Jump to content

Template talk:List of Asian capitals by region/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Georgia

{{editprotected}} Please change Georgia to Georgia (country) for obvious reasons. --Russ (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The link destination has been updated. CMummert · talk 13:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Altered to reflect Jerusalem's disputed and unrecognized status as Israel's capital. Let's see how long it lasts before "certain people" revert it. Eleland 20:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan: Central Asia, West Asia, or South Asia?

Britannica, probably the most scholarly source you can find, clearly says Central Asia.

Another user has provided a university and a few centres for South Asian studies, one of which just shows a map and doesn't even state that Afghanistan is South Asia. Really this user has only provided two sources, both of which are not as scholarly as Britannica. After I cited that source he reverted it and claims I did not provide a source. Well there it is. Behnam 17:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You were using an extremely old Britannica. Current Britannica http://www.britannica.com/nations/Afghanistan

Quote:

landlocked, multiethnic country located in the heart of south-central Asia. Lying along important trade routes connecting southern and eastern Asia to Europe and the Middle East, Afghanistan has long been a prize sought by empire builders, and for millennia great armies have attempted to subdue it, leaving traces of their efforts in great monuments now fallen to ruin. The country's forbidding landscape of deserts and mountains has laid many imperial ambitions to rest, as has the tireless resistance of its fiercely independent peoples—so independent that the country has failed to coalesce into a nation but has instead long endured as a patchwork of contending ethnic factions and ever-shifting alliances.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-129450/Afghanistan Variations on the word Afghan may be as old as a 3rd-century-AD Sasanian reference to “Abgan.” The earliest Muslim reference to the Afghans probably dates to 982, but tribes related to the modern Afghans have lived in the region for many generations. For millennia the land now called Afghanistan has been the meeting place of four cultural and ecological areas: the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, and East Asia.

the real Britannica is a bit vague about it. And also it is not the most scholarly source on earth. The UPenn link shows Pashto as a South Asian language. All three links are universities.

Thegreyanomaly 22:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"south-central Asia" means south of central Asia. It then says that the region can fit either Middle East, Central asia, or South Asia. The region can fit any of these regions depending on which source you ask. However, Britannica is more authoritive and it is says "south-central Asia" meaning sout of central Asia. Pashto is an Iranian language not a South Asian (Indic language or Dravidian language)! That is UPenn's viewpoint, see those articles. Regardless, Pashto is a minority language only spoken by about 30% of the population (see Languages of Afghanistan. The majority language is Persian (again see languages of Afghanistan which is an Iranian language and is Central Asian or Middle Eastern, certainly not South Asian. In addition there is Turkic languages like Uzbek language for example. These should be enough reasons to consider Afghanistan as Central Asia though yes there is discrepencay over this issue. -- Behnam 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I gave you UPenn, UW Madison, and Berkeley. All of them are among America's finest universities. They are valid sources. Three is greater than one. Wikipedia nor anyone else holds a specific stance that Britannica is more authorative. Thegreyanomaly 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW I added a FOURTH source http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=August&x=20070829160347saikceinawz0.2609064
It is from the US State Department. This article refers to Tajikistan as central and Afghanistan as south. Thegreyanomaly 16:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And a FIFTH http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-470/OF97-470C/asiaGmap.html
It is from the US Dep. of Interior Geological Survey including Afghanistan as South Asia Thegreyanomaly 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The US Dep. of Interior thinks this way because politically during Soviet War in Afghanistan they associated Pakistan with Afghanistan. As for the universities, there is lots of universities and all of them think differently and each university will label as EITHER Central Asia, Middle East, or South Asia. I will provide more sources. However, lets keep in mind that I am actually from Kabul and while you are from India with obviously a Pan-Indian or Pan-South Asian POV! -- Behnam 17:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are probably more sources out there that label the region Central Asia rather than South Asia, you have to consider other factors like culture, language, origin, ethnic groups, religion, etc! Anyways, here's a few more sources.

