Jump to content

Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Polls on arguments presented

Argument 1: precedent for naming capital in lead

Argument: Because other articles name disputed capitals in a similar way to how the current article names Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, that is a Wikipedia precedent which we should follow here.

  • Invalid/Irrelevant As discussed above, this is a invalid or irrelevant argument because Wikipedia does not work on precedent but on other rules, and because the other articles seem to have been whitewashed or otherwise do not live up to Wikipedia standards. We have to decide questions about this article based on sources and principles, not what the editors of other articles have done. BE——Critical__Talk 20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    You're not very good at describing the other side's arguments. Nobody has used the term "precedent" here except you. Maybe you should stick to making your own arguments? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant since per WP:V Wikipedia itself shouldn't be used as a source. An edit a1 made in article A should be judged based on what sources say on the specific subject (a1), not what article B says about something else (b1) that some editors feel is a similar issue. --Dailycare (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Genug!

I urge you all to abandon this utterly fruitless avenue of dispute. It is clear that we will not resolve among ourselves the question of Jerusalem's capitalness, without relating it to the larger context of conflict over Jerusalem in general (and even then I am not sure).

At the risk of being a nudnik, I repeat my original question: To what extent do we want the lead to emphasize the issues of conflict over Jerusalem? And, more specifically,

  • The conflict over Jerusalem's political status, within the context of the Israel-Palestine dispute.
  • Religious and ethnic conflicts.
  • Historical and geopolitical conflicts.

And, further, how do we want to present the relationship between these three aspects of the conflict? Do we, for example, consider the religious significance to Jews, Muslims and Christians to be a relevant factor in the political dispute over Jerusalem's future?

I believe that if we can reach agreement on these questions, we might, just possibly, be able to move forward on the issue of capitalness.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're right about that Ravpapa. I mean, you may well be right that these things are issues for the article worth discussing. But bundling all these issues together would seem to me to turn a question of "should we say x" into one of "should we say x, y and z but not q and what form of words can we find to avoid saying t". There may be some editors who feel that x is the main or only issue and, amongst the others, there may be all kinds of permutations once all the letters of the alphabet are taken into account, so that we may well never find two editors who are entirely in agreement. That seems like an incredibly complicated detour to me. --FormerIP (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Location map Jerusalem

I've changed the infobox pushpin_map to Template:Location map Jerusalem. It provides the outline of the city. 10x to whoever crafted this template location map. It is based on images from OpenStreetMap which is not an evil organization, it is a collaborative project to create a free editable map of the world. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

After doing a quick tour of random city articles, it seems that all cities' maps locate them on a map of the nation, just like it was before your change, but some also do have a zoomed in map of the city, so I think it would be better to have both maps, similar to Kyoto, Los Angeles, and São Paulo. Passionless -Talk 00:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Poll

The intro says that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though internationally unrecognized as such, and the largest city in Israel, if the area and population of East Jerusalem is included. However, Israel has annexed Jerusalem under the 1980 Jerusalem Law, pushing the de facto border East. All of Israel's government offices, along with the residences of its President and Prime Minister are located in the city. Although it has received no recognition as such, East Jerusalem is technically part of Israel, no matter how controversial that decision is. The eastern part of the city has many Jewish neighborhoods, and some Palestinian residents hold citizenship, the rest are permanent residents. Also, the world does not recognize it because it believes it harms the peace process, but has not explicitly ruled out a united Jerusalem in the future as Israel's capital, if it is peacefully achieved. Israel has also made it quite clear that it is unwilling to part with East Jerusalem and its holy sites. I suggest we simply say for now that Jerusalem is the capital and largest city of Israel, but that its future status is disputed.--RM (Be my friend) 04:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Support:
Oppose: OPPOSE. The intro shouldn't say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel as long as it is disputed. Moreover, it shouldn't say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though internationally unrecognized as such. The phrase though internationally unrecognized as such does not fit an encyclopedia. Many things could be defined as X is Y, though internationally unrecognized as such and then wikipedia would be quite a mess. This is encyclopedia, it should represent "international" definitions of things, not according "israeli" or "palestinian" laws. (Ewpfpod (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
Whether it is recognized or not, it still is the capital. It contains all government offices, the residences of the President and Prime Minister, and the Israel has annexed the entire place. Secondly, international consensus favors negotiations, but is in favor of an undivided Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Embassy Act also implies a U.S. Congressional acceptance (but U.S. Presidential rejection due to Congress allegedly impeding on Executive rights), while U.S. and a Canadian abstention on the vote of the UN Resolutions condemning the annexation, coupled with the EU's demand for a negotiated settlement, is proof of no definite international consensus. Although most embassies have been removed, there still are some in the Mevaseret Zion suburb. Furthermore, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 entitled Israel to "safe and secure borders", meaning minor territorial adjustments to suit Israel's strategic needs. Given that West Jerusalem contains numerous government buildings and was already the de facto capital, it could be argued that absorbing East Jerusalem is vital to Israel's defensive needs. Palestinians argue that Israel violated the Geneva Conventions by annexing territory in an "aggressive war", while Israel claims that the Six-Day War was a pre-emptive defensive action, not aggressive. There is really no unified international consensus, although plenty of harsh criticisms, and the city's status under international law is highly debatable. In any event, Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but its status is unresolved.--RM (Be my friend) 18:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Since it is contested, "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is a statement of opinion, not fact. Representing it otherwise would be a breach of the WP:Neutral Point of View rule: avoid stating opinions as facts; avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts; accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.     ←   ZScarpia   19:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with ZScarpia. There's an obvious controversy over whether or not it's Israel's capital and most countries in the world say it's not part of Israel and the Jerusalem Law is invalid. Directly stating that it's the capital makes little sense if the rest of the article covers how no one else accepts it thus. Sol (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
ZScarpia: "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is a statement of opinion, not fact. That's incorrect. The only and one and only determiner of a country's capital is the country itself. The entire universe can ignore this determination and choose to park their embassies elsewhere, but that does not in any way effect a sovereign country's determination of what city it wants to call its capital.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. A country can name any of its cities as its capital. What you can't do is include outside territory in your capital. For the Jerusalem Law to be valid, Israel would need to have sovereign jurisdiction over East Jerusalem. It doesn't. Your legislature can't annex occupied territory. And if it tries the Security Council confirms you're breaching the Geneva Conventions in Security Resolution 476 and the law is null. And that's the line of reasoning every country in the world follows. So you may be right, maybe Israel can name Jerusalem, even the parts it doesn't own, its capital, but the Security Council, EU, US, etc, etc, all seem to think they get a say in the matter. If Israel would like to issue a law declaring its capital to be the parts of Jerusalem it owns, that would be just great, Security Council couldn't say a thing. With this much controversy over the issue, why should WP state in its neutral voice that one country is entirely correct? Sol (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You are confusing two issues here. What they said was "null and void" was the annexation, not the deceleration of Jerusalem as capital. Thus "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is indeed a statement of fact. There is, by the way, a law from 1951 that declares Jerusalem as the capital, so even if the 1980 law is null and void the previous existing law takes effect. The extent of say other countries have is whether they decide to recognize it as such. That is their POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Resolution 478. Note the language used, it's saying anything, not just the recent law but any Israeli law at all, that tries to change the status or character of Jerusalem is null. Chesdovi found this very problematic source that explains how this is possible and why. In short, the source says the international community thinks Israel has no title to any part of Jerusalem. I find this really hard to believe but it does explain why people won't just call West Jerusalem the capital, which always seemed like the obvious solution. There's also, as you point out, the issue of perspective; if it's everyone elses' perspective that Israel can't make its capital outside the country versus the Israeli perspective that Jerusalem is in the country, the issue hinges on perspective and we are now giving voice to the minority view. International law is one of the few times when perspective can make things real; even if it's illegal, annexations are legitimate if recognized, explicitly or implicitly, in relation to the recognizing country. We could put this issue to bed for good with the statement of fact that "Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital", thus not obscuring any claims but also not introducing the issue as settled. Sol (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If Israel says Mars is its capital, then Mars is Israel's capital. Everyone can ignore it and it can be "invalid", but only Israel gets to decide where to designate its capital. I'm not saying this because I'm a gung-ho nationalist who doesn't care what anyone says. I'm saying this because its just rudimentary basics of how countries work. Countries laws are their laws whether or not they are "recognized" by others, their designated currency is their currency whether or not it is "recognized" by other contries, and its designated capital is its capital whether or not it is "recognized" by other countries.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If Israel says Mars is its capital, then Mars is Israel's capital. Really? If that happened, do you think that the next country to try to land a probe on Mars would be asking for Israel's permission to do it? And, more relevantly, do you think that the Wikipedia community would allow the article on Mars to be amended to state categorically that "Mars is the capital of Israel?"     ←   ZScarpia   21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Answer to question 1: No. Answer to question 2: The article on Mars should state "Israel has designated Mars as its capital."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Right. It should say, in your words,"Israel has designated Mars as its capital." and not "Mars is the capital of Israel." So why are you arguing Jerusalem should be different? Neither is Israeli territory. Sol (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am willing to compromise on that wording for the opening sentence.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, well I'd also be willing to agree to that wording. --FormerIP (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that that wording would be an improvement.     ←   ZScarpia   12:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks, brew. Would changing the lead sentence section "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to "Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel" work or do you prefer "Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital" or some variation there of? Sol (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
the latter would be ok from my perspective. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I object to changing the current wording. I also suggest putting this somewhere less indented before making any changes based on this part of the discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still just filled with wiki-love after we found a solution acceptable to brewcrewer and me. Would you like to just start a new section for your objection, NMNG? You're right about it getting crowded. Sol (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
What policy are you referring to there? --FormerIP (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. I did not mention any policy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was my point. --FormerIP (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well then you missed the point I am afraid. My point was not inconsistent with any policy and I did not see any policy being quoted by those opposing my view point. In short, please stop wasting time and talk page space with nonconstructive comments.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You forget that the whole city lies within Israeli sovereign territory. Israel annexed East Jerusalem, and whether or not the world agrees, Israel has done it, and made it a part of Israeli territory. As I have said before, Israel might or might not be within its rights to annex it under international law and declare it its capital (see my initial response), but the point is, whether or not the world agrees, it's still happened. Even if it were illegal, would we be debating whether to treat a famous bank robbery the same way just because its illegal and everyone opposes it? Unlike Mars, Israel has successfully excercised the rule of law over the residents, has a large civilian population in the city, offers the Arab residents citizenship (most of whom refused), and provides municipal services to the entire city.--RM (Be my friend) 22:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Jesus! Lighten up. The relevant policy is NPOV. You seem to be citing a fictional principle that says that one POV trumps all others, so you lose. Except you don't of course, because there are plenty of people here whose nationalism comes before any other consideration and I fully expect they will back you up just enough. --FormerIP (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If anyone is citing a fictional principle its those making up arguments that the fact that most countries do not want Israel to designate Jerusalem as its capital means that Jerusalem may not be the capital of Jerusalem. The principle is so fictional, you might as well argue that its Wikipedia editors that decide where countries can designate their capitals. It makes as much sense.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
A question for you: is Jerusalem's status as capital city of Israel disputed?     ←   ZScarpia   21:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
no.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Presumably, you don't think that any point of view apart from the one that regards Jerusalem as the capital of Israel counts?     ←   ZScarpia   21:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Presumably not, actually. I have yet to come across a reliable sources denying that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. If you find any such source I would be more then willing to concede that its status as a capital is "disputed."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's see. --FormerIP (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The closest source I have to hand which discusses the disputed status of Jerusalem is the Encyclopedia Britannica 2010 editon article on Jerusalem:
In 1949, "Israel declared the city its capital", though "none of the Great Powers recognized this action." ... "In the Six-Day War of June 1967, the Israelis captured the West Bank, including east Jerusalem and the Old City, from Jordan. ... thenceforth Israel governed the united Jerusalem within its extended municipal boundary as part of its sovereign territory — unlike the remainder of the West Bank, which Israel treated as territory under military occupation. Israel rejected UN resolutions condemning its policies in Jerusalem, and most countries sided with Palestinian Arabs in considering east Jerusalem occupied territory. ... However, a Basic Law passed by the Knesset in 1980 reaffirming that the unified city would remain Israel's capital stirred considerable international controversy, and the city's status was hotly disputed between the two sides in the years that followed."
    ←   ZScarpia   22:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC) (redacted 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
We know all this already and its not "disputed." I asked for a source denying that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, not a source confirming that some countries do not want Jerusalem to be its capital. But once you're citing to Britanica, would you mind sharing whether the controversy regarding its status as Israel's capital is also in the second line of the entry like in our pov-pushed article?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The Britannica article's introduction says that, in 1949, "Israel declared the city its capital" and that, following the occupation of East Jerusalem in the Six-Day War, "although Israel's actions were repeatedly condemned by the UN and other bodies, Israel reaffirmed Jerusalem's standing as its capital by promulgating a special law in 1980." It goes on to say, "the status of the city remained a central issue in the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs." Something it doesn't say is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.     ←   ZScarpia   22:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC) (redacted 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
Can you please quote the first three lines of the entry on Jerusalem? Thanks,--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The first four lines read:
Hebrew Yerushalayim , Arabic Bayt al-Muqaddas or Al-Quds - ancient city of the Middle East that since 1967 has been wholly under the rule of the State of Israel.Long an object of veneration and conflict, the holy city of Jerusalem has been governed, both as a provincial town and a national capital, by an extended series of dynasties and states.
    ←   ZScarpia   23:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. One more question if I may - around how may words before the controversy regarding its status is discussed?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The complete introduction reads:

