW of course, a paper by Counsel, Children’s Rights Division, HRW in the Journal of international law and politics, a recent article on low matriculation figures, I could go on at length.

Okedem we are talking about a ruling by the High Court Of Justice of national scope that addresses an educational issue that affects a significant proportion of Israeli citizens. They chose to highlight the issue so why aren't we ? This is not some bullshit attempt to demonize Israel (trust me, I live next to Myanmar). It's simply information that is very clearly significant within the context of the education system of Israel. Aren't we supposed to simply describe things as they are, warts and all based on reliable sources ? One or two sentences, details can go in the main education article. Seriously, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Arguments over whether it's separation, segregation, encouraging cultural diversity or whatever aren't relevant. What matters is that we are not informing our readers. Yes, "we've gone for years without it" despite it being a top level educational issue that was addressed by the top level court. Perhaps it's time to put that right with a sentence or two. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't care how people do their research, what I care about is what, in the end, they put into Wikipedia articles. This is like adopting CAMERA as the article's voice in the article on the Palestinian National Authority. You'd be up in arms about that, and rightly so. If the same info is taken from reliable sources, then obviously reliability isn't a problem. As for whether a Supreme Court decision makes this POV on this issue notable - I basically agree with okedem's position below. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

They chose to highlight it because they were petitioned with it. It's their job. We cannot possibly start reporting, in top-level articles, on everything the Supreme Court says. Don't underestimate their level of activity - they have lots and lots of rulings, with exciting text, on a large variety of subjects. Additionally - their opinion, respectable as it may be, is not the only one, and not the only one that matters.

No one is denying the fact that the Arab system has lower achievements, and lower funding - there's some disparity between the systems. But whether this is due to discrimination, or things like low investment by the Arab municipalities themselves - is up for discussion, and if we want to do justice to this topic - we cannot delve into this discussion in the limited space of this article. okedem (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about school segregation in Israel or human rights groups? It has been deleted from the article. If segregation of Arabs and Israel students does exist, why should it be hidden from people reading the article? {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)}

Not only Arabs are discriminated in education in Israel but also Beta Jews. Xenophobia in Israel, Ethiopian Jews in Isarel, Ethiopean Jews and racial discourse. There is a real problem with the human right to education in Israel.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 22:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it was awareness of those sorts of issues that made me mention the lack of broad coverage of the issue of discrimination anywhere in the article. Rather than just focussing on education or a small number of ethnicities, is it better to have all this in one short section with a link to a main article on the whole complex of debates? Okedem suggested above that I propose something but other people may be more in touch with the range of claims and coubter claims than I am.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you present other country articles that have a section, or even a discussion, about discrimination? I couldn't find anything in the United States article, nor in France (where Muslim claim there's discrimination; where there's also lots of antisemitic incidents against the Jews), United Kingdom with large populations of Indian and Pakistani origin; Australia with the aborigines, New Zealand with the Maori, or even India with its Caste system.

So why should Israel's article have a discussion of this, when others don't? There's nothing special about the ethnic problems Israel has - every country with minorities has claims of discrimination, and sometimes they're true. There's also some discrimination in Israel, but there's no point in discussing it here. okedem (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Imperfections in other articles isn't an excuse for an imperfection in this (WP:OTHERCRAP.) However, the one of these articles that I've checked has the following paragraph "Indigenous Australians experience higher than average rates of imprisonment and unemployment, lower levels of education, and life expectancies for males and females that are 11–17 years lower than those of non-indigenous Australians.[79][95][96] Some remote Indigenous communities have been described as having "failed state"-like conditions.[97][citation needed]". That's the sort of thing that would be appropriate in this article.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

They're not necessarily "imperfections", but simply editorial choices regarding the level of detail appropriate for the article. If most, or all, articles of the same type have a certain level of detail, this requires special explanation as to why this article should be different - why should Israel by treated any differently than others. Again, as I've said - if you have something specific in mind, do propose it, but I'm not sure we should even delve into this. At most, we can mention facts (higher poverty, for instance), but not causes, which are a matter of debate (paying less taxes? less of a culture of learning? discrimination?). okedem (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

<-Okay folks, this isn't going anywhere. How about this ? We re-focus all of these issues/discussions and the associated edits on the main Education in Israel article and build the content over there over time. Israel like every country in the world has a complicated and imperfect education system. Key issues can be described over there. If some of those are of sufficient import to be incorporated into the lead in that article per WP:LEAD then so be it. The education section in this article, the Israel article should be dependent on that article. This article is the slave and the main article is the master. Sound reasonable ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. If that article is comprehensive and fair, its summary ought to be the education section in this article. That's the normal way of doing things. In the Education article we can actually present the relevant facts and positions on the subject. Once we have a good article there, there shouldn't be any problem with this one. okedem (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the United States article and have tried to put in a study that showed the U.S. is resegregating in education. It was deleted from the Article. Civil rights does seem to be a sensative issue. In the U.S. section it does say "protest politics" rather then civil rights, with a link to African American civil rights. I suppose that is where Wikipedia is either a blog or an encyclopedia. At least this article mentions that Arabs send their children to Arab speaking schools. Is this manditory? {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)}

No, it's not mandatory. See, this is why I tried to put in the link to the Hand in Hand bilingual schools, so as to avoid this kind of misconception. Arikk (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If the segregation is by choice, then the statement could be changed to "Arabs choose to send". {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)}

New Israeli Shekel

{{editsemiprotected}}

Since January 1, 2008 the New Israel Shekel is one of 17 freely convertible currencies according to the CLS list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukov (talk • contribs) 10:15, 10 November 2009

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. Please use a 'Change X to Y' level of detail when requesting an edit. I looked, but I could not see an obvious place to insert this fact. Also, this fact should have a reference. Celestra (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I thought it would fit at the end of the first paragraph of Economics. It really should be: Subsequently the New Israeli Shekel was announced as one of 17 freely convertible currencies according to the CLS list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukov (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Thanks! Celestra (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

F-35

This site: [Haaretz] has an article about the purchase of F-35 by Israel.Agre22 (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Israel top patent producer in the world

This site: [Ynet 1] tells that Israel is top patent producer in all the world.Agre22 (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

No it doesn't. It says that in 2003 the US Patent Office approved more patents to Israeli inventors than they approved for applicants from G-7 countries. If you are interested in patents/inventiveness you can have a look at the World Intellectual Property Indicators that are published each year. The 2009 report is here and pages 18 and 38 give a nice overview. As usual Japan leads the way. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

HUJI or HUJ

Editors -- A minor point, but annoying all the same: My wife and I are both graduates of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (I also worked there) and I have never seen the university's name abbreviated as Huji or Huj (except as part of a web address). I have seen HUJ which is most common. I suggest all instances of Huji and Huj be replaced in this article by the more familiar HUJ. Is there someone who can do that? Thanks, - EMB (Nov 29, 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.214.6 (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Where Does Israel Get Oil?

This site: [Oil to Israel] tells where does Israel get its oil.Agre22 (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

International Airports

"Israel is served by one international airport, Ben Gurion International Airport,"

Ovda Airport (Hebrew: נמל התעופה עובדה‎, Nemal HaTe'ufa Uvda) (IATA: VDA, ICAO: LLOV), is Israel's second international airport, located in the south of the country about 60 km (40 miles) north of the city of Eilat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.225.229 (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Fixed, thanks. okedem (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edit re-added in different form

Okedem reverted this edit citing undue weight. As a result, I've moved the information further down as per this edit. The information is sourced to a reliable academic source and helps clarify a misleading use of terminology that has bedevilled this article for some time now. Israel's borders remain largely undefined and lack international recognition. This is noted not just by this source, but by many others. Indeed, the purpose of peace negotations is to determine the final borders for Israel vis a vis Syria and Lebanon, as well as those it will share with the State of Palestine. To try to disguise the provisional nature of Israel's current borders does no service to the reader since it hides pertinent information from them regarding Israel's current status. Tiamut^talk 16:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A few points:

• "without fixed internationally recognized borders" is misleading. Israel has a couple of border disputes, but the rest of the borders are indeed fixed and internationally recognized, as you yourself noted.
• The border with Lebanon is recognized. By the UN security council no less. See [1]. There is an ongoing dispute with Lebanon on a specific area, but that's it.
• One of "a few" countries? List of territorial disputes looks like more than "a few". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A few responses:

• "without fixed internationally recognized borders" is what the source says - verbatim. The agreements Israel concluded with Egypt and Jordan in 1982 and 1994, which are also noted by the source, did not result in borders characteriezd as either "fixed" or "internationally recognized". We write according to what WP:RS's say, and not what you or I say.
• The border with Lebanon may be recognized by the UN. That does not mean that what the UN recognizes is where the border currently lies, operatively-speaking. Lebanon also disagrees with the UN's assessment, as does Syria.
• Wikipedia is not an RS. The source I cited says "only a few". And territorial disputes do not equal a lack of fixity or international recognition, necessarily. Tiamut^talk 17:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

1. When someone opposes a change, especially to the lead (which was written after extensive discussions), please don't continue editing it - this is what the talk page is for.
2. I find it especially amusing to see you mention AGF in a section above, and use both "disguise" and "hides" in your comment here.
3. A quick look at List of territorial disputes easily shows that there's nothing special about Israel's situation, despite some people's fixation with it. Many, many, countries have border disputes with their neighbors (including Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia - and that's beyond the disputes Syria and Lebanon have with Israel).
4. Considering the lead already mentions gain of territories beyond 1949 lines, and says (third paragraph) "Some international borders remain in dispute", any further discussion or hyperbole ("One of a few countries") seems excessive and irrelevant.
5. A border is not necessarily a mutually accepted or internationally recognized one, but simply a de-facto one - the limit of control of one party. The border with Syria exists, even if it wasn't determined by peace treaty or the UN.
6. With or without the Golan, Israel borders Syria to the North-East. Most of the border with Lebanon was demarcated by the UN, but with or without Sheeba farms, Israel borders Lebanon to the North. The borders with Egypt and Jordan were set by the peace treaties, and the exact date of those is hardly important enough for the lead. That's what the rest of the article is for.
7. The current phrasing with regards to the Palestinians ("Also adjacent are the West Bank to the east and Gaza Strip to the south.") was carefully chosen to be as accurate as possible - there's no border there, and nothing is set, but we don't want to imply that these territories are part of Israel (or Jordan, or Egypt), and so "adjacent" was the best option.
8. This was already discussed to death (for example, Talk:Israel/Archive 21). You opposed the phrasing then, but the consensus was for it. I see no justification for this attempt to "try, try again" to change the lead to your favorite version. okedem (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

1. When you summarily revert another editor's contributions, please do not do so without leaving an explanation on the talk page. Its rude and tends to encourage edit wars (see WP:REVERT).
2. Please try not to be so sensitive. My use of "disguise" and "hides" may be flowery, but its not an assumption of bad faith or a personal attack.
3. Please see my response to NMMNG regarding this very same issue.
4. When reliable sources note that "only a few countries" share this distinction, I believe it is relevant. Just as the lead states that Issrael is the world's only Jewish state, there should be no problem with mentioning that is "one a few countries" that has no fixed internationally recognied borders.
5. WP:OR rationalizations for why a reliable source is wrong about what it says do not really interest me.
6. Ditto.
7. The current phrasing is vague. My changes are more accurate and in line with what the reliable sources cited hass to say.
8. Last time this was discussed, neither this wording nor this source was the subject of discussion. Many issues are discussed repeatedly on this page, largely because there is a certain resistance to any changes at all requiring that discussions be revisited over and over again, with different and better sources. Besides, nothing is written in stone. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and consensus can (and does) change. Tiamut^talk 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

To claim the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, which specifically demarcated the borders, "did not result in borders characteriezd as either "fixed" or "internationally recognized"" is absurd. If a peace agreement defining the borders does not create "internationally recognized" or "fixed" borders - what does? What's the meaning of this term? Does the UN have to define something? Then what about Lebanon? Did the UN recognize borders in the many other border disputes listed on the page we've linked to? (By the way, by your logic, all of the countries bordering Israel also lack "internationally recognized borders" (yes, a border is a two way thing)...)

If a peace agreement, or the UN, aren't good enough, this term is useless. We already discuss this issue in the lead. No need for more.

Not everything that a source says is relevant for the lead, or for the article at all.

Oh, and somehow, other encyclopedia don't have a problem with saying "borders" - like Columbia encyclopedia, Mideast & N. Africa Encyclopedia, or The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. okedem (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Update - I finally managed to get the preview for the relevant page, and learned that you don't read very carefully - the source says: "Only in 1982 did it gain a fixed recognized border with Egypt and in 1994 with Jordan. Even in 2007 its borders with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians are neither recognized nor finalized." So the meaning is that not all of Israel's borders are recognized, not that it doesn't have any recognized borders, as you absurdly claimed. okedem (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I missed that. Still, the same source says that Israel's borders are not fixed or internationally recognized. That description applies to the borders with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians. And while fixed and recognized, the borders with Egypt and Jordan are not internationally recognized.

And I never claimed Israel does not have any recognized borders - only that it has no fixed and internationally recognized borders, as per what the source I cited claims (and having missed the reference to "fixed" that you pointed out as in the case of Egypt and Jordan after 1982 and 1994 respectively).

I do think this information is important to the lead. I continue to object to the unqualified phrasing "borders ..." when discussing provisional, temporary and unrecognized borders (as in the case of Lebanon, Syria and Palestine). I also continue to feel that such a formulation is misleading and denies the reader important information regarding the lack of final status surrounding Israel's border arrangements, a key issue in the peace negotiations that are suppose to solve the ongoing conflicts it has with its neighbors. However, given your ongoing hostility towards any changes I make/introduce/propose, I'm quite pessimistic about the possibility that you will agree. And without your agreement, you will cite a lack of consensus as a way of maintaining the status quo. It must be nice to have veto power over this article for more than three years now. Enjoy it, Okedem. Tiamut^talk 20:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You have one source that makes a dubious claim. That's not lead material. The lead is supposed to summarize what the rest of the article says, not introduce new material from one source that flies in the face of common sense (see: "one of a few countries....").

And what do you mean the borders with Egypt and Jordan are not internationally recognized? Who doesn't recognize them? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There are many more such sources, and I would be happy to present them, if I thought it might lead somewhere. Are you open to including more information about this issue in the body of the article? As it is, it is only briefly and vaguely aluuded to. If so, I will go about putting more information together.

Israel is a state with limited recognition. More than 10% of the countries in the world do not recognize its existence, let alone its borders. Furthermore, its borders have never been declared or defined by the Israeli government, which means they lack formal international recognition, (including those it shares with Egypt and Jordan which were defined via bilateral treaties). Tiamut^talk 22:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The peace treaties expressly demarcated the borders. The Israeli government (and Knesset) approved the treaties. This means the government defined the border. (We had this discussion before; you kept claiming that the treaties didn't define the border, even when I quoted the specific sections). I think you have a terminology problem here - what, exactly, do you mean when you say "recognized", and when you say "internationally recognized"? What do the terms mean, and what are the requirements for either? I've asked you this above, but you didn't answer.

The fact that some countries refuse to recognize Israel is of little relevance here, especially as most countries in the world do recognize it, have diplomatic relations with it, it's a member of international organizations such as the UN, and functions, for all intents and purposes, as a state. Simply put, what Libya thinks of Israel, makes no difference to Israel's border with Jordan. okedem (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course the borders with Egypt and Jordan were declared and defined by the Israeli government. Are you being serious? Who do you think signs and ratifies these agreements?

I suggest you read Borders of Israel. You'll find that as I mentioned above, not only are the borders with Egypt and Jordan defined and recognized, so is the border with Lebanon (with a UN Security Council seal of approval, no less). In fact, most of Israel's borders are recognized, the view of a small minority of UN members notwithstanding. The open disputes "international recognition"-wise are with Syria and the Palestinians. There's also a small border dispute with Lebanon. I believe all this is mentioned in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to see what sources Tiamut comes up with in regards to this topic before making any judgement on how much content and how prominent it should be in the article. It does seem like an interesting topic-matter even if it is probably too political and complex for the lead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map doesn't show the entire territory of Israel - it excludes areas conquered in the Six Day War.
Even though these areas are in dispute, they are still Israeli territory for the time being, making this information incorrect.
I would be more than happy to change it if I knew how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorshil (talk • contribs) 11:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It excludes areas occupied by Israel as they are not in Israel. nableezy - 17:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Areas Israel occupied in the Six day war is not Israeli territory's, nor has they ever been Israeli territory's. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically that would depend on what your definition of "Israeli territory's" (sic) is. Some would argue that they have been at one point in time :) Breein1007 (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• The user does seem to have a point though, that while the international community mainly rejects Israeli control of the territory, the areas are de facto under Israeli occupation. Couldn't the West Bank and Gaza the occupied areas that Israel claims as being part of its territory be shown as pink or orange, or something like that on the map to show that it is disputed? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Then would you colour pink for example Iraq, in a map of the United States? It is not disputed that those areas are not in Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because Iraq has been a sovereign state since 30 June 2004. The Palestinian territories are not, as even though the State of Palestine has some international recognition, it has neither de facto or de jure control of its territory. While Israel doesn't claim (most of) the West Bank or Gaza, it does claim certain territories which are not depicted on the map, such as East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. These areas, and not all of the Palestinian territories, should be shown in a different colour like pink.

See this map published by the Jerusalem Post, which shows the territory that the State of Israel claims to have sovereignty over. The West Bank and Gaza have a darker shade, but the Golan Heights are shown as integral part of Israel. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty does not make a difference to whether a territory is occupied or no, it's a question about whether the occupier has actual control. To turn your argument around, would you have coloured Iraq pink on May 2004? It's plain that Palestine will control the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem once the peace deal eventually gets signed so pink shades are not needed. The legal status now is very clear: the West Bank is not Israeli and Israel has no claim to it. This view is shared by the Arab League, the UN, the US and the EU which all agree the '67 line will serve as an international border, with possible minor land swaps. --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Dailycare,

I'm not sure you are correct with the 'It's plain that' issue. Are you sure? Where do Hamas' interpretation of 'Palestine' and Gaza fit into this "peace deal"?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what any user thinks is "plain" or not plain about a potential peace deal, it is nearly universally accepted that the West Bank (including E. Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights are not in Israel. To say otherwise is just silly. nableezy - 20:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

Please don't interfere my query to Dailycare with notes on what you find silly or otherwise (offtopic: I would include the term 'universally accepted').

