Jump to content

Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 28

Foreign embassies

The lead currently documents the current position of there being no foreign embassies in Jerusalem. However, there have been many embassies there in the past since 1948 and previous foreign attitudes towards Jerusalem should equally be mentioned. Ankh.Morpork 19:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a position it is a material fact of reality.
Since countries moved their embassies as a result of illegal acts of the government of Israel, it a fact that relates primarily to the suspended political status vis-a-vis the international community, and probably is too fine grained of a point to be in the lead in the first place. So why clutter up the lead even further if you are already complaining elsewhere about the level of political detail, as per the statement, "I consider the detailing of the current political stances re Jerusalem in the lead as excessive" under the section 'Repetition in the lead'?
How would you propose including it in the lead, for example? In conjunction with the aim of illustrating what?
The circumstances of the embassies and the presence/removal should be discussed in the main body, in conjunction with the acts of Israel and the response of the international community and how that relates to the problem of (West) Jerusalem's recognition as the capital of Israel, the partitioning, etc.
It seems to me that the lead has been misappropriated for politicking, and the mess it is in at present is the result of a series of false compromises related to that salient fact, which is the reason for the RfC regarding neutrality.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
"It's not a position it is a material fact of reality." :) I recall several instances in which noted "material facts of reality" and you choose to ignore them. go figure.--Mor2 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall. Where? I don't want the facts and the POV to be confused, that's all.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Language issues, naming conventions., etc

In the course of the foregoing recent discussions several language issues have been addressed in a somewhat piecemeal manner, so I was thinking that it might be useful to assemble those in a single section for ease of reference. In the 3rd paragraph of the 3-paragraph lead proposal, for example, I tried to address the issue of the use of "Judeaen Mountains" by adopting a more equitable representation of the status regarding the name that should be used in this article. To reiterate several determining factors that would appear to necessitate such revisions, here's is a list:

  • Israel does not have sovereignty over Jerusalem
  • The majority of the land area of Jerusalem is in the occupied Palestinian Territories.
  • It would appear that the mountain range in question is called by a different name by Israelis and Palestinians.

If those three points are undisputed, then the naming conventions used in this article would seem to require a much higher degree of sensitivity, and we have to make efforts to accommodate all relevant aspects, representing the voice of each party in an equitable manner.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

What you did with the Judaean Mountains is ridiculous, as are some of your other proposals above.
That mountain range has a name that's used in most reliable sources. Let's see if you can find out what that is. Please read WP:RS and WP:V and understand wikipedia articles are not supposed to be written according to your sensitivities.
Also, may I inquire as to how many sections you plan on opening on this page? I've been gone for a few days and I see you've started, what, 5 sections? Most of which got almost no responses? Where are you going with this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to this section NMMNG, glad you decided to stop by! This section is aimed at eliciting opinions from other editors regarding language issues in the article. Feel free to differ and disagree at will, but please refrain from adopting a condescending tone and describing my proposals as "ridiculous". You may have intimidated some editors on this article, but if you try that with me I will take you to task. For example, Two of the current references under Nos. 2 and 3 would clearly appear not to represent reliable source, and the third does not mention the proper noun you mentioned. Let's take a look see:

1. This is from MSN encarta, reliable?

  • "With a population of 701,512 in 2004, Jerusalem is Israel’s largest city. Israel claims that all of Jerusalem is its capital, but Palestinians dispute the claim and the United Nations has not recognized it as such."

2. This is a publication of the state Israel:

3. I found no reference to "Judeaen Mountains in the NY Times article.

There are two sources published by academic presses, but I don't have access to those. Perhaps you would care to share your sources with us? I would imagine that there are various sources available.--Ubikwit (talk) 12:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Your suggestion that we should call the Judaean Mountains by some other term based on your perception of "representing the voice of each party in an equitable manner" or whatever, is ridiculous. Go ahead and "take me to task" whatever that means. This mountain range has a name commonly used, and that's what we should use in this article.
I'm not sure what your point was about encarta or not being able to find "Judean Mountains" in a specific NYT article is. ICBS is generally reliable. Why would you assume it is "obviously" not? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
In the introduction to The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History and Reclaiming Memory, Nur Masalha identifies place names as one means of what he calls the "politicide" of the Palestinian people. Another source comes from A War of Words: Language and Conflict in the Middle East by Yasir Suleiman, page 164:

"The elimination of Arabic names from the map is part of the political-cum-linguistic conflict between Arabs and the Israeli Jews. The linguistic dimenstion of this conflict is sometimes manifested in the academic discourse on place names. Examining this meta-linguistic discourse may therefore give us valuable insight into how aspects of the naming process are manipulated to signal a political interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. ...English is the language of wider diffusion through which this is done on the international scene...."

Another acknowledgement of the contentiousness of place names comes from Kramer and Harman in A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel as referenced in the article "Place names of Palestine". The article states: "The significance of place names in Palestine lies in their potential to legitimize the historical claims asserted by the involved parties, all of whom claim priority in chronology, and who use archaeology, map-making, and place names as their proofs." Given all of these acknowledgements of the Arab-Israeli conflict being waged through place names, is it not logical to consider the possibility that the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics may not be neutral? ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit is a reply to NMMNG that was being penned at the same time as ClaudeReigns' edit, so I'm posting it in its present form. Fine, let's just stick to the sources. I'm a linguist, so you are correct in stating that I am more sensitive to language issues, but there is a reasonable basis for the issues that I am trying to address here. There would seem to be a hole slew of issues with the article in its present form. When I say I'm going to take you to task, it means you better have sources to support any argument you are advancing with respect to content to be reflected in the article. So let's try a hypothetical question. What do you think the Palestinians are going to call the "Judaean Mountains" if the final disposition of Jerusalem winds up following the UN resolutions? The Judaean Mountains article lists an Arabic name for the range. I would imagine that sources supporting or having an affinity with either respective side uses the corresponding name, but that remains to be borne out by the sources. The encarta source would appear to be blatantly representing a position supportive of the agenda of the government of Israel as well as misrepresenting the position of the UN and the international community of harsh condemnation of the actions of the government of Israel. It is not the case that "the United Nations has not recognized it as such"; as you are aware, the UN has passed numerous resolutions explicitly declaring all actions by the government of Israel against Jerusalem as illegal. That is not a reliable source. Period. You want to argue against that? Such references will be removed. It looks like I'll have to examine some more of the sources and associated claims in the article, and hope others join in, as I don't have the time to make a career out of editing this page. --Ubikwit (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It doesn't matter what the Palestinians are going to call the Judaean Mountains. What matters is what those mountains are called in most reliable English sources. It doesn't matter if you think encarta is "blatantly" representing this or that or something other that doesn't fit your political agenda. What matters is if it's a reliable source according to wikipedia policy. You don't appear to be a new user so I'm assuming you know all this. Please stop wasting time with irrelevancies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What criteria are you using to determine "most reliable English sources"? Are you asserting that the nonsense on encarta is comparable to something published in an academic press? Are you asserting that the statement in encarta is not decisively disproven by any of the UN reolutions mention above? The Place names of Palestine article mentioned by ClaudeReigns contains many solid references from academic publishers.

You don't appear to be a new user so I'm assuming you know all this. Please stop wasting time with irrelevancies.

--Ubikwit (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

OK, I see you are interested in wasting time with irrelevancies, like your personal opinion on the reliability of encarta based on your personal opinion on UN resolutions, and hand waiving at the general direction of other wikipedia articles which are not reliable sources for anything. I have better things to do with my time. If you want to change the term in the article maybe you can show that some other term is more commonly used. Good luck with that. Here's something to get you started. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG, Almost all of the sources in your Google book search have to do with Jewish or Zionist history and geography. The Arabic name for the Judaean Mountains is Jabal El Khalil. I suggest you look at this list of books, for the alternative. In English, that would be the Hebron Mountains; see this list for sources that use that term.
I point this out without taking a position one way or the other in this dispute. Just pointing out the futility. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
That's your 750 sources compared to my 8500 sources. That's without going into the silly notion that books that talk about the geographic area in ancient times are somehow "Jewish or Zionist history and geography". Unless you're getting substantially different results than I am. I'm getting stuff like "Canaan and Israel in antiquity: an introduction", "The Fortifications of Ancient Israel and Judah 1200-586 BC", "The Routledge Handbook of The People and Places of Ancient Western Asia", and stuff like that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, you have produced sources, and we're not just trying to address issues that would seem to represent a lack of balance or neutrality. There would appear to be a preponderance of sources that adopt different names to represent the same geographical entities, maybe your name of choice outnumbers others, making it a majority usage in English. That would be counterbalanced by both the academic texts presented by ClaudeReigns and the usages presented by Ravpapa. Accordingly, since those geographical entities are in limbo at present with respect to the question of sovereignty, it would seem that in describing those geographical entities Wikipedia articles should try to strike a balance in the names used so as to present the subject matter in a neutral POV. What you referred to as my "ridiculous" effort above was simply an example of a possible approach to integrating the names having currency in a text that would represent a neutral POV to the reader. I don't think we should waste time doing battle over issues such as this where either side can produce reliable sources, compromise is the shortest distance between two points. With respect to encarta and the UN resolutions, if someone else wants to reply, they're more than welcome. I don't think that is the same type of situation though, nor simply a matter of my opinion.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Ubikwit

We're not going to battle over this because fortunately there are rules on how to approach this sort of situation. We use the most common name in English. I believe I showed you what that is above. I'm done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Would those rules be found on this page Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)?

That page includes some parallel examples of the current scenario, but not even close in level of complexity.

In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example, the reasonably common name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted, mainly because it is neither Korean nor Japanese. Similarly, Wikipedia's version of the Derry/Londonderry name dispute has been resolved by naming the city page Derry and the county page County Londonderry.

It might be best that the naming issues not be taken up in the upcoming RfC, unless they can be addressed in some overarching framework regarding neutrality.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I see that there is also this Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank)--Ubikwit (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It seems that the only editor currently working on this article that was involved in that naming dispute Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Involved_parties was Nishidani. I hope Nishidani doesn't mind (and that I'm not breaking any rules!) my citing a short quote from dispute here in order to pique other editors interest in the current context, which is, admittedly, of a somewhat different but not unrelated nature.

There are no Palestinian, as opposed to Israeli, nationalists involved. It is a clash between those (Israeli and Jewish editors) who support a restricted number of Israeli naming conventions, of a distinct and proven nationalist colouring, for an occupied territory 83% of whose population is Arab, and those who support neutral international usage. It is a conflict therefore between international naming conventions, as opposed to unilateral nationalist naming. If there are no guidelines that privilege the former over the latter, there is really no point in editing I/P articles.

--Ubikwit (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Great quote. As you may have noticed, there's no talk about having "a much higher degree of sensitivity" or "making efforts to accommodate all relevant aspects, representing the voice of each party in an equitable manner". All you have is making the word "Judea" verboten in any modern context. You're correct that what you're doing here is "of a somewhat different but not unrelated nature". I'm sure you'll get Nishidani's full support. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It's predictable. Anything associated with my handle, even in a festive moment like this, stirs your personal campaign against my bona fides. Verboten? I get the period echo, but it only reminds me of a recent article about things not permitted, like Christmas trees in Upper Nazareth, on the grounds that such Palestinian Christian insignia are offensive to Jewish eyes. As the German saying has it: Was nicht erlaubt ist, ist verboten. I suggest you make a New Year's resolution: 'Stick to the technical issues, and avoid the temptation to indulge in personal insinuations and asides'.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for another anecdote about Jews. Predictable indeed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not about Jews, (except that everything I read on Israel's occupation reminds me of what I used to read over decades of what happened to Jews in Germany, 1933-39). I make the connection, as do a large number of foundational Zionists: you, one person, don't.Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it's you who needs a New Year's resolution: 'stop obsessing about Jews'. Your gratuitous anecdote that just happened to mention Jews in italics but isn't about Jews is going to my collection. I have over a dozen examples of you replying to someone you think is Jewish in this manner. FYI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Obsession? I merely edit articles on Palestinians in their land, where they are treated as Jews were treated in Germany. Playing the hasbara card that anyone who strives for balance in our representation of the culture and history of the victims of a violent, illegal, and expropriative occupation has a 'problem with Jews' (code language for 'antisemite'), or letting on you have taken huge efforts to track my every statement for your personal dossier of 'evidence' to that effect, leaves me yawning. But if it makes you feel like you're defending a noble cause, go ahead. Just drop the boring reiteration of this tiresome and puerile insinuation. The rank pettiness of all of this tracking of the enemy is rather unbecoming. Apply for a job at Arutz Sheva. More people read that.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Right. Ashkenazi Jews is about Palestinians in their land. When you explain to editors you think are Jewish that Purim is a celebration of genocide, that's actually about the Palestinians. Above, your emphasis on "Jewish eyes" was not about Jews. I find it hard to believe you're not aware of what you're doing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

your emphasis on "Jewish eyes" was not about Jews

Had you checked the link you would have realized that this was a direct quotation, the ipsissima verba of Isaiah Herzl, the chief rabbi of Nazareth Illit. So you have a problem. Who says what I cite doesn't interest you. What obsesses you is that I cite it. It's not offensive to speak offensively. It's offensive if someone cites your offensive remark. This Perry Masonite interrogation's just that, flimsy.
You're documenting - and it hardly needs endless instancing- your persistent failure to read intelligently, or rather your predictable obsession with invariably misconstruing any edit you dislike in the I/P area as somehow motivated by ethnic enmity. The Ashkenazi page has been ruined by people, Tritomex chief among them, arguing that the most important thing to document there is the ME connection, which however is significantly contested by a notable minority of scholars, who evidently dislike the way misconstrued genetic evidence is used as an ideological token in an argument about the right to dispossess Palestinians of their land. The Purim connection arose regarding Hebron, which is a violantly occupied Palestinian city. I don't find it hard to believe you are incapable of construing an argument in its rational form. I've been editing here for several years, and seen this pattern of consistent POV-twisting too often to expect anything else. Anyway, who cares. If you have this chip on your shoulder, chip and fish away. But you're only frying your credibility as an editor committed to quality, article content, and WP:NPOV. Everywhere else, on wikipedia, where nationalist conflicts despoil pages, no one has any problem with noting a Serb, or an Albanian, or a Croat, or an Iranian or Kurdish inflection on objective representation. The same problem exists on these pages, and you seem to wish to make an exception. It's obvious that a lot of highly nationalistically motivated editors work these pages, and on last checking, almost none were Palestinians, the other party. I really do have better things to do, like eating convivially, than wasting my time in a foolish attempt to alleviate your chronic misapprehensions and intellectual indigestion about my work here. Have a nice day.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
We were talking about what term to use for the Judeaen Mountains until you interjected with your "offensive to Jewish eyes" stuff. So I suggest you stop trying to play the victim and check yourself. My intellectual indigestion about your work here arises mainly from your never-ending attempts to create a hostile environment for Jews. Anything anyone says is an opportunity for you to gratuitously bring up some anecdote or random thought about Jews. If you don't understand why this is problematic, I can't help you. I can help others by documenting it and eventually reporting it. Which is exactly what I'm doing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I said nothing before you arbitrarily wrote:-

All you have is making the word "Judea" verboten in any modern context. . . . I'm sure you'll get Nishidani's full support.