Hebrew Yerushalayim , Arabic Bayt al-Muqaddas or Al-Quds
ancient city of the Middle East that since 1967 has been wholly under the rule of the State of Israel.
Long an object of veneration and conflict, the holy city of Jerusalem has been governed, both as a provincial town and a national capital, by an extended series of dynasties and states. In the early 20th century the city, along with all of historic Palestine, became the focus of the competing national aspirations of Zionists and Palestinian Arabs. This struggle often erupted in violence. The United Nations (UN) attempted to declare the city a corpus separatum (Latin: “separate entity”)—and, thus, avert further conflict—but the first Arab-Israeli war, in 1948, left Jerusalem divided into Israeli (west Jerusalem) and Jordanian (east Jerusalem) sectors. The following year, Israel declared the city its capital. During the Six-Day War of 1967, the Jewish state occupied the Jordanian sector and shortly thereafter expanded the city boundaries—thereby annexing some areas of the West Bank previously held by the Jordanians—and extended its jurisdiction over the unified city. Although Israel's actions were repeatedly condemned by the UN and other bodies, Israel reaffirmed Jerusalem's standing as its capital by promulgating a special law in 1980. The status of the city remained a central issue in the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Area 49 square miles (126 square km). Pop. (2004 est.) 693,200. (For more information on the conflict between Israel and the Arabs, see Israel; Palestine; West Bank; Arab-Israeli wars.)

    ←   ZScarpia   23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks. this is the point i was trying to make. Britannica does not throw the controversy at the readers within the first sentence like this npov-violative article currently does.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps that's because the Britannica article's introduction doesn't mention Jerusalem's status as the declared (but, according to UN Resolution 478 at least, not legitimate) capital of Israel until later than the first sentence.     ←   ZScarpia   01:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


{follow on from FormerIP's comment of 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)}:
I really don't know why I'm bothering, but here's a fairly clearly-worded source:[1] --FormerIP (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   22:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Guess that attention grabbing headline grabbed your attention. The body of the article makes it clear that its just one of the regular run-of-the-mill stories about other countries expressing their opposition of Israel's Jerusalem Law. The court did not-as the headline may mislead-say that "Jerusalem is not Israel's capital."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, that was fun. What about this one: [2]? --FormerIP (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
yes, google searching is a barrel of monkeys. But please provide a source relevant to the issue, not a misconstrued headline.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not a misconstrued headline (in any case, I would point out that the interpretation put on these statements by reliable secondary sources is highly relevant). The statement says "the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and ... the BBC should not describe it as such". That would seem to be a good indication that there is some point of fact involved here that is indeed, somehow disputed. The article about Canada, you seem to be saying, is not good evidence that the status of Jerusalem is disputed on the grounds that it uses the word "disputed", which seems rather odd to me.
What about this one (last paragraph): [3]? --FormerIP (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Adding to FormerIP's sources, the Encyclopedia Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict, A Political, Social, And Military History (editor: Spencer C Tucker. ISBN 978-1-85109-841-5) has the following to say about the UN Security Council's response to Israel's Basic Law:
The Knesset (Israeli parliament) attempted to legitimize these settlements and a “complete and united” Jerusalem as Israel’s “eternal and indivisible capital” by passing in 1980 the Basic Law, which mandated Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The UN Security Council responded with UN Resolution 478, declaring that the law was “null and void and must be rescinded forthwith” and instructing all UN member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from Jerusalem. The vote was 14–0–1, with the United States abstaining.
    ←   ZScarpia   00:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


The point is that a significant number of people, organisations and countries, including many residents of Jerusalem itself, do not recognise that Jerusalem, in whole or in part, is Israeli. For these, obviously, Jerusalem, in whole or in part, cannot be the capital of Israel because, in whole or in part, it is not in Israel. As a sovereign country, Israel has the right to determine what happens within its borders. But, its borders are disputed and anything that Israel decides concerning the disputed areas, including declaring part of them its capital, will be seen as having no legitimacy by those who do not see them as being part of Israeli territory.     ←   ZScarpia   21:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No matter what countries, organisations, and Arab residents recognize, East Jerusalem is Israeli territory, and has been since it was annexed in 1980. The fact that a majority of the world does not recognize it does not change the de facto sovereignty exercised by Israel over the city. Israel has extended its borders in Jerusalem (which could be argued to be in line with UN Resolution 242, as it guarantees Israel's right to secure borders, and that it was necessary to absorb more land due to strategic needs, as West Jerusalem contains numerous government buildings and a large populations). Although it has been harshly criticized for harming the peace process, the illegality of the annexation is highly debatable, and international criticism of something does not mean that it is not there.--RM (Be my friend) 21:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Would you agree that there exists, rightly or wrongly, a point of view that East Jerusalem is not, despite Israeli law, Israeli territory?     ←   ZScarpia   22:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Here is another source on the topic: "(...) and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, were null and void" 1. If it wasn't the capital before the proclamation, and the proclamation is null, then it's still not the capital after the proclamation. Anyway, I think there appears to be little support for the proposed change. --Dailycare (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It was the capital before the proclamation, so even if that is null and void, it's still the capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that it's legitimate to say that, under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel and that many of the Israeli versions of the government and administrative bodies which are normally situated in capital cities are situated there. However, Jerusalem is not indisputably in Israel and under international law, which stems, I believe, from UN SC Resolution 478, the Israeli law declaring Jerusalem the capital is void and the city is not recognised as such. As quoted by me above:
  • In 1949, "Israel declared the city its capital", though "none of the Great Powers recognized this action." (from the Encyclopedia Britannica)
  • "The Knesset (Israeli parliament) attempted to legitimize these settlements and a “complete and united” Jerusalem as Israel’s “eternal and indivisible capital” by passing in 1980 the Basic Law, which mandated Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The UN Security Council responded with UN Resolution 478, declaring that the law was “null and void and must be rescinded forthwith” and instructing all UN member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from Jerusalem." (from the Encyclopedia Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict, A Political, Social, And Military History)
Hence, stating that Jerusalem has been declared by Israel to be its capital would be factually indisputable; stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel without qualifying it by saying that it is the Israeli view would be pushing the Israeli point of view.
    ←   ZScarpia   17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
We've had this discussion, what, 10 times already? That non-recognition makes a city not a capital is your POV. Do you have a source that explicitly supports that POV? Unless you find one, there is no reason to change the stated fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The controversy is mentioned in the first sentence of the lead. Twice.
Countries decide what their capital is. This encyclopedia treats that as fact, even for countries which themselves are not recognized, such as Northern Cyprus. You'll notice that in that article, despite saying that "The rest of the international community, including the United Nations and the European Union, recognises the de jure sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the entire island." it also states as fact that Nicosia is the capital of both states. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, what makes a statement a fact is that no reliable sources dispute it. If there is a dispute, then Wikipedia deals with facts about opinions. That is, points of view are detailed factually. As far as Jerusalem goes, although there is no doubt that Israel views Jerusalem as its capital, sources have been supplied above which tend to establish that organisations such as the UN and countries such as Canada do not accept that. In Wikipedia terms, Jerusalem is and isn't the capital of Israel; there are opposing points of view. In the article, a neutral presentation of both points of view is required. The insistence that somehow only the Israeli point of view is valid and that it transcends the opposing point of view to become a fact is point of view pushing. You appear to be basing your opinion on the principle that "countries decide what their capital is." Normally they would, but then normally there wouldn't be any dispute that the place chosen was in that country's territory. Your comparison with Cyprus is peculiar. Israel is a recognised state, though with disputed borders and a declared capital city which is not internationally accepted. Northern Cyprus is not recognised as a state by anybody except itself and Turkey and therefore, internationally, it is immaterial what place it regards as its capital. You'll notice that there is a discussion on the talk page of the Nicosia article about how Nicosia should be described in terms of its capital status. Anyway, let's see what consensus emerges.     ←   ZScarpia   21:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict redaction: 22:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
No, in Wikipedia terms Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, although Canada and the UN do not recognize that. Their recognition is not necessary for the city to be the capital. Unless of course you can provide a source that says it is? It is your personal opinion (as opposed to common usage and the dictionary definition of "capital") that recognition has any bearing on the fact that countries decide what their capital is. It is you who is POV pushing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
And now you explicitly state that in your opinion "normally" countries decide what their capital is, but that that this is somehow a special case. Go look at Northern Cypruss again. Nobody except Turkey thinks Nicosia is in NC's territory. Yet it's stated as fact that it is the capital. So I'll ask for the nth time, do you have a source supporting your opinion on the necessity of recognition for a city to be a capital? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