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an article talk page meant for discussing the article. This is not a place for you to carry on a conversation with another user and expect that nobody "interfere". So, no. And perhaps you should consult a dictionary for the meaning of the word "nearly". nableezy - 02:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• To respond to the above, and particuarly Dailycare, no I would not have would you have coloured Iraq pink on a map of the USA in May 2004 – the United States did not claim Iraq as part of its territory. Israel does however consider East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as part of its territory. While the West Bank and Gaza will clearly be part of any future Palestinian state, (and Israel does not claim them to be part of Israel, and these territories should not be coloured pink), the status of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is less clear. Also the Golan Heights are claimed by Syria, not the Palestinians. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The current status of both E. Jerusalem and the Golan is crystal clear. The Golan Heights is Syrian territory under Israeli occupation, thousands of reliable sources can be provided that conclusively make this point. E. Jerusalem is Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. Thousands of reliable sources can be provided that conclusively make this point. That Israel disputes this is noted, but it is a tiny minority view that either the Golan or E. Jerusalem is Israeli territory. nableezy - 23:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the international concensus, or, if you like, the legal reality of the situation. I do think, however, in an article on the State of Israel, territory under Israeli control and claimed as being part of Israel should be marked. In a broader article about the Middle East, then yes, the Israeli government represents a minority view; in an article about Israel itself however, its government's position is fundamentally significant. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Israel is in Western Europe not Wetstern Asia.... dumbass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.201.144 (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

lol....... Breein1007 (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, it is plain in the sense that all key players accept it. The Arab League, the UN, the US, the EU and now even (reportedly) Netanyahu all agree the '67 line will serve as basis for an international border. --Dailycare (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Daily care,

I have a few disagrements with your interpretation on how each key player sees the 'It's plain that' issue and, certainly, you'd agree that a peace agreement is not a plain given fact. Certainly not when Hamas is backed by external interesants and their aspirations are far greater than what can be plainly achieved through peace discussions.

p.s. I don't know that I would include together "Arab league" and "Netanyahu" in the assertion about Jerusalem. There's obviously a gap there and not a general consensus. I think you'd agree that you slightly overstretched from "West Bank" generics to include Jerusalem when there is no agreement among the mentioned parties there. We are, I believe, talking about Jerusalem more than anything.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, the map is small and East Jerusalem would not be visible on it, one way or another. I gather this thread is about the West Bank and Gaza, which on the other hand can be seen on the map. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Capital

This article should not be a featured article. It is not written from a NPOV and rather is written with a blatently Zionist agenda. The capital of Israel is disputed and this should not be hidden in a footnote. The vast majority of countries consider Tel Aviv the capital of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.198.81 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What other countries think has zero impact over the reality of a capital. A capital city is, as any dictionary will tell you, "a country's seat of government". Jerusalem is home to Israel parliament, government offices, PM office, president quarters, the supreme court, etc., so it definitely fulfills that definition. While other countries might think Jerusalem shouldn't be the capital, they can't change the fact that it is. okedem (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. --Shuki (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks Tel Aviv is Israel's capital better be prepared to show lots of citations that's the case. Embassies are placed in Tel Aviv, because a) it is the largest city, b) it is a fun place for diplomats, c) as a protest against Israel annexing Jerusalem without a peace treaty (with whom it is not clear). If we put "proclaimed" or any such disclaimer, we will need a paragraph to show that the international community denies Israel fundamental sovereign rights, namely the right to name its own capital. Leifern (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That last sentence probably should include the word "capital" before city, so assuming it does there is one point. Israel does have a right to determine its capital, it does not however have the right to determine that area outside of its borders, namely occupied E. Jerusalem, is part of its capital. That is neither a fundamental right or a sovereign right. nableezy - 22:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Thanks for pointing out the error). What borders? Please show me the tractate, peace treaty, etc., or other binding international agreement that establishes Israel's borders with respect to Jerusalem. Now, let's be clear that Hamas and arguably Fatah doesn't even accept Israel's right to have any borders. And also, why would Israel not be allowed to establish its capital in areas of Jerusalem that you consider within this imaginary border? Leifern (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my use of the word borders. This may be a bit convoluted but should work, replace that with "outside its territory". What is and is not "Israeli territory" is well-defined. nableezy - 06:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? Where is the peace treaty or other international agreement that establishes what is Israel's "territory?" And who are signatories to this? Leifern (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Israeli territory is defined by the 1949 Armistice Agreements. It is well-established through countless sources that E. Jerusalem is part of the occupied Palestinian territories and outside of Israel. If you really want sources for that let me know, but it will take a while compiling the countless scholarly books and journals that make this clear. The area within Israel is well established, and the area defined as occupied Palestinian territory is likewise well defined (the West Bank, including E. Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip) and the area defined as occupied Syrian territory is well defined (the Golan Heights) and the area defined as occupied Lebanese territory is also well defined. There is no real dispute about this in the scholarly literature. E. Jerusalem is not in Israel, that is a cold hard fact. nableezy - 22:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There are UN resolutions against israel being allowed to have jerusalem as its capital. i don't know about the opinioons of the hardcore orthodox zionists, but as far as i know most regular israelis seem to consider tel aviv as the "capital" capital. whatever the case, any future peace process will probably not incorporate jerusalem as the capital, so why keep the capital as such on wikipedia if it's just going to be changed anyway? ;) avoid the hassle and just put tel aviv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.1.66 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, cite your source on Israelis not considering Jerusalem the capital. I'm not orthodox to speak of, let alone hardcore anything, and myself and every Jew I know in the US certainly considers Jerusalem the capital. Second, while there are UN resolutions on the subject, there are also UN resolutions saying that North Korea can't have nukes. They still do, and Wikipedia should report on that reality. Third, it is not the job of Wikipedia to play crystal ball and predict the future, and then write articles based on that prediction. The possibility of the status of Jerusalem changing in a peace settlement exists, but that status has not changed right now, and we don't even know when or if that status will change. Therefore, it makes no sense, and violates Wikipedia policy, to change the capital now just so we won't have to later. We're reporting the present, not a possible future. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would second OuroborosCobra's point regarding Israeli's views of Jerusalem as capital. I am individual who was born and raised in Haifa, though I would not describe myself as a Zionist (let alone an "orthodox" one). And yet, never have I heard anyone in Israel refer to Tel Aviv as the capitol. Moreover, whenever someone uses the expression "HaBirah" (הבירה), i.e. "the capital", it is inferred that the speaker is referring to Jerusalem. -- imaizlin 14:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be neutral to say Tel Aviv is the capital in the infobox, because it isn't. It's only treated as the capital in international diplomacy which is only a small part of a capital city's function. I think the only two options regarding the infobox would be to put either Jerusalem or "see below" in the capital city section, and then include a paragraph in the main text describing the situation.--Ptolion (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Is New York City the capital of the US? Because most of the world seems to act that way. There are in fact many embassies in D.C., but many more consulates and foreign government offices and delegations in NYC. Is that what this whole issue is about. I think that Toronto/Ottawa is also similar in Canada. --Shuki (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

<- We could change it to 'Jerusalem (proclaimed)' as per Britannica. Would that help ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have shown enough times in the past, the status of capital has little to do with proclamation, and international recognition of a capital is nice, but meaningless. Capital = seat of government. That's true for Jerusalem and Israel, and we cannot compromise accuracy for political reasons. okedem (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see where the compromise would be. I don't think Britannica has compromised accuracy for political reasons so if we were to take the same position as them we wouldn't be either. Since truth is irrelevant here accuracy means the degree to which something matchs the sources. If we just use Britannica we are being 100% accurate based on a reliable uncontroversial source. That seems okay to me and it has the added benefit of people knowing where the terminology came from. Complex arguments about what makes a city a capital are opaque from the WP:V compliance (and therefore wiki-accuracy) persepctive. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to start repeating myself from previous discussions, but I'll say this - "capital" is a word, describing a function. If a city fulfills that function, it is the capital, regardless of what anyone else thinks of that. Nothing complex about that, just that the designation of a city as capital does not depend, and never has depended, on international opinion. okedem (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's one of many decision procedures. The way I look at these things is to ask myself whether a dumb machine would be able to establish WP:V compliance by comparing factual/infobox information like this with the sources cited. If not then smart humans will start filling the talk page up. I don't have strong views on the issue. Alternatively we could put Capital of Israel = 'The letter I' and see what happens. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, you said "international recognition of a capital is nice, but meaningless." From the 'Sovereign state' wiki article:

"it was firmly established that in future new states would have to be recognised by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the great powers."

"Other states may have sovereignty over a territory but as they lack international recognition, are de facto states only"

Considering that International recognition is required for a state to be sovereign, and considering that Israel's claim of Jerusalem's status as a capital is a claim of sovereignty ( http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-191770162.html ) I don't think it's right to say that international recognition of the capital is meaningless. So since as per resolution 478 the UN does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and that no country has its embassy in Jerusalem, it's fair to say that Jerusalem is not the 'de jure' capital.

At most, it can be considered as the 'de facto' capital. But that depends on the definition of Capital. You said "A capital city is, as any dictionary will tell you, a country's seat of government". It looks like the wiki article on Capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28political%29 ) doesn't really say that. It even lists examples of countries where the seat of government is NOT at the capital (Countries in the world where capital and seat of government are currently separated: Benin, Bolivia, Cote-d'Ivoire, Netherlands). Clearly your claim that 'capital = seat of government' does not hold.

So it is more complex than you are making it seem. For that reason, I second Sean.Hoyland's suggestion of using Britannica's definition as it represents a reliable uncontroversial source: "Capital (proclaimed) Jerusalem; the city’s capital status has not received wide international recognition." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.153.208 (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Been following this for awhile, might as well weigh in now. Are there issues here and what are they? No question that worldwide, there is an observable controversy regarding Jerusalem as Israel's capital. But this is not observably reflected in the article as it stands. Attempts by many different editors to make it so have been meet by some editors working on this page with an established reasoning for exclusion, something like: "What other countries think has zero impact over the reality of a capital." Perhaps this argument has value, but it also seems it could be regarded as an argument calculated to support the omission of relevant information.

Facts: Israel has a law that says Jerusalem is the capital, the UN says that law is null and void, and most of the world does not recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. There are issues. But reflecting these issues in the article (not in a footnote) would of course have zero impact over the practical reality of Jerusalem or the dictionary definition of a capital as "seat of government". So I don't understand attempts by some editors working on this page to frame the discussion of the issues inside the question of whether or not Jerusalem really is the Israeli capital. Wikipedia will not decide what the Israeli capital is. The real issue is why should Wikipedia omit the information that there are issues? That's what I don't get. RomaC (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Anon - the seat of government is the capital, unless the country specifically chooses to separate those things. In this case - that doesn't happen. So while the UN and other countries can object, they simply have no say in this; your legal analysis is wholly irrelevant for this issue. Israel controls the city (justly or not - irrelevant), designated it as capital, and it serves as capital.

RomaC - no one is hiding any information. The article Jerusalem has a nice, long, "Political status" section. There a long footnote discussing the issue here. Jerusalem's status is discussed extensively in this article as well, in "Independence and first years", "Conflicts and peace treaties", and "Occupied territories". What information are we omitting, exactly? If anything, this article discusses the issue too much. okedem (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, capital city status is not determined with a "where is the seat of government" test alone (cf the capitals of Netherlands or South Africa), but it is also a legal matter. According to Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital, but according to international law it is not. You may say that it's no other country's business what Israel does, but Israel is a UN member, so is expected to play by the rules.--Ptolion (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of the countries you mention have chosen to make different arrangements, and that's their right. But no outside entity can dictate what a country's capital is.

Rules - well, then, perhaps the UN should reprimand Israel for this (oh, right, it did). But Israel chose not to comply with their request, and that's that. Oh, and "international law" is not some clear codex of laws, and your assertion is just one opinion. Israel has a good legal case against it. But that's not the point here - the UN etc. think Jerusalem should not be the capital, but it is. International opinion simply doesn't play a part in this. okedem (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you know it is not just that they "think it should not be the capital" it is that a large portion of what Israel claims as its capital is outside of the state of Israel. nableezy - 17:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They think that Israel has no legal right, etc. Yea. They refuse to recognize as Israel's capital, they don't say: "no, factually your capital is Tel Aviv". Countries don't place their embassies in Tel Aviv or Herzelya because they claim those are the capitals, they just don't want to legitimize Israel's choice of capital - a choice they cannot change. okedem (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That is part of it, the other part if it is that a large portion of what Israel claims as its capital is not in Israel. Anybody who says that Tel Aviv really is the capital should just be laughed at. But there is a large portion of the world that says that part of what Israel has claimed as its capital is not in Israel so that part cannot be Israels capital. It really is not as complicated as you make it out to be. This is not about a countrys right to determine its capital, the issue is by saying that Jerusalem, as a whole, is Israels capital goes against what a number of nations, commentators, and other sources say about the matter. That land outside of Israels borders is not, and cannot be, part of "Israel's capital". nableezy - 19:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't.

This is where the central part of the discussion as well as editors claiming that certain information is implied is not relevant. The sentence does not say 'the capital of Israel is the united Jerusalem'. Instead it only says quite NPOV Jerusalem is the country's capital, seat of government, and largest city, while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv.[1]. --Shuki (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Without the area and population in occupied East Jerusalem, Jerusalem is not the largest city. And lets not be cute here, it is well understood what Jerusalem means, both East Jerusalem and the area of the modern city that is within Israels borders. nableezy - 22:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem: that "that's that" is just your opinion. I'm just pointing out that the issue is far from clear-cut. Jerusalem's status is the subject of many legal disputes, so adopting just one POV and sticking it in the infobox is not neutral.--Ptolion (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

International opinion has never been a prerequisite for a nation's capital. Jerusalem is under Israel's control (legally? morally? irrelevant), is designated as the capital, answers the definition of capital (open any dictionary), and serves as one. Open and shut. Of course there's a dispute, and we report on it fully - there's a detailed footnote, and the article discusses this issue at length. No one is omitting or hiding anything here. okedem (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's just your POV. Continued below...--Ptolion (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

<- Are there any policy based arguments against changing it to 'Jerusalem (proclaimed)' in the infobox cited to Britannica ? It has 100% WP:V compliance based on an a reliable uncontroversial source, it's neutral, it adds information, it allows readers to verify the information transparently, it eliminates the need to discuss competing decision procedures that attempt to measure the capital-ness of a city and it also happens to be true which is a bonus. If we measured the extent to which it's capitalness applies to Jerusalem as a whole based on spatial queries it would get quite a low score so avoiding different ways of defining a capital seems like a good idea. I can't think of any reason not to change it to 'Jerusalem (proclaimed)'. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can: it's wrong. "Proclaimed" means it isn't really, they just said it is. But it is, per the definition. When using a language, we use words according to their proper definitions, and those are determined by dictionaries. Open a dictionary, see what it says about capital (spoiler - it doesn't discuss the opinion of the UN, or international law experts). okedem (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proclaimed does not mean it really is not, it means that we, Wikipedia, make no judgment about that proclamation. It does not mean that Wikipedia either accepts or rejects that proclamation. It means that we, Wikipedia, see that there is a real dispute here and the answer is not to simply accept one sides argument (especially the side that literally represents a fringe sized minority POV as opposed to what nearly the entire world agrees). You know, NPOV and all that. nableezy - 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's WP:OR to use a dictionary definition and interpret a given set of facts ourselves to determine capital city status. We refer to WP:RS and I say, if it's good enough for Britannica, it's good enough for wiki. Unless of course you're disputing that BR is reliable.--Ptolion (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, to write in English, you need to know the definitions of words, and are allowed to use them if they fit. If a city is the seat of government, and no other capital has been declared, then it's the capital. The political motivation of international recognition is totally irrelevant for us, only the facts. Like it or not, Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, and its capital (we're not actually bound by Britannica's phrasing decisions, you know). okedem (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm after policy based arguments against changing it to 'Jerusalem (proclaimed)' cited to the RS Britannica. Also, could you cut the patronsing crap because it's fucking annoying and therefore unhelpful. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy? NPOV. The capital is the seat of government. In this case, it's Jerusalem. We should reflect that fact neutrally, without letting the politics affects our article, and that includes the phrasing. Putting "proclaimed" is bowing to political pressures, that have nothing to do with us. By the very definition, it's the capital.

I'll quote another editor (User:Tariqabjotu), in a previous discussion:

"...two "competed claims" -- one saying that Jerusalem is the capital and one saying it's not. That second claim doesn't really exist, except as denialism. It is true that most countries, and the United Nations, do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but saying "I don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is not the same as saying "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". No matter how many countries disagree with Israel's choice or the manner in which Israel has occupied East Jerusalem or anywhere else, it is impossible to change the fact that Jerusalem is, in fact, currently the capital of Israel. Israel calls it such and treats it as such, locating their executive, legislative, and judicial heads there. Adding "proclaimed" or "disputed" or whatever suggests Israel's capital is somewhere else, when it's not. Most countries want Israel's capital to be located somewhere else, but as for now, it's not. A footnote describing some details on the status of Jerusalem is already included." okedem (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You have said this a lot, Okedem, that a capital is the seat of government, but quite clearly it isn't necessarily and there are many examples of countries where this is not the case. This is exactle why Wikipedia policy doesn't allow us to interpret facts and reach conclusions ourselves. If there is a dispute about something, then Wikipedia has to acknowledge that and not hide vital information in footnotes, other articles, or elsewhere. The root of this dispute is that the existing arrangement is not neutral enough.--Ptolion (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you claiming that another city is the capital? Or that Israel has no capital? okedem (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

(outdent) Okedem, you said "So while the UN and other countries can object, they simply have no say in this". A question doesn't stop being a serious legal matter simply because you say so, or because there are political interests involved. The Security Council, General Assembly, and ICJ have decided that Israel's attempts to unilaterally alter the status of Jerusalem are a breach or flagrant violation of international law, and the UN Charter. They do have the final word on what violates the UN Charter. The Security Council and other countries can also prosecute Israeli officials for population transfers, house demolitions, and etc. States that recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach of a peremptory norm are guilty of committing a wrongful act. See Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 41 at the UN Treaty Organization. [2]

The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, §202 Recognition or Acceptance of States, (2); and §203 Recognition or Acceptance of Governments, (2) both say that a state has a legal obligation not to recognize or treat a regime as the government if its control has been effected by the threat or use of armed force in violation of the UN Charter. §204 Recognition and Maintaining Diplomatic Relations - Law of the United States says "Under the Constitution of the United States the President has exclusive authority to recognize or not recognize a foreign state or government and to maintain or not to maintain diplomatic relations with a foreign government."

There are many other countries that recognize treaty obligations under the the UN Charter, and UN resolutions in their constitutions or national laws. See National implementation of United Nations sanctions: a comparative study. In some cases they are either treated as self-executing, or declarative restatements (codifications) of customary law, e.g. 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970, Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance With the Charter of the United Nations.

Some UN resolutions are considered international agreements that are tantamount to treaties. See for example the "Plan for the Future Government of Palestine," UN GAR 181(II), in the long list of UN resolutions pertaining to minority rights that are included in the "Table of Treaties" (starting at the bottom of Page xxxviii), of Self-determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Thomas D. Musgrave, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0198298986.[3] In fact, the Permanent Court of International Justice applied the rules of treaty interpretation to the Palestine Mandate in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case. The Mandate was in the form of a resolution of the Council of the League of Nations. Article 28 of the Mandate required that the Holy Places and associated religious rights pertaining to them be placed under perpetual international guarantee by whatever steps were deemed to be necessary in the event the Mandate was terminated.

During the first session of the UN General Assembly resolution 9(1) called for the states administering territories held under mandate to take immediate steps to put them under trusteeship. At the same time, the resolution drew attention to the fact that the treaty obligations under 'CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES' that had been accepted by all members were in no way contingent on the conclusion of trusteeship agreements, and that they were already in full force. The members of the UN granted the General Assembly the power to make decisions under Article 18(3) of the Charter; the power to approve, alter, or amend trusteeship agreements; and the power to place territories under direct UN administration in pursuance of Articles 81 and 85.

PART III, of the partition plan "City of Jerusalem, A. SPECIAL REGIME" said:

The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.

Ernest A. Gross was a diplomat, and the State Department's Legal Counsel. He was asked to provide advisory opinions for the White House Staff and the UN Director's Office. The individuals in the White House and U.S State Department were the same individuals who helped found the United Nations through the Dumbarton Oaks, San Francisco Conference, and London Preparatory Conference. The UN Charter hasn't changed since Gross explained to Dean Rusk that the Security Council is not empowered to alter the November 29, 1947 resolution of the General Assembly, and that only the General Assembly can repeal or alter its decision. harlan (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But the General Assembly only approved the partition plan; it in no way has the force of international law, as witnessed by the UN's utter unwillingness to enforce it, either with respect to Jerusalem between 1949 and 1967, or in general. In addition, all the Arab states voted against the plan and attacked Israel in an attempt to put it out of any force. And don't confuse the UN charter with a resolution by the General Assembly. No matter how you turn it, it comes down to this: the people who complain about Jerusalem as Israel's capital are denying Israelis the fundamental sovereign right to determine the place of their own capital. Any reading of international law will tell you that sovereign rights trump pretty much anything else. Leifern (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We aren't discussing "people who complain about Jerusalem", we are talking about other "States" and the rules that govern their relations -- international law. There is an inherent and constitutive relationship between the prohibition against the threat or use of force contained in the UN Charter and the non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem by every other State. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States which I cited above says States have a legal obligation not to recognize or treat a regime as the government if its control has been effected by the threat or use of armed force in violation of the UN Charter.