Since that is offensive, I dropped a comment, and now we get a harangue about my putative 'never-ending attempts to create a hostile environment for Jews'. I suggest you take your dossier to AE. Making repeated innuendoes that something is deeply flawed in my work on this area is pointless unless you do so, and if this obsessive suspicion, which you say you have now documented, has any merit, it will be dealt with severely there. So go ahead, or just move on, and out of this nonsensical bickering.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Nice of you to edit your comment after I replied to it. About as honest as I've learned to expect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Crazier and crazier. You made three points. In my first edit, I addressed two (Ashkenazi Jews,Purim). When it came up, and I checked the edit, I realized I'd, impolitely, ignored your third point, and thus immediately reopened the section, and addressed the issue of 'Jewish eyes' you think so malicious. It appears you had, in the meantime, replied to my first draft. If being thorough in responding to one's interlocutors is 'dishonest', well, you have a queer understanding of that adjective's meaning. If you want to know what it means compare your otiose 'threat' that you are going to report me:

If you don't understand why this is problematic, I can't help you. I can help others by documenting it and eventually reporting it. Which is exactly what I'm doing.

What's the problem? You have on your own admission what you says is over a dozen examples of my ‘obsessing about Jews’ which you regard as reportable because, you assert, I am engaged in attempts to create a hostile environment for Jews.’ Earlier on this page you repeatedly challenged Scarpia for making what you called a hollow threat to take troublesome behaviour to AE, and now you are using precisely the same device you see in his remonstration. It's called double-think or blazing incoherence. I.e. for the record. What you are doing, in these repeated insinuations would be reportable as constituting a pattern of insistant innuendo and harassment (if I were someone who cared about this kind of jejune tacticism - I don't). Please note:

I was just thinking to myself that this page isn't busy enough and what it could use is a hollow threat and some discussion about the failings of AE.

Instead of making more hollow threats, why don't you go ahead and start "reporting editors"? This is, what, the 3rd time in a week you are talking about unspecified editors you'll report somewhere? You can start with me if you think you have a case. Nobody here has done anything worthy of sanctions, except maybe you with the continual threats against basically anyone who doesn't agree with you. Threats that you can't follow through with.

Yawn. Let me know when you "start reporting editors to noticeboards

your attempt to intimidate editors who don't agree with you has failed spectacularly. We're not impressed.

Yawn. Don't forget to let me know when you "start reporting editors to noticeboards" "to have them kicked out.

If you are serious, 12 examples constitutes a case. So go ahead and report this putative 'obsessing with Jews' to make the I/P area hostile to them, or kindly shut-up with hollow threats. Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy!     ←   ZScarpia   10:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
No anecdote about a Jew you can pretend has something to do with what I said and gratuitously add to your comment? I don't remind you of the Nazis somehow? How untypical. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't remind you of the Nazis somehow? Are you a Zionist? Isn't Zionism a type of ethno-nationalism? Don´t you then have commonalities with other ethno-nationalists, including ones of the German variety? Just curious.     ←   ZScarpia   10:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It's immaterial who NMMGG is or what he really thinks off-line. As immaterial as his speculations about my 'obsessing with Jews' (=covert antisemitism), even if he can't help nudging that innuendo into every other remark. The point here is simply that I called his bluff over a threat, and he had no answer, other than trying to bait editors into a discussion of their attitudes to Jews. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
What bluff did you call? Quote me. If possible without insinuating that the Jews are ruining Christmas (I just noticed the undertone of your original post here. Kudos for the "festive moment like this" bit. Way to tie it all neatly in). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You're not reading. I already quoted your 'bluff' above. You really do appear to have problems with construing sentences or maintaining concentration over a short thread. Perhaps you should try editing Simple English Wikipedia. Either that or look up ADD. You also have a problem with normal logical processes. To infer from my citation from one rabbi in Nazareth Illit that Christmas trees there offend Jewish eyes, that I insinuate the Jewish people are ruining Christmas globally is ingloriously stupid
There's no such thing as 'Jewish eyes' any more than there is an 'American mind' or a 'Chinese heart' or a Russian sensibility. Groupthink is an oxymoron, though widespread. Got that, or do I need to rewrite it all out in I. A. Richards and C. K. Ogden's basic English in Syllogisms for Dummies format?Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
That's the bluff you called? That I said I will eventually report you but haven't yet? Awesome bluff calling. I bet you're an excellent poker player. Excuse me for not realizing that when I said I'm not going to do something right now you were calling my bluff by pointing out I didn't do it right now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
At AE, people get suspended for 1 petty diff showing the IRR rule was broken, and you're still fiddling with your cards, boasting you have a strong hand of 12 putative instances of my never-ending attempts to create a hostile environment for Jews in wikipedia?
To make that assertion, unsupported by evidence, frequently on talk pages as you have is itself a form of WP:AGF violation worthy of being reported, which I won't do, because I don't take your nonsense seriously enough to think it worth the bother. Just as antisemites are not tolerated, editors who have a habit of accusing others without evidence of 'creating a hostile environment for Jews' (i.e. accusing the person of being a closet antisemite) will be looked on dourly. So as I said, put up or shut up.
I'd call it a confidence trick but for the fact your failure to use it, as opposed to bragging about it, means it's a conman's piece of rhetorical sleight-of-hand. It's a stone-cold bluff, made of bluster and filibuster, signifying nothing and, you've fallen off it. This, like your comments, is a waste of time, and an abuse of the encyclopedia. So, shuffle your deck, and keep entertaining yourself with fantasies of the projected scenario when your eventual devastating dossier, presented at AE, overwhelms admins with proof that for years Nishidani has been intimidating 'Jews' on wikipedia, something no one, except yourself and two banned stooges, ever claimed in my six years of editing here. What are those lines I'm reminded of whenever in life I encounter rumour-mongerers with their badgering innuendo?
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpieces filled with strawman arguments.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It's much easier to make a 1RR case than a complicated behavioral case at AE, as any of your buddies will tell you. The fact I don't make this sort of accusation against anyone else should be telling you something but unfortunately it won't. So go ahead and continue to behaving like you do. We'll see what happens. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
'Continue to behaving'. Hmm. Stress factor, I guess. Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. Did I fail to copyedit my post properly? And you were magnanimous enough to point it out without using the word "Jewish"? I feel so honored. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As you struggle like Casaubon in Middlemarch, ever searching for a key to all mythologies, to fetch up the complicated key to Nishidani's, what is it, devious 'Jew baiting'? on wikipedia, it may help you get perspective by reading, say, [Haaretz] or [Ynet]. The adjective or noun that has you spluttering with remonstrative outrage is used 16 times in titles on the former's opening page. It's quite difficult to work the I/P area while sidestepping the word, as though mere enunciation of it in the wrong mouth cannot but set off a minefield of dubious innuendo. It may help you to know that, whenever this molehill of a suspicion assumes the mountainous proportions of your eventual AE indictment, I'll quietly amuse myself by abstaining from comment. I'll enjoy the comedy of watching the usual tortuous misprisions of meaning and intention that adorn that august forum in its I/P form. There, I've throw you an ace you can count on to improve the odds, given that you'll be dealing with just a high card, i.,e.garbage hand. Good luck. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice try. It's not that you use it, it's how you use it. Misrepresenting everyone else's argument is your usual MO, so no surprise there.
By the way, you can't keep silent even when you try (see your multiple "slips" when you announce with much fanfare that you're self-blocking), so you really shouldn't be making such grandiose announcements. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I simply register on my talk page that I will block myself from editing articles in the I/P area, and indeed I've made one slip, immediately reverted, this month. Otherwise I have stuck rigorously to the letter of that decision. Some get intensely annoyed by evidence of ethical responsibility, because seeing it in others makes them uncomfortable. No need for that, though. We each call things according to our own lights, or lack of them.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know. You need to constantly advertise how ethical you are, otherwise people might get the wrong impression by just looking at your behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
No answer, eh. So you screwed up your interpretation of my record again. Well, put it this way. People with a stronger sense of ethics than I might boast of are shot for having them in Gaza and the West Bank, and of course, no doubt, from a perspective like yours, they would deserve it because they 'advertised' themselves. I'll allow you to niggle the last word, with your usual sneering, but from here on, I won't be interacting with you. So, enjoy your deerstalking obsessions with my contribs as you drool over them every waking day and night. It might just make your life. It bores mine.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
hmmm. just one suggestion. why not simply add a paragraph or two, indicating which mainstream sources use the name "Judean Mountains," and which alternative sources use other names? perhaps this might resolve things somewhat? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
@NMMNG: How often do you need to be reminded of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? PerDaniel (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Historically from Biblical times down to, and including Ottoman times, the Judean Hills were treated separately from Jerusalem, as distinct districts. Ubikwit's point is actually quite interesting. When indeed did sources start making Jerusalem part of the Judean Hills, when the Bible itself is quite strict in distinguishing Jerusalem from the Hebron hill area and successively the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arab and Ottomans as often as not made a clear district and topological separation between the two ranges?Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Surprise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
If you were familiar with the subject, you'd feel surprise less often. For Ubikwit. The naming convention regarding this privileges international usage, which happens here to apparently coincide with Israeli usage. The old distinction between Jibal al-Khalil the hilly region round Hebron and Jibal al-Quds, the same about Jerusalem, overlapped somewhat with the distinction between the Hebron Hills and the Jerusalem hills, which are quite distinct regions geophysically, since the latter are separated from the Hebron anticline by lower land, but the Jerusalem Hills are often considered as cresting the Judean mountains, and are often incorporated into the generic 'Judean hills' nomenclature, where Judea refers to the historic area south of the Samarian highlands and east of Philistia. It can be argued that, given the conflict, it would be more neutral to describe Jerusalem as part of the Jerusalem Hills rather than being included, with the topologically distinct Hebron hills, under Judean hills. But RS are not as sensitive to this as we are, and RS determine what we use. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the background details. Do you think this article Judaean Mountains needs a little work?--Ubikwit (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
100% of I/P articles need a lot of work, as opposed to 95% of serious wiki articles. But life is short, and too interesting for one to make it a major hobby. The best thing to do is to choose a few key, thematically interrelated articles many ignore, or have given up on, master the lit on them, and write them, one by one, to a level of respectable quality and comprehensiveness. Otherwise much of one's time is wasted on talk where no one listens.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What style of RFC is there going to be, if there is going to be one

Is it any clearer what will be proposed in the RFC yet, is it going to focus on a single question such as is the current introduction compatible with NPOV, or is it going to list some of the methods of handling the situation. Such as Status quo, proclaimed capital of Israel, Capital of Israel + Palestine, or avoid saying it is the capital of either? What ever method is used, i do believe it is reasonable for the RFC to clearly mention the fact this article has described Jerusalem as Israel's capital for many years. Recognising that what is being proposed is a radical shift in the handling of the situation on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I can think of one good reason why an appeal to tradition shouldn't be recognized. And a funny one. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
That wouldn't be reasonable because it encourages status quo bias. The RFC should be designed to discourage the subconscious short cuts people naturally use to avoid thinking about difficult questions and encourage careful rational decision-making based on policy and the data. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It will still be for people to decide which option they think is the best way forward, but it is very important that the RFC recognises that the status quo or basic method of handling this article has existed MANY years. It is not like there has been a recent change and people are objecting to it and now there is an attempt to change it. I will look back on the history in the new year as i only joined this debate a couple of years ago, but it is my understanding the article has stated Jerusalem is the capital of Israel for significantly longer, it was a compromise (Which i was one of the main users urging/supporting) that led to the not internationally recognised bit in the first sentence. That compromise was done to ensure balance, yet now it is being questioned and attacked again. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It is not now being questioned and attacked again. It has always been considered by many editors to be a contravention of basic WP policy. It's "no consensus" detritus. Formerip (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sticking to what I proposed in the thread above, namely to keep the RFC question as simple and to-the-point as possible, focusing on whether the "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" wording infringes WP:NPOV and if so, a small number of alternatives. If we get a solution along these lines, that's something we can live with permanently (or until the one/two state solution is implemented and the situation cleared out). What's in the article right now has no bearing that I can see on what should be there. In fact how could it, since we're investigating if the current text is wrong. A good idea would be to somehow limit the amount of text each editor can contribute to the RFC. --Dailycare (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought we agreed that this question, should not omit the second part of the sentence i.e. "..,though not internationally recognized as such" and I hope that small number of alternatives includes more than the 3 options provided above.--Mor2 (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that proviso was discussed as well. If editors are OK with this approach, then it seems like we have the question without recourse to mediation. Which additional options for the second part would you suggest, Mor2? --Dailycare (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I realized just now Mor2 has in fact proposed two additional alternatives above, so the question might be, taking things together (the "not recognized" phrase would need gentle re-phrasing in some options of question 2):
1) Is the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" compliant with WP:NPOV?
2) If the answer to 1) is "no", which of the following alternatives would you prefer to the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"?
a) "Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital"
b) "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government"
c) "Under Israeli law Jerusalem is Israel's capital"
d) "Jerusalem is Israel's established Capital"
e) "Jerusalem is Israel's official capital" --Dailycare (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Dailycare that the RFC question should be simple, to-the-point and focus on whether "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" infringes WP:NPOV. I think it needs a minimum of 3 parts.
1. The evidence in form of a large sample of sources. This is critical to the success of the RFC in terms of policy compliance in my view and I don't think anything should happen without this part.
2. The content related questions. There should be at least 2 options, which could simply be to accept or reject the statement of fact. I'm not sure of the best approach but I'm not in favor of including the "though not internationally recognized as such" part in the RFC mainly because it requires people to deal with what is in practice a logical conjunction. If the statement was more explicit and said something like "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but this fact is not internationally recognized as such" so that it was clearer to respondents that the first part is a fact and the second part is about the opinion of the international community I would be more inclined to include it. If the consensus is to include it in the RFC so be it. I think it will needlessly complicate the key issue, which is the question about the statement of fact, by including something that has no impact on whether the statement of fact complies with policy and over which there is no dispute.
3. Respondents should be asked to state how many of the sampled sources support their position. I think this is important because it should help to ensure that people look at the evidence and give them an opportunity to review their statements in light of that evidence. The point is to try to encourage a thoughtful, considered, evidence based response and discourage people from answering the wrong question by providing personal opinions about whether Jerusalem actually is the capital of Israel based on their personal criteria for deciding the answer to that question.
The RFC is likely to be a magnet for partisan sockpuppets and SPAs. If it were up to me I would want to exclude editors with less than a substantial number of edits made over a substantial amount of time (e.g. edit count >1000 & account age > 1 year). Ideally I wouldn't allow respondents to see each other's answers either but that isn't how Wikipedia does it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering our responsibility to represent views based on their prevalence in reliable sources and to show the relative predominance of opposing views:
  • Can "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" be stated as fact?
  • If not, how shall the assertion be presented?
  • With what weight (majority, equal, minority, fringe) shall opposing views be represented?
Granted that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is the statement with the most controversy, but the sentence forms a logical conjunction for good reason. Consequently, if we cannot state it as fact, we probably have some 'splainin' to do. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
@Sean.hoyland: Not allowing editors with less than 1000 edits to participate would give the full-time editors an unfair advantage. PerDaniel (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that since this is primarily a question of NPOV, this turns on what sources say. I don't know of it's necessary to have a list of sources in the RFC question, or if it's sufficient that editors simply justify their arguments by providing sources as needed or requested. --Dailycare (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dailycare, I can't think of away to present your two step, closed question, as non leading question. But IMO this variant would be better:

  1. Is the lead: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such[ii]...", neutrally define the capital status of the city.
  2. If the answer to is "no", which of the following variant better phrase it:
  1. "Jerusalem is Israel's established Capital, though not internationally recognized as such"
  2. "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, though not internationally recognized as such"
  3. "Jerusalem is Israel's official capital, though not internationally recognized as such"
  4. "Jerusalem is claimed as Israel's capital, though not internationally recognized as such"
  5. None of the above.