One can also say "Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine, although internationally unrecognized as such" right? (Ewpfpod (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

Actually, you can't. The PA government is not entirely headquatered in Jerusalem. Nicosia is similarily not the capital of Northern Cyprus because the Turks did not set up there headquarters there. However, the Israeli government is focused purely inside of Jerusalem. The Knesset, Prime Minestrial and Presidential offices and residences, Supreme Court, Cabinet, and Police Headquarters are all located in the city (Police Headquarters is actually in the predominantly Arab east neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah). Furthermore, Israel has complete control over the city, something that the PA does not have over Jerusalem or Turkey over Nicosia. This is not POV-pushing, this is a statement of fact. De facto independent states such as Transnistria and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic are listed as what they are: independent states with total sovereignty even though they are unrecognized as such.--RM (Be my friend) 02:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The impression I have is that the wording Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital is acceptable to everybody here apart from No More Mr Nice Guy. Am I correct? If so, does anybody see anything in No More Mr Nice Guy's argument which should modify that wording?     ←   ZScarpia   22:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you open a new section if you want to push a change that came up in the middle of a discussion about something else. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, so it shouldn't say that in the lead. It should say "proclaimed" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not acceptable to everybody here. I don't think you've read through the archives (a daunting task due to their sheer volume), or you probably wouldn't be raising—and pushing—these issues again. I don't propose to rehash all the old arguments, but I believe the dictionary definition of a capital as a functioning seat of government is one of the strongest of them. Among other highlights: Jerusalem as capital is not a point of view. "The world" may show its disapproval by not placing embassies there, but that does not negate the designated status as capital. I do not support your wording change. The change proposed by Reenem may be unacceptable to many here, but that should not open the door to tipping the balance in the opposite direction. The "poll" was for change per Reenem, versus no change. I vote for the status quo. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Those are not good arguments, Hertz. The statement "Jerusalem as capital is not a point of view" goes squarely against the core policies of WP. We don't normally recognise anything to fall outside the bounds of NPOV. The world doesn't merely show it's disapproval, it rejects the Israeli POV on the matter. The definition of a capital as a seat of government is also a poor argument, because various seats of government around the world are not capital cities (such as The Hague). --FormerIP (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a fact: nations choose their capitals. In addition to a designation, those capitals need to have government functionality, as Jerusalem does. You can find it all, and more, in the archives, representing years of discussion that always encounters these same principles. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
"It's a fact" is also a bad argument. It clearly isn't a fact in the first place (as just noted, the Hague has "government functionality" but is not a capital, Amsterdam is designated as a capital but is not the seat of government for the Netherlands), but in any event Wikipedia does not normally proceed by a process of editors deciding what the facts are on the basis of what they have decided the relevant critria are. We simply give a balanced report of what the reliable sources say. Except in this case, apparently. --FormerIP (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've given you an outline. Please read the record. Others explain it better than I. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No doubt. --FormerIP (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hertz1888, reading back through the archives it certainly doesn't look as though there was wide acceptance of the wording that existed until now. You and other editors have justified the wording on the basis that countries get to choose their capitals. Yet, the UN Security Council, in stating in UN SC Resolution 478 that Israel's Basic Law was void and should be rescinded, clearly did not accept that.     ←   ZScarpia   01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The "Israel's capital is Jerusalem argument" keeps coming back to the idea that a country can declare it's capital wherever it wishes, even outside of it's sovereign territory and that we can call Jerusalem the capital by an OR application of dictionary definitions for what a capital is. Every country in the world disagrees that Jerusalem is the capital. We represent all viewpoints proportionally. Representing something as fact when it's a matter of perspective is a bizarre position. We can present the issue in line with WP policy and avoid misleading readers. Let's do that. Sol (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This was quite sneaky and misconstruing my position. I certainly did not agree to add more weasel-worded-pov-pushes to the opening sentence.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you thought it was sneaky, Brewcrewer, but I think the removal you made constituted a more significant change to the text than had been agreed above. --FormerIP (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it satisfy you if the clause about the international position was moved lower down the Lead?     ←   ZScarpia   01:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, though the recent shenanigans makes me worry about how this will be misconstrued. Zscarpia, please self-revert, this is not a joke.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, I (really, really honestly, no joke) don't see what you are objecting to here. There seemed to be an agreement to make a minor (though, IMO, important) change to the text. You implemented this, but in addition you removed another bit of text that had not been discussed. So I restored that bit of text. Or am I misunderstanding? I can understand why you might be disappointed to be reverted, but you seem to be making out you've been tricked somehow, which I really don't get. --FormerIP (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, I expected objections to my edit from some quarters but not from you. Although my edit summary was intended as a joke, my edit itself wasn't. If you seriously want me to revert I'll do it, but can you explain what your objection is?     ←   ZScarpia   02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because whether or not it is recognized, it is the center of Israel's government. The Knesset, Supreme Court, Foreign Ministry, Prime Minestrial and Presidential Offices and Residences, and Cabinet are all in Jerusalem. (The Headquarters of the Israel Police are actually located in Sheikh Jarrah). Unlike the "Palestine" or Northern Cyprus examples, Israel has excercised full sovereignty over the city, and its government is headquartered there.
The thread was initially started with the proposal to remove the "not recognized...." part of the opening sentence. I totally agree with that proposal for the reasons I explained here on numerous occasions 1) A capital does not require international approval and 2) it violates NPOV in the opening sentence.
There was some opposition to this based on the what I think is a silly idea—that since there are countries that don't want Jerusalem to be its capital and they make believe it's not its capital—therefore it's not Israel's capital.
Nevertheless, respecting the strong interest editors have in introducing their POV's into opening sentences of articles, I proposed a compromise which would allow some weasel-wording into the opening sentences, namely that we can state that "Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital," instead of the simple is "Jerusalem is Israel's capital."
Unfortunately, some have resorted to game-playing and misconstrued my compromise offer to mean that I support even more weasel-wording into the lede and support both "designated" and "not recognized." I'm sorry, but I don't believe there is any way that anyone can innocently come to this conclusion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Eh? You were asked the question: Would changing the lead sentence section "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to "Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel" work or do you prefer "Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital" or some variation there of? and you expressed a preference for the latter. That seemed pretty clear to me. You're entitled to now say you made additional assumptions if you like but I don't think other editors can be expected to have read your mind. --FormerIP (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, to honour the commitment I gave above, I have reverted the change I made. However, I still think that, despite your arguments and comments about weasel wording, the current wording doesn't neutrally present the facts. Functionally Jerusalem is in many ways the capital of Israel, yes. Under Israeli law and in Israeli eyes Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, yes. But in international eyes (and in international law, I think), Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel and your arguments don't change the latter. If I've understood you correctly, you think that stating that Jerusalem is Israel's designated capital city is a weasely form of words. As already noted, the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Jerusalem doesn't say that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel, only that "Israel declared the city its capital." Do you regard that as weasely also?     ←   ZScarpia   04:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting and re-creating some sort of normalicy to this discussion. However the rest of your statement is the same rehashed debunked arguments already tried above. I can't emphasize this point any better - No state or entity has the ability to designate the capital of another sovereign state. So when you say that under "international eyes Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" you are making a factually incorrect statement. It is very difficult to make a successful argument supporting the inclusion of weasel-wording into an opening sentence when the argument is based on a factually incorrect statement. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hold up, I worded the question very specifically so we could try and hammer it out. I gave a specific section and possible variations. You liked the the last suggestion. Great. So now the edit can't be made because you object to another section in the sentence you'd not mentioned? Sol (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
stop with these games, please. the proposal was to remove all weasel-wording from the opening sentence, so i came along and decided to add weasel-wording to the lede? It was very obvious that my addition of weasel-wording was in order to sacrifice the rest of the more egregious weasel wording. Frankly, you guys dissapoint me.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I will always cherish our moment of possible agreement. The question could not have been more clear. There's no talk of weasel words. The section you object to isn't weasly. It's true. These aren't games: you agreed to something and now object for unrelated reasons. Would you prefer "Jerusalem is the declared but internationally unrecognized capital of Israel"? Sol (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, let's just say you had an understanding as to what was being discussed which was different to the other editors involved in the discussion. No-one is trying to play mind games with you.
I don't agree that "no state or entity has the ability to designate the capital of another sovereign state". Says who? Clearly, they do have this ability if they want to. What difference this makes is, undoubtedly, a matter of POV. But we have no basis on which to suppose that there is a particular POV on the matter which should rule the roost. --FormerIP (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
"Clearly they do"? Really? Perhaps you could show us the instrument of international law that limits a country's sovereign right to decide its capital? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think countries have the ability to designate a capital for another country, either. I'd never call Tel Aviv the unqualified capital of Israel, that would be dumbing down the controversy surrounding Israel's capital situation and largely misleading. But we aren't operating on that idea. The point is to accurately described the situation; no one knows if there's a sovereign right to declare your capital outside your country. But there isn't a sovereign right to change the status of property that isn't yours, that violates the Geneva Convention, and the SC can step in. In the interest of representing viewpoints proportionally, it makes little sense to adopt the minority position. Let's just cover it neutrally. "Declared capital." That doesn't deny it's the capital, it's just not the majority view. Sol (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The way it's written now is covering it neutrally. Barring someone showing realible sources that say Jerusalem is not Israel's capital, or that a capital requires the recognition of other countries, we should go by what the word "capital" means. In fact, the non-recognition issue, which nobody has established the significance of, is getting quite a bit of wieght in the first sentance of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The proposal isn't to say it's not the capital. It's to say it's what Israel considers it's capital and that this has not been recognized, summarizing the general jist of what's covered in the body. Which is true and doesn't take a stand on either side's position. Now then, can we please deal with why Israel's various laws proclaiming Jerusalem as it's capital should be considered valid despite the 6 Security Council resolutions saying Israel lacks the authority to change Jerusalem's status and invalidating any attempts? Or for that matter, why a capital can be outside of a country? Sol (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You can have a look at the ICJ's Namibia opinion concerning the meaning of non-recognition. Withholding recognition means that other countries don't consider the proclamation of Jerusalem as capital to have had any effect. --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to quote the part of the ICJ's Namibia opinion that talks about Jerusalem. Or capital cities. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I point to the Namibia opinion as you appear confused as to the meaning of non-recognition. In the Namibia doc, concerning the meaning of non-recognition, see e.g. paragraphs 117 - 122. For the ICJ on Jerusalem, see the Wall opinion, 75.--Dailycare (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about what WP:OR is. The Namibia case does not talk about capitals or Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:OR does not apply to talkpages. You asked for a source showing "that a capital requires the recognition of other countries" and someone provided it (I'm assuming that, not having read the source). --FormerIP (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
He provided no such thing. Perhaps you should read the source before making assumptions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"No such thing"? How have you reached this conclusion? --FormerIP (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
By reading the source. Have you read the source? If not, please refrain from commenting on the applicability of sources you have not read. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