Coercive force isn't the only means of enforcing UN resolutions. The General Assembly authorized the inhabitants of Palestine to take the necessary steps to implement the plan, and created several subsidiary organs to facilitate its peaceful implementation. The Charter was structured to insure that the interests of territories not able to speak for themselves in international forums were to be looked after by a Member of the United Nations entrusted with their welfare, or as in this case, administered by the UN Organization itself. You are proposing that an administering Power's loss of physical control due to armed force deprives it of the legal status and functions of an administering authority. That would violate the prohibition in the Charter against the threat or use of force and its corollary in customary international law. Non-recognition by other states is the typical sanction applied in such cases in an attempt to bring about compliance with international norms.

The very same day that Israel formally acknowledged the undertakings contained in resolution 181(II) and 194(III): Israel was admitted as a member of the UN; and the Arab States accepted the map of the partition plan as a basis for a negotiated settlement under the auspices of the UN Palestine Conciliation Commission at Lausanne.

No one is denying that Israels' and Palestinians can alter that status through a lawfully negotiated settlement. The resolution itself called for a plebiscite to decide the matter. The Mediator accepted an armistice agreement on behalf of the UN that granted a joint Israeli-Jordanian committee "exclusive competence" to develop any future plans and agreements (article VIII). It also instructed UNTSO to enforce whatever plans and agreements the Israeli-Jordanian committee provided (article IX). The Security Council adopted that arrangement, cited article 40 (Chapter VII of the Charter) in its resolution, and thanked the Mediator (Security Council resolution 73). Israel and Jordan concluded an agreement regarding free access to the Holy Places on both sides of the armistice lines. That agreement is still considered a valid international undertaking by the International Court. See paragraph 129 of the ICJ Judgment in the Wall case.

The power of the General Assembly to adopt binding decisions ceased to be a topic of discussion after the ICJ decision in the Certain Expenses of the UN case (Opinion of 20 VII 62, page 163) The Court ruled that the General Assembly decision to deploy UNEF was not ultra vires, and that members who opposed the measure were nonetheless required to pay for the expenses involved in establishing and maintaining the force. The Court said:

Thus while it is the Security Council which, exclusively, may order coercive action, the functions and powers conferred by the Charter on the General Assembly are not confined to discussion, consideration, the initiation of studies and the making of recommendations; they are not merely hortatory. Article 18 deals with "decisions" of the General Assembly "on important questions". These "decisions" do indeed include certain recommendations, but others have dispositive force and effect.

ICJ President Taslim Olawale Elias wrote about the legal effects of General Assembly resolutions. He said "It seems clear that, as far as General Assembly recommendations in respect of the nine specifically enumerated matters in Article 18(2) are concerned, its "decisions" in the form of "recommendations" are binding upon all once they are adopted by a two thirds majority."

The ICJ provided a brief legal analysis in the Wall case that cited a chapter of resolution 181(II) containing specific guarantees regarding freedom of movement and access to the Holy Sites (paragrapgh 129). That chapter was part of the undertaking required under the terms of Article 28 of the Mandate which had guaranteed immunity (a legal attribute of sovereignty) of the Muslim community from interference with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines. That Protection Plan for Minorities and Religious Groups was listed as the only post-WWII instrument by the UN Secretariat in Chapter III "United Nations Charter and Treaties Concluded After the War", E/CN.4/367, 7 April 1950. The Chairman-Rapporteur of the UN Working Group on Minorities, Mr. Asbjørn Eide, advised in 1996 that no competent UN organ had made any decision which would extinguish the obligations under the instruments listed in that report, and he added that it was doubtful whether that could even be done by the United Nations. See Justifications of Minority Protection in International Law, Athanasia Spiliopoulou Akermark, pages 119-122. harlan (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A little historical perspective shows that denial of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is yet another political ploy in the lawfare employed by the Arab states against Israel and had little to do with the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital per se:

Thirteen nations maintained embassies in Jerusalem until 1980 when Arab states threatened oil blackmail against them.

In April 1980, the Egyptian parliament decreed that Jerusalem was "an integral part of the West Bank," challenging Israel's sovereignty over the city. It was in response to this, that the Israeli parliament introduced a bill entitled "Basic Law: Jerusalem". The bill, which was passed on July 30, 1980, declared that Jerusalem, "united in its entirety, is the capital of Israel" and the seat of Israel's government.

Arab states then rammed through the UN General Assembly a condemnation of Israel. The Los Angeles Times, commenting on the UN action, declared that the General Assembly, "in most political matters generally, and those affecting Israel particularly, has long ceased being a morally credible source committed to conciliation or even honesty in the conduct of international affairs." Even the usually pro-Arab Christian Science Monitor found the Arab sponsored resolution on Jerusalem "so one-sided and so deficient that the United States had no choice but to oppose it.”

Iraq and Saudi Arabia led the campaign to nullify diplomatic recognition of Jerusalem by threatening to cut diplomatic, economic and petroleum ties to any nation with an embassy in Jerusalem. The threats forced these nations, who recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, to move their diplomatic offices: Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, The Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, the Netherlands, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela. 24.182.189.13 (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's please not keep having this. The utterly risible "analysis" that began this discussion, i.e., that Tel Aviv is the actual capital of Israel, is useful only in that highlights that there can only be one answer to the question, "What is the capital of Israel?" As okedem points out, if the answer isn't "Jerusalem" or "Israel has no capital, then it must be Jerusalem. Unless... hmmm... unless Israel doesn't actually exist! I believe there may be some international support for that. Perhaps the whole article needs a retitling. IronDuke 00:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There are several of us here who have made no such argument and cannot be said to follow that line of thinking. While I realize it is easier to pick the easiest argument out of those made and paint anyone who disagrees with the current state of the article but not the premise of the initial comment with the same brush as you do the initiator of the thread, I would hope that you realize that actual points that merit discussion have been raised and instead of ignoring those to pick on the weakest, while that may in fact be the best strategy to "win" if this were a game, you could instead provide a substantive response to the other points made, as I am sure you are capable of doing. nableezy - 01:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that I took a healthy swing at the low-hanging fruit. And yet, satisfied with what I had done, I proceeded to ask some serious questions. I would be interested to hear your reply. IronDuke 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Ill go first. The capital of Israel is "Jerusalem" if "Jerusalem" is defined to be the portion of the modern city of Jerusalem within Israel's boundaries. But part of what we say "Jerusalem" is includes areas outside of the state of Israel. All that is needed here are a few words to clarify things, a note on the word "Jerusalem" including "occupied East Jerusalem", and a note on "the international community" or however you want to phrase it not recognizing Israel's annexation of E. Jerusalem and declaration as part of its capital or just the word "proclaimed" with a footnote. nableezy - 01:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)We have "a few words to clarify things" -- more than a few. There's a freaking footnote next to the word. That is sufficient -- more than sufficient, if you ask me. And indeed, one can also click on the linked word Jerusalem to take you to an even longer disquisition on the matters you have raised. So we are in agreement, I take it, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and we are in agreement, further, that the borders of that municipality are disputed. I see no problem here. IronDuke 01:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. We say that Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel, that is only true if you include people living in areas outside of Israel. That claim should qualified with "including occupied East Jerusalem". And whether or not we agree on "Jerusalem" being the "capital of Israel" depends on what "Jerusalem" means, something that should be explicitly clarified in the text. nableezy - 02:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is explicitly clarified in the text. Whether Jerusalem does or does not include EJ, or is the largest city, is an important issue, but a separate one. No? IronDuke 03:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Its the same issue, just a different aspect. In both instances there is an issue in how we define Jerusalem. In this article, and others, we include East Jerusalem as part of Israel. Saying "Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel" or some variation of that depends on whether or not you include the population of East Jerusalem. By doing so we are implicitly saying that East Jerusalem is in Israel, a statement that is flat out false. The same is true when we say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If we say that, with the word "Jerusalem" commonly understood to include East Jerusalem, we should clarify, right there, what the status of that area is. nableezy - 06:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We can do all that in the footnote, no problemo. IronDuke 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A footnote to the word "proclaimed" would be no problem, a footnote to the word "Jerusalem" or "capital" would be. Footnotes should be used to clarify not to qualify. nableezy - 05:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a footnote to the word "Jerusalem" now. Do you favor its removal? IronDuke 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I favor it not being a footnote. Removal is ambiguous. Do I favor removing the information in that footnote from the article? No. Do I favor removing the footnote and and having the information in the text (where the sentence on Jerusalem being the capital and largest city is)? Yes. nableezy - 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that we had limited the scope to discussing whether it would be better to change the infobox entry to 'Jerusalem (proclaimed)' based on Britannica as a single source and if not, what are the policy based arguments against it. okedem kindly (despite me using a bad word) indicated his opinion that adding 'proclaimed' violates NPOV because it's 'bowing to political pressures, that have nothing to do with us.' and 'Adding "proclaimed" or "disputed" or whatever suggests Israel's capital is somewhere else, when it's not.' I personally don't find those arguments persuasive because it's simply about WP:V compliance based on a respected neutral source. To a neutral reader, adding 'proclaimed' wouldn't suggest anything other than that Israel has proclaimed it as their capital...which is true (not that truth matters here). To a non-neutral reader, any word or the absence of any word might suggest anything at any time. We don't need to care about that because it's out of scope policy-wise as long as we have 100% WP:V compliance based on a neutral source. Readers who are confused by this term can look at the details in the footnotes, articles etc just like now. The bottomline is that it still says Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping the discussion was heading towards "this is incredibly silly, let's stop, for example, piggy-backing off of extraordinarily erroneous anon postings to push POV. "Proclaimed" works about as well as "So-called capital." No serious person -- absent POV -- could fail to see that the word amounts to shudder quotes. Not a good idea. IronDuke 01:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Britannica are serious and they think it's a good idea. It's not silly at all. It's about simple and transparent compliance with policy so that readers can actually see with their own eyes that we are going by a respected, neutral source rather than making stuff up or ignoring reality. You haven't used any policy based arguments. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Britannica does it, so we also must do it" isn't a policy-based argument. And I don't need a policy-based argument to tell me Washington, D.C is the capital of the U.S., even if it was stolen from the Powhatan. Jerusalem is the capital or there is no capital. The idea that there is no capital is, yes, silly. IronDuke 03:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

..so it's good that nobody said "Britannica does it, so we also must do it" or "there is no capital". We could try to make a decision based on policy that would end these kind of "is it/isn't it" discussions once and for all, at least for the infobox. "I don't need a policy based argument.."...interesting view but ironically inconsistent with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think you pretty much did say it. You waved around one cite, suggesting we use it in a way that is completely inconsistent with our policy and MOS "(proclaimed)" looks like a disambig page is being indicated. I say your one source does not trump what is stunningly obvious -- and that, ironically, is policy. I understand you find these arguments complex, but maybe if you went back and took another look, it would start to seem simpler. IronDuke 04:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are helping to resolve this issue. I didn't 'pretty much' say anything. I literally made unambiguous statements that are available on this page where I proposed something, provided reasons and asked for policy based arguments not to do it. I don't find the arguments against the proposal complex at all (although it's sweet that you would think that). I don't think the issues need to be complex at all either. We have a choice. I've listed the advantages of using the Britannica source and I'm asking for people to collaborate in a decision making process based on policy. So you think we shouldn't do it because it makes it look like a disambig page. You could have just said that. Okay, that's something I hadn't thought of. I don't think "it's obvious" helps. Anyone can use that argument using different sourcing Sean.hoyland - talk 05:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you actually did say you found the argument complex. Right here (I don't know if it's "sweet" you forgot that, or just funny ;)). So… perhaps you found it complex back when you said you did, but having thought more about it, the issue has cleared up for you. I’m glad you see my point about the disambig issue. One of many problems with this idea. IronDuke 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well I was speaking from the perspective of a dumb machine (or a human reader) trying to quickly verify the infobox data in a simple and transparent way. I didn't clarify that until the next comment. I personally find things like undoing knotted elastic bands on bags of noodle soup complex. This takes me back to the reasons I proposed this just so you are clear about where I'm coming from. Proposing things like this usually gets someone treated like a member of Hamas or an IDF targeted killing squad depending on the page. It's quite entertaining but it's a bit distracting. I don't mind what the infobox says, my interest is in taking the politics out of the equation and just treating it like an easily verifiable piece of data. People are challenging 'Jerusalem' in the infobox for a reason and we should address it somehow. Some of those challenges are inane (e.g. it's Tel Aviv) but they have an underlying cause. It keeps happening and we should do something sensible and pragmatic. Squeezing things like this into an infobox is inherently problematic so I'm looking for a simple way for the infobox entry itself to indicate that this issue isn't completely straightforward while at the same time allowing a reader (or dumb machine) to verify that what it says is supported by a good source. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we please move the discussion away from this rhetorical battle on whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital of Israel. There clearly are issues here (okedem I am glad to see you acknowledge above that there are issues, rather than repeating the "it's simple, look in the dictionary" argument. Admitting that there are issues regarding Jerusalam as the Israeli capital, although you say you think the issues are being given too much attention in the article, is a start toward discussion, and hopefully we can reach a consensus by following Wiki policies). We can see that other editors here on Talk disagree with your assessment of how and how much these issues are or should be represented in the article. You appear to support having them down in a footnote (a placement which may, technically, be 'out' of the article), while I disagree with that because I see it as a relegation approaching omission. Can we see whether policies of NPOV support the issues regarding Jerusalem as the Israeli capital being reflected more prominently in the article?

Iron Duke, rather than fall into the political/legal rhetorical battle about whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, I am inclined to stand on the clear and verifiable qualification given to Jerusalem by Britannica. Support Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed) as proposed by SeanHoyland above. Aside from your personal opinion on what you think this addition may mean and whether or not you agree with how you think that may be interpreted -- and instead of terming discussion thereof as "incredibly silly" -- can you please participate by addressing the source for the proposed edit. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been established that international law does not have any bearing on the administrative functions of an independent state. Regardless of the implications of declaring a disputed city a capital it is still an administrative function. The only valid reason to include an asterisk when mentioning a capital would be if the de facto capital and the de jure capital were separate cities. Nobody that is knowledgeable with situation in Israel would declare that to be the case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether to change the infobox to 'Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed)' and cite it to Britannica. We're looking for valid reasons=policy based arguments not to do it. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second, You're looking for valid policy reasons not to do it??!? That's not how it works. If you are arguing solely on the basis of policy you better find a policy reason that gives cause to make a completely unprecedented change to a long-established article. Brittanica has its own problems and has no bearing on wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I'm looking for policy based reasons not to do it. I've suggested reasons for doing it further up the page in this section. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

All of you're reasons more or less come down to the fact that Brittanica is doing it. That's not a policy reason. In fact its pretty much a suggestion that is worthy of simply being ignored.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

..ignored because ? The statement 'you're reasons more or less come down to the fact that' <any RS> 'is doing it. That's not a policy reason.' doesn't make sense to me because it's inconsistent with WP:V. We want readers to be able to verify information based on RS. What if Britannica just said 'Jerusalem' rather than 'Jerusalem (proclaimed)' and I listed precisely the same arguments "There is literally 100% WP:V compliance based on an a reliable uncontroversial source, it's neutral, it adds information, it allows readers to verify the information transparently, it eliminates the need to discuss competing decision procedures that attempt to measure the capital-ness of a city and it also happens to be true which is a bonus." ? Would you argue that they are not policy reasons and that the source and suggestion should be ignored ? I don't understand your decision making process. Is there a problem with Britannica as an RS ? Is 100% WP:V compliance bad ? Is Britannica non-neutral ? Is adding '(proclaimed)' misleading, poorly sourced and policy non-compliant in someway ? Is it inconsistent with policy to allows readers to verify the information transparently ? Is it bad to eliminate the need to deal with competing POV based decision procedures about what makes a city a capital ? Our objective is to maximise WP:V and WP:NPOV compliance. Jerusalem by itself in the infobox appears to be causing problems. Adding proclaimed cited to an RS increases WP:V and WP:NPOV compliance in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be ignored not because Brittanica is not a reliable source, but because you seem to be giving it a special status at the expense of much more respected sources. Using an encyclopedia as a source is generally considered academically lazy and should only be done as the last resort. Your argument is strange considering that you continually come back to Brittannica as if it is the end all for reliability. It simply strikes me as odd and academically dishonest. Furthermore it is bizarre that you arrived at this article ostensibly as an agent of neutrality and yet you completely disregard any argument that does not conform with a specific point of view, all the while holding onto your own increasingly weak argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What are the much more respected sources you are referring to, the HCJ ? Considered lazy etc according to which policy and which set of people (and am I supposed to respect these people's views because I'll need a policy telling me to do that)? My argument is deliberately simple and transparent. I've picked Britannica because it provides WP:V compliance and will increase neutrality a little bit (along with the other practical reasons I outlined). The responses seem to be quite odd and often aggressive given that the discretionary sanctions indicate that we should 'aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict.' I haven't seen much of that so far and I haven't disregarded any policy based arguments yet have I ? Which ones ? This article is watchlisted along with many others covered by the discretionary sanctions precisely because editors working in these areas seem to find it difficult to follow core policies and tend to be pretty emotional about these things. Trying to attack me or bait me is just silly, a waste of time and makes you look bad. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel my aggression was warranted seeing how easily you rejected the previous arguments out of hand supposedly based on the fact that you were only arguing "policy" when in fact you were arguing about content just as much as the rest of us. Also I believe we should avoid bringing up policy too much considering the fact that what is being proposed in this article is more or less completely unique and not really covered by any Wikipedia guidelines.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a situation completely unique in the world. An argument based on the idea that this article should be like others is based on the fallacious idea that this situation is like other situations. Can you name another instance in which the proclaimed capital of a state includes areas designated as being under occupation and outside of the country? This article should be different because the situation is different. nableezy - 03:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Taipei.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. nableezy - 15:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East is incredibly succinct on Jerusalem's status: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" (491). This is the first sentence of the encyclopedia's entry under "Jerusalem." Other reference books that explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel include The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44), Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia (2003 ed., p. 628), and Britanica Online Encyclopedia. Many of the above state that most countries' embassies are in Tel Aviv, but most of them simply identify the capital of Israel as Jerusalem just as they identify the capital of the United States as Washington, D.C. --GHcool (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another RS, for the record: Jerusalem in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language - Ancient name, Salem Hierosolyma; the capital of ancient and modern Israel, regarded as holy by Jews, Christians, and Moslems. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and to all you editors who maintain the "proclaimed" is perfectly neutral, and just means that Israel proclaimed it the capital - do you know where the word "proclaimed" is used here on wiki? Not for Paris, Rome, or Moscow, for instance. Sure, at some point they were proclaimed as capital, but there is a much stronger (and more useful) statement about them - they actually serve as the capitals, and so they're just listed as "capital", no "proclaimed" or "declared".

Where you will find the qualification "proclaimed" is in the article about the State of Palestine - in the infobox it says "Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed), Ramallah (administrative)". That's because although the Palestinians proclaimed Jerusalem their capital, they don't actually control an inch of it, and it doesn't serve as their capital. That's why the strongest thing we can say about it is "proclaimed", instead of just listing it as their capital. I hope no one is claiming Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital to be the same.

Oh, and to Sean - I never denied the existence of a dispute. I helped write that footnote. I wrote the section about the occupied territories in the article. I pointed out how much space this topic already gets (too much). I just said that the dispute, while notable on it's own, doesn't change Jerusalem's status as capital. okedem (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, I think you meant RomaC rather than me not that it makes much difference I guess. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sean I believe he's just put us into the same bucket! Honored. Anyway, okedem, honest mistake I'm sure, but back to what you wrote: as you accept there is a "dispute" regarding Jerusalam as the capital, which is really what I've been saying all along, let me ask you -- are you aware of a similar or parallel "dispute" regarding your examples of Paris, Rome, or Moscow above? If not then I think about "apples and oranges".