@Sean.hoyland, The problem with your second suggestion is that it ignores the recent RFC, which already address the issue. The question should present the whole sentence, otherwise the answer of the RFC should state: "no, already address it, move along".

@ClaudeReigns, your suggestion is a leading question. To illustrate the point, here is another leading question:

  • Considering that a capital defined as a city that enjoy a primary status in a state as its seat of government and is normally fixed by its law or constitution. Which is often, the largest city of its constituent area.
  • Noting that 'State of Israel' has established Jerusalem as its Capital, over half a decade ago. That Jerusalem serve as Israel seat of government and administrative center, its position fixed by Israeli law and that it is the largest city in Israel. Noting that "international recognition" is not part of any definition of Capital.
  • Can anyone in his right mind and not effected by "political-cum-linguistic", suggest that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? --Mor2 (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
@Mor2, I'm not sure which RFC you are referring to but I don't think it matters because this instability in the article and the associated discussions have been going on for over 10 years, from its very earliest days. I'm quite happy to ignore any previous discussions, RFCs etc. Perhaps I didn't provide a complete description of why I want to exclude the second part of the sentence. There are some people who believe that including the second part of the sentence has some bearing on the NPOV compliance of the first part of the sentence, that it somehow transforms a fact into something that isn't quite as strong as a fact, more like a claim, an opinion, a view etc. They are wrong. They are wrong in a formal sense. This is clear when you consider the sentence "1=1, though it is not internationally recognized as such". The second part of the sentence is not capable of altering the fact that 1=1 is true. When an unattributed statement of fact is presented using Wikipedia's voice it must be true, just like 1=1. Wikipedia saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" must mean that the statement is true and adding "though not internationally recognized as such" doesn't make it less than true. It's disturbing, although not surprising, that some people make this kind of error when they consider the NPOV compliance of compound statements. Anything that can be done to minimise these kind of errors gets my vote. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
@Sean, you are on the right track with analyzing identity statements, but the formula used is not 1=1, as that is considered trivial, but a=b, which is informative about the objective world. The point is that for a=b to be true certain truth conditions have to be met in order that the statement correspond to the reality in the real world; that is to say, in Wikispeak, the facts presented in reliable sources. There are a good number of pdf files and the like available on the topic online if you want to read up a bit. Here's one Frege on Identity Statements, by Robert May, 2001Ubikwit (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
@Ubikwit, so saying "I am a guitarist, though I am not internationally recognized as such" serves nicely to present me as undiscovered talent. What a clever idea! I will start using that in my elevator speech. Your use of the term "identity statement" has opened up a very enlightening way for me to conceptualize our predicament here. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Claude, that analogy is a brilliant shifting of registers to illustrate the point. I hope you noticed the pdf file on Frege's development of the concept I posted in a reply to Sean. Many of the people that have worked on the concept have (also) been mathematicians. It seems that there used to be more avenues of communication between mathematics and the humanities that enabled some feedback into philosophy of gleanings gained through more abstract thought worked out by mathematicians--or something like that, whereas today their work seems to be channeled primarily into derivatives and the funny money market.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
@Mor2, you seem to be intent on cutting to the chase and avoiding the mediation related to formulating the question to be posed in the RfC. Why don't you either save your arguments for the RfC, or participate in the discussion aimed at describing positions related to the formulation of the RfC question, which is the matter at hand that is to presented for mediation.Ubikwit (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
It seems to me that you think that this mediation is stage I of the RFC, rather than an attempt to formulate a natural question that presenting the issue and situation in question.--Mor2 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "a natural question", but it is my understanding that the object of the mediation proposal is to compose an RfC question that is compliant with NPOV so that we can streamline the RfC process in the hope of actually arriving at consensus.Ubikwit (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
@Mor2, I'm not sure that the "leading question" argument is relevant here. Can you name a policy according to which a RFC question can't be "leading"? Personally I don't see it as problematic to ask whether a sentence complies with a policy. This question, after all, is the center of the disagreement that we want to resolve. Concerning the "capital status" question, that question suggests Jerusalem has some kind of "capital status", what we don't want to do in the question. As to the 1-5 suggestions, the "official" and "established" versions at least I don't recall seeing very often in sources. Of course, no individual editor can personally write them all and disregard those put forward by others. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes and no. In a very broad sense, every question can be considered leading, since it calls attention on a particular topic. However, I was refering to the use of certain words, emphasis and suggestion that imply presupposition or suggest a desired response. As for the question it self, I think that what we want to resolve is not 'capital status of Jerusalem', which is already addressed in another paragraph in the lead(and dedicated article), but whether the sentence in the lead(which has its restrictions) introducing the city of Jerusalem as "capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" is neutral.--Mor2 (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It's also good to keep in mind that leading questions and loaded questions are two different things. A loaded question would be e.g. "Is 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' a neutral way to describe the fact that Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel?". Also Mor2's proposal can be seen as a loaded question. On a practical note, can we just go ahead and start the RFC or do we need to involve ArbCom somehow? Happy New Year, --Dailycare (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
There was this comment on the Mediation request page by one of the administrators

I failed to specifically address the use of mediation to formulate the RFC question. I believe that question to be part of what the three closers (to be appointed by the Arbitration Committee (?)) are to work upon. (Even if it is not, then it would be premature to raise it here. There has not been sufficient talk page discussion or prior dispute resolution on that question.) If the parties to the dispute cannot come to an agreement on that issue, my suggestion to the parties would be to make a new motion to ArbCom to either define the question itself or to appoint the three closers to do so. — TM 16:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If we can't agree on a question, perhaps we will have to follow that route.--Ubikwit (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit

Mediation

Can anyone think of a good reason not to request mediation in order to support the process of coming up with an RfC question? Formerip (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Mediation would be the "gold standard" way to decide on the question, a drawback would be the time it takes to complete. If we can agree on e.g. the proposal discussed above we could have the question sooner.--Dailycare (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I was really thinking that mediation would be quicker - the discussion above doesn't seem to me to be rapidly headed towards agreement (i.e. I think the if in If we can... is a pretty big one). Formerip (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
If the two points raised above also pertain to NPOV, meaning that there is no consensus as to what type of question would represent an NPOV, then the RfC may become encumbered by arguments related to that anyway. Ubikwit--Ubikwit (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm just delighted that the community will be making a decision and I'm satisfied to keep my nose out of it. I would imagine they will put an enduring mark on the article and I don't have any preconceived notions about how it will go. As it stands from the wording of the RfC, I take it to mean that those of us who have already formed an opinion are to kindly butt out. That means me. Were I a religious man, I might pray a prayer over the article that my deity might sway the argument to one side or another. But since I am a humanist, I rather rejoice that the matter is already in the hands of more humans. In the meantime, feel free to indulge my fondness for malaprops and ethnically idiosyncratic syntax ratcheer. Ashkenazi-Appalachianisms are my favorite, but feel free to holler however you cant. ש ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Mediation might be the requisite round one of this ensuing conundrum. Trying to do it all at one sitting might not be pretty and might not produce a result of the level of cultivation we could achieve through a two-step process incorporating a mediation stage regarding the question. I think that there are issues that would be raised simply in the course of coming up with the right question that could be set aside in the process of coming up with the question, clearing the way a bit toward achieving consensus regarding the lead.
At least two such issues have been raised repeatedly already, and I don't particularly think there is even clarity, let alone consensus, regarding those.--Ubikwit (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Claude, I don't get the impression from the ArbCom motion that involved editors couldn't participate in the RFC, indeed involved editors are probably best versed in the issue. Concerning the proposed question, I'm OK with the mediation approach, could you FormerIP file the request for mediation, listing as involved parties just the editors who've participated in the question discussion? Otherwise, the request will be rejected, over a month from now, due to some editors not accepting. A frustrating problem here is that many editors are airing proposals without expressing support for or reasoned disagreement with other proposals. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, okay, here is how I see the question:
  • Considering our directive to give weight to views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources and to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views:
  • Does the lead section fairly weigh the notability of Jerusalem, as capital and otherwise, in the view of the international community?
  • Does the lead section fairly weigh the notability of Yerushalayim, as capital and otherwise, in the view of the State of Israel?
  • Does the lead section fairly weigh the notability of Yerushalayim in the view of the Jewish people?
  • Does the lead section fairly weigh the notability of Jerusalem in the view of Christians?
  • Does the lead section fairly weigh the notability of al-Quds in the view of Muslims?
  • Does the lead section fairly weigh the notability of al-Quds, as capital and otherwise, in the view of the State of Palestine?
  • If not, how shall we improve the lead section?
It's not a nutshell question, it's a pea-pod question. Again, this is how I see it. Of course, this roughly mirrors how I had envisioned writing the lead section, so nothing new here. Sorry if it isn't helpful - we have talked the ear off of this subject. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't quite see the point in asking about Jerusalem's notability and views of Christians etc. The way I see the arbcom motion is that the binding RFC is supposed to address the point that's been agued about here over the last 9 or so years, namely is it OK to say "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" (as part of any phrase) in the lead. In other words, to address the content dispute that caused the arbitration request to be filed. If Claude's proposal would be the question, we'd have megabytes of text about the correct way to spell "Yerushalayim" et cetera instead of a discussion on the root cause of the dispute. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've made a request, which is here. Formerip (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the questions. However, I would like the question to also examine whether the lead for Jerusalem is the appropriate place to delve into the political niceties, which are wholly avoided in other articles such as Taipei which is the capital of a country whose entire sovereignty has been internationally challenged. Ankh.Morpork 12:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
That's comparing apples and oranges, as the saying goes; that is to say, they do not share enough of the same attributes to be compared in this context.Ubikwit (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ankh has put his finger on the crux of the issue. The question is not how to present the political controversy, but whether to present it at all in the lead. And Ankh is absolutely right that there is an unspoken standard in Wikipedia that articles on cities read like tourism promotion brochures. Look at the article on Belfast; or Pristina, site of some of the most heinous war crimes in the last 50 years. What does Wikipedia have to say about Pristina? That it is served by the Pristina International Airport. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Would that be adopting a position that defacto recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?Ubikwit (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
  • I.e. avoid the political niceties by writing:
'Jerusalem is the capital (and largest city) of Israel?' as per
  • Taipei City (/ˌtaɪˈpeɪ/; Chinese: 臺北市 or 台北市; pinyin: Táiběi Shì; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Tâi-pak Chhī) is the capital of (the) Republic of China (Taiwan).
  • Belfast (from Irish: Béal Feirste, meaning "mouth of the sandbanks")[11] is the capital of, and largest city in, Northern Ireland.
  • Pristina, also spelled Prishtina listen (help•info) and Priština (Albanian: Prishtinë or Prishtina, Serbian: Приштина or Priština; Turkish: Priştine), is the capital and largest city of Kosovo.'
or simply elide this statement about its capital claims which is causing huge problems, and write the lead of Jerusalem in terms of its nonpolitical, massive historical character? Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
None of the comparisons are actually comparable. There is no dispute that Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland, that Pristina is the capital of Kosovo, or that Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan). In those cases the dispute is over whether those regions should be under the control of another sovereign. Regardless of what government controls those regions, the capitals will presumably remain as capitals of those regions. Here the dispute is specifically over what state should have Jerusalem as its capital.
There is no dispute that ... Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan). I don't think this is quite correct. Republic of China is not recognised as an independent state by most nations (and is not a member of the UN). Accoding to some editors here, if it is not recognised by other nations, then its very existence is disputed. But if Republic of China does not exist, then Taipei is the capital of something that does not exist. Your logic would apply if the article said Taipei is the capital of Taiwan. But it says Republic of China (Taiwan). Incidentally, Wikipedia article on Taiwan states as a fact that it is a sovereign state, even though we know that many countries do not recognise it as such. - BorisG (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
"There is no dispute that...Pristina is the capital of Kosovo". Nonsense. Kosovo's independence is not recognised by many countries; it is idiotic to assert there is no contention as to Pristina's status. Ankh.Morpork 14:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that none of the cities offered for comparison are divided, subject to UN resolutions, is under military occupation, etc. The "very existence" of Jerusalem isn't disputed, its status as a single city or as two cities with the accompanying implications.
In fact, it could be said that its status is only disputed because of the intransigence of the government of Israel in trying to take the city illegally by force; that is to say, there is no dispute regarding the position of the UN and all of the countries that have removed their embassies from the city. The RfC is aimed at addressing whether the lead reflects a disputed minority POV. Ubikwit (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
My proposal above to say it is the disputed capital of the respective parties would encapsulate that and it is a phrase that has been frequently used to describe Jerusalem. Books and news sources often use the term "disputed capital" or "disputed city" to describe Jerusalem and it concisely reflects how Jerusalem is viewed in the international community, rather than favoring one side of the dispute over the other. I think that option should be considered in any binding dispute resolution.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Devil's Advocate, I'll play the advocate's devil--just kidding...
We agree that the above-described comparisons are off the mark, for starters, and I think your explication of that was lucid and to the point.
Your suggestion of phrasing has some merit, but the situation seems complicated by the fact that the status of the city itself is not clear--as indicated by "disputed city"--except for what the UN resolutions state. Since I have not read those through in detail I'll defer to those who have, but I believe that the UN recognizes Palestinians right to sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and that is where the say that they will establish their capital. In that scenario, there would be no "Jerusalem" as a city in the formal sense, but two cities of "East Jerusalem" and "West Jerusalem", so stating that it is the "disputed capital" or even "disputed city" doesn't provide the full story. And if we say something like "divided city", then that would be the equivalent of voicing defacto support for the "undivided capital" position of the government of Israel.

I don't think that is a trivial distinction, so it should be reflected. Ubikwit (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I think Mor2 inadvertently proposed the solution to this earlier, namely if we have the two-step question, one of the options in the second question would be to not mention the capital issue at all. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
In this case, the question could be: (the "not recognized" phrase would need adapting in some options of question 2):

1) Is the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" compliant with WP:NPOV?
2) If the answer to 1) is "no", which of the following alternatives would you prefer to the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"?

a) "Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital"
b) "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government"
c) "Under Israeli law Jerusalem is Israel's capital"
d) "Jerusalem is Israel's established Capital"
e) "Jerusalem is Israel's official capital"
f) Don't mention the issue.
In case of f) we might have problems, would it mean that we can't mention the issue anywhere in Wikipedia? I think agreeing on a wording would be preferable to that. --Dailycare (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you thinking that this would be two separate RfCs, or one RfC with two simultaneous questions? Formerip (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Do any of the formulations b) thru e) adequately reflect the majority POV of the international community? I think that "seat of government" is a valid description of the status reflecting the Israeli POV when incorporated into a sentence that isn't an identity statement, because that situation is in a state of transience that will be resolved at some point into "capital" or not. I don't think that the lead should present the status in a hypostacized manner, as it is dynamic, in a state of flux.
Perhaps the description of the partitioning of the city should perhaps be described first, as a deterministic historical fact that was followed by the adoption of the present stances of the government of Israel, the international community and the UN. I had that somewhat differently in the paragraph proposed above.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
@Dailycare, actually it was very much intentional. Few point:
  1. replaced 'sentence' with 'lead' - because the lead has different rules then the rest of the article.
  2. replaced 'compliant with WP:NPOV' with 'neutrally define the capital status of the city' - per Implication by question see jail expample.
  3. removed option C because no side suggest it.
  4. rephrased A to have the same structure as the rest i.e. Jerusalem.. to avoid attention.
  5. I added the option "None of the above." to avoid issues of presupposition that one of the bellow options we put is the correct/better answer.
I had a few other ideas as well but this for later.--Mor2 (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I would suggest (c). I think it is the most neutral formulation. Things like "established" and "official" are a bit woolly, but "under Israeli law" is clear and beyond doubt. Formerip (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
@FormerIP, the idea would be one RFC with two questions that would be closed separately. @Ubikwit, I understand this RFC as a bid to resolve the major years-old content dispute, so discussion on partitioning etc. should be kept separate to allow editors to focus on the key issue. @Mor2, again I think the issue is whether the "Jer is Cap" statement is in-line with WP:NPOV or not, in a lead, body, combined with something, or anywhere. An RFC settling that will be a success. "Capital status", as has been argued, would make the question loaded by implying there is a "capital status". As to the implication-by-question point, I think the same applieas as to "leading question". Editors have explicitly charged that "Jer is Cap" violates WP:NPOV, and we want the RFC to specifically address this. Therefore, it makes sense to specifically ask about that. Option C is one of the solutions that has been proposed on this page in recent months. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to mediation for formulation of RfC question

I propose that we discuss the formulation of the RfC question here in a localized and focused manner.