(Poll - arbitrary break)

Some links presented as much for my own benefit as anything. I think that they help to establish that Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as being Israeli territory or the Israeli capital. Mark Regev used the argument: "It is the right of every sovereign state to determine which city will be its capital." I cannot find other instances of its use other than to try to argue that Jerussalem is the capital of Israel. Also, I cannot find any record of any other state supporting Regev. I would say that Regev's statement clearly supposes that Jerusalem is in Israeli territory; obviously, if any other country declared Jerusalem as its capital, Regev (or the editors using the argument here, for that matter) wouldn't be supporting them:

    ←   ZScarpia   23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC) (redacted: 16:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC))


The issue is not about whether it is internationally recognized, the issue is what it actually is, and Israel has annexed it: whether or not the world agrees, it is a fact. Like I said, we should state in the introduction that it is Israel's capital and largest city, though its future status is debatable, and it is not internationally recognized as such.--RM (Be my friend) 04:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The issue is to neutrally represent the different points of view presented in reliable sources. The Israeli view is that Jerusalem is part of Israeli territory and the its capital (see Jerusalem Law). The international view is that it isn't either (see Positions on Jerusalem}. As a typical example of the international view see what the UK FCO has to say. As an example of how a reliable source tries to represent the situation neutrally, see the BBC Israel and the Palestinians Key Terms: Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war.That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory. After a reporter breached the guidelines and referred to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a complaint was made and, in response, an apology and correction were issued. Failing to neutrally represent the points of view and failing to represent them as points of view would amount to POV-pushing.     ←   ZScarpia   10:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that you have yet to supply a source that says non-recognition means a city is not the capital, so that POV is yet to meet WP:V. You can say it's not recognized as such, but you can't decide on your own the implications of non-recognition. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The only thing that needs to meet WP:V is any wording proposed for the article. Since there are plenty of sources that say things like "the status of Jerusalem is disputed", that is unquestionably met (one would have thought). The opinions of editors expressed on talkpages do not need to meet WP:V. Statements contained in sources do not need to be shown to be correct by an arbitrary standard in order to meet WP:V. They already meet WP:V just by being contained in the sources. --FormerIP (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The issue is, as has been demonstrated, there are sources which say that, as far as the international community is concerned, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel let alone part of Israeli territory. The only implication I'm interested in is that the rules on neutrality are followed: the view that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel should be presented as a viewpoint.     ←   ZScarpia   14:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec)We have very few sources that say it is "disputed". The vast majorty of the sources I've seen use language like "not recognized". Of course opinions of editors don't need to meet WP:V. We're talking about things editors want to put in the article. I thought that was quite obvious, but since this is the second time you seem compelled to tell me what policies apply to the talk page, let me assure you that I understand how these things work. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I hope that the following helps (it would be pleasant not to be accused of rehashing debunked arguments). Jerusalem's status has both legal and practical aspects. It is the legal aspects of Jerusalem's status as a capital city that the international community is interested in. From the international point of view, under international law unilateral Israeli attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, such as formally annexing it and declaring it to be Israel's capital city, were illegal. Viewed practically, there is no doubt that the whole of Jerusalem is under Israeli control and that most of the high level Israeli government bodies are situated in Jerusalem. (As I've said before) it would be correct to say that Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel, but, legally, as far as it being the capital city of Israel is concerned, Israeli and international law are at odds and conflict. The bald statement, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though correct as far as the practical and Israeli points of view are concerned, is incorrect as far as the legally-based international view is concerned. Therefore, without modification, the statement "does not go."     ←   ZScarpia   15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
While your opinion on the matter is duly noted (again), you have yet to provide a source that says that in legal terms a capital requires recognition. The international community can declare the annexation of East Jerusalem null and void, but it has no say in what the capital of a sovereign state is. A couple of other pertinent facts are that Israel made Jerusalem its capital in 1949 (no resolutions objecting to that as far as I'm aware) so even if the 1980 law is null and void, Jerusalem is still the capital from a legally-based point of view, as you put it. Also, the international community happily carries out its diplomatic business in Jerusalem thus implicitly recognizing it. Ambassadors submit their credentials there, heads of state and foreign officials go there to meet their Israeli counterparts, etc, etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Has someone already provided a source that says that Israel can annex territory, declare it as its sovereign territory, part of its capital and it's perfectly legal thus making all other sources and opinions null and void or are the "god is great, it's a fact, prove me wrong" arguments from ignorance going to continue ? The BBC Israel and the Palestinians: Key terms source couldn't be clearer,
"Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war. That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory."
It isn't possible for us to ignore sources like this. There are many of them. It isn't possible for us to simply treat Jerusalem as a capital city that is in Israel when there are so many sources that don't say that. We can have reasonable discussions about wording, where statements go, in the article or in the footnote etc but repeatedly making arguments from ignorance and not simply following the sources according to policy is tendentious to say the least. I sometimes wonder whether it would be better if the lead started by saying what this thing people refer to as "Jerusalem" is ("a city"), where it is ("located in.." etc), what it is comprised of (i.e. according to many sources it has parts), before there are any statements about who says what about the status of the whole thing as the capital of Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Countries select their capitals. You claim a special case here. Asserting you need to prove it is not an augment from ignorance. The onus is on you to prove the exception that non-recognition invalidates a country's decision. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