So, can we please return to my concerns? We can see that other editors here on Talk disagree with your assessment of how and how much this "dispute" is or should be represented in the article. You appear to support having it down in a footnote (a placement which may, technically, be 'out' of the article), while I disagree with that because I see it as a relegation approaching omission. Can we see whether policies of NPOV support the "dispute" regarding Jerusalem as the Israeli capital being reflected more prominently in the article? Again: While I do not support a bunch of Wiki editors trying to decide whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital of Israel, neither do I support the omission of the clear and present issues/dispute that exist in the world regarding that matter. And I am glad you agree. Now the only question is how to present this info. How about 'Capital: Jerusalem (disputed)'? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a poor suggestion IMHO. Do you honestly see it lasting long term and why? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I'm interested to hear your views on the 'Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed)' suggestion detailed (far) above too. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

While I continue to support 'Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed)' I have responded to okedem's objections by suggesting "disputed" after he wrote that there was a "dispute" regarding Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Just looking for the most accurate word, it could also be "unrecognized" or something else, but it shouldn't be nothing at all, that just ignores reality. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sean, RomaC - sorry for the mixup. Long talk page.

Again, "disputed" means there a dispute about whether it is the capital - but that's not the dispute. The dispute is whether Israel has the right to make it the capital, or if that move was illegal. The move (making it the capital) happened. The government is there, it functions as such. But did Israel have the right to do it? It's unrecognized - other countries don't want to legitimize it, but they can't change the reality of it by will.

Jerusalem is different from Rome and the others, of course - which is why there's a footnote for Jerusalem, and not the others.

RomaC - you keep saying "...a footnote (a placement which may, technically, be 'out' of the article)", and want the dispute "reflected more prominently in the article" - but that not right at all. The article, as I have shown previously, discusses this issue at length:

• First at "Independence and first years" where Jerusalem's special status under the UN plan, and EJ's annexation by Jordan.
• Then in "Conflicts and peace treaties", the 1967 war is explained - "Jerusalem's boundaries were enlarged, incorporating East Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Law, passed in 1980, reaffirmed this measure and reignited international controversy over the status of Jerusalem."
• And in great detail in "Occupied territories" (I won't bother quoting everything).

So the information is in much more then a footnote, and certainly isn't "'out' of the article". okedem (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

International opinions have no bearing on the status of a capital of a sovereign state. Therefore, the word "proclaimed" is redundant and undermines Jerusalem's status as the capital of Israel. There's really no room here for interpretations, and all the arguments raised above for including "proclaimed" (or a variant) are based on the false assumptions that anyone other than Israel has a say on what's Israel chooses to be its capital. Moreover, Israel's seat of government and legislature are both located in Jerusalem, making it not just a "proclaimed" capital but also serving the function of a capital. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is quote clear about giving due weight to opinions expressed in reliabel sources. I has been demonstrated that quite a few sources list "capital" without qualification. Another source has been given that qualifies this with "proclaimed" in parentheses. In the past, I've mentioned that the BBC website gives a "seat of government" as opposed to a "capital", a specific deviation from its normal listings. Giving due weight would entail the box havign the majority description, (if the preponderance of sources are as argued above that means listing it as a capital) but then qualifying this in the footnote indicating that a number of reliable sources deviate. "Many reference sources simply list Jerusalem as Israel's capital (some refs) but Britannic lists it this way and the BBC do that." --Peter cohen (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Peter cohen, do you mean that quite a few (dictionary) sources define "capital" a certain way? Or that a "majority description" of RS says "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" without qualification? This is something I want to know. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going by GHcool's list above of encyclopedias and similar reference sources and assuming that it was representative. If it is unrepresentative and bad faith list, then I'd be happy to go with "seat of government" or qualifying it as not internationally recognised.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's unrepresentative but look at what is said: (snip) The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East is incredibly succinct on Jerusalem's status: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" (491). This is the first sentence of the encyclopedia's entry under "Jerusalem." (snip). Here, a qualification of the dispute/issues regarding Jerusalem as the Israeli capital appears in the first sentence, as noted. Not in a footnote. Why not a similar first-reference qualification for this article, "Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed/ or something)" in the infobox. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

okedem, we agree that Jerusalem is not like Rome or Paris, because of the dispute/issues regarding Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which do not correspond to Paris-France etc. In fact I would even wonder if Jerusalem isn't unique in the world in this regard. Anyway, on the question of how and how much the dispute/issues are being addressed in this article, you believe appropriately and too much, respectively. I disagree with this, and support an infobox qualification as proposed by SeanHoyland, or somesuch qualification, I hope we can find the best word. So perhaps not an insurmountable difference between us. (Ynhockey and editors above arriving and re-stating an "International opinions have no bearing on the status of a capital of a sovereign state"-type argument, yes we have heard this. Please do not assert the premise here as a question of whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel or not. The proposed qualification rather concerns the intrinsics of the clear and present dispute/issues regarding Jerusalem as the Israeli capital.) Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

To weigh in: Here a reader makes the claim that Infoplease.com is mistaken to list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, since it is not the "officially recognized" capital of Israel, the same argument given above. Infoplease answers "Thanks for writing. All major encyclopedias (Columbia, Britannica, World Book) and dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, Random House, American Heritage) list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." They go on to say that they have a footnote with respect to the controversy. It seems that there is much more in this article than a mere footnote with respect to this controversy. The idea of putting "proclaimed" in the infobox is strange, as it suggests it is only in speech and not in act that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. In Israel Jerusalem acts as the capital, is the seat of government. Whether other countries want to put their embassies there or not is their business. With respect to the UN and all its proclamations and resolutions, they don't have any power whatsoever. They can enforce nothing whatsoever. Not Sudan, not Iran, not North Korea, Russia, Somalia, whatever -- nada. To think that because the UN declares they don't like another country's location of capital means it isn't there is an example of magical thinking. Stellarkid (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

re:The idea of putting "proclaimed" in the infobox is strange. I've proposed this based on Britannica as a source. That is how they address this issue, they simply say 'Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed)'. I've provided a number of what I regard as simple, pragmatic, policy compliant, apolitical reasons. I'm strongly in favour of restricting this discussion to the infobox entry. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So far in this lengthy discussion, one source has been cited that qualifies Jerusalem as Israel's capital with "proclaimed". If I've counted correctly, thirteen cite Jerusalem as Israel's capital without qualification next to that fact. It seems pretty obvious, therefore, based on policy of giving proper weight to sources, that the infobox should remain as is without any change, as it reflects the overwhelming consenus of multiple reliable sources, while the footnote already addresses the issues raised by the one source that adds a parenthetical qualification.24.182.189.13 (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you but it depends on what you mean by 'source'. The infobox entry is a summation of a potentially vast amount of information in any number of RS that anyone could propose which discuss at length the ins and outs of whether or not it is or isn't the capital and in what sense it is and it isn't using all sorts of decision procedures etc etc etc endlessly. So, unless you define what is meant precisely by 'source' in this context and the process by which you transform that information into a single attribute in an infobox (which is what people look at) it's not all clear to what extent that information complies with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Consequently, it will be challenged endlessly. This is the problem with infobox entries but it's only here that it's a problem with a capital entry. It's seems clear to me at least that just saying Jerusalem in the infobox isn't quite enough, it isn't quite as neutral as it could be, it isn't quite as transparently verifiable as it needs to be and people aren't completely satisfied with farming out things to the footnote. I deliberately cherry picked that one source so that the infobox entry itself indicates that this issue isn't completely straightforward while at the same time allowing a reader to verify that what it says is exactly what the source says and that it's good source. I'm trying to be pragmatic and keep it simple. I don't have strong views about what to do but I do think we need to do something. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider these made up examples. An East Jerusalem infobox with 'Status: Belligerent occupation' or something similar. An Israeli Settlement infobox with 'Legal Status: Illegal under international law'. I think they would cause some problems and people would want to do something about it. ..or try thinking about what to put in an infobox about somewhere like Gilo. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To Stellarkid, I can support something like the Infoplease Israel entry your question link refers to. It qualifies with "proclaimed" on first reference (in their facts & figures box) regarding Jerusalem as capital, and so does the CIA Factbook also referenced on the question page. This is clear and reflects reality. Thanks. Also Anon editor above, can you indicate where you count these 13 unqualified references please? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We always strive to write the strongest, most salient statement about something. In the article about Barack Obama, for instance, we don't begin by saying: "Barack Obama is a lawyer and former Illinois state senator". While technically correct, it is quite misleading, and of little use; instead, we say he's the president of the USA, and leave the other details for later.

Now, most or all capitals were proclaimed as such at some point, so to say the capital of France is "Paris (proclaimed)" is technically true, but irrelevant. Sure it was proclaimed as capital, but it's also the actual capital. Now, where do we write "proclaimed"? Where it's the strongest statement we can say - in the article about the State of Palestine - in the infobox it says "Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed), Ramallah (administrative)". That's because although the Palestinians proclaimed Jerusalem their capital, they don't actually control an inch of it, and it doesn't serve as their capital. That's why the strongest thing we can say about it is "proclaimed", instead of just listing it as their capital.

Now, to say Israel "proclaimed" Jerusalem its capital is technically true, but misleading. It didn't just say "that's our capital". It moved its entire government there, making it the seat of government. So obviously it is much more than merely "proclaimed". But there is a dispute; not over whether or not it's the capital, but over the legitimacy of Israel's actions, and the future of the city. The dispute clearly needs to be covered - which is why it is covered at length in the article's body. Just to make sure no one is confused by the infobox, we include a footnote to explain the situation. People are quite used to things like asterisks leading to qualifying clauses (like "While stocks last"), so I don't think this is too easy to miss. okedem (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

One source how exactly?

1. infoplease: "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the U.S., like nearly all other countries, maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv."
2. The source provided by GHcool, The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community".
3. BBC: Seat of government: Jerusalem, though most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv.
4. CIA FactBook: " note: Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like nearly all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv"

And I can find more. Imad marie (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the point - Infoplease and CIA list Jerusalem as the capital, and relegate the rest to a note (their websites simply don't use footnotes). Continuum flatly states it's the capital, mentioning the lack of recognition, but not basing the very status of the city on recognition (otherwise they could have said something like - "Israel claims Jerusalem as the capital, but other countries dispute this"). BBC skirts around the issue, as usual. okedem (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The CIA lists Jerusalem as the capital as a result of the Jerusalem Embassy Act. However, many other states, such as Canada (lists Tel Aviv as the capital), the UK (which writes that Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognised by the UK and the international community. The UK locates it embassy in Tel Aviv.), France (which says [translated] The State of Israel has established its capital in Jerusalem, despite the absence of international agreement on the status of this city.) do qualify "Jerusalem". While the CIA fact book does list "Jerusalem" as the capital, the entry on the West Bank also says that "East Jerusalem and Jerusalem No Man's Land are also included only as a means of depicting the entire area occupied by Israel in 1967". The US position can not be understood by a single entry in the CIA World Factbook. But if you wanted to just look at a single page, the Israel page contains a qualification on the capital as well: "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like nearly all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv". nableezy - 16:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, no one is disputing the claim that most countries don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. If a country says "Jerusalem is the capital", this carries political implications, as it legitimizes Israel's actions. We're not discussing what countries want or don't want to legitimize, but what actually is, as reflected by sources, and countries' official foreign-relations pages aren't sources for what is, but for the country's position. The Canadian page demonstrates this very well, by making the silly claim that Tel-Aviv is the capital.

I don't understand your point about the West Bank page in the CIA factbook; it seems they explicitly distinguish between the West Bank and EJ, saying they have a different status.

You must have missed it, but Imad has already quoted the CIA page, and I've replied to that. okedem (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I did miss it, sorry. My point about the West Bank page is that is says that E. Jerusalem was occupied by Israel in 67. Occupied territory is by definition outside of the country occupying it. And the point with the rest of the sources was that sources generally do not just say "Jerusalem" as the capital end of story. They do for Paris, or DC, or Cairo, or other examples. We should not just be making the blanket statement that "Jerusalem" is the "capital of Israel" without explaining, right there in the text (not in a footnote), that there is more to the story than that. nableezy - 17:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the formula, all the sources I mentioned above, plus the sources just provided by Nableezy, give more weight to the disputed nature of Jerusalem as a capital. And Wikipedia is the source that gives the least weight to the disputed nature. Imad marie (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To demonstrate the pov nature of this - is this article BBC sorry for calling Jerusalem capital of Israel. Just because it is controversial does not mean it is not the capital of Israel. If the shoe were on the other foot and Palestine was a recognized state with control of Jerusalem and a capital there, it would not matter a whit if Israel and the U.S and U.N claimed it was not. This article demonstrates that it is a matter of being politically correct not factually correct. Stellarkid (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Palestine is a recognized state and has declared Jerusalem its capital. nableezy - 17:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Stellarkid (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, but good luck with that. nableezy - 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

I'm not sure you are correct with the 'recognized state' issue. Are you sure? Where do Hamas and Gaza stand in this recognition?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am sure. The State of Palestine, declared in 1988 by the PLO, has been recognized by around 105 countries. Hamas and Gaza are two separate topics. I dont know what you are asking me about them. The declaration of independence (which you can see in English here) proclaimed "the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem". But none of that is really relevant to the issue of how to treat Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in this article. nableezy - 21:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The State of Palestine was proclaimed on "our Palestinian territory," though it is not clear what that territory consists of, the whole of what is now Israel? Or anywhere a Palestinian may reside? "The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be." The declaration uses Resolution 181 to provide "those conditions of international legitimacy." Yet at the time that Resolution was rejected. Stellarkid (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

State and country are two different things. This really has nothing to do with this article, I was simply correcting an error in your post above (the question on if Palestine was a recognized state when Palestine is a recognized state). The fact is that Palestine is a recognized state, and while it has proclaimed that Jerusalem is its capital that action is not recognized by the world. This is not the proper forum to argue about the contents of the Palestinian declaration of independence. nableezy - 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone should tell Salam Fayyad about this, he's going around telling people he'll establish Palestine in two years. Might save him some work. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

or Al-Bardawell and Nimr Hammad IslamOnline calls the 1988 declaration "a largely symbolic feat with little effect, if any, on the ground..." But of course, the issue in this article is Israel's capital, no one else's, since the article is about Israel, not Palestine. Stellarkid (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to add about the article? nableezy - 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) President Abbas said that the State of Palestine was already in existence and that the current battle is to have the state's border recognized. Abbas: Palestinian state an existing fact, Ynet, November 11, 2009 [4] Fayyad's plan is for building the institutions of government. It mentions the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine four times. Recognition of States must be distinguished from recognition of governments, each form having its own theories and practices. See for example The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, §202 Recognition or Acceptance of States, and §203 Recognition or Acceptance of Governments.

OETJEN V. CENTRAL LEATHER CO., 246 U. S. 297, 303 (1918) has been cited as the controlling authority on recognition in the U.S. lawsuits which named the PLO as a respondent (Klinghoffer, Tel-Oren, and etc.) It is the controling precedent in the United States which sets out the declarative principles of customary international law regarding statehood. When one of the political branches recognizes a State as a state, it acknowledges that entity has all of the rights and responsibilities of any other state. It also explains that recognition is retroactive in effect and validates all the actions and conduct of the government so recognized from the commencement of its existence. The Quartet are funding Fayyad's efforts, and have announced their intentions of recognizing Palestine, just like the many states that have already done so. harlan (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Remarks

I find Okedem's argumentation quite convincing. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a government or international organisation that needs to bend the facts in order to please its constituencies. Furthermore, from the archives it seems that this has been discussed already a million times, with consensus supporting the current version. I do not see a need to discuss this over and over again very few weeks or months, in particular given the length this section has already reached. Pantherskin (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Most RS are careful about calling Jerusalem‎ the capital of Israel, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, nor that it is about Okedem's interpretations. If the RS wrote that the sky is red, and we should write that the sky is red.

If the RS acknowledged that Jerusalem‎ is the capital of Israel I'm sure no one would object here about the lead. Imad marie (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

re "I do not see a need to discuss this over and over again very few weeks or months"..but many people do, their reasons are perfectly simple to understand and that is why I proposed aligning the statement with Britannica to try to end this once and for all. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We do that already. Lengthy footnote explains it all in detail. Using reliable to make decision here is effectively, as some reliable source unqualified state the Jerusalem is the capital, some qualify it, and some qualify it in a footnote. Easy to cherry-pick sources, and impossible to make a decision based just on sources. The current solution is a good comprise, judging from this discussion there will be no solution that will please everyone anyway. Pantherskin (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But almost all sources that I've seen give more weight to the disputed nature, either by saying "proclaimed" or "although countries have decided not locate their embassies in Jerusalem‎" right after the "Capital" statement.

It's obvious that Wikipedia is the source that gives the least weight among other sources, by citing the disputed nature in a footnote where less than 10% of the readers read it. Imad marie (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with okedem and Pantherskin. The issue is addressed by the footnote. Less than 10% of people read footnotes? Where can I find those statistics? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Common sense? Imad marie (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

More sources

Note: I will be updating this list as I find more sources.

Sources from GHcool

User:GHcool wrote above:

The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East is incredibly succinct on Jerusalem's status: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" (491). This is the first sentence of the encyclopedia's entry under "Jerusalem." Other reference books that explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel include The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44), Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia (2003 ed., p. 628), and Britanica Online Encyclopedia. Many of the above state that most countries' embassies are in Tel Aviv, but most of them simply identify the capital of Israel as Jerusalem just as they identify the capital of the United States as Washington, D.C. --GHcool (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oxford sources

It seems that Oxford generally does not qualify the designation "capital" with anything. Such is the case with their:

• "A Guide to Countries of the World" - in the info table, "Capital city: Jerusalem, 693,000". No further discussion in the text.
• "A Dictionary of World History" - Same
• "World Encyclopedia" - in the info table, "Capital: Jerusalem". Only two mentions in the text: "In 1949, ... the capital moved from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem.", and "Within six days, Israel occupied ...East Jerusalem." No mention of controversy.
• In "World Encyclopedia", the listing for Jerusalem begins by: "Jerusalem. Capital of Israel, a sacred site for Christians, Jews and Muslims." Only later, after some history, mentions that the UN doesn't recognize the 1980 declaration regarding the unified city (says nothing of the 1950 move).

I couldn't find any instance of Oxford using "proclaimed", "disputed" or anything like that, so I believe the sources I listed are a fair representation of their view.

Encyclopedias

• Columbia Encyclopedia, lists Jerusalem as "capital of Israel." no qualifications, no mention of international recognition or embassies. Does mention (almost at the end of the entry), that Palestinians view East Jerusalem as "the eventual capital of their own state". In the Israel entry they say "The capital and largest city of Israel is Jerusalem". Couldn't find mention of dispute. Can also read a longer entry here, among the other entries. There is also no mention of recognition issues, "proclaimed" or any such thing.

• Merriam-Webster's collegiate encyclopedia - For Israel (p. 826) says: "Capital: Jerusalem", no mention of dispute, recognition etc. For Jerusalem (p. 843) - "City and capital of Israel". Further down (after discussing holiness and history) says "Its capital status has remained a point of contention: recognition by the international community has largely been withheld pending final settlement of territorial rights".

• Encyclopedia of World Geography (Vol. 1, Middle East) - Under Israel (p. 2034) says (in infobox) "Largest cities: Jerusalem - Capital", no qualifications or notes. No mention of dispute over capital status; EJ's capture in 1967 is mentioned, and the Palestinians are mentioned, but not their demand for Jerusalem, or UN/international recognition issues.