While many here editors working on this article would seem to be political scientist and historians, a few of us have a multidisciplinary background that makes it incumbent upon us to consider the issues at hand from more than one perspective.

One problem is that the present opening sentence is logically inconsistent insofar as it embodies a minority view that is qualified in a manner such as to give it the appearance of a majority view through placement at the very head of the lead as an assertion of fact, which is not in accord with the factual status of Jerusalem in the shared objective world as presented by the reliable sources.

Therefore, I propose that the RfC question be restricted to addressing the content of the identity sentence itself, as it seems that is the foremost aim of the RfC. In other words, the RfC should aim first and foremost to answer the question “Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?”, because that is the core issue of the content dispute relating to the composition of the lead. If the answer is “No”, then it is clear that the present opening sentence violates NPOV, whereupon it becomes a question of how to represent the balance of the respective notable POVs proportionately.

The “factual status of Jerusalem in the shared objective world as presented by the reliable sources” is at the heart of the matter to be addressed in the RfC, not mediation, I believe. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

We have two threads and one mediation already ongoing to select the question, is a third thread really needed? --Dailycare (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems that Ubikwit like to start new threads, placing his post at the top or atleast this is the case in 9 out of 12 recent content sections.--Mor2 (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Most editors have agreed to seek mediation by outside uninvolved administrators with respect to forming the question, and they should be afforded a clear view of the positions set forth by the editors working on this question. If they have to sort through a labyrinth of comments that includes comments related more to the content of the RfC than the question, mediation is less likely to succeed.
I have continued commenting in the sections above, but think we should present the arguments that are to be the subject of the mediation here in this section in a cogent manner.Ubikwit (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
"Most editors have agreed to seek mediation" has nothing todo with your continual attempt to "sort" the labyrinth of comments for others.--Mor2 (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I see too much discussion about material that is more related to the RfC than the question in those sections, to which I have also posted. This section is intended to present the arguments related only to the formulation of the question, because I assume that there is a committee that is going to evaluate our discussion about formulating the question in order to determine whether mediation is a viable option. Incidentally, Dailycare, your string of question above are almost all identity statements, which are restrictive and must meet highly demanding truth condition criteria to be valid. Basically any sentence that says A = B (A is B), is an identity statement. Therefore, your sentence of "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government" might better be rephrased using a verb other than a form of the verb "to be"; such as, "Israel has its seat of government in Jerusalem". The response ClaudeReigns gave following the discussion between you and Sean above was relevant, so I'll copy it below as a block quote, hoping that no one minds.

*Considering our responsibility to represent views based on their prevalence in reliable sources and to show the relative predominance of opposing views:

  • Can "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" be stated as fact?
  • If not, how shall the assertion be presented?
  • With what weight (majority, equal, minority, fringe) shall opposing views be represented?
Granted that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is the statement with the most controversy, but the sentence forms a logical conjunction for good reason. Consequently, if we cannot state it as fact, we probably have some 'splainin' to do. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think there are any other relevant statements that pertain to formulating the question and would like to move them here, feel free to do so. But bear in mind that a request for mediation specifically on this narrow topic is what we are talking about in this section, and our audience is the administrators on the committe that will decide whether they take on this mediation effort or not. Some people have expressed their misgivings about the need for such an undertaking, but the overwhelming majority is in support. Ubikwit (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Thank you for reposting, I don't mind at all. Anyone should feel free to offer any amendments to my phrasing of the question. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, I see too many people who fail to make a point, delve into psedologic trying to manipulate the discussion, or trying to promote their selective views/drafts/responses through editing games. With that in mind, I reiterate that you should read on the many fallacies of leading questions. Here is a simple example explaining the use of words to indicate an answer, to illustrate it further I'll post the response I gave in relation to your blockquote, "hoping that no one minds".

* Considering that a capital defined as a city that enjoy a primary status in a state as its seat of government and is normally fixed by its law or constitution. Which is often, the largest city of its constituent area.

  • Noting that 'State of Israel' has established Jerusalem as its Capital, over half a decade ago. That Jerusalem serve as Israel seat of government and administrative center, its position fixed by Israeli law and that it is the largest city in Israel. Noting that "international recognition" is not part of any definition of Capital.
  • Can anyone in his right mind and not effected by "political-cum-linguistic", suggest that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel?

Also I suggested this variant "Is the lead: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such[ii]...", neutrally describe the capital status of the city." Anyone should feel free to offer any amendments to my phrasing of the question. --Mor2 (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

While it is appropriate that you make alternative suggestions, a second to your suggestion as well as your agreement to participate in an RfC to moderate question-forming would support your suggestion more strongly. As the question you have formed is clearly an attempt to argue the case, I cannot endorse it. For my part, I did my best to incorporate strongest policy-based concerns per NMMNG as I understood them in the phrasing of the question. Demonstrating the policy-based concerns from both sides which actually outline specific concerns with the lead section as defined by those who wish to change it without arguing the case by presenting semantic, historical, and ad hominem points therein as you have done. Are you afraid that the assertion "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" cannot withstand examination in and of itself as a statement of fact without presenting evidence one way or the other? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not certain what any of this has todo with my comment about your question being a leading question. Also I am afraid that your question: "Are you afraid that the assertion "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" cannot withstand examination in and of itself as a statement of fact without presenting evidence one way or the other?" begs the question, if you looked into the topic of leading questions and logical fallacies.--Mor2 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I feel that the question presented by Mor2 correctly and adequately describes the nature of the dispute; however it is grammatically incorrect. The first word should be Does instead of Is. Attempts to discuss only part of the sentence are misleading. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello BorisG, How would you describe "the nature of the dispute"?
What would be misleading about discussing only the identity statement made in the sentence?--Ubikwit (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
I think that by now, even you figured out that by definition Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel(though I doubt you'll admit it). Which is why you attempt to change the subject of the discussion to much more loosely concept of identity. Much like your practice to "sort" comments, this argumetns is your sole domain. --Mor2 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Ubikwit, to answer your question, because words have a range of meanings, and thus context is important. Heard of quoting out of context? To give you an example an interaction with a guest in my home: isn't this a printer? Yes, it is a printer, but it does not work (with that computer). I hope it is clear now. - BorisG (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Boris, I find that response a little amusing. Have you heard of the concept of the Loaded_question and Complex question?--Ubikwit (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit

Where the division lies

Noting the disparity over the discussion, let's take this to its core elements, starting with:

  • Is the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" contested?
  • Is it seriously contested?
  • If you answered yes to both, simply indicate that. If you disagree with either, indicate to which degree.

No need to argue your point - that's not what an RfC question is for. Neither is this the wording of an RfC question, but a simple poll to see exactly where the division lies per NPOV policy. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, ClaudeReigns, have you seen Lord Roem's suggestions on the Mediation page? They are quite elegantly simple.--Ubikwit (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Oh no they're not, they're hopelessly broad and vague. Try to imagine closing an RfC that asked either question. In answer to the questions above, although I'm not sure where this is leading, yes to both Formerip (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we can't let the opposition talk in circles and avoid the facts presented in RS, and that is basically why I have tried to narrow the scope and prevent them from framing the question as a question about a statement that is derived from two other statements--which are conjoined by a modal operator--that obscure the main point at issue, "Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?", or another formulation thereof, which ClaudeReigns has provided at least one alternative, which question the factual status of the declarative statement instead of asking the question directly.
Your point, I gather, is that the opposition would not respond to such an elegantly framed question in good faith, and basically, I'd have to concur that we need to narrow the scope to answer the single question we've been discussing. --Ubikwit (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
  • comment, Looks like we may need an RFC to sort out where the division lies in the current RFC ;) reiterating from before: implying that the core issue here is with Jerusalem capital status is ridicules. The city political status as well as its role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is already addressed in the lead, history section and dedicated article. In fact I haven't seen objections regarding the description of Jerusalem status in the article or the lead, only minor wording issues that can be worked out. As far as I can tell the real "core issue" or the reason for this RFC is predicated on several users wishing to either move up the Palestinians claim to Jerusalem and the topic of Israeli–Palestinian conflict into the city introduction or remove the description of Jerusalem as capital of Israel from the city introduction, quoting violation of NPOV. This is exactly why the statement "though not internationally recognized as such[ii]" was introduced, a compromise of sort between keeping the lead informative for the reader and avoiding politicization of the topic. p.s. Keep in mind that this user has POV. --Mor2 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
You have no justification for dismissing what a majority of the editors discussing this matter are pursuing as "ridicules"(ridiculous), and that borders on a personal attack on those of us in favor of that approach. Please see WP:TPG, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. If you pretend not "have seen objections regarding th description of Jerusalem status in the article or the lead", you are either being disingenuous or haven't read the comments on this page.Ubikwit (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit
And You have no justification to attribute to yourself the majority view. Note that even your suggestions didn't argued that the description of the issue in the article and lead(not the opening sentence) was wrong. You argued that the opening sentence of the lead, was giving the wrong perception to the reader and focused on various ways to ~CE the first paragraph and then the lead, to reflect your view of reality better.(other intermediate issues or rather concerns, like the one about the 'holy city' were very minor). So like said IMO the issue here is not about the orphan sentence you try to focus on, but the full sentence, the context and the location where it is presented in the article is the "core issue".--Mor2 (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
That is another misrepresentation of what I have said in my comments. The opening sentence of the lead frames the scope of the article, and that is where the primary problem lies. Everything related to the status of the city that is contained in the main body of the article is, as a matter of course, effected by the scope as presented in the lead, particularly the opening sentence/paragraph.--Ubikwit (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit
I think its close enough. My point was that the core issue is not that partial quote you guys seem to focus on, but the "context and the location" in which it is presented. Which you confirmed in your comment that the problem is with the "opening sentence", "lead", "scope of the article". So before we loos track of the issue at hand, would you agree that the "formulation of RfC question" should include more than just partial quote from the lead void of context?--Mor2 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
As per Sean's statement that this is about policy and the facts presented in RS, I'm not going to address your request that I recognize something in the context of partisan opposition.
With respect to context and the opening sentence of the lead, please see the comment I left BorisG regarding Loaded question and Complex question.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit
I am asking as per Ubikwit. You just said the primary problem lies in the opening sentence of the lead. So do you agree that the core issue is with lead? (I assure you this question is not loaded or complex, no need to randomly link things you don't understand).--Mor2 (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's interesting that you see the dispute that way. I too have a POV, but I don't think you've identified it. Sadly, I don't think avoiding politicization is an acceptable compromise to informing the reader when the topic is of such political import. Palestine's claim to Jerusalem need not be viewed as supremely notable nor zero-sum, unless I am missing the balance of some very important sources. It could be feasible; it might not be; that is beyond my mandate as an editor.
On the other hand, I think issues of global security are both supremely notable and hard to ignore without detracting from the sum of our knowledge. I could go on again about how important this topic is, and expand upon the idea that the international community has identified Jerusalem as one of five core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some feel that Israel has the unilateral right to declare its own capital, among other things. It seems the international community disputes this while old grievances remain unresolved. I can see how there might be some apprehension at asking the Wikipedia community, international in nature, to resolve whether "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" can be stated as fact. I for one would like the question settled. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
You seem to imply that the reader is not informed about the issue, while the information is already presented in the lead/article, you just think it doesn't receive enough prominence. While I think that we already have a number of articles that deals with various aspects of Jerusalem, one of which is dedicated to informing the reader on the political views, while this article inform the reader on the municipal city, its services and prominence inline with other Wikipedia city articles and even though the geopolitical controversy and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is important to you/many, I find that the attempt to push those recent developments to the top of every article about Jerusalem (city/history/demographics/transport/etc) is nothing but a political statement, rather than trying to inform the reader on the topic at hand.--Mor2 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Recentism, eh? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I've rather enjoyed listening to your views about the merits of assuming the reader has read the article backwards and everything else before getting an overview on the topic. I plan on exploring Jerusalem's municipal security and infrastructure much more closely. I'll do my best to make sure my information is up to date. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have more clear, recent as since the last RFC which already dealt with all of those issues.--Mor2 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Mor2, the "core issue" is that nobody has demonstrated that the statement of fact complies with NPOV. Many editors rightly or wrongly are not convinced that it complies with mandatory policy. In order to establish the degree to which the statement of fact complies with NPOV, editors can simply examine a large sample of reliable sources and compare our statement with their statements. The statement that best complies with policy can only be found by examining the evidence. Every time someone expresses their irrelevant personal opinion about Jerusalem here it disrupts the process. The reason I have an enduring interest in this issue is because it is the best example that I am aware of in the topic area where editors have persistently failed to do what they are supposed to do. Editors have the rare luxury of a large amount of data available and a relatively simple set of rule that allows them to objectively measure the NPOV compliance of a statement and yet they argue for 10 years. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone "demonstrated that the statement of fact" doesn't complies with NPOV? For that matter do we have another view on how a Capital city is defined? As for the rest I can say the same about the "other side"--Mor2 (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
What "statement of fact"?Ubikwit (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit
Of course no one has demonstrated that the statement of fact "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" doesn't comply with NPOV by examining a large sample of reliable sources and comparing our statement with their statements. That is the point. The various definitions of capital city aren't relevant to deciding whether the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" complies with NPOV. Deciding whether Jerusalem matches the various definitions of capital is out of scope for us. What "other side" ? What are the sides ? This is just about data and content rules. That's all. Nothing else. Nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with what people think a capital is, nothing to do with recognition, nothing to do with any of the myriad of distractions unrelated to the evidence in RS and policy people have brought up over and over again for ten years. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Sean, yes, that is clear to you and I as a matter of course, but you have to be careful even talking about "statement of fact" here, as the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not a statement of fact, it is an attempt to assert a false statement of fact veiled with a qualifying statement. The way I see it is that the points that can be represented as statements of fact with respect to the position of the government of Israel include: that they "have claimed the entire city as their future undivided capital"; they "have occupied the city with military forces"; and they "have established the seat of their government" there, etc. It is not a fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel".--Ubikwit (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit
Unless scope is defined by policy, your attempt to redefine it is part of where the division lies. "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" by every definition. The various political views on Jerusalem are already addressed in the lead and additional comment/note was introduced to to distinguish between the two for those who don't understand the difference, those are the facts of the case, thus there is no NPOV violation. Furthermore, there was no recent change in Jerusalem status, only in "your" attempts to address the topic in a different way that it wont be thrown out again in an RFC.--Mor2 (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Ubikwit, to clarify, when I use the term "statement of fact" in this context I'm not intending to make any comment on whether it is true or false. It is just shorthand for "unattributed statement in the voice of the encyclopedia", the kind of statement that is required to be true. Actually I don't care whether the statement is true or false. What I would like to establish is the degree of consistency the statement has with a large sample of sources. I genuinely don't know the answer to that question and because I don't know the answer I don't know the extent to which the statement complies with NPOV. I think the degree of compliance is substantially less than 100% but what I think doesn't matter and I know not to trust statistical intuition.
Mor2, the scope is defined by policy. It's called WP:OR. You can't establish whether Jerusalem is, as a matter of fact in the real world, the capital of Israel by attribute matching without violating that policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could set aside space in the RfC structure specifically for presentation and discussion of sources. Formerip (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:OR has nothing todo with scope, only if someone can back his ideas with WP:RS or not. I can establish that Jerusalem is capital of Israel, while you can't establish that is not. You can only establish that Jerusalem is not recognized as such or that Israel declaration wasn't recognized, which is already in. So what view is not presented in the scope of the lead? --Mor2 (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, Mor2, I don't think there's anything to be gained from re-treading this old ground now. You'll be able to make those arguments in the RfC. Formerip (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I wish it was old ground, then we wouldn't need to discuss "Where the division lies", but as it is, it seems that we cannot agree about the simple things, for example that the issue is in the lead section. Something that IMO should be part of the question. After all leads has their own policy and we like policy, right sean?--Mor2 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, I appreciate that some of these questions might not be old ground for everyone. What I really mean to say is that I think its highly unlikely that the re-introduction of an old argument, whatever it happens to be, will suddenly win everyone round after a decade. And I think its also unlikely that anyone will think of a new argument. Much better to just allow the RfC to proceed and open things up to the wider community.
I agree that we need to agree on the simple things and not bicker for the sake of it. But, taking your specific example, I'm not sure anyone is in any doubt that the issue is with the first sentence of the lead. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Mor2, to be polite I shall reply, despite FormerIP's wise words. It's quite difficult to discuss things with you because there is little common ground. Things like "you can't establish that is not" and "what view is not presented in the scope of the lead?" are puzzling responses for me. Try to imagine what it would be like if you had no personal knowledge of Jerusalem, you've never heard of it, you can only generate sentences based on policy and RS that discuss Jerusalem. These for interest are some things that I think are necessary for there to be sufficient common ground. An understanding that the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not presented as "a view", it is presented as a fact in the voice of the encyclopedia. An understanding that it is possible, even just in principal, that sources exist that actually present this information in a different way, as a view/claim/disputed claim etc, rather than a fact. An understanding, even just in principal, that when there is an inconsistency between what we say using the voice of the encyclopedia and what sources say, there is the potential for a policy violation. An understanding that we can't prove nor is it our business to prove that Jerusalem is or is not anything, we can only reflect what reliable sources say about Jerusalem using the sources and content rules at our disposal. If you can establish that Jerusalem is capital of Israel good luck to you but that has nothing to do with the task at hand. The task is about establishing whether the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" complies with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion addressed to editors who think the current wording is non-neutral