No More Mr Nice Guy, somebody could declare that they had married their pet duck, but no country in the world would recognise the marriage, meaning that, though the duck owner would regard him or herself as married, in the eyes of the world, no marriage would exist. Somebody could post a bill up on the nearest phone pole saying that they'd divorced their spouse, but, unless they'd also gone through recognised divorce procedures, the country they lived in would consider them still married. (Hopefully I've got the following bit right) a non-Jew could go through a conversion process at a Reformed synagogue, but they probably wouldn't be recognised as Jewish by Orthodox rabbis (meaning that they wouldn't be regarded as Jewish by the State of Israel). Israel declared that Jerusalem is Israeli territory and the capital of Israel. Nothing obliges any other country to recognise that declaration. It so happens that, internationally, Jerusalem is not recognised as being sovereign Israeli territory and so it follows that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Seen internationally, then, Jerusalem is neither Israeli or the Israeli capital.
At the end of the first Arab-Israeli war, West Jerusalem remained under the control of Israel and East Jerusalem by Jordan. As the sources and webpages referred to above say, the international community didn't recognise either part of Jerusalem as the sovereign territory of the country that occupied it. Shortly after the end of the war, Israel declared that West Jerusalem was its capital (though most branches of the Israeli government remained located in Tel Aviv). That move was condemned internationally and the declaration was not recognised (for the international community, Tel Aviv, not West Jerusalem, remained the Israeli capital). On winning the Six-Day War, Israel occupied East Jerusalem and large swathes of its neighbours territory. In 1980, Israel promulgated the Basic Law which annexed the whole of Jerusalem to Israel and declared it the Israeli capital. This was also condemned and rejected by the international community. UN SC 478, which partly determines what international law is, re-affirmed that the established international status of Jerusalem continued and that the new Israeli law was void. Jerusalem continues, in international eyes, to be neither Israeli sovereign territory or the capital of Israel.
You state that "countries select their capitals" and question why Jerusalem is being treated as a special case. It is a special case because no other internationally-recognised state has declared a city which is not internationally-recognised as being part of its sovereign territory as a capital. The argument you present, "countries select their capitals", is one presented by the Israeli government (most publicly in the person of Mark Regev), but it is seen as having no validity because it assumes that Jerusalem is part of Israeli territory. Above, an extreme position was argued, that if Israel declared Mars to be its capital, then Mars would be Israel's capital. On discussion it was accepted that the Wikipedia article on Mars would probably be amended to state Israel has declared Mars to be its capital rather than Mars is the capital of Israel. As far as the international community is concerned, just as Mars is not Israeli sovereign territory (at least not yet), neither is Jerusalem. Shouldn't the same principles be applied to the Wikipedia article on Jerusalem? Metaphorically, are you going to insist that the hypothetical duck-owner's viewpoint is the "real" one? (By the way, isn't your insistence that I "provide a source that says that in legal terms a capital requires recognition" a bit like the duck owner demanding proof that non-recognition of his or her marriage means that he or she is not married?)
You state that the international community happily carries out its diplomatic business in Jerusalem thus implicitly recognizing it. This article and this one tend to refute that, but, in any case, no matter what you say about implicit recognition, explicitly, recognition has been denied.
    ←   ZScarpia   01:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Marriage with a duck? This is the best example you could come up with? There are laws that say what you can do with animals, and unfortunately marrying them isn't an option. It's not like everyone gets to marry animals except this one guy with a duck which some people for some reason have an unhealthy obsession with. I didn't read rest of your post since it was long and I assumed it contained similar silly examples. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There are also laws explicitly denying the acquisition of sovereignty over territory, something I've yet to see even for duck marriage. Here's a nice little overview. Some highlights, which you'll find echoed in every source on the subject: "The principle of inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force has become part of general international law" etc,etc. You can't gain title to territory via force. At all. It's why Kuwait is not part of Iraq, amongst others. "third states have no discretion with respect to such title and are legally bound to deny its recognition." but "there is some agreement that an aggressor-occupant may acquire title to annexed territory, provided there is an express act of recognition by other states who 'treat as valid the new title or situation, nowithstanding the initial illegality of the act on which it is based'". This is why recognition matters: it's not just a rejection of Jerusalem as capital but Jerusalem as anyone's territory despite a peace agreement. That's why no one country calls Jerusalem Israel's capital, it would be to accept that Israel has acquired proper sovereign title to the territory and can apply its laws there. And if enough countries did recognize it, it would become legally so. You're asking us to keep in language universally rejected because it implies that Jerusalem's territorial issues have been resolved and it's all Israeli. That's not neutral nor factually correct. Sol (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy, it's a pity that the comment's length and the opening example put you off because it's purpose was to try to answer points that you raised. I thought I was being original and wasn't aware that anyone actually had tried to marry a duck (which, you say, some people have an unhealthy obsession with). Oh well, hopefully I'll have better luck next time. The point was to try to show that, in such situations, there is no "reality", only points of view as to whether a certain condition applies. A party holding that a certain condition "exists" despite what other parties say doesn't alter the fact that, for the other parties, the condition doesn't exist. They could just as equally say that the condition doesn't exist despite what the original party says. Each has its own reality. The examples were trying to illustrate what recognition means.     ←   ZScarpia   20:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
To simply state, as a matter of fact, that there is a universal rule that applies everywhere including in the case of Jerusalem, is a textbook example of an argument from ignorance. If you make a statement, the burden of proof is on you. I'm not the one talking about real world rules, exceptions, reality, dictionaries etc. I already know that there are numerous sources that say quite clearly that it is the capital of Israel. That is all that is needed to make the case that the view that Jerusalem, the entire city, is the capital of Israel, is a very significant view that must be represented with due weight. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If this discussion is through I'll amend the article accordingly. It looks like six in favor of "declared capital" with three for describing it as the capital with no qualifications. Sol (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
How do you count 6 in favor of "declared capital"? You can't just declare a consensus you like based on what it "looks like" to you. Open an RfC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I can't. But I can read what people wrote and tally the numbers. Sean, FormerIp, Zscarpia, SD, myself, Dailycare, and brewcrewer (7, I can't count) seemed to agree that it should be the declared capital or not be described as the capital without qualifies. You, Hertz, and Reneem are opposed. Sol (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
For starters, brew did not agree to make that change on its own, as he quite clearly explained to you above. I don't know how you decided from what Sean said what exact edit he supports. Dailycare also didn't say what edit he supports. You can read what people wrote, but you can't decide based on your wishful thinking that they agree with the edit you want to make. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what he meant when he agreed to the change and then demanded another section be removed before he would let the approved edit be made. He can have his own category and we can call it 6 against the "Israel as capital" wording. Sean said "It isn't possible for us to simply treat Jerusalem as a capital city that is in Israel when there are so many sources that don't say that." So that's still a majority in favor of a change and "declared" looks like the suggestion with the most traction although there are other possibilities. Sol (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Brew explained quite clearly that you misunderstood him, yet you still counted him as someone in favor of the change. That's a bit dishonest, don't you think? Dailycare never said he supports any change and in fact said "Anyway, I think there appears to be little support for the proposed change". So even if we count Sean, who has not explicitly said what kind of change he supports (and if you read his last post, it's not entirely clear what he wants), that's 5:5. Like I said, put aside your wishful thinking and open an RfC if you think there's enough support for your suggestion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Read my question and his response. It's a moot point since conversation has picked back up and I think you are correct, an RFC is a good idea unless edtiors came back and flat out stated their favored position (who's your fifth, btw?). Sol (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's open an RfC.     ←   ZScarpia   00:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
"Another RfC" to be precise. I think Dailycare can tell you about the previous one. I believe he opened it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
What I originally proposed was that the wording of the introduction be changed to something like: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and its largest city in both population and area", and then put that its future status is highly disputed, and that the city is unrecognized as Israel's capital. Since all Arab residents of E. Jerusalem are either citizens or permanent residents, almost a quarter of a million Jews live in E. Jerusalem, and that Israel formally annexed it weather it was recognized or not, this wording would be more appropriate. It would illustrate the de facto facts on the ground, while at the same time giving weight to international consensus.--RM (Be my friend) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If the Lead was instead to start The status of Jerusalem is still to be decided and currently it is not part of the sovereign territory of any country, though Israel disputes that, would you object to that on the grounds that it states the position under international law as "a fact" rather than as the position under international law. If so, then you should be able to see why editors here would object to the version that you've just proposed.     ←   ZScarpia   15:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be wrong, as East Jerusalem is inside Israeli territory. The legality of Israel's annexation is highly debatable, but just because the international community refuses to recognize it, does not change the facts on the ground. Israel's borders have been extended to Jerusalem's eastern municipal boundary, and E. Jerusalem is home to about 200,000 Jewish and 5,000 Arab citizens of Israel. The equivalent would be stating that the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not a de facto independent state just because it remains unrecognized by any nation, even by its ally and military protector Armenia.--RM (Be my friend) 02:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Although you'll note that NPOV dictates we call Nagorno-Karabakh Republic a "de facto independent republic", rather than supporting it's own POV that it is simply an "independent republic". Apart from that, the comparison is good. Why should this article should be treated differently? --FormerIP (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
No part of Jerusalem is inside Israeli territory as far as the international community is concerned. And Israeli facts on the ground make not a jot of difference to that view. The Israeli point of view should be labelled as the Israeli view. Like FormerIP, I would also point out that the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article, which you referred to, does something different to what you have suggested doing here. Calling Nagorno-Karabakh a de facto independent republic is different from stating that it is an independent republic.     ←   ZScarpia   03:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
We should define Jerusalem in a different way that per its status as someone's capital. Define it first as a city in a particular place. Then mention that its legal status is disputed, with Israel having political and military control of the city and claiming it as its capital, while it is a matter of immense controversy within the international community. It's pretty obvious that the current lead is POV per the sources, taking the side of the Israeli government. We need to maintain a neutral and world-centered perspective. No one needs to prove that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital, but rather anyone who wants to call it that needs to prove it by sourcing it as a consensus in the RS. It is true that a capital does not require recognition, but that is original research, on my part and on the part of No More Mr Nice Guy. It's obvious that that position cannot be sourced, therefore it is irrelevant. The burden of proof is on those who wish to call Jerusalem unequivocally the capital of Israel, and they have failed to meet the standards of sourcing required. I also object to "declared capital." That's true, but it's POV pushing nonetheless as it makes the reader think that it is. BE——Critical__Talk 00:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. First of all, there are plenty of sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Feel free to look at the previous discussions. Unlike some people here, I respect the process of the RfC and am not going to flood it with my opinion over and over in an attempt to influence the outcome.
Second, It is not original research to ask for sources saying a capital requires recognition. Well, that or someone explicitly saying Jerusalem is not the capital is required for this specific article to treat this specific capital differently than every other capital in the world (including as you may have seen in the previous discussions, capitals of countries that are themselves not recognized). All we have now is Israel says it is, other countries don't recognize it. We can't decided on our own that non-recognition means it's not the capital. That's original research. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Sources saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel are reflecting the Israeli viewpoint. Other sources explain that, internationally, Jerusalem is not regarded as the capital of Israel (If you need persuading of that, you could, for starters, try reading the UN Security Council resolutions referred to, then move onto sources that discuss them, the pronouncements of the UN General Assembly and the pronouncements of individual countries. You should have noticed that the BBC key terms say that Israel's claim that Jerusalem is its capital is not recognised internationally, meaning that, as far as other countries are concerned, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Also, the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Jerusalem, unlike its articles on other capital cities, says only that Israel has declared that Jerusalem is its capital, not that it is its capital). Nobody is saying that the Israeli viewpoint shouldn't be presented, just that it should be presented as a viewpoint, not a fact. You are presenting arguments used by the Israeli government and others supporting the Israeli viewpoint to insist that the Israeli view of the status of Jerusalem is a fact. While those arguments can be presented as part of the Israeli case, to use them to insist that the Israeli viewpoint is presented as a fact rather than a viewpoint is point of view pushing.
You say: All we have now is Israel says it is, other countries don't recognize it. We can't decided on our own that non-recognition means it's not the capital. It's fairly simple: we have (essentially) two viewpoints, one we've labelled the Israeli and one we've labelled the international. Israel says it is, other countries don't recognize it pretty much sums it up. There's no need for anyone to torture their souls with existential angst trying to figure out whether the viewpoints mean it is or it isn't (it's our job to describe not to adjudicate).
Jerusalem is a special case. With regard to Jerusalem, the international community view it as important to uphold two principles: the general one of the impermissibility of gaining territory by force; the particular one of the illegitimacy of attempting to unilaterally change the status of Jerusalem, including claiming sovereignty over it and declaring it a capital (which applies to Jordan and the Palestinian Authority as well as Israel).
This is a talk page and the point of talk pages is to discuss by presenting arguments and counter-arguments in order to reach conclusions. The purpose of presenting arguments is to try and influence the outcome, though hopefully editors will be open to actually reading what others have written and will be open to changing their position if more persuasive arguments are presented. But please carry on making digs; the more you do it, the more unsavoury you're going to make yourself look.
    ←   ZScarpia   03:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
(Added comment to illustrate what recognition or non-recognition mean: Under the law of the partially-recognised State of Palestine, Jerusalem is its capital. Is it true to say that Jerusalem IS the capital of the State of Palestine, or that the State of Palestine IS a state, despite the total non-recognition of the former and minority recognition of the latter? 04:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC))
NMMNG, No one is suggesting we say it's not the capital or we omit the Israeli position, just that we represent both views neutrally. We've got sources saying it's disputed, others that say it's the capital. Let's keep it simple and talk about both without presenting either as correct. We've covered the SC nullification of Israeli laws naming it the capital (on the international stage) and the agreement of the member states. There's no verification that countries have a sovereign right to declare their capital outside of their borders. Comparing Jerusalem's situation to other capitals would be fine if those capitals 1)weren't in the respective country 2)capital-declaring laws were nullified by the SC 3)had a majority POV that they were not the capital. It's an unprecedented situation. Sol (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
We are describing it neutrally already. You can make up as many exceptions as you like, that doesn't change the fact that you have yet to provide a single source explaining what non-recognition of a capital means. Only your opinion. We have plenty of sources that say Jerusalem is the capital, but not one that says it isn't. We do have sources that say it is not recognized, and that's what the article says.
Feel free to get your last word in. I'm done going around in circles with you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest again that we treat it like a general city like Chicago, then go on to other things like whether it's a capital. BE——Critical__Talk 02:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Like the Encyclopaedia Britannica article?     ←   ZScarpia   05:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. BE——Critical__Talk 23:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Neutrally describing the capital status of Jerusalem

How should Jerusalem be described? The whole of Jerusalem is under Israeli control and, under Israeli law, Jerusalem has been annexed to Israel and is its capital city. Many Israeli government organisations have been moved to the city. Under international law, Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any state and Israeli laws concerning it are invalid.