• Encyclopaedia Britannica:
  • In their website, under Israel says (in "Britannica World Data" infobox): "Capital (proclaimed): Jerusalem; the city’s capital status has not received wide international recognition". Same for "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" and "Encyclopædia Britannica" sections (same page).
  • However, looking at the entry for Israel in the "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" through other websites (like Answers.com), it simply states: "Capital: Jerusalem", and only mentions recognition much father down the text.

• Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, by the Gale Group, Inc - Under Israel states "Jerusalem is Israel's capital and largest city", no mention of recognition issues, or dispute over it.

• The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy - under Israel (listed as "Geography", about a fifth of the page down), states "Its capital and largest city is Jerusalem", no dispute.

Dictionaries

I'm not sure about the applicability of dictionaries here, but they do seem to provide an example for presenting information in a limited space, like in our infobox. I did not cherry-pick these; I searched for "Jerusalem" or "Israel" in the very useful OneLook, and clicked the sources that seemed serious. I did not omit any sources due to their treatment of the subject.

• In Merriam Webster's, Jerusalem is listed as "∗ of Israel since 1950" (asterisk is their symbol for capital); for Israel they succinctly state "∗ Jerusalem", no qualifications or explanations there. (Compare to Paris - "∗ of France", France - "∗ Paris").
• "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language", lists Jerusalem as "The capital of Israel", no qualification or mention of dispute. For Israel they say "Jerusalem is the capital", no dispute (they do mention EJ was captured in 67, and later annexed).
• "Webster's New World College Dictionary", same. For Israel, "cap. Jerusalem", no dispute.
• Random House Unabridged Dictionary, same. For Israel "Cap.: Jerusalem.", no dispute.
• The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English - under Israel says "Capital: Jerusalem", no qualifications.
• I found only one example of any other phrasing, Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition, saying Israel's claim the whole city as the capital, but "this is disputed internationally". However, their entry for Israel states: "Capital: Jerusalem", no mention of dispute.

okedem (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

But wait, there's a page on a Canadian .gov.ca site that says the capital is Tel Aviv. We must put that in the infobox immediately because... well... you know, NPOV or RS or V or something. If Canada can't decide what Israel's capital is, I don't know who can. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has taken seriously the suggestion that Tel Aviv be listed as the capital. What has been suggested is not making the blanket statement that it is the capital and that is the end of the story. I will compile a list of references that do use "proclaimed" or some other method of making clear the dispute. nableezy - 22:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem is Israel's capital. The rest of the story should go in a footnote, at most. This is an article about Israel not Jerusalem. Jerusalem fits the definition of "capital" regardless of whether it is recognized as such or not. Anything more than a footnote would be UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Due weight is determined by the weight the sources give to an issue. An arbitrary ruling from you on what is or is not due weight is meaningless. nableezy - 23:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Due weight is also a matter of importance to the article in general and to the particular placement in the article. I don't recall the definition of capital including a "provided other countries recognize it" clause. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy - "I will compile a list of references that do use "proclaimed" or some other method of making clear the dispute." - please don't. If you want to search for more sources in general, and present your findings, go ahead. But please don't go making a partisan list, only searching for sources that say what you want. I specifically stated above that I did not cherry pick, and explained how I reached the sources I listed. I was explicit about the Oxford sources and the dictionaries. If it wasn't clear, the encyclopedias were found in the same manner - I found three and listed them here. I didn't omit anything.

So - please present whatever serious sources you find, even if they support the other viewpoint. okedem (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT - Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Due weight is determined by the weight sources give. Not your personal opinion on what is a matter of importance to an article. nableezy - 00:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The very next paragraph says Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic..

I'll just assume you didn't read that far.

The dispute here is not whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel or not (if it isn't, what is? etc). The dispute is about what is meant by "Jerusalem" in this context. A footnote is more than enough to clarify this dispute in an infobox in an article that's not about Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And the weight appropriate is determined by the weight given to the sources. It is pretty basic. nableezy - 03:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

NMMNG, please your flippancy is not constructive. I agree this is not a question of whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel or not. The issue as I see it is that there are, in this world, some very clear and present issues/disputes regarding Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. These are well established, verifiable and sourced -- and their existence has been acknowledged by almost all editors here, and that is what we are working on. Some editors feel that a qualification reflecting the issues/disputes belongs in the infobox beside "Capital: Jerusalem"; while some feel that there should be no such qualification in the Infobox, and that information on the issues/disputes rather belongs in a footnote to the article. Kindly focus on this if you will. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm focusing on. Since we agree that Jerusalem is indeed the capital of Israel, there is no need to qualify what the capital of Israel is in the infobox. There is a need to explain that there is a dispute regarding what "Jerusalem" means in this context and a footnote is the place to clarify that, at most. Have a look at Taiwan and Taipai. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not say "we agree that Jerusalem is indeed the capital of Israel," because it does not matter what I think and anyway we are not here to discuss this. I won't follow an argument that opens with a premise created by you and ascribed to me, not because I agree or disagree with this premise, but, again, because such personal opinions are not meant to matter on Wikipedia. What I said is there are clear and present issues/disputes in the real world regarding Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I do not want to frame these disputes/issues in the manner you propose ("what 'Jerusalem' means in this context"), because it does not fall to us to interpret these disputes/issues but rather to see if they are verifiable per Wiki policies, then to decide, as editors, how best to edit them into the article, again, with a careful eye on Wiki policies and guidelines, as this article is under Wikipedia General Sanctions to help protect it from editing that might be informed by personal opinions or political agendas.

If I understand your comment above, and correct me if I'm wrong, but anyway it seems to me that you are suggesting a footnote at most would be appropriate for information on the real world issues/disputes regarding Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That is noted, I hope you can be open to participation in a process of collaboration with other editors who may have other suggestions. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a real world issue/dispute on the meaning of the word "capital"? Does the meaning of the word "capital" require recognition by other states according to reliable sources?

Perhaps you should first find some sources that say that "capital" is used in a manner that's different than its dictionary definition when (and only when?) talking about Jerusalem, or maybe some sources that say that a capital is not a capital unless it is recognized by other countries. Then we could qualify the infobox that says what the capital of Israel is.

It seems to me that you are trying to frame the discussion in such a way as to allow a certain POV to be pushed. I hope you can be open to participation in a process of collaboration with other editors who may have other suggestions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[out] About: Geography has a footnote (asterisk) which states categorically: "* The executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the State of Israel are all located Jerusalem so Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Nonetheless, all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv." This article already contains a fairly extensive footnote on the issue, as well as further explanation under the sections "religion", "foreign relations", and "occupied territories." It seems the minority view is given appropriate weight. Stellarkid (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The minority view is that E. Jerusalem is within Israel and part of Israels capital or is part of "Israel's largest city". nableezy - 17:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, none of the sources I've seen so far list "West Jerusalem" as the capital, or qualify the statement about Jerusalem being the capital (or largest city) with any relation to East or West. Some of them mention that Jerusalem's status as capital is unrecognized, but none make a distinction between the two parts of the city. Thus, your claim here seems to be nothing but your own opinion, and does not fit the sources. okedem (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The line on Jerusalem being the largest city in Israel is true if and only if you include the territory and population of areas outside of Israel. And sources do differentiate between West Jerusalem and occupied East Jerusalem with respect to it being the capital of Israel. Prior to the 1980 law proclaiming that the "undivided" city of Jerusalem is Israel's capital 13 different states had their embassies in Jerusalem. That declaration is what prompted the UNSC resolution and the moving of 11 of those embassies as a protest to claiming occupied land as part of their capital. (source: Emmet, Chad F. The Capital Cities of Jerusalem, Geographical Review, Vol. 86, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), American Geographical Society. pp. 239-40) There are plenty more sources that make clear that the major reason why Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel (except for a cases like the UK who have their own reasons) is because of the occupation of E. Jerusalem and proclamation that it is part of Israels capital (and thus part of Israel when it is not). nableezy - 17:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the claim that EJ is the reason for non-recognition, etc, and this is explained in the text of our article. However, it has no bearing on the subject of our discussion here, as I've yet to see a single source that differentiates between EJ and WJ when saying Jerusalem is the capital (and largest city). As the sources don't differentiate, neither should we. okedem (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Jewish Virtual Library maintains a collection of pages which explain that the US government has repeatedly refused to recognize West Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and at Israel's request, has provided written explanations. [5] harlan (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the real world issue of disputed Sovereignty?

(outdent) No More Mr Nice Guy, if Israel has perfected its title to West Jerusalem, that is noteworthy and should be mentioned in the article. Many other countries don't recognize Jerusalem as being part of the sovereign jurisdiction of the State of Israel yet, or recognize Israel's right to sovereign immunity for certain exercises of authority and undertakings there. Sovereignty implies a states' lawful control over its territory generally to the exclusion of other states, authority to govern in that territory, and authority to apply law there. The authority of a state is also reflected in immunity for the state and its public property from certain exercises of authority by other states and their courts. Israel's right to occupy West Jerusalem and administer it have been recognized by acceptance of the 1949 armistice agreements. Those agreements have delayed, but have not disposed of Palestinian claims arising from Israel's actions since it occupied West Jerusalem. Palestinians still have property rights and claims pending under the Armistice agreements, even in those areas where Israel is generally thought to be the "de jure" government. Those claims can be pursued in the courts of other countries. Intel Chip Plant

The United States government advises its citizens to take note of the disputed status of East Jerusalem. It warns them not to buy property in East Jerusalem, because their title can be legally challenged by displaced Palestinians. It also says that there may be legal consequences as the result of the establishment of a Palestinian State there.[6] In many countries, including the US, aliens can pursue civil tort claims against new owners of their confiscated property whenever customary international law has been violated. Executive non-recognition of the Israeli regime in East Jerusalem precludes or impairs its access to the courts in those other countries. Israel only has locus standi as an occupying power, with no sovereign right to confiscate or destroy private property and apply its municipal laws in East Jerusalem. Its right to dispose of "abandoned property" of war victims in West Jerusalem or elsewhere has been the subject of legal challenges too.

There is nothing new about that. Jewish and South African property owners have brought lawsuits in the US against companies doing business with de jure governments that violated customary norms. Coca Cola; Swiss Banks GM, Ford, IBM In the case of Jerusalem, the Security Council, General Assembly, and the ICJ have all decided that Israel has flagrantly violated international law and that its attempts to unilaterally change its status have no legitimacy. That is the MAJORITY viewpoint and it isn't specifically mentioned in the footnote. harlan (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

to speak to your 2nd para re US gov site, you say: "[US gov says] It warns them not to buy property in East Jerusalem, because their title can be legally challenged by displaced Palestinians" does not really reflect what is said which is "American Citizens who buy or lease property in the occupied territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza may find their ownership challenged by people displaced from those lands, either as a result of the 1967 conflict or previously, may find their ownership challenged. Prospective property buyers should always seek legal advice before buying in these areas. The possible establishment of a Palestinian state may have legal consequences for property owners in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. " It encourages them to seek legal advice, particularly if buying from "displaced people" as it may have consequences, particularly if a Palestinian state is established in those areas. It does not say that the title can be legally challenged. Getting legal advice when buying property is always a good idea, and having a deed searched for conflicts is smart wherever you live. Stellarkid (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The ownership of those lands has already been legally challenged. The UN Palestine Conciliation Commission was tasked with the identification of Arab property and its valuation as it stood on 29 November 1947 in order to preserve legitimate claims. The primary organs of the United Nations have adopted decisions that Israel's Basic Law Jerusalem is null and void. That applied to attempts to unilaterally alter the status of both the western and eastern parts of the city. You skipped over the part about the courts of other countries not recognizing the immunity of Israel's public property, which includes all of the so-called "state"-owned land in Jerusalem. They also do not recognize its sovereign authority to apply certain of its laws there. That would include the August 3, 2009 Israel Land Administration (ILA) Law that legalizes the privatization of land originally owned by Palestinians and attempts to retroactively legitimize the ILA’s sale of absentee property. That has already been brought to the attention of the UN Human Rights Commission by legal organizations including Adalah and Badil. Israel cannot convey a better title to the new owners than the one it held. [7]

I'm not sure I follow where you're going with this. Are we still talking about the issue of what is Israel's capital, or is this a new issue? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Many countries say that Jerusalem is not legally part of the State of Israel and that the inhabitants do not owe allegiance or obedience to its officials and their legislation. If Israel has perfected its title to East or West Jerusalem, the article should mention that fact. If not, then it is inappropriate to exclude the majority viewpoint that the actions taken by Israel to alter the city's status are a violation of international law, and that they are null and void. The final status of Jerusalem, the Golan, and the West Bank have not been determined.

During the hearings on Israel's membership in the UN, Mr. Eban said that statements saying that the New City of Jerusalem had been proclaimed as part of the State of Israel were false and malicious. He said that the most salient feature of the Government of Israel's attitude to the Jerusalem problem was its earnest desire to see the juridical status of the city satisfactorily determined by international consent, and that the Israeli Government would put its views before the General Assembly, where the actual decision on the matter would be taken. He noted in that connection, the fact of Jerusalem's integration into the neighboring States. [8] They had responsibility for administering Jerusalem under the terms of an armistice agreement.

In subsequent communications the Israeli officials became enraged by the use of the term Jerusalem, Palestine. The United States formally advised Israel that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. [9] What that means is that the legal status of Jerusalem is not a matter falling either solely or exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the State of Israel or with its Knesset. The question of recognition may determine access to the courts (locus standi), privileges and immunities, the legal status of individuals, the right to dispose of and recover State property in Jerusalem, and the judicial cognizance of Israel's legal acts. For example, when the Knesset adopted the Basic Law Jerusalem, the primary United Nations organs said the act was null and void and that Israel's attempt to unilaterally change the status of Jerusalem was a violation of international law. The UN invoked the principles of customary international law according to which no state can recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach of international law, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation. harlan (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that the majority viewpoint is that Israel doesn't legally control any part of Jerusalem? I doubt that's the case, but even if it were, I'd like to see a source saying that makes Jerusalem not the capital of Israel.

So far I've yet to see any source that says Jerusalem is not the capital. I've seen a few that point out that embassies are located elsewhere, which might be unusual but doesn't mean a city is not the capital as far as I can tell, and one that says "proclaimed", whatever that meanss. None of this warrants altering the infobox. okedem and others have provided many sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel without any qualifications. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) By definition a capital is an area within the sovereign jurisdiction of a state. The policy of the US and other governments is to keep the Jerusalem question open and to prevent it from being settled solely through the processes of attrition and fait accompli. I believe you and Okedem have been shown a number of sources which say that Jerusalem has merely been proclaimed the capital of Israel. I've pointed out that Israel's right to occupy and administer parts of Jerusalem under the terms of the armistice agreements was approved by the Security Council, but that limited authority did not permit Israel to unilaterally annex the city, or grant Israel boundless discretion to dispose of the public and private property located there. harlan (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Harlan, corr: Jerusalem is 'merely' the proclaimed capital (speculation) of the Arab Palestinians, but the actual capital of the State of Israel. --Shuki (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe we've been shown significantly more sources that do not qualify Jerusalem being the capital of Israel than those that use "proclaimed". I'd still be interested in seeing sources that show that the view that Israel does not legally control any part of Jerusalem is the majority view like you claimed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Shuki it isn't a matter of presenting either viewpoint as the correct one, but rather a matter of presenting both views in the same article. No More Mr Nice Guy, if you'd like to study issues that aren't raised in the published sources that I cited, you should do your own research. What I said was that other countries do not recognize Jerusalem's incorporation into the sovereign territory of Israel yet. That means certain acts of state and public property located in Jerusalem do not enjoy sovereign immunity in the courts of other countries, and that no one expects Palestinians to give allegiance to the governing regime. Israel has cited this very same principle to deny that the West Bank was ever incorporated into the sovereign territory of Jordan, even though Israel had sanctioned Jordan's occupation of the West Bank. Israel claims that as a consequence, certain laws, conventions, and customary practices do not legally pertain to that territory at the present time. After the armistices were signed, Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban explained that "Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states." see Foreign Relations of the United States Volume VI 1949, page 1149.

Israel had the right to administer a portion of Jerusalem pursuant to the terms of a Security Council resolution regarding an armistice agreement. So, it certainly had the right to accommodate necessary state institutions there for that specific purpose. Nonetheless, the Security Council and every other country have decided not to recognize Israel's right to prescriptively acquire territory under the terms of the armistice agreements. They have not recognized the establishment of Israel's capital there under the 1950 Emergency Regulation on Land Requisition, or the Basic Law Jerusalem, i.e. "all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status" and "calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem;" The Security Council also said those measures violated international law and the Geneva Convention. That is the majority opinion, and other editors shouldn't need to obtain permission from the "owners" of this article to include that information alongside other published viewpoints. If the footnote is going to mention the views of the US Congress on sovereignty, then it has to mention the majority viewpoint held by other states on Israel's sovereignty.

The regulations annexed to the Hague Convention were declared to be customary law in the Nuremberg Charter. They govern armistice agreements and occupations. The United Nations has cited those regulations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the principles of international law that prohibit an individual from being arbitrarily deprived of their property. The Palestine Conciliation Commission established a schedule of Arab property owners and files of documents defining the location, area and other particulars of Arab property with the intent of protecting and administering Arab refugee property, assets and property rights in Israel. The Secretary was instructed to established a fund for the receipt of income derived from those properties, on behalf of the rightful owners. [10]

UN Resolution 476 and 478 did not make any distinction between the status of the Holy Places or embassies in East and West Jerusalem. For example, the ICJ noted that there was an agreement regarding free access to the Holy Places located on both sides of the armistice line, including the Room of the Last Supper and the Tomb of David, on Mount Zion. It said "In signing the General Armistice Agreement, Israel thus undertook, as did Jordan, to guarantee freedom of access to the Holy Places. The Court considers that this undertaking by Israel has remained valid for the Holy Places which came under its control in 1967." harlan (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You said it was the "majority view". I guess you can't back that up with sources. That's ok. As for the rest of the above, you keep jumping from subject to subject. Lets try to stick to one issue at a time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue for Moderation

I can certainly provide sources that verify it is a significant published point of view. That is all that is necessary to satisfy the burden of proof for inclusion. The power to legally recognize any governing regime is vested exclusively in the governments of other states. A majority of UN member states have voted in favor of adopting the UN decisions that say all of Israel's legislative and administrative measures to alter the status of Jerusalem are null and void.

Here are some examples:

• Governing Jerusalem: again on the world's agenda, By Ira Sharkansky, page 23 says: "Most countries of the world do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Many do not recognize it as a city that is properly Israel's. They adhere formally to decisions of the United Nations of the 1940s that Jerusalem should have an international status and recognize only that cease fire lines of 1948 and 1967 gave control of Jerusalem to Israel."

• General Assembly resolution 63/30, 23 January 2009 was adopted by a vote of Yes: 163, No: 6, Abstentions: 6, Non-Voting: 17, Total voting membership: 192
  • It reaffirmed that the international community, through the United Nations, has a legitimate interest in the question of the City of Jerusalem and the protection of the unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions of the city, as foreseen in relevant United Nations resolutions on the matter, and reiterated its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and called upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures. The Resolution also:
  • Recalled resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in particular its provisions regarding the City of Jerusalem;
  • Recalled also its resolution 36/120 E of 10 December 1981 and all subsequent resolutions, including resolution 56/31 of 3 December 2001, in which it determined that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purported to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular the so-called “Basic Law” on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, were null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;
  • Recalled further the Security Council resolutions relevant to Jerusalem, including resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, in which the Council decided not to recognize the “Basic Law” on Jerusalem;
  • Recalled the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and
  • Recalled resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004.