I think that we should ignore the problem of how to word the RFC question for the moment. All that's really necessary in that regard is a reference to the Arbitration motion regarding Jerusalem. I suggest that we move ahead and figure out how to put the case for making a change. The choices are to either write individual comment sections at the RFC or to combine and produce a joint comment. If any editors are interested in doing the latter, I would suggest creating a page in user space as a place to make a start. The editors who oppose changing the current wording can decide among themselves how they will act.     ←   ZScarpia   20:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't spend many weeks discussing the question. The Arbcom motion should be described in the RFC in any case (e.g. as a warning concerning the sanctions it mentions). I'm not sure if we need joint comments, we can have individual ones responsive to issues that come up. On a practical note, should we wait for ArbCom to nominate the closers, or can we go ahead and open the RFC? --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure ArbCom intend to nominate the closers. We could ask them to, I suppose, but I don't see that it would make a great deal of difference who does it. Formerip (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC suggestion

I see multiple options that could work. The two that I think would be best are a. Have multiple leads prepared and vote on each. b. Ask multiple questions about the points of contention, the answers of which will determine how the lead is constructed. The first is relatively simple, so I dont think it needs an explanation, but for the second I would see it going like this: anybody can add questions or options, and an, as in a single, argument for or against is formulated in advance by whatever group supports/opposes. Each "side" would work out their arguments on their own. The questions/answers could look like this:

rfc

1. How should Jerusalem's political status regarding Israel be addressed in the lead?

a. Jerusalem should be called the capital of Israel with no qualification
Argument for: Because it is
Argument against: Because it isnt
b. Jerusalem should be called the capital of Israel though it should be qualified with it being unrecognized
Argument for: That is NPOV
Argument against: That is not NPOV
c. Jerusalem should be called the claimed capital of Israel
Argument for: That is accurate
Argument against: That is misleading
d. whatever other option people want to throw out

2. How should Jerusalem's political status regarding Palestine be addressed in the lead?

a. Jerusalem should be called the capital of Palestine with no qualification
Argument for: Because it is
Argument against: Because it isnt
b. Jerusalem should be called the capital of Palestine though it should note that Palestine does not control any part of Jerusalem
Argument for: That tells the whole story
Argument against: That isnt part of the story
c. It should not
Argument for: Palestine doesnt exist
Argument against Palestine exists

3. Should the first paragraph include the political status or only focus on the history of the city?

...

Im on the fence on which I think is a better option. Thoughts? Suggestions? nableezy - 19:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


I think it's worth issuing a reminder that editors should be bearing in mind that the wording of the Lead is supposed to be summarising the body of the article.     ←   ZScarpia   20:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I have presented one re-envisioning of the lead in terms of organizing the material into three paragraphs, as opposed to what there is at present. I think that it might be a useful exercise for other editors to attempt to do the same. That is to say, presenting formats for outlining the article might contribute to facilitating an understanding of underlying issues related to problems such as drawing up the opening sentence.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Any question based on a range of options is going to be hellishly complicated to put together. I'm not saying it would be impossible, but we don't have the most efficient of decision-making processes at our disposal. Firstly, particularly since the RfC will be binding, we will considerably more options that in the examples above (this problem applies to either your option a or option b). To give just one example, "official capital", "declared capital", "capital under Israeli law", "proclaimed capital" (etc etc) could all be valid choices alongside 1c. Including all permutations, we could easily get to 20 or more options. That would mean a vote split in such a way that calling consensus is going to be impossible. We could arbitrarily limit the choices, but this would be making the mistake of designing our question to fit our structure, rather than the other way around. And it would inevitably lead to participants objecting that their preferred choice is not listed or, worse, we could have editors starting to add additional options halfway through the RfC. Even if we could get the choices down to four or five and be lucky enough that no-one objected, the chances of a clear consensus would still, IMO, be too low.
Secondly, we need the think about equality of voice between voters. In your example question 2, I might think that J should be described as the capital of P but have no further opinion about whether it should be qualified. That option is not listed above, but lets say it was. I would vote for it, make no comment on a or b and oppose c. So I have registered 2 votes. Someone who thinks that J should not be described as the capital of P will vote for option C and oppose everything else - i.e. they have exercised twice as much voting power as me. This is distortion which would need to be identified and compensated for.
BTW, I think that there is zero chance of getting a consensus that J should be called the capital of P in WP's voice.
Thirdly, there is the problem of assessing consensus when you have options that are variations on a theme. What if three slightly different versions of "J is the capital of P" get 20% each and "it should not" gets 40%. Is that a majority for "it should not" or a combined majority for some version of "J is the capital of P"?
I'd be seriously pessimistic that we can iron out those sorts of problem. Formerip (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that it's a bad idea to put forward suggestions that will lead to an end result based on a show of hands. We should be aiming to seek a judgement of the policy-merits of the cases by the closing editors. The fundamental judgement required is whether the current Lead wording is neutral.     ←   ZScarpia   14:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The objective of the RfC should be a definitive statement from the closers related to the policy issues. The concrete formulation of the text can follow, and should in fact be based on the statements related to the policy issues set forth in the findings presented by the closers.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
On the principle of being prepared in advance, would co-operating on producing a statement of the case for changing the Lead's wording appeal to you?     ←   ZScarpia   12:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
If we ask a basic RFC asking is the current first sentence neutral (it has to be the whole sentence, not just half of it forgetting the bit where we make clear it is unrecognised which does provide balance). There would then have to be a full discussion after the RFC, and the potential for an additional RFC in the future on specific different options for how it should be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
If an RFC establishes that the article can't state definitively that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel I think that it would be fairly straightforward to find an acceptable alternative wording. For myself, so long as the the wording is presented either in terms of points of view or undisputed facts I don't particularly care what it says. If the wording is presented in terms of points of view, I think that it would be fairer to allow supporters of the Israeli point of view to decide what the Lead says about the Israeli point of view.     ←   ZScarpia   12:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The notability of the debate itself

Probably not worth an article until a secondary source notes how we've been arguing over it for nine years. But worth a chuckle. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A few last-minute suggestions for a rephrasing of the disputed opening sentence(s).

I know you are already headed for an RfC and I wish you all the best of luck in resolving the matter. I just thought I'd throw in a few suggestions I've been formulating in the back of my head while following this dispute for the past weeks (although I have not, admittedly, read through the decade worth of logs) -- who knows, maybe everyone will miraculously agree that I have solved everything! It could be a New Year's miracle.

These are mere examples and suggestions for rephrasings of the bitterly disputed opening sentence. The numbers mean that "1." could be a first sentence, "2." could be the second sentence and "3." the third. I have listed several suggestions to show that there are different options, and none of these options are meant to be seen as unalterable or set in stone. Words or formulations from different suggestions could also be freely combined to find a better choice. Individual words or terms could be thrown out, switched around, replaced, and so on.

These phrases have been formulated with the applicable policies in mind -- I don't think there should be any trouble in sourcing these statements but I could be wrong. And of course to reflect and lead into the body of the article which discusses these matters in greater detail.

Maybe this is worth something, or maybe it's just more text on the talk page -- but I thought I'd give it a shot. Maybe it could prove useful in the RfC, or something. Maybe it could just be the starting point for a new round of thinking or a fresh perspective. Best wishes.


1. "Jerusalem is a city which houses the government of Israel."

1. "Jerusalem is a city in the Judean Mountains which houses the government of Israel."

1. "Jerusalem is a politically contested city in the Judean Mountains which houses the government of Israel."

1. "Jerusalem is an internationally contested city in the Judean Mountains which houses the government of Israel."

2. "It is administered by Israel, which considers Jerusalem its capital, although the United Nations and much of the international community disputes the city's status."

2. "It is administered by Israel, which considers Jerusalem its undivided capital, although the United Nations and much of the international community disputes the city's status."

2. "It is currently administered by Israel, which considers Jerusalem its capital, although the United Nations and much of the international community disputes the city's status."

3. "Furthermore, due to this legal and political contention, the international community tends to regard Jerusalem as divided into a western and an eastern half."

3. "Furthermore, due to this legal and political contention, the international community, and some within Israel [insert Haaretz ref here], tend to regard Jerusalem as divided into a western and an eastern half."

3. "Furthermore, due to this legal and political contention, the international community, and some within Israel [insert Haaretz ref here], tend to regard Jerusalem as divided into a western and an eastern half, along the so-called Green Line."


(Note: "administered" could also perhaps be substituted with "governed" or "controlled".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.224.61 (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


The contents of each of your statements are, I think, both factual and neutral (that is, verifiable and undisputed). I would be quite happy for any of them to be included in the article. A sizeable group of editors here would object because they do not contain an unequivocal statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though. That's central to the current disagreement. For them, it is a fact, undisputed or otherwise, that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. If they acknowledge that Jeruslem's status is disputed, they will argue that the dispute doesn't change the factuality of Jerusalem being Israel's capital. Further, they will argue that because the Lead notes the dispute that the neutrality condition is met. Other supporters of the current wording deny that Jerusalem's status is disputed. They cling to the word 'recognition', arguing, in contradiction to the wording of UN resolutions which say that all Israeli attempts to change the status of Jrusalem, including declaring it the Israeli capital, are null and void, that non-recognition does not mean that the international community does not view Jerusalem as Israel's capital. So, statements similar to the ones suggested by you have been suggested in the past and rejected. Before getting down to the nitty-gritty of selecting alternative wordings, therefore, it must be determined whether or not it is necessary to select an alternative wording.     ←   ZScarpia   14:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that's a good point. I suppose that question should be resolved. Thank you for clarifying the issue.
However, even with that issue still outstanding, perhaps what I suggested could still be interesting even to editors who support the current wording, as a compromise -- that is, a new compromise, superseding the old one -- and as a way of getting rid of the "neutrality disputed" tags and resolving the difficult ongoing controversy? Maybe these suggestions could still be used in an acceptable lead and find a wider consensus? -- and with a wider basis of sources?
Another point: perhaps it might be felt, even by those editors for whom the assertion "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is self-evidently true, that some combination of the suggestions I made could still convey that assertion, but on the (perhaps stronger) foundation of the precise and objectively material conditions put forward in the suggested statements, such as the location of Israel's government there, and the fact that the city is under Israeli control, and is situated where it is? Isn't that, anyway, a stronger case that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, rather than an unqualified (albeit sourced) assertion? And one which might clarify the actual situation for the reader, and perhaps even change the minds of some with a previous but inadequately informed opinion to the contrary? For while unqualified assertions are sufficient in other articles of capital cities, this is after all a special situation, and that surely prompts special care and explanation.
In other words, even though, as you say, "it must be determined whether or not it is necessary to select an alternative wording," which is indeed the first and most central question at the heart of the matter, perhaps the ten years' worth of wrangling might itself signify the necessity to find a solution -- and if that is so, I would like to hope my suggestions might be acceptable to all involved, without appearing to favour one perspective or the other, indeed regardless of perspective, in light of the encyclopedic purpose and of policy. But now I think I've made my argument, and I leave it to be considered by you all. (Although I will gladly attempt to respond to any questions or comments as needed.)
Perhaps, in the end, it really is best that an RfC is allowed to create a new precedent as to whether something like the current opening statement is compliant with policy.
80.216.224.61 (talk)
As one of those who support the current wording (but representing solely myself and not anyone else), I'd say I am open to suggestions, but I find none of those presented above as representative of what I want to see. That is, I find the current wording fair and balanced, and represenative of the range of reliable sources. However, this is not the only wording I can support, and maybe not even the best; I am open to other suggestions. Although I find the current wording balanced, it is not without drawbacks. For instance, it is obviously stylistically awkward. Furthemore, if there is so much disagreement, perhaps the best way is to avoid talking about the status in the lead, just like Britannica does. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Boris. Does your reasoning fit into one of the patterns in the scheme I outlined in my comment above or do I need to modify it? I've suggested in the past that, like the Britannica, we omit mention of Jerusalem's status from the Lead and leave it to the material in the body of the article, which nobody was disputing, to describe the situation, but, from among the editors who want the wording of the Lead to remain exactly as it is, there were no takers.     ←   ZScarpia   12:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
If you say that Jerusalem is the capital, you're the Associated Press or the Democratic National Convention - you have to retract; if you say that Jerusalem is not the capital, you're The Guardian - and you have to retract; if you say nothing, you're the BBC, and end up having to comment anyway. I propose, since the RfC is using the 'picture of Mohammed' precedent anyway, is a Danish solution:

"Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital. Due to the conflict and unclear situation concerning the city's status foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv."