There has been extensive discussion, running over a number of sections of the article's talk page, about whether it should be stated positively that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (the current description in the article's Lead) or whether this should be qualified and defined as the Israeli point of view.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


Jerusalem has previously been referred to on the Neutrality noticeboard in these places.

Notification posted on the Neutrality noticeboard here

A previous RFC which was notified in Wikiproject Israel and Wikiproject Palestine and the neutrality noticeboard is recorded here.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


What International law says is highly debatable to say the least. The international community has not recognized it due to its harming of the peace process. The post-1948 laws governing annexation are in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which do not mention territorial changes, but rather the rights of the civilian population. By offering citizenship and permanent residency, Israel has fulfilled its obligations. Furthermore, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 recognized Israel's right to "safe and secure borders", in other words, the right to modify its borders. There was no Palestinian Authority, and thus a legal void with no conflicting claims to the city when Israel annexed it. And even if international law says so, it cannot change the facts on the ground. Israel exercises full sovereignty over the city, and has made it clear that it will never cede it to a Palestinian state. For the record, Goa, a former Portuguese colony, is today part of India. India annexed it after a brief war with Portugal, but India's plan was met with fierce international resistance. Still, today, the facts on the ground are recognized, and India has no plans of giving it up. That's just one example.--RM (Be my friend) 18:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, international law is pretty clear on the topic. You can't acquire legal title to land through force under the peremptory norms of international law and the UN Charter. Even before that, holding the land wasn't enough, you needed a treaty of cession. So for all of Jerusalem to be part of Israel, you'd have to go back many centuries in legal time. There are a few exceptions to this; countries can recognize the annexation even if it's illegal and then they consider it valid or the other claimant can recognize the annexing power as legitimate owners (as happened with Goa, Portugal eventually agreed that it's Indian). A great explanation of the matter is here. Sol (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
UNSC Resolution 242, though, recognized Israel's right to modify its borders. This law was meant to deal with aggressive invasions and forcible annexations against weaker states, not pre-emptive defensive actions and a slight modification of a border. At the same time, keeping sovereignty would be legitimate in accordance with the wishes of the population: East Jerusalem Arabs are offered a choice between citizenship and permanent residency. This poll shows that 40% of Arab residents support continued Israeli rule over the city, 30% failed to answer, and only 30% actively oppose it, as would East Jerusalem's 250,000 Jewish residents. At the time of annexation, the area was void of any legal authority except for Israeli military administration. Jordan was gone, there was no PA, and the PLO was in exile. And there is no limitation to how far "legal time" can go: Goa was annexed after 461 years of Portuguese rule for one example.--RM (Be my friend) 03:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
What I mean is that Israel would have title to Jerusalem only if we had the international legal norms of, say, the 17th or 18th century. The Security Council has issued many Resolutions saying "no, really, this isn't allowed" and 242 also stresses that territory cannot be acquired through force. It's only mention of borders is "[the]right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries", nothing on modifying them. Who had/has title to East Jerusalem is another massive skull-crushing headache that no one quite agrees on but it was never terra nullis per se. Sol (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Only if we had the international legal norms of, say, the 17th or 18th century, or if you happened to win WWII or were Indonesia taking over West Papua for example. Pretending there is some kind of universal international legal norm is just silly. But that's beside the point. In his "balanced" description of the issue, ZScarpia says that "Under international law, Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any state" while resolutions 242 and 289 that you gave as examples talk only about the eastern part of the city. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, 242 and 289 talk about "the city of Jerusalem" which is very unhelpful language; which one do they mean? Anything called Jerusalem? The portion that was supposed to be CS or everything? I'd also assumed they'd meant "just the bit Jordan used to own" but then you get problematic sources like this one which, frankly, don't make a whole lot of sense to me. But it does explain why people won't put their embassies in West Jerusalem, which always seemed like the easy solution. Either way it's not really linked to the neutrality discussion but it is vexingly fascinating. Sol (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, 242 doesn't mention Jerusalem at all, and 298 talks about the "Israeli-occupied section of Jerusalem" (which would imply there is a non-occupied section). If you follow the resolution trail back from 298 it's obvious they're only talking about the eastern part. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Doh! Right you are about 242, I was thinking about 252. Sol (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The status of Jerusalem under international law has been described above and is covered in detail in articles related to this one. In 1949, Israel and Jordan were in possession of West and East Jerusalem respectively. However, under international law, neither half of Jerusalem was regarded as part of the sovereign territory of the country possessing it. Jerusalem is still not regarded as the sovereign territory of any country. Israel declared West Jerusalem its capital. That declaration was rejected. In 1967, Israel occupied East Jerusalem. From then, East Jerusalem has been regarded as occupied territory. See, for instance, the BBC guideline on Jerusalem which has been posted above:

Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war.That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory.

There are two major viewpoints on the status of Jerusalem. They should be represented neutrally and represented as viewpoints not facts. Israel views Jerusalem as its sovereign territory and its capital; the international community (though the US view has become ambivalent) is that Jerusalem is neither of those things. Many of the arguments of the Israeli establishment have been presented to show that the Israeli view is the correct, or real, one. Those arguments don't change the fact that there is an important counter-viewpoint to the Israeli viewpoint. Those arguments may be presented in the article as part of the Israeli view, but they don't serve as a legitimate reason to present the Israeli view as a fact.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your own source talks only about East Jerusalem as being occupied, not the whole city. You are deliberately misrepresenting the relevant POVs, and that's getting quite tiresome. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting me. I did not claim that the whole city, rather than only East Jerusalem, is considered occupied territory. I wrote that none of the city is considered to be the sovereign territory of any country (specifically Israel or Jordan, though Jordan has relinquished its claims) and that, in addition, East Jerusalem has, since 1967, been considered territory occupied by Israel. West Jerusalem is not considered to be occupied territory, but neither is it considered to be Israel's sovereign territory. That is what the sources say. In an earlier section, an editor quoted a source which said that, in passports issued to Canadian citizens, the place of birth for people born in the city, East and West, is stated to be Jerusalem only; no country is given. That is also the policy of other countries. That Jerusalem is not regarded as being curently the sovereign territory of any state is the reason why that's done.     ←   ZScarpia   23:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


I've tried to describe the situation and the Israeli and international viewpoints as fairly as I can. I left my description brief in order to try not to prejudice contributors before they'd had a chance to read the talk page. What would you change?     ←   ZScarpia   01:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are various points-of-view regarding the status of Jerusalem as a capital. Per NPOV, Wikipedia should not lend its support to any one of those points-of-view by stating it as if it were fact. NPOV is supposed to be non-negotiable, but this discussion will not achieve any consensus that it should be applied in this case.
For the sake of going through the motions, though, I would note that the other Wikipedia's appear to differ in their approach to this, and maybe a good approach to the question would be to consider the question in terms of whether French, Chinese and German have the best idea, as compared to English, Italian and Hebrew. Just a thought. (i.e. I am suggesting an RFC framed in those terms). --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if you've already described the differences before, but how do the other language Wikipedias handle the issue?     ←   ZScarpia   01:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
No I haven't, so no apology required. There are a lot of other language WPs, so I would only proposed to take a sample, but for example here we have one of each type:
French WP: The State of Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its "eternal capital" since 1949. This designation is not recognised by any member of the international community. For it's part, the Palestinian Authority wishes to make East Jerusalem (considered as occupied terriory by the UN) the capital of a future Palestinian state.
Italian WP: Since 1949, it has been the capital of the State of Israel, although the international status of the city is the subject of a complex international dispute.
Note: I am not proposing that we should follow any particular WP as an authority, or that we should go by the most common practice amongst them. --FormerIP (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you able to say what the debate is like on the other sites concerning the wording?     ←   ZScarpia   02:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I would propose not to go to those lengths here, because it would require editors to take too much on trust in terms of interpretations of discucssions in other languages. The French talkpage (the only one I am qualified to talk about) has similar discussion to those we have had here, although they ended last August. There's no definitive conclusion that can be pointed to there and I can't see any equivalent of an RfC, but my general impression is that French WP has taken a view that the position of the UN can't be ignored per NdPV (which is French for NPOV - you're never too old to learn). --FormerIP (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It is claimed that Jerusalem does not include East Jerusalem, so there should be no problem with describing it (Jerusalem without East Jerusalem) flat out as the capital as fact. GGdowney (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Where is it claimed that Jerusalem does not include East Jerusalem ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Please read the above poll section. If Jerusalem includes East Jerusalem, then there is a problem. But since the majority here support that it does not include East Jerusalem, then there is no problem with calling it the capital as a fact. There was this idea or claim above that since Jerusalem was ex-territorial to Israel by the UN (is this fact?) then Israel cannot claim it as its capital though I could not find a source (some UN rule) that states what place a country can make its capital. The first paragraph itself adds to this confusion "If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included". It should be split into a second paragraph and then added that with East Jerusalem included, it is not the capital of Israel. GGdowney (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think there is a general consensus that "Jerusalem" means something that includes East Jerusalem and that there is a problem with that being the case. However, this article isn't about the declared capital of a nation state. It's about a city. Its status as the proclaimed capital of X and Y and the problematic issues associated with that are just a small aspect of the city amongst many others. The current scope of the article is Jerusalem, the entire city, and I don't think that is going to change so we have to deal with the potential confusion with careful wording. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that is the most coherent explanation on this page. That should be the first paragraph, not anything that is being suggested here. Much appreciated. How about this article leading off with a simple - This article is about the city of Jerusalem - 'that' leaves all the baggage for the rest of the article with no but this and but that. Everything else is awkward and unencylopedia. GGdowney (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia GGdowney.     ←   ZScarpia   15:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Could you please put that on my talk page instead? I like to collect stuff. GGdowney (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added a welcome from me to your talk page. Good luck with the collecting. I think that the interpretation that editors are stating that East Jerusalem is not part of Jerusalem is a misreading.     ←   ZScarpia   23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)(expanded: 23:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC))
  • Suggestion: perhaps refer to it as the "acting capital" of Israel since even if it is not legitimately the capital it certainly is acting as their capital with their government centralized there. The obvious choice seems to be to "teach the controversy", so perhaps a sentence like this:
"Jerusalem is an important holy city, and the current acting capital of Israel whose claims to it have not been internationally recognized."
AerobicFox (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there would be any argument that it is the de facto, declared or under Israeli law capital of Israel, just that it is, without qualification, the capital of Israel.     ←   ZScarpia   15:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to be clear, I'm for any wording that describes both Israel's and the international perspective without taking a side. That would mean not describing it as the unqualified capital but also not ignoring the Israeli position. Putting "acting", "proclaimed", "declared" capital in front of it seems to fit the bill or any variation there of. The current wording gives undue weight to a minority view and is contradicted by the Security Council, a plethora of mainstream sources and every government that's spoken on the issue. Sol (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I thought the idea behind these RfCs is to get some input from uninvolved editors, not for the same people to rehash the same old arguments everyone can read one section up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
You seemed to want an RFC so we could know very clearly where everyone stood, so I figured I'd take a whack at it to see if people might state their positions. Sol (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Does lack of sovereignty necessarily mean that a city cannot be a nation-state capital? There doesn't seem to be such a requirement so far as I know. A capital may not even be the seat of government. A "capital" seems to be an idea, and therefore to state that "X is the capital of Y," is merely to state what official documents or general ideology relates. It's a belief. The belief has certain adherents and certain heretics. To state that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is merely to reflect popular or official belief as told to us in RS, and is not a statement about anything other than belief or official assertions. If there are other reliable sources which dispute this belief, then they should be included per WEIGHT. This dispute is not about a matter of fact. Further, were sovereignty necessary, (nearly) all nations have at one point or another taken their land from other nations/peoples, and therefore it's not logical to dispute whether a nation's capital is what that nation says it is, unless we are willing to put a caveat before our assertion, say, that Washington is the capital of the USA whenever the Cherokee Confederacy (or whoever) decides to issue a proclamation that it is on stolen land. Hope this is not too far off the points here. BE——Critical__Talk 02:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: This seems to boil down to a debate over de facto and de jure capital. The fact that Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel is not a matter of debate; the question over whether it is de jure, however, is. I found this source from John Quigley which states:

Israel gained control of west Jerusalem as part of its unlawful military actions of 1948, whereby it acquired control of the territory of the bulk of Palestine. As various states recognized Israel as a state in the 1940s and 1950s, they did not recognize Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem.56 Few stales [sic] 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. Although Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital city, all but a handful of states have continued to refuse to locate their embassies there, despite Israel's strong desire that they do so.

Reference 56: Statement of U.S. Secretary of State John F. Dulles, Department of State Bulletin, vol. 30, p. 329 (1954). "The International Status of Palestine," Journal du droit International, vol. 90, p. 976 (1963). Slilomo Slonim, "The United States and the Status of Jerusalem 1947- 1984," Israel Law Review, vol. 19, pp. 179-252 (1984).

I do not think that the debate over the de jure status of Israel is at all a fringe POV. At the same time, Jerusalem is clearly the de facto capital of Jerusalem. The article should reflect this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What my proposal actually was

Despite all this debate going on, my original proposal was quite modest: rewording the introduction as something like this, rather than if East Jerusalem is included, and not internationally recognized in the first sentence:

"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and its largest city in both area and population", then give a little history intro before saying that: "the city's future status is highly disputed, and it is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel. The city's status one of the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process". Or alternatively, we could go straight into the description of its status before the history intro. What do you think?--RM (Be my friend) 02:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Question: how is it you guys are able to state that it "is" the state capital of Israel, and then go on to say that this is disputed? Are the disputing sources less reliable than the asserting ones? Is the "not recognized" part a WP:FRINGE view? Or as I mentioned above, do you have sourcing which asserts that what is or is not a capital is merely a belief so it can both "be" and not be recognized? BE——Critical__Talk 05:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
That's what we're arguing about: apparently you don't know the reasons for talk pages.--RM (Be my friend) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The question is a pertinent one. What we're wrangling over is the past and current status of Jerusalem and the fact that the article currently states that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel despite the fact that Israel's unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, claiming sovereignty and declaring it to be its capital, are considered to be illegitimate by the international community. Your proposed solution ignores that.     ←   ZScarpia   23:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I encourage you all to direct your attention to the article Positions on Jerusalem, specifically the United Nations section, which states that the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring 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 calls upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures" (source). This is pretty damning evidence against the argument pushed by some people here that this is somehow a "fringe" viewpoint. If one of the dominant global bodies of international law declares that Jerusalem is not the legal capital of Israel, we cannot omit this information; if we call Jerusalem the "official" (i.e. de jure) capital of Israel, we are including completely false information. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, but the UNGA is not 'one of the dominant global bodies of international law' - it is a politcal forum, nothing more. Why Me Why U (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The UN has a sad history of making itself look silly -from a layman's perspective at least- by saying things which are in conflict with the themes of human history and the facts on the ground. That aside, I looked at a couple of other encyclopedias and they do not define Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. They take a more historical perspective. Wikipedia has a tradition of stating in the first sentence that X is the capital city of Y, but that does not seem proper in my opinion in a case which is so deeply disputed. BE——Critical__Talk 03:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Just in case you haven't read it, the introduction of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Jerusalem is quoted in full in a comment made at 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC) above.     ←   ZScarpia   16:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles such as Positions on Jerusalem and United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 do a pretty good job at presenting the international viewpoint.     ←   ZScarpia   16:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that this article presents something other than an international viewpoint? BE——Critical__Talk 20:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
My intention was to point out a couple of articles associated with this one which do a good job of laying out the international viewpoint, just in case anyone felt they needed to look up information on that kind of thing. They touch on what international law regarding Jerusalem is, which came up in previous comments. If I am trying to say anything in my previous comments, it is that the Israeli viewpoint should be presented as a viewpoint, not a fact.     ←   ZScarpia   22:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on that, at least per the small amount of information I have on the subject. This lead doesn't present an NPOV rendering of the sources. I think the international position is unrealistic, but that's just my POV and not what the sources say. BE——Critical__Talk 22:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Law is often unrealistic, but that doesn't make the legal perspective an invalid POV. It can easily be argued that "Thou shalt not kill" is unrealistic, but it doesn't stop many people from being inclined to support it. Anyway, this is a digression. --FormerIP (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What is it the Tao Te Ching says? Something about laws that people have trouble obeying just teach the people to disobey laws. Yeah, it's a valid POV at least per WP. Um... well, I don't want to digress to much in these parts just because discussing politics is too loaded for WP. BE——Critical__Talk 23:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. This entire section is way into TLDR territory, so I apologize if I am restating something that was already said. My position is that the opening few sentences is not the ideal venue for politics and pov-pushes. The fact that the majority of countries would rather that Israel have its capital elsewhere is a notable controversy and belongs in the lede, but for the sake of WP:UNDUE, it should not be in the opening sentences. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Support, but wherever the "pov-push" that Israel is not recognised to be the capital of Israel should be adjacent to the corresponding breach of NPOV that it is (claimed by some to be) the capital of Israel. --FormerIP (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The fundamental problem here is structural. We have no need to describe Jerusalem's current political status in the first sentence or even the first paragraph; doing so is a clear example of presentism. Jerusalem is one of the oldest continuously inhabited human settlements in the world, and is a holy city to three major world religions. Why not start off with that, and then, a paragraph or so down, describe the manner in which control of the city has been a contested issue throughout the past several thousand years of history, up to the present day? At the end of that paragraph we can state that Israel currently claims Jerusalem as its capital and that much of the rest of the world rejects this. Just because other Wikipedia articles on cities begin with the form "X is a city in Y" or "X is the capital of Y" doesn't mean this one has to. I think with a bit of creative writing we can make the lead not only more neutral but better written as well, and take a broader historical view. If/when I have time I'll try to make some changes here. *** Crotalus *** 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Very well said on all points. Shall we make a new section to hash out a new lead? BE——Critical__Talk 19:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
First you're going to need to find out if you have consensus to change it. Considering this language has been in the article for years and survived at least one RfC and multiple other discussions, you can't just go and change it without consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It appears that there have been nearly a dozen attempts by various editors to change the wording about Jerusalem's Israel/Palestine status in the past week alone. That doesn't look like much of a consensus to me. That is why I'm suggesting a rewording that moves the contentious claims away from the first sentence and puts them in historical context. It's the only thing I can think of that might lower the temperature on this dispute. *** Crotalus *** 21:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a clear case of NPOV and RS. Above, you keep trying to make people prove a negative, that is to prove that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Rather, but burden of proof is on you to prove that RS consistently say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This you cannot do, because the RS do not say that. BE——Critical__Talk 20:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of RS that say that it is. Have you read the previous discussions? Some also say it's not recognized. We have both these pieces of information in the lead. Any interpretation of what "not recognized" means needs to be backed up by RS, not by editors' opinions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Do we have lots of sources saying that the majority of nations don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and/or part of Israel etc.? We do. Does it mean its not the capital? It means it's unrecognized/declared/pending negotiations according to the majority view and it is the capital according to the minority Israeli view. If everyone would like to clearly state what change (if any) you support we can move this forward. Sol (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Israel says that Jerusalem is its capital. Most of the rest of the world says it's not. This is a controversy amply covered in reliable sources, so as per WP:NPOV we describe the controversy - who holds what positions - rather than taking sides. And it is very bad form to hit the reader in the face with this controversy right off the bat - hence my rewrite. Per WP:WEIGHT, the status of Jerusalem as a holy city and one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited settlements is more important than the question of who happens to control it right now. As shown by the chart further down in the article, it's been controlled by dozens of different governments over the past several thousand years. *** Crotalus *** 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:V, please provide a source saying "most of the rest of the world says it's not". Not your interpretation of what non-recognition means, mind you, but an actual WP:RS explicitly saying so. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The article already cites several sources including [4] and [5] to the effect that the international community does not accept Israel's annexation of Jerusalem. As I stated before, I don't think this should be discussed in the first few sentences, and I am under no illusion that any specific wording will be acceptable to partisans on this issue - but I think we can at least make sure that the conflict isn't the first thing readers see. *** Crotalus *** 22:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The connection between "the international community does not accept Israel's annexation of Jerusalem" (by which you mean East Jerusalem I assume) and "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" is made by you and is OR. In fact, the UN source you provided does not note any rejection of the 1950 law the made Jerusalem Israel's capital. So again, per WP:V, where's the source that says "most of the rest of the world says it's not"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