A statement similar to the one contained in Sharkansky's book should be added to the text of the article. harlan (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

None of that amounts to "non-recognition of a capital" = "not really the capital". It certainly doesn't show that the "majority view" is that Israel doesn't legally control any part of Jerusalem like you claimed. There is an article called Status of Jerusalem, that's where an in-depth discussion of the status of Jerusalem belongs. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask what you think it means. I was providing examples of a significant published viewpoint that has been discussed by reliable published sources. It is not reflected in the content of this article. Sharkansky explained the situation in three sentences using less than 70 words. harlan (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You provided one published opinion and a few primary documents with your OR interpretation of them. I don't know what you think they mean, but they certainly don't say that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel because it is not recognized as such by "many" countries.

By the way, can you tell us what Sharkansky says on the next page of his book regarding the implicit recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to brush up on WP:OR. The General Assembly resolution speaks for itself about the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The fact that it recalls resolution 181(II) of 1947 and that it declares Israel's proclamations, legislative, and administrative acts null and void or illegal are not ideas that orginated with me or Wikipedia. The article already discusses implicit recognition by one of the political branches of the US government - the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act did not actually say that Israel was a sovereign state. If you want to cite Sharkansky, feel free.

The article does not mention: (a) the policy statements of the US political branch that is vested with the exclusive constitutional power to recognize other regimes; (b) that many countries do not recognize the incorporation of Jerusalem into Israel; (c) that the majority believe Israel's legislative and administrative attempts to change the status of Jerusalem are illegal; or (d) the remarks made by Israeli officials, like Mr. Eban, which acknowledged Israel's status as an occupant under the Armistice agreements. The United States formally advised Israel that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. [11] The U.S. State Department has always said that the status of Jerusalem will be determined through peace negotiations between the parties directly concerned.[12]

The application of the Hague Convention regulations to municipal, religious, and private property in the portions of Jerusalem that were occupied in 1948 and 1967 is a very well attested fact. See for example Eyal Benvenisti, and Eyal Zamir, "Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement," American Journal of International Law 89.2 (1995): 301-319; The UN Palestine Conciliation Commission UN PCC W/30, 31 October 1949; General Assembly Resolution 394 (V), 14 December 1950 Palestine: Progress report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine: Repatriation or resettlement of Palestine refugees and payment of compensation due to them; General Assembly A/C.4/64/L.14 13 November 2009 Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues; and The politics of Jerusalem since 1967, by Michael Dumper, pages 162-163.

John Quigley writes that Israel gained control of West Jerusalem by illegal means and says "As various states recognized Israel as a state in the 1940s and 1950s, they did not recognize Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem. Few states located embassies in west Jerusalem, placing them instead in Tel Aviv. After more than four decades of Israeli de facto control of West Jerusalem, the status of West Jerusalem remains unresolved." He states "The issue of sovereignty in Jerusalem is coextensive with the question of sovereignty in Palestine. Palestine belongs to its inhabitants, on the basis of their long-time occupation." and goes on to discuss the 1947 plan for internationalization and the possibility of a similar plan or joint control in the future. See The Legal Status Of Jerusalem Under International Law, The Turkish Yearbook Of International Relations, [VOL. XXIV, 1994] pp 11-25

I am citing published sources that speak for themselves. To some extent you and Okedem have been using WP:OR interpretations of dictionary terms to support the exclusion of significant opposing points of view from reliable published sources. You have not provided published sources which explain how Israel perfected its territorial claims after it concluded the Armistice agreements. It is obvious that you don't want to permit a few sentences about the views of the parties who question the legitimacy of its proclamations or the legality of its annexation of Jerusalem. harlan (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The OR here is your claim that any of this amounts to Jerusalem not being the capital of Israel. Your own source (Sharkansky) says that Jerusalem is implicitly recognized as Israel's capital by the fact that foreign officials regularly go there to meet their Israeli counterparts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't previously known that the UN views that the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is illegal and null&void. If the proclamation is "void", then the issue is certainly open, what exactly is Israel's capital city. In that sense, the article can be said to be a bit misleading.- --Dailycare (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if the UN passes a decision stating the the moon is made of cheese, will that become an "open issue"?

We work by sources. We've presented a multitude of sources stating unequivocally that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Therefore, we state it is the capital. And that's that. okedem (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The consistency of the moon isn't in the UN's competence, however the status of Jerusalem is. I'm jumping into this discussion, but if 160 countries voted for a resolution that effectively says Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital, then that should be discussed in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What they actually voted on is a law that says that unified Jerusalem is Israel's capital. But lets not let the details distract us. If you have a source that says Jerusalem is not Israel's capital, please provide it. What you think a UN resolution means is irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"...should be discussed in the article". Dailycare, apparently, not only did you jump in here without reading the discussion, you also didn't bother reading the article we're discussing, Israel. Under "Occupied territories", 2nd paragraph - "The UN Security Council has declared the incorporations of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem to be "null and void" and continues to view the territories as occupied". Oh, and under "Conflicts and peace treaties" - "The Jerusalem Law, passed in 1980, reaffirmed this measure and reignited international controversy over the status of Jerusalem." okedem (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't say that the UN has declared the incorporation of the whole city null and void, or that Israel's attempts to alter the status by legislative and administrative means have been declared to be illegal. harlan (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." If we can't mention that 160 countries view Israel's unilateral proclamations, legislative and administrative acts as null and void, or illegal, then that's completely biased.

No More Mr Nice Guy, you are making a WP:Synth argument that Sharkansky himself does not actually make. He says "Most countries of the world do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Many do not recognize it as a city that is properly Israel's. They adhere formally to decisions of the United Nations of the 1940s that Jerusalem should have an international status and recognize only that cease fire lines of 1948 and 1967 gave control of Jerusalem to Israel." He never said that those countries implicitly recognize Jerusalem as the capital. Many of those countries are members of the Arab League that have never met any Israeli officials in Jerusalem. He goes on to say that an impressive list of countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, formally recognized Tel Aviv as the capital. On the following page Sharkansky says there is an "element of ambiguity" because the condemnations are softened by implicit recognition, and he cites meetings with Israeli officials in Jerusalem. Foreign envoys have met Palestinian officials at Orient House as well, but the UN, EU, and US have all stated that the status of Jerusalem can only be settled through negotiations, and on the basis of international legitimacy, not visits. harlan (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice guy, you're quite wrong to say the UN only said a unified Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital. What Harlan cited at the beginning of this section is a citation from the resolution, which says "all (...) measures and actions taken by Israel, (...) which have altered or purported to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular the so-called “Basic Law” on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, were null and void" See res. 63/30 at http://www.un.org/ga/63/resolutions.shtml. There is your source, which 163 nations signed on, saying that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital city. --Dailycare (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about international recognition, but about saying "Jerualem is the capital" in our article. Now, despite the lack of formal recognition (and the exact nature of this is way off-topic), the overwhelming majority of sources looked at the evidence (Israel controls the city, designated it the capital, and, most importantly, placed its government there), and decided that Jerusalem is the capital. Thus, so do we. This is the meaning of using reliable sources.

And harlan continues to argue against some imaginary foe, claiming I want to omit some information which I've actually shown is already present in the article, and have expressed no objection to. okedem (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

harlan, read page 24 of his book. He says exactly that. That Jerusalem is implicitly recognized as the capital of Israel. It's good to read a page before and after the stuff you find on google. Gives you some more context.

Dailycare, I know what harlan cited. Also, I read the whole resolution which I recommend you do as well. Anyway, what we think the resolution says is irrelevant. If you have a source that says Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital, please provide it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I just provided it. Anyway, the case of whether Jerusalem is or isn't the capital is obviously one where attribution should be used. I propose that in the infobar, we place "Capital: disputed" and in the body discuss that Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem to be the capital, however the UN has declared this void, embassies are in TA etc. This OK? --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash the entire discussion. Read what the sources say under "More sources" above.

The short version - the overwhelming majority just say the capital is Jerusalem, and don't qualify it in any way. Some of them mention the dispute over Jerusalem's future, or the issue of recognition, in the text of their articles (usually far from where they just state it's the capital). As we already discuss this issue in the text of our article, plus have a footnote explaining this, we give more than enough room to the dispute. okedem (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Again, you are making a WP:Synth conclusion. Sharkansky says many countries do not recognize Jerusalem as being part of Israel. He does not say that they all implicitly recognize Jerusalem. He says "the United Nations, the United States and other governments", not "all other governments". The article already discusses sovereignty and the Jerusalem Embassy Act which is an example of implicit recognition. harlan (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we have a secondary source (BBC) "We of course accept that the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital" http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So we're back at step one. Now all we need is a source that says that a capital is not a capital if it is not recognized by some countries, and we're set. As if there was ever disagreement on the recognition issue.

Anyway, I oppose putting anything in the infobox beyond the footnote. Not "proclaimed" or "so called" or "so they say". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I randomly checked one of the sources listed above (Britannica online) and it said "Capital (proclaimed) Jerusalem; the city’s capital status has not received wide international recognition". This answers also Niceguys point about capitals and recognition. Interestingly, this source was listed above as a source that just mentions Jerusalem as capital. Several of the other listed sources do not sound very authoritative. --Dailycare (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've presented a long list of sources, and explained what each of them said (I've specifically quoted Britannica in detail in my list, being the only source to use the qualification "proclaimed"). The question was how do other encyclopedias, almanacs, etc. deal with this issue, and that list answers it. As you don't present any other sources, this issue is clear. okedem (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been discussing the infobox. You keep acting like the article can only discuss a single point of view. Okedem is talking about the status of East Jerusalem, but the UN resolutions about "The Holy City of Jerusalem" include both sides of Jerusalem which were under Armistice occupation. The UN has said that Israel's actions are illegal, but the article doesn't mention that. The occupation and de facto annexation of west Jerusalem doesn't make it part of Israel's sovereign territory. The Basic Law on Jerusalem was an attempt to convert it ipso jure. The UN resolutions declared that act to have no legal validity. harlan (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This article specifically links to United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 and to Status of Jerusalem. Saying it only discusses a single point of view is incorrect. As I mentioned before, the Status of Jerusalem article is the place for an in-depth discussion on the status of Jerusalem, as the name implies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't provided a sourced statement that explains how Jerusalem went from being occupied (per Mr. Eban) to being part and parcel of Israel. I'm going to add a couple of sentences along the lines of Quigley, Sharkansky, and the General Assembly statements, not an in-depth discussion. harlan (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to provide sources to counter your OR. You need to provide a source that says Eban's words mean Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, which is your interpretation of what Eban said.

This is an article about Israel, not Jerusalem. The links to more in depth articles concerning the status of Jerusalem are enough. More than what is in there already would give this issue undue weight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm quite sick of harlan misrepresenting my comments here. I'm not discussing EJ, but the entire city, and have provided ample sources. Harlan fails to provide even a single source, and keeps performing OR. The original discussion here (how to address the issue of capital) has been decided. Harlan seems to want the article to discuss Jerusalem's status at even greater length than now, forgetting this article is about Israel, not Jerusalem. What we have now is more than enough (including mentioning that "null and void" resolution, although harlan keeps pretending we don't write about that). okedem (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)President Truman told King Abdullah of Transjordan "I desire to recall to Your Majesty that the policy of the United States Government as regards a final territorial settlement in Palestine and as stated in the General Assembly on Nov 30, 1948 by Dr. Philip Jessup, the American representative, is that Israel is entitled to the territory allotted to her by the General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947, but that if Israel desires additions, i.e., territory allotted to, the Arabs by the November 29 Resolution, it should offer territorial compensation. see FRUS Volume VI 1949, 878-879.

The border settlement was to be decided as a result of negotiations between the parties. Israel did not recognize Jordanian or Egyptian sovereignty over the territory they occupied under the Armistice agreements. Abba Eban maintained that "Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states." Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI, Page 1149

McHugo wrote: "Israel may have a claim to parts of the territories occupied in 1967, although this is implied in the current Israeli predilection for referring to the territories occupied in 1967 as ‘disputed’. The Armistice Agreements were without prejudice to territorial sovereignty, and therefore Israel was barred by its own action in signing them from consolidating its title up to the armistice lines so long as those agreements remained in force. It is inconceivable that Israel could have perfected that title in the period of less than six months between the Six Days War and the passing of Resolution 242, a period during which armed conflict continued. However, if any validity is to be attributed to the designation of the territories occupied in 1967 as ‘disputed territories’, Israel should be aware that the territory on the Israeli side of the 1949 Armistice Lines must ipso jure be treated as ‘disputed’. Israeli title can only be perfected through the final peace settlement envisaged by Resolution 242 and subsequent resolutions, which alone can establish ‘secure and recognised boundaries’. Failing this, Israel will always be exposed to a risk that claims may be brought for the territories which Israel took in 1948–9. See John McHugo (2002). Resolution 242: A Legal Reappraisal of the Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase with Reference to the Conflict Between Israel and the Palestinians. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 51 , pp 851-881 harlan (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

okedem, you wrote "The original discussion here (how to address the issue of capital) has been decided." Respectfully, there are editors who appear to disagree with the rejection of a qualification on "Capital (and largest city): Jerusalem", and so the question of how to reflect the real world issues/disputes regarding Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the article have not yet been decided. Would you not agree that Wiki is a work in progress? RomaC (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, RomaC, I've presented a long list of sources, as requested by others here. The vast majority of them don't use any qualifications. After I presented these sources, all dissenters pretty much stopped discussing this issue, not to mention presenting any alternate sources. Now, if you have other sources, no one is stopping you from presenting them, but if you don't, it appear the matter is closed, even if personally you prefer it to be another way (personally, I oppose the footnote, more so after seeing the way other sources treat this, but I accept it as a compromise). okedem (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with okedem. Nobody has yet to provide a single source that says Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Or that recognition has any effect one way or the other on a city being the capital. There is one source that qualifies with "proclaimed" and that's it. Also there's the cases of Taipei, Taiwan and Nicosia, Northern Cyprus for example. Two capitals not recognized by almost any other country, neither of which is qualified in the country page. It seems the norm on wikipedia is not to pull such "disputes" into the article about a country.

Also, for the record, harlan's latest doesn't even mention Jerusalem. It's just some more of the OR we're used to. In case someone would want to pretend my not responding means the regular wall of text that doesn't quite say what he wants it to say has any merit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Okedem, we should weigh the sources that state the controversy "by saying 'proclaimed' or 'although most countries do not locate the embassy in Jerusalem', against the source that do not state the controversy. We should weigh the sources as per WP:V and WP:DUE.

I did provide sources that highlight the controversy, and I can provide more. Now I'm not sure about the correct method to weigh sources against each other. Imad marie (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy, you are deviating from the point, no one here is suggesting to write that "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". Also, it's very wrong to say that "There is one source that qualifies with proclaimed". Imad marie (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Imad, I've seen only one source writing "Capital (proclaimed): Jerusalem", and that's Britannica. You linked to three sources - Infoplease gets most of its information from the CIA factbook, which is why they both use the same phrasing - they state "Capital: Jerusalem", and later have a note, equivalent to our footnote (their websites just don't use footnotes). The note (which happens to use the word "Proclaimed") doesn't negate their statement that the capital is Jeursalem, it only explains. They could have said "Jeursalem (proclaimed)" like some have suggested here, but didn't. The BBC, as usual, just skirts the issue by using "seat of government".

If you can present more sources, no one is stopping you; just remember - we're looking for sources of the same type - that is, encyclopedias etc, not whole books discussing Jerusalem's status. The question is how publications of the same kind as us deal with this issue. okedem (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll provide some sources:

• Encara is no more an encyclopedia, unfortunately for me. But when it was an encyclopedia, its "Jerusalem" entry wrote: "Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital" and the "Israel" article wrote: "Jerusalem, the city Israel claims as its capital". Anyway, the current dictionary definition for Jerusalem is "historic city lying at the intersection of Israel and the West Bank. The whole of the city is claimed by Israel as its capital, but this is disputed internationally.". The Israel definition does not write any controversy.
• The BBC link I provided above.
• Sources provided by GHcool, many of them state "Although most countries do not locate the embassy in Jerusalem". I'm fine with this phrasing.
• The sources provided by nableezy above.

I will present more. Imad marie (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Encarta says "Capital: Jerusalem". No qualifications. The Jerusalem entry goes into more depth, as is the case here as well.
• BBC notes embassies are located elsewhere. While interesting, nobody has provided a source that says this has anything to do with a city's status as capital.
• Nableezy said he will compile a list of sources. He apparently has not found the time yet, but the fact he was able to find a few countries that don't recognize Israel's claim is: a. not in dispute and b. lacking a source that explains its significance vis a vis status as capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with NMMNG. Note that I myself quoted Encarta above, in my list of sources, explaining what it said and where. okedem (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the BBC also said that "We of course accept that the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital", above. Also, the UN did pass the resolution supported by 163 countries stating that Israel's proclamation was "void". I presume the UN has passed dozens of similar resolutions (one every year). I've edited the article recently to include a more explicit footnote [NOTE 1] next to Jerusalem in the capital section, which I'm roughly OK with and it appears to be in-line with sources that we've been discussing here. The previous note suffered from the fault that it had a superscript [1], which looks identical to a source reference. This causes most wikipedians to miss the fact that there is a footnote at all. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dailycare, we've been discussing this issue for a while, presenting sources, etc. You can't just storm in and change the article to whatever you like. You can't possibly claim you thought there wouldn't be opposition to a change - we're specifically discussing this issue. Re-inserting your change after I reverted was even worse.

This entire discussion is about how to address the issue of capital. Do we write "disputed", "proclaimed", a footnote, or nothing at all? Any suggestion to change the status quo in this matter needs to gain support on the talk page.

To the point - after your change, there's a huge "[NOTE 1]" link, about as big as the word "Jerusalem". This is unacceptable. I've never even seen an article with such a note. Per WP:FOOT, the regular ref tag and reference list can be used for footnotes as well as references, which is what we do here.

Your BBC quote is beside the point - recognition isn't in dispute. The UN resolution is mentioned in the footnote, and in the text. okedem (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The size of the link to the footnote is hardly any problem, as it doesn't displace anything in the article and is easily separately clickable. I did not change the substance of the article, I simply made it clearer. Currently the article does have the footnote, I made it more accessible. You can't dispute that [1] is visually identical to [1], which would be a reference, and that most wikipedians would assume that "Jerusalem[1]" means that the link is to a page that says "The capital is Jerusalem". WP:FOOT discusses footnotes also as citations, which is the reference use I specifically discussed above, with which we don't want the Jer footnote to be confused. --Dailycare (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to realize that you can't just make changes to a controversial thing, when there's an on-going discussion on that very point. However justified you think your view is, you need to realize not everyone agrees with you, and gain support first, on the talk page. The fact that you're trying to edit war this detail, instead of gaining support, is appalling. We all managed to avoid edit-warring until you decided to. okedem (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) see Wikipedia:FOOT#Separating_reference_lists_and_explanatory_notes for a guideline on the kind of use we want here. --Dailycare (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from the guideline mentioned above: "It is often desirable for an article to list sources separately from explanatory notes." We've concluded from looking at the sources two things: Israel considers Jer to be the capital, and the international community has not recognized this. I'm fine, as long as these two points are included in the article and neither is buried in the reference list where it won't be read. This also applies to the first point. From an encyclopedic POV, mind you, the issue is not controversial at all. --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on here about how to address this issue. When there's a discussion going on (especially such a long and complicated one as this), if you want to make a change to the thing being discussed - propose it on the talk page, and see what other people think.

If you fail to understand that it's controversial, edit anyway, and are reverted - don't edit war. Propose on the talk page.

Are we clear on that point? That when people are discussing something you shouldn't just edit war for whatever you want? okedem (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that there was a discussion ongoing whether to label the footnote more explicitly, further I don't see that labeling a footnote as such is controversial. Now, do you have any reasoned objections to labeling the footnote as such, taking into account the points I raised, namely: 1) avoiding confusion with cited references and any hiding of the fact that sources say overwhelmingly Jer is not recognized as Israel's capital, 2) the wiki guideline stating that listing sources and notes separately is often desirable. --Dailycare (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out once again that other capitals that are not recognised by the international community such as Nicosia or Taipei don't even have a footnote. I have yet to see a single source that explains the significance of this non-recognition other than the obvious political gesture, particularly since practically every country that has diplomatic relations with Israel treats Jerusalem as the capital by holding official meetings with Israeli government members there. As Sharkanski noted, this is implicit recognition. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't see it as controversial the first time. How about after being reverted? Still didn't understand?