I find such a wording to be general, neutral and resilient. ClaudeReigns (talk)
I find it a poor reflection of the situation. First Israel didn't declared or claimed Jerusalem as capital but established it as its capital, which reflects the de facto situation and definition of capital, in contrast the Palestinian declared/claim Jerusalem as the capital of their future state in 1988. Second there is a geopolitical controversy, but as far as I know there is nothing unclear as to the reason why the foreign embassies were moved out of Jerusalem. It concerns the UN security council instruction todo so following the Israel attempt to annex East Jerusalem in 1980.
Furthermore, I find the paragraph in the lead that deals with the political issue less general, more neutral and far more informative. Starting with the fact that the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and continues to describe the turn of events, without your attempt to streamline it. So as before the question is not about correctly describing the situation, but your personal misgivings regarding the first sentence in the lead, describing the city as capital city(which will be true even if you guys get an agreement). Regardless, this was already addressed stating exactly what it means to make it clear.--Mor2 (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
But, don't you feel that it might be even more clear, and less contentious, to say (approximately) that "Jerusalem is a city which houses the government of Israel", so that everyone knows what editors are saying when arguing that it is the capital of Israel? And then, as I mentioned, go on to say for example that "Israel considers Jerusalem its capital", and point out that Israel administers the city, which surely carries a lot of weight, since it implies both de facto control, force of (Israeli) law, self-evidence from the Israeli perspective, and so on. All without making a single controversial step. And then get into all the details and history, afterwards.
Surely it would be a victory to achieve a broader consensus among readers, editors and sources.
I am simply arguing in good faith here, by the way, and I very much appreciate your comments and all opinions on my suggestion!
80.216.224.61 (talk)
Hi! Maybe it could be something like this: Israel has established Jerusalem as its capital, but this status is not recognised as such by (most of) the international community. I have to say that I don't find this as a very crucial desicion to make, and could live with AP and BBC version alike. I would oppose a Guardian version but won't fight to the wikideath, since I do not believe this is a top issue for quality of Wikipedia, let alone my own well being. Sorry if my suggestion is out of order (we are not in rFc yet, right?). I'd better go and watch some tennis. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I could accept that wording. Is the word established meant to convey four things: that the city is under Israeli control; that, under Israeli law, Jerusalem is both Israeli territory and the capital of Israel; that most branches of the Israeli government have been moved to the city?     ←   ZScarpia   14:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This discussion might better take place in the RFC. FWIW, what's the difference between "established" and "is"? The sentence overall should have two aspects: Israel's view and the rest of the world's view. The second part we already have, presented as a view. We need to first part as well, presented as a view. To this end it makes no difference that I can see whether we say Israel insists, Israel has declared, Israel has proclaimed, Israel claims, Israel says, Israel considers, under Israeli law, or that J is Israel's seat of government (although it isn't internationally recognized as Israel's capital). But for now, let's concentrate our energies on getting the RFC started, with an appropriate question or at least the text from ArbCom's motion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC draft

This is based on the suggestions of Mor2 and Dailycare, above, and on the format of the Muhammad Images RfC.

Extended content
"Jerusalem/Archive 23"
Song


"Il est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille" ("It is five o'clock, Paris awakens") is a single by French singer-songwriter Jacques Dutronc, released in 1968. It features on his self-titled second album.

Composition

Place Dauphine, mentioned in the first line of the song.

The song originated from an idea put forward by Jacques Wolfsohn, an artistic director at Disques Vogue, during a meal with songwriting partners Jacques Dutronc and Jacques Lanzmann at his home. He suggested a song on the subject of Paris in the morning. The other two Jacques began writing the song at around 11 pm that evening, and completed it at daybreak. It takes lyrical inspiration from "Tableau de Paris à cinq heures du matin", an 1802 song by Marc-Antoine Madeleine Désaugiers, updating its description of Parisian life in the early hours for the 1960s.[1]

The song describes well-known Parisian locations (such as the Place Dauphine and the Eiffel Tower and the activities of groups of people, including transvestites, strippers, bakers and café-owners. The Gare Montparnasse is described as "no more than a carcass" ("...n'est plus qu'une carcasse...") because, at the time the song was written, it was in the process of demolition. A new station was built nearby and, on the site of the old one, the Tour Montparnasse was built.[2]

The flute solo in the recording was added at the end of the session. Dutronc and Lanzmann were unhappy with the arrangement and felt that it lacked something. Dutronc had the idea of adding a manouche-style guitar part, but a flautist working elsewhere in the same building, Roger Bourdin, was asked to listen to the recording and agreed to improvise the solo the appears on the finished track.[1][3]

The lyrics to the song are co-credited to Lanzmann's wife at the time, Anne Ségalen.[4]

Release and promotion

"Il est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille" was released as a four-track EP in France in March 1968.

Dutronc performed "Les play boys" on the French television show Palmarès des chansons, broadcast by Radiodiffusion Télévision Française on 16 November 1966, accompanied by the Orchestre Raymond Lefèvre.[5] He also toured to promote the single.[4]

Reception and legacy

"Il est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille" reached number one in the French singles chart on 23 March 1968, where is stayed for one week. It also reached number two in Belgium and number four in The Netherlands.[6][7]

Although the song was not intended to have any political significance, it's refrain of "Paris s'éveille" ("Paris awakens") found an obvious resonance in the context of the events of May 1968, a few weeks after its release (the first campus occupation, at Paris X University Nanterre, began the day before the song reached number one). It has, therefore, been described as a "hymn" to those events.[1] A re-written version was mimeographed and sung at the barricades.[8] The song was withdrawn from the playlists of most radio stations and was quickly adapted by the protest singer Jacques Le Glou, with new verses depicting a city of overturned Peugeots and dead poicemen.[9][10]

In 1991, "Il est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille" was voted the best French-language single of all time in a poll of music critics organised by Le Nouvel Observateur for a TV special broadcast on Antenne 2, beating Jacques Brel's "Ne me quitte pas" into second place.[3][11] Rock critic Thierry Coljon describes Dutronc's song as "one of the most beautiful there is".[12]

Cover versions

As well as Jacques Le Glou, the song has been covered by Sylvie Vartan, Patrick Genet, Ange, Dominique Grange (Le Glou's version) and An Pierlé.[13][14][15]

Track listing

Words by Jacques Lanzmann and Anne Ségalen, music by Jacques Dutronc.

Side A

No.TitleLength
1."Il est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille"02:55
2."L'augmentation"02:31

Side B

No.TitleLength
1."Comment elles dorment"03:09
2."Fais pas ci, fais pas ça"01:40

References

  1. ^ a b c Monssens, Olivier (27 July 2004). "Succès en tubes : « Il est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille »". Le Soir. p. 10.
  2. ^ "La Tour Montparnasse fête ses 40 ans". Le Télégramme. 14 September 2013.
  3. ^ a b "Jacques DUTRONC vainqueur des 45 tours". Institut National de l'Audiovisuel.
  4. ^ a b "Jacques Dutronc biography". RFI Music.
  5. ^ "Jacques Dutronc Les play boys". Institut National de l'Audiovisuel.
  6. ^ "Hits of the World". Billboard. 27 April 1968. p. 53.
  7. ^ "Hits of the World". Billboard. 15 June 1968. p. 60.
  8. ^ "Le travail en chansons - Il est cinq heures". La Cité des sciences et de l'industrie.
  9. ^ Kitschke, Beate (2013). Music and Protest in 1968. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 261.
  10. ^ Le Glou, Jacques (1974). Pour en finir avec le travail. Paris: EPM.
  11. ^ "Best title". Le Soir. 2 February 1991. p. 28.
  12. ^ Coljon, Thierry (30 December 1992). "Et moi, et moi, et moi". Le Soir. p. 31.
  13. ^ "Sylvie Vartan official website". Sony Music.
  14. ^ "Discographie". Ange official fanclub.
  15. ^ "An Pierlé : « Ce n'est pas une musique pour les radios »". Evene.fr.
Preceded by French number one single
23 March 1968 (one week) 		Succeeded by
"Riquita"" by Georgette Plana

Transcluded from here. Formerip (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there will be questions relating to its status vis a vis the State of Palestine as well, yes? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Not according to what I've mocked up, but I'm not sheriff of this thread or anything. It's based on suggestions made above. Personally, I would say that should be mentioned in the first paragraph, but it isn't the thing that has been the focus of all the historic arguments (well, maybe a small percentage of them), which is why it is not in this proposal. I also think that it is among the various things that could be sorted out much more easily once this hurdle is crossed, whichever way it goes. But the whole thing remains open for discussion. Formerip (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, historically speaking, Israel didn't declare Jerusalem its capital until a little over forty years ago, so I don't see why the Palestine question shouldn't be at issue in the RfC. I agree with you that it ought to be in the first paragraph (pending compliance with WP:UNDUE, of course), but I also think it's necessary to address the question in the RfC to ward off future disputes. Last time I was active at this talk page it seemed to be very much in contention. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, well IMO it would not make the RfC unmanageable to add a further question or questions about the relationship of Jerusalem to the Palestinian state, if other editors agree. And if they are comfortable with this mock-up in the first place. Formerip (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I support FormerIP's suggestion. The sitation relative to Palestine wasn't really part of the dispute we referred to ArbCom that caused this RFC to be decided on, but a final question e.g. "How should we describe Jerusalem as the State of Palestine's claimed capital?" would be OK as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
(ec) We have a number of issues to deal with, but it would be better to deal with a single, simplified as much as possible, issue in an RFC. I think the answer is to hold a series of RFCs, each individual RFC dealing with one of the issues. So, the way I envisage it is that we would hold an RFC to deal with whether or not the current wording is neutral, deal with the fallout from that and see what the next intractable issue to come up is, hold an RFC to deal with that or use some other mechanism and so on.     ←   ZScarpia   21:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, I am not certain how my suggestions attributed to this. I have certainly haven't been asked or commented on such format and I don't appreciate my name mentioned here as if I participate in some form of consensus to achieve it. I don't know what is 'Muhammad Images RfC' is and only offered some input on the 2 question you guys were pushing(you ZScarpia, ClaudeReigns, Ubikwit) after the rest gave up on trying formulate a non leading question with "your team". From the start I noted that that the 2 question/closed variant will be inherently a leading question, my input was focused on each question and trying to show you why its leading(most of which you ignored), or that we can find some common ground to build from it. Considering that this process becomes more and more similar to Ubikwit draft practice, feel free to make whatever you want in your RFC drafts.--Mor2 (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to play dumb, Mor2, but I thought the general structure and the Q1 including the second clause reflected what you were asking for. Would you mind saying again why you think the question is leading?
"Muahmmad Images" refers to a previous binding RfC motion, which ArbCom has used as a model for this one. You can see it here. Formerip (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
And while we're at it, could Mor2 also explain why he feels the RFC question couldn't be leading? We do intend and want to lead the discussion to specifically address the NPOV compliance of the "Jer is Cap" statement. There is nothing wrong in principle with leading questions. Loaded questions are a different matter. This ground was already covered above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the current version should be listed as one the various options which should all be introduced with a broad statement that does not appear to question the merits of any particular version. e.g.
The first sentence of the Jerusalem article currently includes the wording:
"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such..."
Taking into account Wikipedia policy, and the need for accuracy and neutrality, which of the following versions do you prefer? (and the current version should be an option on the list)
This should obviate any concerns regarding the RFC being a leading question. Ankh.Morpork 18:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Like I wrote above, no-one has yet provided any reasons why the questions couldn't be leading. In fact a question that leads the reader at once to the crux of the dispute could be described as the most efficient way to get input to the core of the dispute. Of course everyone agrees the question shouldn't be loaded, which is a different matter. A completely open-ended question raises the question, why has someone bothered to start the RFC to begin with, and why anyone should bother to participate in it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
If we are going to have one final discussion it should also include Jerusalem as Palestine's capital. I would also like to see a statement on the ownership of the city. My ideal statement would be something similar to "Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital and seat of the Israeli government and the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though, the international community does not recognize eithers proclamation or ownership of the city." Sepsis II (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem in the quran

The article, in the lead says that Jerusalem is mentioned in the quran. This is an error. Anyone can believe that muhammad's night journey was to Jerusalem, but the quran does not say that. I will give it a few days to see if anyone can show me that I'm wrong before I edit the lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.175.242 (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that what you are indicating is that the place described in Night Journey references in Quran is Beit ulMaqdis whereas the interpretation that this is a place in Jerusalem depends upon hermaneutics as presented for example in Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 228 as well as Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 309. Is this correct? ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not refering to anything other than the fact that Jerusalem is *NOT* mentioned at all in the quran. The intro needs to be edited in order to remove this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.175.242 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I've noted my objection of removal of the sentence based on the original religious writings supporting the assertion. We should think about a better revision with better sourcing. And ease up on the caps, will ya? I was agreeing with your reading of the Quran-ran itself. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Objection to the proposed RFC

The proposal does not question whether the lead is the appropriate place to discuss the political intricacies, which are wholly avoided in other articles such as Taipei or Pristina which are capitals of countries whose entire sovereignty has been internationally challenged. This should be examined in the RFC before the various options are presented in Q2.

Secondly, none of the options attempt to provide an alternative version that does not require qualification, such as "Jerusalem is a city which houses the government of Israel", as was proposed above. I would remove option 2) which nobody seems to have proposed, and reduce 4), 5) and 6) to one version since they are essentially the same. I would replace them with:

  • "Jerusalem is a city which houses the government of Israel"
  • "Jerusalem is a politically contested city in the Judean Mountains which houses the government of Israel."
  • "Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital. Due to the conflict and unclear situation concerning the city's status foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv."