As you said, round and round in circles. The international community does not accept Israel's claimed sovereignty over West, as well as East, Jerusalem. Nor did it recognise Jordan's claim to East Jerusalem. Nor did it recognise Israel's claim that West Jerusalem was its capital in 1950 or the whole of Jerusalem its capital in 1980. That is what the provided sources say. Rejection by the international community means that, from its viewpoint, Jerusalem is neither part of Israeli territory nor its capital. Take as an example, the Palestinian refugees' claimed right of return, which has been rejected by Israel. Would you write the Palestinian refugees have a right, rejected by Israel, to return or the Palestinian refugees claim a right, rejected by Israel, to return? By your logic, the former would be a neutral statement of affairs.     ←   ZScarpia   19:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If person A said, "I am the greatest Wikipedia editor in the universe," but B, C and D said that they didn't recognise A's claim, would it be neutral to write, "A is the greatest Wikipedia editor in the universe, but B, C and D don't recognise that?" Wouldn't a neutral version read something like, "A claims to be the greatest Wikipedia editor in the universe, though B, C and D disagree?"     ←   ZScarpia   23:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy, I said you have to prove that RS consistently say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If you can't do that, then we cannot describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The burden of proof is on you, and you can't meet it. BE——Critical__Talk 23:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Show me the wikipedia policy that says I have to show sources "consistently" saying something? Sources say Jerusalem is the capital. No sources say Jerusalem is not the capital, although some sources note it is not recognized. Saying it's the capital but that is not recognized is consistent with the sources and wikipedia policy. Even if some people don't like it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Jerusalem syndrome: the Palestinian-Israeli battle for the Holy City (Amirav, 2009). Published by Sussex Academic Press. "However, the United States and the major European countries were not part of this group. They refused to recognize Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, let alone consider the city the capital of Israel." I found this in about five minutes of searching in Google Books. I also reject the notion that there is a difference between saying that Jerusalem is not the capital and saying that it is not recognized as the capital. Unless you can find sources discussing that alleged distinction, it is original research on your part and has no place here. *** Crotalus *** 19:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Sources which say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, including any which may (though I've not seen any) say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though the international community do not recognise that, are reflecting the Israeli viewpoint. More neutral sources, such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, say something to the effect that Israel has declared Jerusalem is its capital, but that the international community has not recognised that. Presumably, there are other sources out there (though I've not seen any of those either) which say that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, rejecting Israel's viewpoint outright.     ←   ZScarpia   19:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes "declared" and "recognized" are the kinds of words we need to use when describing the status of Jerusalem and its controversial nature. BE——Critical__Talk 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Having said that I hadn't seen any sources which go to the opposite extreme and say Jerusalem is positively not the capital of Israel, I did a Google search using the term ' "jerusalem is not the capital of israel" -wikipedia '. I'm sure that the search won't have turned up any sources which I would regard as neutral, but, interestingly, it did turn up an article by the The Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement who say: "The UN and the European Union have stated on more than one occasion and made resolutions that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel but occupied territory and that Israel should withdraw from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan Heights." You did want a source saying, using the exact phrase, that the international community say that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel didn't you?     ←   ZScarpia   21:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh ... and the Jewish Virtual Library contains a US State Department telegram from 1966 which says: The U.S. Government requests that this invitation not be spotlighted and reiterates its policy that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel and it should be an internationalized city. According to other sources, the State Department's view is the same as it has always been.     ←   ZScarpia   21:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
(As was described earlier) The BBC issued an apology after one of its reporters broke its neutrality guidelines and stated that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Clearly the BBC didn't view it as a neutral statement. Clearly the BBC view the non-recognition exercised by the international community as a rejection of the status declared by Israel. You say: Saying it's the capital but that is not recognized is consistent with the sources. Clearly it's not consistent with what the BBC says.     ←   ZScarpia   10:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The current lead is a compromise which was reached after long discussions, here, in the Jerusalem article, and also in discussions on the same issue in the Israel article. Israel, as a sovereign country, is the only country that can declare which city is its capital. There are tons of reliable sources that define Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and some of them are used as refs to that simple fact. The question of international recognition is minor to that; it may be mentioned, and it is indeed mentioned, but, as a minor issue, I'm not sure that it belongs in the lead. Noon (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Granted that all you say is true, how would we be able to take sides on the matter, if you also grant that some RS dispute that Jerusalem is Israel's capital? The current lead takes sides. BE——Critical__Talk 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
We are not "taking sides", we just reflect what tons of RS say. Do you want us to put all the RS's that define Jerusalem as Israel's capital, or what? Noon (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
To say it is the capital is to take sides. BE——Critical__Talk 00:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
De facto capital, yes. De jure capital, absolutely not. Let's say that I am your neighbour and that we live in a nice suburban neighbourhood. If overnight I were to suddenly move the fence dividing our properties so that my yard now includes your garden shed and patio, would you consider this a legitimate annexation? We are to give WP:WEIGHT where it is due; this means that we have to take in legal perspectives as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Israel, as a sovereign country, is the only country that can declare which city is its capital. That is the argument used by the Israeli government for asserting that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But that argument is rejected, on the grounds that it is impermissible to gain territory by force and that the status of Jerusalem cannot be unilaterally changed, by the international community. Israel is the only country that can declare which city is its capital. Fine, you can state that Israel has declared that Jerusalem is its capital. But the international community has rejected the declaration. From the Israeli viewpoint Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. From the international viewpoint it isn't. It is not neutral to categorically state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.     ←   ZScarpia   11:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I appreciate valid concerns of those claiming that saying "Jerusalem is the capital" amounts to taking a side, but saying otherwise may be likewise interpreted as taking another side. Therefore I would turn to a similar example: For instance Republic of China is generally unrecognized, so the first sentence of the lead says it's a state, and the second one says it's a subject of dispute, elaborating further in the main text. Those are simple statements of fact and do not represent taking sides or POV pushing. The subject (both Jerusalem and the ROC) warrant careful wording and sticking to hard facts of the situation as it is right now to avoid future edit warring end ensure an objective approach.
IMO, whichever city is claimed by the country as the capital should be specified as the capital city, provided that its central government, legislative and supreme judiciary bodies are headquartered in the city. The fact that most (or all, I'm not sure) other countries do not recognize it as the capital should be prominently noted.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You say, "... but saying otherwise may be likewise interpreted as taking another side." Nobody, though, is saying that it should be stated as a fact that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Neither is anybody saying that it would be objectionable if it was stated that Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel. What editors are asking for is that the situation is presented as a set of points of view, the Israeli and the international. That is the way it is presented in other encyclopaedias examined and at least one of the non-English Wikipedias. Arguments based on making comparisons with other Wikipedia articles don't have very sound foundations, though, unless you can show that the rules have been followed in the other articles and that the rules that apply there also apply in the current one. In at least one of the other examples produced so far, there was also a major argument happening over neutral wording and, if you look at the talk page of the Republic of China article, you'll see that that is also true of the example that you've chosen. Perhaps the argument could be avoided there, as it could be here, by adding a qualification to make the disputed statement a true statement of fact. There, rather than stating that the ROC is a state, they could say that it is a UN, or internationally widely-recognised, state (as noted in the article: However, until the 1970s the ROC was still recognized by many countries and the United Nations as the sole legitimate government of both mainland China and Taiwan. The ROC had been a founding member of the United Nations and one of the five permanent members of the Security Council until 1971, when China's representation was replaced by the PRC via UN General Assembly Resolution 2758).
According to the rules, for something to be presented as a statement of fact, there should be no major disputes in reliable sources about it. In the case of Jerusalem, there are major disputes about its status, though. Therefore the article should present statements of fact about viewpoints instead (for example: Israel has declared that Jerusalem is its capital; Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel). To counter that argument, you need to show that it is invalid or that there are other rules which contradict it.
    ←   ZScarpia   21:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is now an appropriate time to close the RfC?     ←   ZScarpia   01:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I put a small edit in the sentence stating that non-Israeli media use "Tel Aviv" as a metonym for Israel. First, I note that this should be a metonym for "the Israeli Government" rather than for "Israel." However, my edit was to add the word "some," because not all non-Israeli media use "Tel Aviv" in this sense. Many media sources, especially in the US (and more conservative media outlets elsewhere), will use "Jerusalem" for this purpose in recognition of the reality that regardless of the political status and recognition, the Israeli government is actually physically located in Jerusalem. The lack of a modifier implies that all non-Israeli media use the Tel Aviv metonym, which in turn implies that this is the correct thing to do. Just as the use of Tel Aviv as metonym ignores the fact that the Israeli government is physically present in Jerusalem, the absence of modifier in the original wording ignores the reality that many media sources do not choose to ignore that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.231.183 (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


May I propose a compromise? The contentious and pernicious issue here is not whether or not Jerusalem is Israel's capital, although that is how the issue is being presented by both sides. This is really an argument over the validity of the Jerusalem Law. I don't think any but the most hard-line of extremists care what Israel does with West Jerusalem, the part of the city behind the Green Line. Prior to the 1967 war and the later Jerusalem law, West Jerusalem served as Israel's capital without incident. The objections cited by the international community to the Jerusalem law are not to Israel's use of Jerusalem as its capital, but to its annexation of East Jerusalem. The removals of embassies were punitive in that Tel Aviv is quite obviously not Israel's capital regardless of whether Jerusalem is, either as a whole or as the portion behind the 1947 armistice line. In this way, saying that Jerusalem's status as the capital of Israel is disputed by the international community is neither factual nor does it address the issue which I think the author likely meant to call attention to, namely, that East Jerusalem is claimed by them Palestinian Authority as the capital of a united Palestine. As such, I recommend changing the disputed passage to "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. East Jerusalem is claimed by the Palestinian Authority as the capital of the Palestinian state."
Civil comments appreciated,
Ned Lieb Quodfui (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the proposal, but I see a problem in it in that even before the 1967 war, West Jerusalem wasn't recognized as Israel's capital (source). In the 1947 partition resolution borders, neither West nor East Jerusalem are inside Israel. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jerusalem/Archive_13&oldid=1136267523"