"often desired" - yea, often. Not always, so that's irrelevant. No one's hiding anything - all the information is right there in the article (yea, there's more to the article than the infobox). Recognition is just another point, and not a very important one. Judging by the sources presented, we can forgo the footnote entirely, and make do with the current mentions of the issue in the text. We certainly don't need to make the footnote a huge glaring "[NOTE 1]" link. okedem (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Nicosia and Taipei (the situations concerning which may or may not correspond to the present case) do not have footnotes is not relevant to the Jer article, much less to whether a footnote we already have in the article should be labeled as such. Once more, does anyone have any reasoned objection to labeling the footnote, that's already in the article, as a footnote? (edit conflict) Okedem, so if nothing is being hidden with the current arrangement, you're OK if we put "disputed" as capital in the infobox, and explain in a reference at the end that the regime claims Jerusalem is their capital? Didn't think so, so you'll agree with me that the material is being hushed. Your comments on "often desired" are not your best work. --Dailycare (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a Jerusalem article. It's an Israel article. And what the wikipedia norms are in similar articles certainly is relevant. the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes, to quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Anyway, didn't okedem give a pointer to the guidelines regarding footnotes? Why not use that? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Otherstuff: Taiwan is not a country, and Cyprus is a recognized EU member state, so I really don't see the parallel to Jer. Concerning pointers, I have now repeatedly cited the relevant guideline, which says that it's desirable to list sources and notes separately. --Dailycare (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan is not a country? You should tell that to the Taiwanese and the 23 countries they have diplomatic relations with. Nicosia is also the capital of Northern Cyprus. Perhaps now the parallel is more clear? Let me spell it out for you. Capitals not recognized by most of the international community yet listed without a footnote on the wikipedia article page for their countries.

It seems to me that in most cases on wikipedia, such "disputes" are not noted in the infobox in the country's article. Now I'll let you tell me how Israel is a special case. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding ongoing editors' suggestions that the infobox information "Capital (and largest city): Jerusalem" be directly qualified to reflect (acknowledged) real world issues/disputes, for the time being Dailycare's point, that the infobox link to the present qualifying footnote located below the article, appears as and could be mistaken for a normal source reference, should be addressed. Surely we want to use formatting that makes article content clear, rather than confusing? RomaC (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is clear and there is no confusion. The [1] is a link for a reason. People who are interested in seeing more information (ie: a footnote) can click on the number and it will take them to the bottom of the page where they can get the information. This is the appropriate format for footnotes. There is no logical reason to create an entirely new syntax for footnotes in this one article. Is there really any serious doubt as to the real reason for the desire to make this change? I certainly don't have any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breein1007 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dailycare, please don't misrepresent the guideline. It doesn't say "it's desirable to list sources and notes separately", but says that "It is often desirable", and then proceeds to explain how to do that. It's just one word, but it makes all the difference - in your version, separation is what the guideline recommends; in the real version, the guideline merely explain how to separate, in the case it's wanted on the specific page. The guideline doesn't take a stand in this.

In academic works, notes and references are commonly cited together, using the same format; we're not inventing anything here. Now, the question is how much weight we're giving this footnote. Certainly, to create a huge link like "[NOTE 1]" is almost like writing "disputed" or some such thing. The thing is, Jerusalem's actual status as capital isn't in any real factual dispute. The great majority of sources don't qualify the capital status at all, treating the recognition issue as just another detail, or even ignoring it completely. Going by those sources, it's quite enough to just have this recognition issue mentioned in the text, leaving the text box qualification-and-footnote free. Certainly, creating an entire section for "Notes", housing a single note, is a peculiar suggestion. okedem (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking of a new syntax for this article, see e.g. Jane Austen for separate notes and refs. The functionality to label notes is there for a reason, namely that it can be used. The guideline says that doing so is often desirable, and in this case I've presented clear reasons ([1] is mistaken for a ref) for it to be used. The sources clearly say, that 1) Jerusalem is usually listed as capital, and separately that 2) Jerusalem is not the regocnized capital, in fact the opposite is true since the proclamation has explicitly been declared void. I'm flexible on this, and as noted I'll be happy when the two issues are discussed in the article and neither is hidden in the refs. This can be achieved e.g. by any one of the three options below.

• Capital: Jerusalem ^{[NOTE 1]}
• Capital (proclaimed) : Jerusalem
• Capital (unrecognized) : Jerusalem. --Dailycare (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

p.s. the countries with relations with Taiwan do know it's not a country, and you'll have to present sources if you're claiming Nicosia isn't recognized. We can add a footnote to that article too, if that's the case, however that's a different discussion, since we do have a footnote in this article, and we're only discussing the correct formatting of the link to it. --Dailycare (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not only discussing the correct way to link the footnote, we're discussing its content and if it should be there in the first place. That you claim Taiwan (aka ROC) is not a country is pretty surprising. That you claim Nicosia is the recognised capital of Northern Cyprus is also somewhat unexpected. Perhaps you should refresh your memory on these two places. We certainly don't need to add footnotes to other articles just so you can have one here.

The encyclopedia should be consistent. It does not usually indicate such "disputes" in the main article about a country. Other similar sources don't usually indicate it on articles relating to Israel either. See above list of sources by okedem. I'm not sure we should even have a footnote, not to mention mark it in an unusual way just so you can be satisfied that it's prominent enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're gonna keep using the false "hidden" claim, we really have nothing to discuss. The article discusses this issue, as I have shown you before.

I don't see a problem of confusion with references. The standard "[1]" structure is commonly used for both, as the guideline acknowledges. I reject your three options. I'm content with either the current situation, or the complete removal of any note or qualification, per the sources I've presented on this page - most don't even have a footnote, and certainly not any "proclaimed" or anything. Recognition has never been relevant for a capital's status, which is why the sources don't have a problem listing Jerusalem as capital, sans qualification. Lack of recognition is just another detail, that can be mentioned in the article's text (as it is now), and nothing more. okedem (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with okedem on all counts in his last post. Additionally, Dailycare, none of your 3 suggestions are anywhere near appropriate for very obvious reasons. And the link you provided to Jane Austin doesn't show an example of anything similar to the 3 options you suggested, so I would ask that you stop saying things that mislead people here. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

When formatting/layout for clarity becomes an issue, it might be time for comments from uninvolved editors. Some points: Breein, the Jane Austen article shows how footnotes and source references are differentiated to avoid confusion. This is what Dailycare suggests. And to okedem, you wrote "the sources I've presented on this page - most don't even have a footnote, and certainly not any "proclaimed" or anything. " Yes, those are the sources you've presented. Many of the sources other editors have presented (Britannica, CIA Factbook, BBC and so on) do qualify, do they not? Asking. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the Jane Austen page, I don't debate that at all. However, for some strange reason Dailycare used the Jane Austen page as an example of what we should do, and yet in his edits to the page he did not use the format from that page. Nowhere in the Jane Austen page are there footnotes labeled as "NOTE 1" or anything similar. Breein1007 (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, I've presented Britannica, and explained what it says where (full version, concise). CIA - qualifies with a note. BBC - not really the kind of sources that were discussed here (the question was how do other encyclopedias, etc. handle the situation). "and so on"? - which? Considering all the sources presented on this talk page, my comment stands - almost none use "proclaimed" or such a thing, a minority have a note of some kind, and the majority - just mention it in the text, if anything. okedem (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Copying this from another editor's post:

1. infoplease: "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the U.S., like nearly all other countries, maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv."
2. The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community".
3. BBC: Seat of government: Jerusalem, though most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv.
4. CIA FactBook: " note: Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like nearly all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv"

There are others, is it that if editors can find more sources that do not note the acknowledged real-world issues/disputes regarding Jersulam as the capital of Israel, then these issues/disputes would not be notable? I find this problematic, for one it suggests a source-tally contest, when we should be representing all notable opinions. The suggestion from some editors here is not to say Jersulem is not the capital of Israel, but to qualify this infobox information to reflect acknowledged real-world issues/disputes regarding Jersulam as the capital of Israel. Another thing that concerns me is that an editor raised a valid point about the formatting of the link which leads to the present qualification located down below the article in a footnote. The link is formatted in superscript, just like a source reference. A suggestion was advanced fixing that to make it clear that the concerned link leads to a footnote, but you strongly opposed this formatting change. Why fight an edit that improves layout clarity? RomaC (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You really don't have to copy the entire post when I've addressed them already - I mentioned CIA and BBC; Infoplease just collects information from other sources, mainly the CIA factbook, which is why they use the same phrasings. I've presented Continuum, with the quote, in my list above (quoting GHcool).

We're not discussing the question of whether recognition is notable at all; I don't think anyone is suggesting we delete the information about it from the article. What we are discussing is how important it is - how prominent a place we want to give this. To gain some perspective on this, it is useful to see what various sources do in our position - qualify by "proclaimed"? Place a note? Only mention in the article body? Now we've seen what they do - the majority just mention in the text, if that. So why should we give it such a special place? Why is it that on Wikipedia the issue of recognition suddenly becomes so important, whereas professional sources don't seem to consider it to be so central?

In academic literature footnotes and references are often mixed, using the exact same formatting. I see no reason to change that, especially when the edit-warring user suggests such an absurdly large link ("[NOTE 1]", as big as the entire name "Jerusalem". Making it so prominent is saying - "Capital: Jerusalem - BUT NOT REALLY - LOOK AT THE BIG NOTE!"

Judging by the source we've seen, we wouldn't be taking an extreme stand if we would just make do with the mention in the text itself, without any footnote. In fact, that seems to be the mainstream. okedem (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

i support the edit by dailycare, but i've also made a bold formatting edit of my own here. its just a suggestion of another place where the note might go. indeed, we might consider putting the whole note there too. anyway, i fully expect that it will be reverted, but wanted to float other formatting options, since they are being discussed and the one put forward by dailycare is meeting with some resistance. Tiamut^talk 09:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A further option for the format could be Jerusalem [Nb 1] (which format is used in the wiki guideline mentioned above) which would be as good as Jerusalem [Note 1] in my opinion, and shorter as some editors here have wanted. Okedem, your reference to dictionaries is not useful, since if we remove from the article everything that doesn't occur in dictionary mentions of Israel, then this article would become very short indeed. I at least am not currently even engaged a discussion on whether to remove the footnote (you'll probably not be able to secure consensus for removing it, as it is notable and well sourced), I'm discussing the format of the link to the footnote. The superscript [1], being confusable with a reference, would in practice give WP:UNDUE weight to the Zionist viewpoint by hiding the majority view. Merry Christmas everyone, --Dailycare (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What majority view? You have yet to provide a single source that says that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, or that non-recognition has any significance other then where the embassies are located, from which foreign diplomats drive to Jerusalem to conduct their business. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The majority view of the 163 countries that voted in January to not recognize the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. I'm suggesting that we change the format of the link from [1] to [Nb 1], for that I don't need sources saying Jerusalem isn't the capital. Obviously non-recognition is significant since the UN passed a resolution on it and 163 countries agreed on it. As you appear to no longer have reasoned objections to changing the link to [Nb 1], I'll implement the change in the coming days. Merry Christmas, --Dailycare (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, I forgot that if someone says "it's obvious" then they don't need to provide any sources.

What is the significance of non-recognition? Not "they did it so it's significant". Nobody is arguing that they didn't do it. The question is why is it so important it needs to be in the infobox of an article about Israel, when most professional sources do not mention it in similar circumstances, and when other non-recognized capitals do not have similar footnotes. This should be a simple question for you to answer if it's so obvious. Please also address the fact that despite voting for non-recognition, most countries implicitly recognize Jerusalem by carrying out their official business there, as noted by Sharkansky. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, of course if the UN voted on something it must be of the utmost importance. We must advertise it as much as possible. Naturally, you don't need sources for that, why should you? Other users bothered to present sources, but you shouldn't have to.

Well, then. If you make such a change, I will revert you. The opposition to your suggestion has been explained to you, you just don't want to accept it: despite what you may think, the UN isn't the decider of all things. Despite what you may think, international recognition isn't relevant to the status of a city as capital. Despite what you may think, the UN's opinion of Jerusalem is of little importance. As the majority of sources don't find the recognition question to be of such great importance, neither should we. okedem (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Okedem, you and NMMNG keep arguing that non-recognition has no legal consequences. The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, §202 Recognition or Acceptance of States, (2); and §203 Recognition or Acceptance of Governments, (2) both say that a state has a legal obligation not to recognize or treat a regime as the government if its control has been effected by the threat or use of armed force in violation of the UN Charter. §205 says those regimes are ordinarily denied access to the Courts of the United States. Several groups have filed lawsuits in this and other countries in connection with house demolitions claiming that Israel is not entitled to claim sovereign immunity for those actions. Haaretz recently reported that the U.S. is furious over Israel's demolition of East Jerusalem homes, and our courts are open to alien tort claims for violations of customary law. harlan (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

None of which shows that non-recognition has any effect on a city's status as capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving my comments on Dailycare's suggestion to a new section below.RomaC (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Opposing view points and avoiding POV forks

(outdent) Okedem and No More Mr Nice Guy, opposing view points have to be summarized in this article. Every article on Jordan, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank contains a perfunctory summary of the missing reversioner theory on sovereignty in one form or another.

I haven't been discussing the infobox. I'm discussing the content of this article, and what it describes as the territory within the sovereign jurisdiction of Israel. This article discusses the "sovereign territory of Israel, excluding all territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War," as if there has been a final territorial settlement of the 1948 war. In 1963, the United States formally advised Israel that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty.[13]

President Truman proposed territorial compensation and cited a policy statement made by Dr Jessup which specifically stated that the boundaries of Israel should be determined by the parties, that Israel was entitled to the boundaries set forth in the resolution of November 29, 1947, that any modifications of these boundaries be made only if acceptable to Israel, but that if Israel desired additional territory, it must offer an appropriate exchange through negotiations; that the Palestinian refugees be permitted to return to their homes, with adequate compensation to those who chose not to return; that Jerusalem be accorded special treatment; and that the question of international responsibility for guaranteeing boundaries and maintenance of human rights required careful consideration. Jessup's statement is available in Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2, Page 1617 [14] Mr. Eban's remarks were made in direct response to the President's proposal regarding territorial compensation. Mr. Eban was discussing the final territorial settlement when he acknowledged that Israel was an occupant under the Armistice agreements. His comments are available in Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI, Pages 1148-49.[15]

I've asked you to provide a source which says that Israel has perfected its title to Jerusalem. I'm not engaging in OR, since McHugo provided an analysis which said "the Armistice Agreements were without prejudice to territorial sovereignty, and therefore Israel was barred by its own action in signing them from consolidating its title up to the armistice lines so long as those agreements remained in force." The UN is still keeping track of Palestinian property claims and revenues from property in all of the territory. Benvenisti confirms the Hague regulations have been and will continue to be a factor in the final settlement. The ICJ said that specific rights regarding freedom of movement and access to Holy Sites on Israel's side of the Armistice line were guaranteed in pursuance with the General Armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan. The court said that agreement remains a valid international undertaking. Those are simply a few examples. I'm saying the article has to reflect the views of the many countries who do not think Jerusalem is part of the sovereign territory of Israel. The United States has repeatedly stated that the status can only be settled by negotiation between the parties, not by unilaterial declarations. harlan (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed engaging in OR when you take all kinds of information (for example, about armistice agreements) and claim they have something to do with the status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when the sources say no such thing.

Anyway, the article already mentions the issues relating to the status of Jerusalem. Several times in fact. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. This article does not contain the slightest hint that the United Nations has decided that Israel's legislative and administrative attempts to alter the status of the city of Jerusalem are illegal. Many countries have a longstanding stated position regarding the specific status of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum in accordance with international law.[16] I think you need to brush up on WP:OR and WP:Synth, because I'm citing the analysis provided by the US Government, Quigley, McHugo, Sharkansky, and Benvenisti about the UN resolutions, the armistice lines, and armistice agreements. They are the ones who said those have legal consequences regarding the extent of Israel's sovereign territory, and the legal status of the city of Jerusalem as a seat of government of a sovereign state.

You are ignoring the US policy statement which said Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty; the decisions made by the General Assembly; and Sharkansky's comments about the many countries which do not consider it a proper part of Israel. Here are some more from "Corpus Separatum §33 Jerusalem" Marjorie M. Whiteman editor, US State Department Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pages 593-4. It says that "many other countries" do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's de jure sovereign territory:

"The majority of UN member nations, including the United States and the Soviet Union, have continued to respect the United Nations Resolutions despite the de facto occupancy of the city of Jerusalem part by Israel and part by Jordan. As a result, an anomalous situation exists today embodied, in the case of the United States, by a Consulate General whose district is the 'international city' and certain adjacent areas on the Jordanian side. Other nations which maintain similar establishments are the United Kingdom, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Greece and Belgium. Many other countries mark their respect for the internationalization resolutions by establishing embassies in Tel Aviv thus avoiding recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and, by implication, as Israel's de jure sovereign territory." --The American Consul General at Jerusalem (Franklin) to the Secretary of State (Dulles), despatch No. 67, Dec. 30, 1958, MS. Department of State, file 122.491/12-3058.

"The Government of the United States of America has noted recent reports to the effect that the Government of Jordan plans to treat the City of Jerusalem as its second capital and to construct certain offices there for agencies of the Central Government. The Government of the United States of America has adhered and continues to adhere to a policy which respects the interest of the United Nations in the status of Jerusalem. The United States Government therefore cannot recognize or associate itself in any way with actions which confer upon Jerusalem the attributes of a seat of government of a sovereign state, and are thus inconsistent with this United Nations interest in the status of that city."--The American Ambassador at Amman (Mills) to the Secretary of State (Herter), despatch No. 376, encl. 1, Apr. 5, 1960, MS. Department of State. file 785.02/4-560.

Like Sharkansky, Quincy Wright said that the area beyond the original UN grant had come under Israeli control as a result of temporary cease fire measures adopted in 1948 and 1967: ‘The extension of Israel’s occupation beyond the original UN grant as a result of the Arab-Israeli hostilities of 1948–9 and the armistices negotiated in 1949 are justified as temporary measures to end the hostilities. The principle of no acquisition of territory by war should, if strictly applied, require the cease fire lines to be at the frontiers before hostilities began, thus preventing military occupations as well as acquisitions by force, but the overriding responsibility of the United Nations to stop hostilities justified the acceptance of the armistices as temporary cease fire lines to be soon superseded by permanent boundaries established by peaceful means.’ --see Quincy Wright, ‘The Middle East Problem’, 64 American Journal of International Law (1970), at 271, cited in the McHugo article. harlan (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The article does indeed reference the fact that that the United Nations has accepted resolutions that say that Israel's legislative and administrative attempts to alter the status of the city of Jerusalem are illegal. It notes and links to various UN resolutions as well as the page about the status of Jerusalem which explains all this in detail. Perhaps you should read the article more carefully. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The term illegal is not used in the article or footnote and saying it in another article is a POV fork. harlan (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how it's a POV fork. The issues are addressed in the article (usage of the word "illegal" notwithstanding). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that this article links to other articles. It uses the {{Main}} template and wikilinks to do that. The policy is to summarize those articles in this article and to apply the {{sync}} tag to harmonize the text in this article to prevent POV forks from developing. There are articles which say 160 countries have adopted a decision that Israel's attempts to alter the status of Jerusalem are illegal. This article does NOT mention any legal determinations by other countries or the consequences. harlan (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a top level country article. It doesn't mention a lot of things. It links to where this information is available. It is my understanding that this type of article is deliberately structured like that. It would be absolutely huge if it had a couple of paragraphs about every related topic that has a page of its own.