Ankh.Morpork 18:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

On your first suggestion, I'm not sure exactly what the question you are proposing is. If it is something like "Should the article lead state Jerusalem is the capitial of Israel, say no more about it and make no reference to Palestine?", then I wouldn't object in principle, although I think consensus in favour is extremely unlikely (i.e. why bother?). I don't think your comparisons to Tapei and Pristina make sense, because their sovereignty is disputed, not their status as capital cities. And it obviously wouldn't be appropriate to cite arguments in favour within the wording of the actual question, but that doesn't mean the question can't be asked. How would you propose wording it?
On your second suggestion, I don't propose the list of options I put to be definitive, so any other options, as well as removing those that are there, is open for discussion. I would say, though that "houses the government" is not good English and that throwing in a reference to "Judean Mountains" would doom any option given the separate controversy over that. Formerip (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It is obviously more contentious to state that X is the capital of Y if the entire sovereignty of Y is in dispute, as opposed to just the status of parts of X. Included in challenging a country's sovereignty is an implicit challenge to the status of its capital city. If countries do not accept Kosovo's independence, is it not obvious that they would not describe Pristina as the capital of Kosovo?
Regarding Judean mountains, I agree that can be discussed separately. Perhaps Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli government is better than "houses"? Ankh.Morpork 21:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
AnkhMorpork, independence is not required for a place to have a recognised capital city (Cardiff, Baton Rouge, Barcelona, Xining). So, "Pristina is the capital of Kosovo" is not contentious from any perspective and, in "Tapei is the the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan)", the contentious part is whether to use "Republic of China" or "Taiwan". Anyway, like I say, that doesn't prevent us from asking the question you suggest, with appropriate wording. Formerip (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
As the author of the "Jerusalem is a city which houses the government of Israel" suggestions made earlier, while I don't necessarily think it's not good English -- it's one of the few physical verbs that can be used with regards to the noun 'government', though I agree it might be a bit old-fashioned --, I suppose something else might be thought of, such as "Jerusalem is a city that contains/holds the government of Israel"; or, "Jerusalem is a city in which the government of Israel is located/situated"; or something like it.
As for "... in the Judean Mountains", you are quite right, that term the subject of controversy and ought to be avoided. Perhaps instead, as someone else suggested, "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East ...", etc.
Furthermore, I agree that, if the RfC is to give options for alternate wordings, there should be at least one option with an unqualified statement, as Ankh.Morpork suggested, perhaps along the lines of what I have proposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.224.61 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
This objection in fact has little to do with the RFC. The goal of the RFC is primarily to settle the "Jer is Cap" NPOV controversy once and for all, not so much address specifically what should go in the lead of this or that article. The RFC motion does mention an emphasis on the lead section, though, which would seem to explicitly also address this objection. The "houses the government" options are essentially already present in the seat-of-government option, and can moreover be discussed in the RFC. I'm not sure what's meant by unqualified statements. If the idea would be to remove the not-recognized aspect, that would pose another NPOV challenge since it's a very prevalent view in RS. I'm OK with leaving an "other" option in the RFC question to allow for other ideas to crop up in the discussion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
@Dailycare: I agree with you on what the goal of the RfC must be. One of the objections raised here is simply that, in the template draft which Formerip presented, under "Question 2", the different example options provided are all so-called qualified statements -- that is to say, first the assertion that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", immediately followed by a comma and a qualifying clause, "though not internationally recognized as such", which is apparently meant to render the first assertion neutral. This is what's called a qualified statement, one that can be made only on the condition of a second assertion. A qualified statement is, in many people's view, undesirable because it is awkward both stylistically and logically, as has been strongly critiqued by those who are dissatisfied with the status quo. The idea that Ankh.Morpork is raising here and that I agree with, is that IF the RfC finds that the current wording is unacceptable, then at least one of those options for alternate wordings should be a simple, one-clause statement that does not require a qualification, such as "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East which contains/houses/holds/whatever the government of Israel", full stop.
But yes, of course "Question 1" -- is the current opening sentence compliant with policy or not -- is the primary focus here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.224.61 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This sounds like a good point we can discuss in the RFC. The BBC has referred to Jerusalem, for example, as simply Israel's seat of government. We could then mention, if this option wins favour, the non-recognition as capital later on in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Resolved by motion atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

1) On 27 December 2012, the Arbitration Committee asked the community to hold a discussion concerning the Jerusalem article. The committee also resolved to appoint three uninvolved, experienced editors to decide the result of that request for comment (the "Closers").

  • In addition to the three Closers, the committee also appoints at this time a fourth editor as Moderator of the discussion.
  • The Moderator will be responsible for assisting the community as it sets up the discussion, supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant.
  • To enable him to perform these duties, the Moderator may close sub-sections or sub-pages of the discussion pages, and when doing so may direct discussion towards other sections or points.
  • The three closers are responsible for determining the result of the community's discussion upon its conclusion.
  • The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect. The clause that the result of this structured discussion will be binding for three years also remains in effect.

We appoint the following three editors to close the discussion:

  1. Keilana (talk · contribs)
  2. RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
  3. Pgallert (talk · contribs)

We appoint Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) as the discussion moderator.

Our sincerest thanks go to these four editors, for accepting these appointments and for assisting the community in conducting and closing this discussion. We suggest that this discussion be publicised at appropriate community venues, and we invite experienced, uninvolved editors to assist with creating the discussion pages.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @239  ·  04:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Moderation

Introduction, list of participants, and statements

Hello everyone! I'm Mr. Stradivarius, and I'm delighted to have been chosen by ArbCom to moderate the discussion leading to the RfC on the lead of the Jerusalem article. As we might be working together for a while, let me introduce myself a little bit. I've been on Wikipedia for about two years now, and I mostly edit articles about second-language acquisition and language education. I have also been heavily involved in dispute resolution; I have made more than 600 edits to the dispute resolution noticeboard in my capacity as a volunteer there, and I have mediated for both MedCab and MedCom. I have a special interest in this discussion, as previously I have mediated discussions that are very similar to this one; I mediated the discussion leading up to Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC and I have just finished mediating a discussion leading to a large RfC about our article on The Beatles. I hope that I can use my experiences at those discussions to make the process of formulating the present RfC as smooth as possible for everyone involved.

Moderation is basically going to be the same as mediation - I will be directing discussion, asking questions, making suggestions, and closing sub-threads where appropriate. The differences are that there is no special privilege for discussions made during moderation, and uninvolved administrators may sanction editors if they disrupt the process. Obviously that is a last-ditch solution, and I hope very much that it won't become necessary. If we all work together in good faith, and realise that we may all have to compromise to find a solution that everyone can live with, then hopefully the matter will never come up.

I see that you have already made progress on the proposed structure of the RfC. Thank you for all your work so far; reading the talk page here I think that it may be easier to find a consensus on the RfC structure than I had previously assumed. At the same time, I notice that we don't have agreement on many matters. So, I would like to start this moderation by taking a list of all participants, and taking statements from everyone involved - the traditional way we start proceedings at MedCom. If you could add a new section below with your statement, I would much appreciate it. Also, if you have any questions or comments about the process, do not hesitate to ask. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

List of participants

Please leave your signature below, by using four tildes (~~~~)

  1. Ravpapa (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  2. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  3. Dailycare (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  4. Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  5. BorisG (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  6. Formerip (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  7. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  8. -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  9. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  10. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  11. Zerotalk 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  12. Nableezy 15:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  13. Mor2 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  14. Sepsis II (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  15. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  16. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  17. PerDaniel (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  18. Dlv999 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Statements

Please include a statement outlining your position on the dispute below. Try to keep it short; under 400 words is best. In your statement, please include the following:

  • How you first came across the Jerusalem article
  • Whether you have a conflict of interest
    Update: A few people have asked what I would consider to be a conflict of interest. I think the definition at WP:COI is a good one: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 22:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    To further clarify for BorisG: I wouldn't consider an editor to have a conflict of interest just because of their nationality, race, religion, or location. It would have to be something more concrete than that. Your examples of working for Jerusalem City Council or for a Palestinian government agency are along the lines of what I was thinking. To be clear, having a strong opinion is not the same as having a conflict if interest, and in this topic area it is almost inevitable that editors will have strong opinions. Neither having a conflict of interest nor having a strong opinion need necessarily be a problem; however, it is important that everyone participating here can put their personal opinions aside and do what is best for Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 07:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What do you think has caused the current dispute?
  • What features would you like to see in the RfC? Would you like there to be drafts of the lead, general question(s), or both? Are there any other innovations you would like to see?

While making your statements, please remember to remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. Also, please do not comment in other editors' sections; we can discuss the statements later on. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I am going to wait another day for more statements, and I plan on moving to the next phase of this discussion hopefully at some time tomorrow (real life permitting), and definitely by the end of Thursday 17th. Thank you for your patience, and thank you to everyone who has submitted a statement so far. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dailycare

1) I've come across this article, years ago, due to a general interest in the Middle-East conflict as one of the unresolved problems of our time. 2) I don't have any external relationship (even citizenship or ancestral) with Israel, the Palestinians or any Middle Eastern country, or the United States. 3) IMO this dispute is one aspect of the presence of the Middle-East conflict in the Wikipedia project. The core of the dispute is very simple, namely whether it's neutral to say in the encyclopedia's voice that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" or whether that view should be attributed to Israel, e.g. "Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem to be it's capital". The dispute is probably caused by genuine patriotic sentiment. Another possible reason is that Israeli media may habitually present Jerusalem's capital status as a fact, inculcating people to that view. 4) I think the RFC would be a success if it resolved whether the "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is OK or no. If it further can choose an alternative wording, should the sentence be found not OK, that would be even better. I support the two-step two-question model discussed above. For the sake of clarity and simplicity, I don't think we need to discuss other aspects of the lead, or drafts of the lear in the RFC. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Evanh2008

1. I've never edited the article itself much (twice or less, if my memory hasn't failed me). It is one of several thousand articles on my watchlist, and I seem to remember first commenting after reading through some then recent discussion on the talk page. This tool says that my first post was last January, though I honestly don't remember the particulars of it.

2. I am ± one-sixteenth Jewish; does that count?

3. Really, I think it's just a natural outgrowth of all the politics of the issue. No one in particular is to blame for it, and very few people have come into the discussion with the intent of beating down the other side and enforcing their view of it on everyone else. I realize that's something of a boring answer, but I think it's true. If the major world powers can't agree on Jerusalem's status, then it's going to be understandably difficult for Wikipedia editors to do the same.

4. Primarily, I believe the RfC should deal with the specific wording of the first sentence of the article, as that seems to be the main point of contention. Questions should address whether and how Jerusalem should be indicated as the capital of Israel, and similar (not identical, since the political situation is not identical) questions regarding its relationship to the State of Palestine/Palestinian territories. The goal is to form a long-lasting consensus regarding the specific wording of the first sentence of the article's lead section, and how best to describe its status with respect to the two states which claim it as their capital. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG

  • Don't remember. Maybe by watching the Arbitration request.
  • I don't think so. But it may be helpful if the Moderator could outline what he considers COI in the context of this dispute.
@Stradivarius: we know the definition, but it is extremely vague and too subjective for our purpose here. Suppose user A's view is that a number of wikipedia articles are slanted in a particular direction and need to be corrected to achieve a fair presentation of the subjects. It means A is interested in advancing what he percieves to be fair view of the subject, but also advancing Wikipedia to give such a fair view. How do you separate the two? Does, in your view, being Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Jewish, Moslem, Christian constitute at least potential COI? What do you expect to see in an answer to that question? How can this help? I came to think that talking about one's background, nationality, religion is not helpful, as it may facilitate prejudice. To even ask about national or religious affilliation is to imply that editors with certain affilliation should either stay away or would be treated differently from others. I think we should avoid such an approach. However if we fall back to the most common understanding of WP:COI, that is, organisational or professional affiliation, then it makes more sense. But I would assume it is quite unlikely that there are many editors here who work for, say, Jerusalem city council or a Palestinian government agency. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
@Stradivarius thanks for the clarification, this is very helpful. I see that some respondents have interpreted your original question too broadly; so this will indeed help. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

  • I started editing I/P texts in 2006, and bookmarked several hundred. It took two years to get round to Jerusalem. My first edit to the page was to revert a Pro-Palestine POV pusher, though it meant restoring parts of a text I did not agree with. The word ‘Palestine’ had everywhere replaced ‘Israel’. I restored Israel. My main work so far has been to clean up the formerly POV-infected and incompetent section on the etymology of Jerusalem, both in the lead and the relevant subsection.
  • I’ve no connection to the area other than having worked in Israel for several months well over four decades ago.
  • The current dispute in my view reflects a (a) the natural conflict in RS between Israel’s POV and that of the international community in an unresolved geopolitical conflict and (b) when questions of national or ethnic identity and its symbols are at stake, emotions run high and WP:NPOV is ignored or pettifogged. There is a consistent failure to appreciate that there are three communities requiring equal representation in the article, politically and historically.
  • Ideally the scope of RfC should regard the revision of the whole lead in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:LEDE. Perhaps that is too ambitious and potentially a source for endless muddled argufying, so I’d happily settle for just ironing out the status issue over competing claims for the city per WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ravpapa

I first became involved in the Jerusalem article in 2009. Most of my work on Wikipedia has been in the field of music (Chamber music, String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn), String Quartet No. 14 (Schubert), to mention a few), and am therefore delighted that our moderator has a username at least sympathetic to my other interests.

Do I have a conflict of interest? Well, I live in Israel - I don't know if that counts as a conflict of interests. I don't live in Jerusalem, and, in fact, like many liberal, non-religious Jews in Israel, have a distinct love-hate relationship with Jerusalem.

I believe that the real issue with this article is not the wording of the lead, but one of overall approach to the subject. To the typical Wikipedia reader, all of the proposed versions of the lead say essentially the same thing, and most readers would be unable to detect the nuances between them. What we need to decide is whether this article will treat Jerusalem as a nexus of controversy, or will, like other Wikipedia articles on embattled cities, bury the controversy and treat the place like some halcyon tourist destination.

My own opinion is that the National Geographic approach to this article does not do the city justice. Jerusalem is, and has been for the last 2000 years, the focus of conflict; the place where Jesus was crucified, where Maccabees murdered and were murdered, the world capital of hatred, intolerance, and brotherly love. Even in the days when Jerusalem was an Ottoman backwater provincial, Greek and Russian Orthodox monks were killing each other over who would sweep the second step of the Holy Sepulchre. The signs of war are everywhere on Jerusalem's face, from the stone walls of the Old City to the concrete wall around Abu Dis.

To describe Jerusalem as a place of conflict would mean not only rewriting the lead, but also performing a major edit on the entire article. There is, for example, nothing in the article about the ethnic diversity of the city, and the tensions that govern the daily lives of Haredim, secular Jews, Arabic speakers of different ethnicities, Copts, Gypsies, and so on. The section on economy does not begin to deal with the complexity of at least three micro-economies operating one within the other with relative autonomy. The section on culture is written from an entirely Israeli-Jewish point of view; if an Ethiopian Orthodox were writing that section, I assure you that the important cultural institutions of the city would be others entirely from those described.

So, to sum up, the RFC must decide if we are to put conflict front and center in this article, or keep up the milquetoast approach to conflicted cities that is pervasive in Wikipedia. Once we decide that, all other matters will resolve.

Sorry for being so long-winded. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Formerip

  1. I probably first edited the Jerusalem article in 2005. In the years since then, I've been involved in periodical discussions about the "is the capital" wording at Talk:Jerusalem and Talk:Israel. Outside this specific issue, I'm a pretty minor contributor to the I/P topic area.
  2. I don't have a conflict of interest beyond having a view.
  3. The current dispute is mainly reflective of the fact that there are strongly held views about Jerusalem, on WP as in RL. There's also a systematic problem of WP sometimes finding it very difficult to move away from a status quo position which some editors strongly support. I'd say this case is a throwback to an era before WP had learned to walk upright, and I'd compare it to the issue of whether to call China "China", which was only resolved last year.
  4. I'd like there to be a question or questions which are very focused and designed to produce a clear answer. I don't want to see discussions about all aspects of the lead, because that would not stand the strongest chance of ending with clarity. There are undoubtedly many aspects of the lead that would benefit from discussion, but only one needs a binding RfC, IMO. Maybe a compromise is possible somewhere. I'd like to see an overall process which tries its hardest to a avoid a "no consensus" outcome and a close which is not a supervote and does not treat the RfC as a simple opinion poll. A tall order? Maybe.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

My first involvement with the article was after seeing a discussion at AE about material in the lede, though the matter was separate from this one. I am not associated with any organization that would leave me with a conflict of interest. The dispute seems to me to be a result of each side in a real-world dispute trying to limit or undermine the recognition of the other side's claims. Partisan bias on both sides has thus lead the dispute to a stalemate and compromise becomes difficult as both sides begin getting entrenched in their positions. I would definitely want general questions to try and see where there is common ground with various suggested drafts after that. That way, even if there is not a consensus for any specific suggestion, the general questions could indicate what format a suggestion could take. What would be important is identifying whether people want to mention Jerusalem's status as a capital at all in the first sentence of the lede, and, if so, whether they would want to note the capital's disputed status in the first sentence and how they would note it. Getting an idea for what framework a change to the lede might use would be important to developing an effective suggestion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tariqabjotu

My first involvement in this article came about six years ago, when I decided to bring it up to featured status (selecting, as I usually do, an article off WP:VITAL that is on a topic of interest to me). I have no conflict of interest in regards to this matter.