It specifically says The UN Security Council has declared the incorporations of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem to be "null and void" and continues to view the territories as occupied..

There's certainly no POV fork here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mention status of the territory beyond the original UN grant; that attempts to change the status of western Jerusalem are also viewed as null, void, and illegal; or that many countries do not think that Jerusalem is part of the territory of any sovereign state. I've given you the sources for all of that; the UN, Wright, Quigley, Whiteman, et. al. so there is really nothing to discuss. I'll go ahead an edit the other articles. If you don't want to update this one then the use of the {{sync}} tag [17] is appropriate to alert readers to the problem. harlan (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a few words where the article mentions the Green Line saying that it is not necessarily accepted by all countries and links to the relevant articles.

I'm sure you're aware that UNSCR 242 is considered the basis for a permanent solution to the conflict by most countries, so I suggest you try not to give the armistice lines issue undue weight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to insert much beyond what Whiteman, Sharkansky, and the General Assembly said. BTW, Resolution 242 talked about withdrawal, but did not contain a territorial cession regarding Jerusalem. The United States was one of the 57 countries that voted in favor of a resolution which, among other things, reaffirmed the desirability of establishing an international regime for the city of Jerusalem in the aftermath of the Six Day War.[18] Wright, McHugo, et al discussed the status of the territory beyond the original UN grant. For example McHugo said "There is a confusion between the law of title to territory and the law of armed conflict. It is the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ in the preamble which recites the law on territorial sovereignty and imports it directly into the Resolution, not the Withdrawal Phrase. Resolution 242 does not ‘supersede the territorial formula in the Partition Resolution’. harlan (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Formatting of the Footnote Link

Not here to debate whether or not Jerusalem is the capital, because our opinions on that do not matter. Regarding the issue of how the article can best reflect the acknowledged real-world issues/disputes regarding Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, information which is now down below the article in a footnote and which some active editors think doesn't belong in the article at all, I will be opening a RfC in the new year. In the meantime, Dailycare has made a suggestion for changing the format of the link to the footnote from [1] to [Nb 1], in order to differentiate it from a normal source reference, which it now appears to be. So, there is a footnote below the article, that should be clear to readers, no? This is not a content issue it is layout/formatting issue. Why are some editors above opposing this sort of edit? Please explain. RomaC (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

RomaC - I'm really really sick of the way you misrepresent this:

"information which is now down below the article in a footnote and which some active editors think doesn't belong in the article at all" - That's false on both claims. The information is in the article, as I have shown multiple times already (maybe you just don't read what I write); see the sections "Conflicts and peace treaties" and "Occupied territories". No one has suggested removing any information from the article; I said that perhaps the footnote is unnecessary, but never suggested we remove the information from the article.

If you can't bother presenting the situation, and other editors' suggestions, accurately, don't write at all. okedem (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep repeating the "real world issue/dispute" mantra, but have yet to provide a single source that says this is something significant rather than just an anecdote, or that it has any bearing on Jerusalem's real world status as capital.

Making the footnote unusually prominent is not a formatting issue, it's an undue weight issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the hostility being expressed in this section is to anyone's benefit. Could we all just take one step back and consider the change being proposed without considering motivations (WP:AGF)? The proposal to is to change the existing format of the footnote for Jerusalem from [1] to [Nb1]. I support this change as in line with Wikipedia guidelines regarding the formatting of notes and citations. I believe RomaC and DailyCare do as well. Does NNMG oppose? Does Okedem? On what grounds? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning several times. I'll also add that in the example articles given on WP:Footnote, neither Starship Troopers or Jane Austin us the "NB 1" format.

Also, WP:Footnote says As with all citation styles, consensus should be achieved on the talk page before implementing such a change.. SD's threats to go ahead and implement a change he knows there's no consensus for is a bit troubling. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you say above that you believe [Nb1] accords undue weight to the footnote. I don't find that argument logical or convincing, but suggest we consider adopting the formats in use elsewhere, such as at Jane Austen (A., B., C.) if that's what's troubling you (and others). I don't see how distinguishing the footnotes from regular references accords undue weight, unless one doesn't want people to read the footnote (and then what's the point of including it exactly?).

I don't know who SD is, I think you meant DC, and I think their statement was an expression of frustration over the trenchant opposition being expressed to such a simple format change. Tiamut^talk 13:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As Tiamut presumes, I support the change from [1] to [Nb 1]. I'd also point out that this meets the objection raised at the actual format change (as opposed to unrelated issues) that [NOTE 1] was seen as large since [Nb 1] is shorter. As to NMMNG's other point, [Nb 1] is used in e.g. List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index, China and Battle_of_Berlin. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As I object to the footnote in general (for reasons stated above), I naturally object to putting a flashing "look here" sign on it.

There's no requirement to mark footnotes differently than other refs. The fact we can do it doesn't mean we have to do it, and I've yet to hear a convincing policy based reason for it. There are plenty of articles where footnotes are not marked differently. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

NMMNG, I submit that shortening the link from [NOTE 1] to [Nb 1] has been done specifically to address the concern of yours that the footnote would be excessively underlined. I also claim that [Nb 1] is minimally different from [1] yet provides the benefit, already discussed, that readers can see that a footnote exists and no confusion with a mere reference is risked. I also repeat that this is not the place to discuss keeping or removing the footnote. So the reason to make the change is to improve clarity of the article. Your personal dislike of the footnote itself is a separate issue, not a reasoned argument for not making the change in the link. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, a great many academic publications don't feel the need to separate citations and footnotes. Instead of writing after every sentence a citation in parentheses ("Following the war, Narnia fell into chaos (Wheeler, 1987)"), they put the text into a footnote. Similarly, when wanting to further elucidate some point, instead of writing a comment in parentheses ("...into chaos (not all historians share this view, though; Smith argues...)"), they put it, too, into a footnote. The idea and mechanism are the same - I want to give some information, but I don't want to burden the article with it, so I'll put it in a footnote. So I see no reason to differentiate. okedem (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be, that since all publications don't separate references from footnotes, we shouldn't do it in Israel. There are many things that all publications don't do, and if we were to remove them from this article, it would become short. The question is: would separating the link format make this article clearer, in the sense that it would be more apparent that a footnote is behind the link? We have 288 references and one footnote. Don't you think the one footnote is easily mistaken for one of the 288 references? That's all this really boils down to. There are editors who feel the added clarity would be valuable, why are you opposing? --Dailycare (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The conventions for using footnotes include both references and notes. Recognition is a minor issue, discussed in the article already. To place a large link like "[Nb 1]" is a sort of qualification to "capital", which I oppose, based on the sources we've seen. If anything, the footnote should be removed entirely, not given a more prominent place. okedem (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

regarding okedem: "I must say I'm quite sick of harlan misrepresenting..." and okedem: "RomaC - I'm really really sick of the way you misrepresent..." accusations and malady -- chillax, a bi gezunt. I don't believe you can have it both ways, that is: support the relegation of information to a linked footnote, then oppose formatting that would identify this link's association with the footnote. Hoping maybe uninvolved editors might scroll through all of this and see how a question about the infobox led to suggestions for a qualification on information that has acknowledged real-world issues/disputes, and how this was summarily opposed by some editors; discussion then opened to suggestions on how to qualify the information, this also opposed by the same editors; finally a point was raised that the infobox formatting did not differentiate and a suggestion made to fix this as done in other articles, this also uniformly opposed the same editors. A "don't give an inch" editing mentality makes a mockery of collaboration -- yet, okedem, you say that we make you sick? I've had enough, will step back for uninvolved editors to comment for the time being, intend to open a RfC in the new year. RomaC (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RomaC - you can disagree with my position, and I have no problem with that. I generally find that you're reasonable, and open to discussion and collaboration. This is why it's especially disconcerting to me that you have yet to acknowledge the fact that your claims above are false. The information is in the article, and no one has suggested removing it. The question is if, beyond the discussion in the text, we need a footnote, and how to format it. If you falsely frame the dispute, no productive discussion can take place.

And regarding collaboration - I find the footnote wholly unnecessary. Having it is already a compromise position. okedem (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, you're once more arguing that since you dislike the footnote (which is not the subject of this discussion) you oppose making the link to it clearer (you appear to concede that the change would make the link clearer). The footnote is there specifically to qualify the capital status of Jerusalem, since (as everyone knows and as sources say) there is a significant controversy as to the status of Jerusalem. In other words, the footnote is there, and has been inserted there, for a good reason. Opposition to making the link clearer would appear to run against this good reason, so why persist? As a separate point, the information is not very clearly presented in the article body either, for example the lead does not mention this. WP:LEAD says the lead should include "any notable controversies". --Dailycare (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets go with the RFC. I'm getting tired of asking you guys for actual sources that say either that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, or that non-recognition has any influence on a city's status as capital. I guess you think repeating the mantra of "real world issues/disputes" can come instead of actual sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

An RFC is of course fine by me. The issues you mention, however, are not part of this discussion. --Dailycare (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The issues I mention are part of this discussion. If there is no footnote, your attempts to make it more visible are moot. I suggest we go through the RFC and see if the footnote survives it at all. Otherwise we're just wasting time rehashing the same arguments over and over. Surely we can decide if it should say [1] or [VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION HERE! READ NOW!] a little later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you want to have a RFC about whether to keep the footnote. I'm OK with that. You don't then, for the time being, have objections to changing the format of the link? In any RFC, removal of the footnote would be highly unlikely after all. Naturally if the footnote is removed, then no link will be needed and it will be removed along with the footnote. The format you're suggesting above is in my opinion unnecessarily long (Okedem will likely agree), [Nb 1] would suffice for me as discussed above. Also, I'm not sure if any other wiki articles use the format you're suggesting. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I do have objections to you changing the format to [Nb 1] for the time being. This format is not outlined as ideal in any Wikipedia guidelines, and I don't think it's appropriate. It doesn't look scholarly, and this is backed up by the fact that in all the examples of encyclopedias we have seen in this discussion, none of them have anything similar. After looking through many random articles on Wikipedia, I've seen that the majority that I was able to find did not have a distinction between footnotes and references, and they were both labeled with numbers. There were the couple of articles you linked that either made the distinction through using letters and numbers, or through using Nb, but I would vote for those articles being changed to reflect the majority of articles that don't unnecessarily overcomplicate things. It just looks unprofessional. Breein1007 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Nb1 seems horrible. I doubt such a suggestion would work in the long term. What is the special value of this (other than Arab-Israeli overkill politicizasion on a footnote)? Who came up with the suggestion and where on wikipedia is the inspiration for this suggestion coming from? Please clarify. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, to answer your questions: 1) the special value of this edit is to improve clarity. It was decided earlier that the disputed nature of Jerusalem as capital is placed in a footnote, and as discussed above it's desired that footnotes and references be listed separately to clarify there is a footnote. 2) I came up with the suggestion. 3) The inspiration for this suggestion is coming from this guideline and the articles mentioned above where this notation is used. NB is an established acronym for Nota bene, and is used specifically in this kind of context. I have a question of my own: you have policy-based reasons for opposing the change? I also invite you to read through the (surprisingly numerous) earlier posts relating to this tiny issue. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Daylicare,

I'm still waiting on a reply from you where Nableezy interupted (see my comment stamped as 20:40, 21 December 2009). Would you mind addressing it?

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the article. nableezy - 09:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I was asking for calrification on the argument made by my peer editor (per 'actual control'). Yes? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I've now replied to your (completely unrelated) query, in the appropriate thread. Am I correct in assuming, then, that you have no policy-based objections to the edit actually in question here? --Dailycare (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not quite :) Give me a minute to review it and I'll see what the policy says about footnotes.

p.s. thanks for responding. It was a seemingly "completely unrelated" issue, but still connected as its part of the main issue of the Jerusalem and the general recognition. No? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Daily care,

1) If I understand correctly, your premise is that it would improve the clarity of the article if we change the footnote from a [1] format to an [nb 1] format. If I understand correctly, the content is listed both in the article body and in a footnote as well. The added Nb format seems, as I've stated, like "Arab-Israeli overkill politicizasion on a footnote". The added "calrification" value seems miniscule to non-existent.

3) I figure you misunderstood the concept of the style guideline. The Nb is an example on how the group footnote works, it is not intended as the final presentation of the note. Give the entire guidline a second look, you'll see that I'm right here.

To your question, I'm not sure we're discussing policy here (rather than style), but in general - the lead needs to be written from a conservative viewpoint and overpoliticization is something that needs to be avoided. Having an [nb] thingy on every controversial issue would lead to mayham and dissatisfaction all across the board.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You understand correctly in that I'm after improved clarity. The content is not listed properly, in my opinion, in the body of the article but that (like the lead) is a separate issue. I agree that since this article relates to the Mideast conflict, we should be careful and conservative in presenting the information. In terms of the infobox, therefore, we should carefully present the information as clearly as possible, to avoid the overpolitization you mention. Acknowledging that the status of Jerusalem is an extremely sensitive issue (even "the most difficult issue"), we should be careful to convey both sides of the issue and not only one, which would be overpolitization. In this sense, the added clarity of the link to the footnote becomes important. Since a footnote was selected as the way to qualify the status of the city (and the footnote has been written), then it should be presented in a clear way. The guideline says that listing notes and references separately is often desirable, and that's what I'm proposing here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the guideline suggestion to use footnotes is a reasonable one and I'm not really against a footnote for something that is already in the article body. I 'am' 100% against your interpretation on the formatting of this footnote if that interpretation means that we use [nb 1]. Have you looked again into the guideline to see where my premise about this is coming from (see my note 3 above)? No offense intended, but it feels as though you've allowed some laziness in your review of my comment (it happens to the best of us) and, as a result, neglected to address the points I've raised and my reply to your question.

p.s. don't waste your time on the external links to news-pieces. Two of these won't change anyone's mind about notability or style and we already have a fairly large rundown of how mainstream encyclopedic sources treat the issue.

p.p.s. in the spirit of the style guideline in question, I'm not completely opposed to the 'A' style used in the real article example (which is different than the 'explanation on how the formatting works' example). Fair enough or do you petition for something big?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I did in fact look at the guideline but didn't (and still don't) see your point concerning it. The Jane Austen and China pages do use [A] and [nb 1], respectively. Concerning the sources, It should be recalled that if we delete from the article everything that isn't in an average dictionary, the article will be uselessly short. Encyclopedias for their part are tertiary sources, which are according to WP:RS and WP:OR (see the linked sections) less preferable than secondary sources such as reputable newspaper articles. I'd also point out that some of the "encyclopedias" mentioned are "encyclopedias of geography", so also for that reason using them in this discussion is a weak point. Using them to argue that something shouldn't be in the article since it's not in an encyclopedia (of geography!) is a very weak argument, even more so since some of the encyclopedias mentioned do in fact have the info. Secondary sources frequently qualify the status of Jerusalem one way or another (I encountered this just yesterday without even looking for it).

Anyway, regardless of the source issue, your compromise suggestion [A] is acceptable to me since it's distinguishable from [1], so we appear to be agreed on this. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What is this infoxbox supposed to show? The capital of Israel. Have you provided a single source that says that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel or that non-recognition changes the status of a city as capital and is anything more than an empty political gesture? You have not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, the box will continue to say "Jerusalem". Respected secondary sources have chosen, when mentioning Jerusalem, to also mention non-recognition. That's reason enough for us to mention it here too (as we do in the footnote), and do so clearly since this is a sensitive issue. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Most references do not note it at all, as okedem showed above, and none of them use the "null and void" language that's in the footnote right now. Do you want me to start cutting it down to something along the lines of "the city’s capital status has not received wide international recognition" which is the most you can get out of the relevant sources, or do you want to? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What "status" are you talking about? Most countries believe that Jerusalem is not part of any sovereignty. The UN Charter and customary international law do not authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially, or solely, within the domestic jurisdiction of Israel or require Israel to submit such matters to settlement under the Charter. Many countries do not believe Jerusalem is entitled to the status and legal immunities afforded to the lawfully established capital of a sovereign State. They are convinced the international community has a legal right to impose a final territorial settlement in the event that the parties concerned fail to conclude an agreement. That is not an empty political gesture. See for example Solana wants UN to establish 'Palestine' [19] That is a real world issue of disputed sovereignty over the capital that should be noted.

The footnote says "The United States later passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the sovereign state of Israel." The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act contained quite a few circumlocutions and it employed logical arguments with missing intermediaries, but it never recognized Jerusalem as the capital of any sovereign state. It said "Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital."; "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel."; and "the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem" [20] It did not actually say that Israel was a sovereign nation, or that Jerusalem would be legally recognized as a capital as a result of the embassy relocation.

The fact that a U.S. embassy is located in Tel Aviv does not legally mean that the U.S. recognizes that city as a capital. The U.S. embassy in East Germany was located in East Berlin, although the U.S. specifically rejected that city as the capital. Experts in the field of foreign relations law have said that, faced with congressional force majeure, the State Department could simply construct an embassy in Jerusalem, and continue to argue that the U.S. doesn't recognize Jerusalem as the capital." See Marshall J. Breger, "Jerusalem Gambit: How We Should Treat Jerusalem Is a Matter of U.S. Constitutional Law as Well as Middle Eastern Politics," National Review 23 Oct. 1995 harlan (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there NMMNG, see my post timestamped 13:10, 29 December 2009 for my take on Okedem's sources. You seem to now be digressing to a discussion on the content of the footnote. Do you have any policy-based arguments against the change from [1] to [A], or are we done here? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep making the completely bogus assertion that recognition is an empty political gesture, then dismissing the responses which explain the real world legal consequences. The Foreign Minister of the EU recommended the use of the UN Security Council's powers to settle the status of Jerusalem. harlan (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dailycare, I have posted my policy based objections above. Did you forget them or are you just pretending? Your post timestamped 13:10 is the one where you imply that an "encyclopedia of geography" is not a good source as to what the capital of a certain state is? While BBC editing policy is?

Harlan, where did Solana say anything about "real world legal consequences"? By the way, want to take a guess as to where the EU's ambassador to Israel goes to present his credentials? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Change the footnote link to "[A]" instead of "[1]" so that it looks different from the links to all the sources. Case closed. 209.49.208.130 (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

NMMNG, your objections above have been carefully addressed. Repeating them doesn't renew their relevance. A clear balance of opinion appears to be in favour of making the edit, with me, Tiamut, RomaC, Harlan, IP, Nableezy (?) and also Jaakobou OK with the [A] link. --Dailycare (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall either Nableezy or harlan commenting on this issue, but your assumption that they'd chose the version that would attempt to dilute the Israeli view is probably right. So what, though? What does "balance of opinion" mean? I can't find WP:BALANCEOFOPINION. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't addressed anything, and saying you have doesn't make it so. The point raised is that recognition is quite a minor issue, which is why most sources don't seem to take it too seriously, and don't use qualifications or notes. You need to justify giving this issue such a prominent position here, and have yet to do so. The sources seem to contradict your view regarding the importance of this, and seem to indicate we should be content with the discussion in the text.

And this isn't just about changing a "1" to an "A". To do so, we'd also need to create an entire section for notes, despite having but a single note. Alternatively, it can appear, badly, in the references section, like in this version, with confusing numbering, and dominating the section with its large font size, spanning three columns. The footnote mechanism is valid for both notes and references. I see no reason to change that. okedem (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok guys, you've now communicated clearly where you're coming from. I'm withdrawing my agreement to the compromise Capital: Jerusalem^[A] format and looking forward to continuing this discussion in the RFC. Happy new year, --Dailycare (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And by this you've very clearly shown where you're coming from - it's not about making clear that it isn't a source, but about drawing as much attention to it as possible, to say "Capital: Jeruaslem [BUT NOT REALLY]".

Oh, and even having a footnote there is a compromise. According to the source, it seems there's really no reason even for that. okedem (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)