When looking at the source of the issue this article faces, it is crucial to recognize that there are some people here, with varying opinions, who hold their positions and argue in good faith, with the objective of doing what they believe is the most appropriate for this article in terms of correctness and accuracy, in terms of reflecting what sources say, in terms of avoiding controversy, or in terms of some other goal that reflects Wikipedia's purpose. Some have hinted that part of the problem here is that there are some (or many) ideological people here who are using this article (to say nothing of other Israel-Palestine articles) as some sort of proxy information war with certain "sides". I have no doubt that there are people like that on Wikipedia, in this topic area, and maybe even here on this talk page. They may indeed be the source of the impasse here. But if we hope to achieve an agreement at least among those good-faith participants (assuming this hasn't been done already), we need to recognize that one of the most poisonous elements of these discussions has been the broad accusations of wrongdoing and ideological editing, some of which are repeated in this moderation section. This leaves the targets of the accusations unwilling to discuss with the accusing parties, who they see as hostile, and the accusing parties unwilling to discuss with the targets of their claims, who they have already declared incorrigible. Editors new to this dispute are by no means blameless, as I have seen several over the past few weeks come onto this talk page, see the discussion in disarray, and claim -- as if they know better than everyone else -- that this should have been resolved but for the fact that one or both "sides" (for a lack of a better term) wasn't so ideological. I would hope that the third-party observers will prevent such accusations from derailing this process.

I don't really care what form the RfC takes, so long as it isn't composed of a series of loaded or leading questions or options. Although this motion was passed, I don't think we should be operating under the assumption, nor should the closing admins be under the impression, that the current wording has (or ones similar to it have) already been discarded. Past RfCs, although perhaps flawed, have supported similar wordings, and I don't think the storied history of this issue automatically means change is in order. -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

I first became involved in this article around three or four years ago. I have no conflict of interest with this topic.

I think the root problem here is a problem in many articles in controversial subjects. And I think it is a problem that an RFC will only exacerbate, not solve. Numbers count for more than reasons. There have been some astoundingly poor arguments brought, from either "side" though I would say disproportionately more from one than the other, but if two or three people rally around it they feel entitled to essentially block progress, reverting because there is "no consensus". The other problem is how "consensus" is abused, that material for which there is not and likely never was any consensus for can continually be restored for lack of consensus to change. There is an incentive for those who support the current wording to use the inability to gain some mythical consensus as the basis for maintaining the current wording. Looking through the history of this article, even just the recent history, I can find several examples of users reverting because there "is no consensus" and being unable to articulate, outside of there being no consensus, why they reverted an edit. Maybe its just me, but it strikes me as absurd that somebody can say "I support the current wording, and because I do there is no consensus to change it, and because there is no consensus the current wording remains."

The fundamental problem with much of this article, and many others in the topic area, is that it takes a certain view and presents it though it were established fact. It does this from the very first sentence of the article, to the infobox, and throughout the article. Ravpapa identified some of the problems, but the article is replete with such examples. Over and over, Jerusalem is presented as strictly Israeli. Little to no attention is given to any other significant view.

Ive never really had much faith in RFCs on complicated issues. But since an RFC is mandated, I think the issue should be presented as simply as possible. But I think it needs to address more than should the article say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in Wikipedia's narrative voice. I think it also needs to address its status as capital of Palestine and how that should be treated in the lead. nableezy - 00:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by PerDaniel

  • I came across the Jerusalem article by chance about a month ago.
  • I do not have any conflict of interest in this matter.
  • As I see it the current dispute is caused by a few editors who refuse to change the first part of the first sentence in the lead to something that is in line with WP:NPOV, and instead claim that the second part of the sentence gives balance. The first part of the sentence represents a small minority POV, perhaps even a fringe POV in a global perspective. The second part of the sentence does not give balance, it just makes the sentence selfcontradicting.
  • Being new to RfC I'm not sure what to expect, but I think that the solution given by User:Nishidani would be ideal. PerDaniel (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

  • Probably in the 2010 RFC about the capital status of Jerusalem in the lead and infobox of the Israel article rather than this article and I've followed it here ever since.
  • No conflict of interest on this issue or the ARBPIA topic in general.
  • I think the dispute is caused by many editors being unable or unwilling to make content decisions based solely on the data in the sources and policy.
  • I think the RFC should only address whether the unattributed statement of fact in voice of the encyclopedia that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" complies with policy. Ideally I think it should be done by a) compiling evidence in form of a large sample of sources to show how RS deal with this issue and b) asking respondents to state how many of the sampled sources support their position. This should help to ensure that people look at the evidence and give them an opportunity to review their statements in light of that evidence rather than answering the wrong question by providing personal opinions about whether Jerusalem actually is the capital of Israel based on their personal criteria for deciding the answer to that question. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ClaudeReigns

  • I admit to relishing provocative topics. I have some years editing religion and counter-cult topics on the main, but having branched out into politics and corporations, I decided to look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I engaged editors I found to be intelligent to learn from them, and after gleaning Pluto2012's list of weighty sources on the Nakba, and seeing their eloquent discussions on issues pertaining to the conflict, found the ArbComm notice on Nishidani's page in reference to this page. Since then, I have made a total of one edit here, and have participated in discussion to the extent that I thought it may be productive.
  • I do not have any conflict of interest in the matter.
  • The current dispute is, in my opinion, merely a reflection of the actual dispute, and I believe that community involvement is the answer.
  • I expect that the community will rule strongly on the disposition of Jerusalem-as-capital, but would even more like to see the lead section reflect the weight of sources demonstrating the view of the world community vis-a-vis Jerusalem's importance within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as its causes and global implications. To not do so is to ask, "Is that an elm?" amidst a forest fire. To avoid this as we have is nonsense. To this end, and based upon the precedent of the RfC, I have offered what I term the Danish Solution: "Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital. Due to the conflict and unclear situation concerning the city's status, foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv." Since the dispute here has lasted many years, and since the solution is to last for more years to come, whatever position Wikipedia takes on the status of Jerusalem-as-capital should be resilient, i.e. not based on positions commonly retracted, withdrawn, or requiring elaboration. More than this, I am in favor of any RfC question formulation which allows the community to easily choose a solution which will allow Wikipedia to speak clearly about the fray from above the fray. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Zero

I started editing this article longer ago than anyone else who is still around. I have no family, religious, cultural, ethnic, geographic, or culinary connection to the Middle East, and I don't belong to any political organizations. Ok, I take back culinary. Already in 2003 the edit war over the "capital issue" was in fill swing. My first proposal "Israel's official capital" in Feb 2004 was accepted by most of the pro-Israeli editors at that time. But of course it didn't stick for more than a few days. After a few years I got sick of it and stopped trying.

In my opinion, the basic reason for the dispute is that people think they are debating who owns Jerusalem. But sovereignty and capital-ness are not the same. Despite what many sources inaccurately say, the nations of the world do not dispute that Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli government; i.e., that it is the capital. What they dispute is that the sovereignty of Jerusalem is settled. The last time there was international agreement over Jerusalem was in 1947 when the UN decided to make it an international enclave. Nobody, except in a limited de-facto sense, recognised the annexation of West Jerusalem by Israel or of East Jerusalem by Jordan. The annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel after 1967 was even less accepted. The official position of almost the entire world is that the final status of Jerusalem is undecided. That's why nations won't site their embassies in Jerusalem; it isn't anything to do with whether it's the capital or not. So the correct statement of fact is "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but most nations do not recognise Israeli sovereignty over that city".

Zerotalk 15:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mor

I came across the article about a ~month ago, while following up on some tidbit mentioned in another article concerning a recent UN resolution. I am currently employed in the region and I have been editing(mostly reading) articles related to it, but I have no conflict of interest in regards to the topic.

I am tempted to say that the dispute is of political nature. Since it is my impression that vast majority of the arguments brought by the new proponents of changing the currently agreed upon version of the lead are focused on how to shove the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the underlying Palestinian statehood ambition to the top of this article as well, rather than introducing the city.

As for the RFC, I think it is obvious that first we are going to have to determine whether the first line of the lead present any POV issue and continue from there. However, it might be a good idea to discuss issues in the article it self, if we can fix those it might reduce/address some concerns/issues that people are having(as well as making the article more accurate and informative). --Mor2 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Frenchmalawi

  • My first involvement on this article is this post today.
  • No particular conflict of interest to declare.
  • Lede currently displays pro-Israeli Occupation bias.
  • Info box with the Israeli city flag currently shows even stronger pro-Israeli Occupation bias. Blatant bias.
  • Lede, info box & article should be neutral.
  • RfC should be asked to determine narrow, manageable questions, namely:
(i) to determine a neutral lede; and
(ii) to reflect the positions of the Governments of the Israeli and Palestinian States in the info-box (a balanced, neutral approach).

Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sepsis

  • I came here after noticing extreme bias on several articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to see how wide spread the bias was, and yes, it is wide spread.
  • I have no ethnic, religious, financial, nor national ties to the players in this conflict. Though I see this question as pointless as those who are paid to edit here or have been trained to edit here for ideological reasons relating to Israel -and there are such editors on wikipedia - are not going to admit so.
  • For the last two points I will just agree with the statements already made by Sean Hoyland and Zero. We need to look at neutral sources and cut out the personal opinion and that this discussion should not only be about Jerusalem as the capital of Israel but must also be about Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and the ownership/sovereignty of the city. I hope that the findings from this discussion will also be used on other articles which make declarations on the status of Jerusalem. Sepsis II (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hertz1888

My earliest edits to this article, 5-6 years ago, were routine updates of numerical information and other relatively minor touch-up. I soon noticed a high incidence of vandalism, resembling a tug-of-war, centered on the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel--obviously a vexing matter for many. The numerous discussions of that statement here over the years have amounted to a veritable torrent of words. An uneasy compromise was worked out in October 2010 as to the wording and structure of the lead, to the obvious frustration of certain participants, as the controversy re-erupted (as best as I can recall) only about 1-1/2 years later. I eventually took part in the ensuing discussions. Apart from the added tags, the lead currently continues to reflect the 2010 outcome.

I pride myself on striving for clear, objective, well-founded statements worthy of a serious, major encyclopedia. I have no conflict of interest, in the sense of editing to promote personal or outside interests. Not that it would seem to matter; one will be accused of bias regardless. I have observed—and experienced first hand—that anyone advocating a wording that happens to favor (or is perceived as favoring) Israel, will be accused of doing so because it favors Israel or represents "the Israeli point of view", and will be vilified by a subset of editors. The reaction sometimes extends to derision and harassment. I have seen that a polite conversation here, no matter how reasonable, often also attracts bullies and provocateurs. One of my hopes is that a moderated process will put a stop to the sniping and let everyone be heard open-mindedly.

It seems to me that the impasse is caused most of all by a) denial that the straightforward, ordinary definition of what makes a capital city a capital should, just possibly, be adhered to; some editors want to substitute their own definitions; b) endless introduction of extraneous issues, constantly moving the goalposts. Both a) and b) include insistence that recognition is a factor in a city's status as capital, despite the long-term inability of anyone to show that recognition by any outside party (the UN, the "international community" or the media) determines such status.

In going forward, I think it would be important not to foreclose the option that the existing wording (minus the tags) may be the best possible wording. It is essential not to offer spurious or tendentious options. Also, I believe the moderated discussion should focus on the core statement and not ramble too far afield. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by BritishWatcher

Having looked back in the archives, I made a single comment about the Jerusalem status dispute in 2008 on the Israel article, it was not until 2010 that I got properly involved in these discussions and I have contributed from time to time since when the issue has flared up. My opinion has remained the same on the overall approach Wikipedia should take with this matter.

I do not believe I have what could be considered a “conflict of interest”, just very strong views, which I believe, happen to be the middle ground. My position throughout from my original comment [8] to when I helped propose a compromise at the peak of my involvement in this dispute [9], has always been that whilst the article should say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, it should make clear that this is not recognised by the international community to ensure balance and comply with NPOV. Prior to 2010 that was done with a note, which some people did not think was clear enough, so the compromise i supported was to include the international view in the introduction like the current wording does, which has remained there for a couple of years now.

I believe this dispute comes about because some people refuse to accept the reality on the ground does matter and that there are technical limitations in going down the path some seem to suggest, along with what seems to be a “step by step” approach to fundamentally change the article one little bit at a time. Whilst I am prepared to support some changes to wording (despite not thinking they are necessary), my primary concern is where certain changes proposed (saying its both capitals, or not saying its Israels capital or use of words like "proclaimed/claimed") will lead to other more radical changes.

I believe we should discuss and agree all aspects of the RFC, including wording and focus, and we should agree several summarised statements for each of the different views, to give people a better understanding of the situation and offer a range of options before people contribute. We must also take into account the consequences of change on the Jerusalem and other articles. If the opening sentence is no longer going to say Jerusalem is Israels capital, or it starts saying that it’s the capital of Israel and Palestine, then what happens to the infobox for example? It currently shows the Israeli flag and emblem for Jerusalem and their city mayor. All of these things and a lot more about the article would have to change if we pretend Jerusalem is not the defacto/dejure capital of Israel. This must be taken into account throughout the process as must the fact the status quo has existed for so long, making some changes even harder. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dlv999

  1. I originally watchlisted the article after working on some related articles that link to this page
  2. I don't have a conflict of interest
  3. Regarding the cause of the dispute, firstly, this is a vexed issue that professional editorial boards and national press complaints organisations have struggled over, so it is no surprise that a collaboration of anonymous, amateur contributors often with strongly held, opposing views would also have difficulties. In my view issues that have prevented a resolution include the abuse of "consensus" that Nableezy alluded to, where editors simply revert constructive attempts at moving the article forward claiming "no consensus" without giving evidence or policy based justifications. For example see this discussion: An editor gave a detailed proposal for a compromise solution aimed at addressing the concerns of all editors. Instead of discussing the merits of the proposal, whether it was supported by policy/evidence ect. a group of editors sidetracked the discussion to hold a vote (without any reference to justifications/policy/evidence) to indicate that they supported the current wording and that finding a consensus would be impossible. (Again here see Nableezy's comment on the absurdity of the position: "I support the current wording, and because I do there is no consensus to change it, and because there is no consensus the current wording remains.") My understanding of consensus is that it is based on the weight of reasoned arguments grounded in policy and evidence. A list of votes in support of the current wording and that finding a consensus is impossible (witout any reference to evidence/policy) is meaningless as far as consensus is concerned. All it does is disrupt editors who are seriously working towards a resolution of the dispute.
  4. I essentially agree with Sean. The RFC should address whether it is consistent with core Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV) to make the unattributed statement of fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Discussion should be focused on source evidence and policy not editor's personal opinions on the issues. Dlv999 (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Continued on subpage

Thank you all for your statements, and for your patience in waiting for me. I've decided to continue this discussion on a subpage, Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion, so as to not get in the way of normal discussions about the article while we are debating the RfC structure. I have asked some questions for the participants there, so I would be grateful if you could all read it and then give me your opinions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jerusalem/Archive_23&oldid=1151018392"