Since there are sources for both, the decision should be made considering those other factors! Are you aware that Afghanistan's languages, culture, ethnic groups are very different from South Asia? The languages in Afghanistan are either Iranian languages OR Turkic languages NOT Indic languages!

Also here are some sources that classify Afghanistan as Middle East due its culture and languages:

Now we have the option of labelling it as EITHER of these 3 regions as I've been trying to tell you. The determining factor is a combination of geography and culture/language, which would place it in Central Asia. -- Behnam 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

me you

Ok lets see which on of these mention Afghanistan and which ones do not
National Geo, supports you. 1 source
UCLA's page doesn't mention Afghanistan (I ctrl+F'd it)
MidEastI, is kind of whack. It even goes as far to call even Pakistan MiddleEastern. 2nd source
UTex, supports you. 3rd source
UN, supports me. South Asian map has Kabul. 6th source
LoC supports you. 4th source

I have a fair deal, look at what i do the template Thegreyanomaly 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

UCLA source does count, its there somewhere on their website or you can always call that department at their phone number and ask. The Center for MiddleEastern studies is not "wack", they included Pakistan because the western part of Pakistan is not part of the Indian subcontinent. What you did is fine for now but it does not look good. It makes most sense to go into Central Asia. For instance, Dushanbe and Kabul are very similar cities, both have the same culture and the same language and 45% of Kabul are ethnic Tajiks, not the mention the Turko-Mongol Uzbeks and Hazaras. So how the heck is Kabul south Asian and not central Asian? It makes no sense. -- Behnam 23:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Also I forgot to mention, this template is about the city of Kabul, not Afghanistan as a whole. Considering that, you cannot place Kabul under South Asia, just read the Kabul article. Thanks. -- Behnam 05:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

sigh...not again.... Afghanistan is a Central Asian country. Scythian1 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Very much in agreement, here. Afghanistan very much falls under a Central Asian category. Atari400 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lhasa

We should be listing only recognized capitals of recognized countries. (Taiwan has limited official recognition, but the ROC is of course a special case.) Furthermore, the cited sources do not even contain the word Lhasa; the closest you get is an MS-Paint style doodle map including China with a Tibet-shaped dotted line and no legend. What the heck is that supposed to prove? I don't understand why normally reasonable people get so excited over ethnic separatism, but that's another issue. Eleland 16:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan as Central Asian

The greyanomaly's erroneous insistance that Afghanistan is south asian is based on his misplaced reliance that Gandhara's ties to Buddhism and India entirely shifts Afghanistan toward South Asia. Although there is a historical link between south-eastern portions of Afghanistan (where Gandhara historically was) to South Asia and India, this does not support deeming Afghanistan as a South Asian country. If we accept TheGreyanomaly's logic, we would be forced to view America as a Central American Nation since New Mexico and Nevada has historical link to Mexico, a Central American State. This we cannot do. Accordingly, the accepted view amongst several users is that Afghanistan is a Central Asian nation.Scythian1 03:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: The proper geographic regional location of Afghanistan in Asia

  • Honestly, I don't personally care where it is - it should be obvious to every intelligent reader that classifications like this are arbitrary constructs and simplifications; there are no objectively defined, real-world entities called South Asia or Central Asia, so there isn't any objective "truth" at stake in classifying Afghanistan as either the one or the other. Put it wherever you like - but what I don't like is the current solution of putting it in an extra "disputed area" category. That sounds as if there was a notable, serious political dispute out in the real world. Is there? So far, I can only see a dispute between wikipedia editors. Don't take yourselves too seriously, guys. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ethnically the people of Afghanistan are linked with the peoples of Central Asia, the peoples of Southwest Asia and the peoples of Pakistan and some of the peoples of northern India. Of the three ethnically, it appears that South Asia is the weakest ethnically (but not by all that much). Historically, the area has interacted with Southwest Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. How is Tibet and treated? Is it in Central Asia or South Asia? Google shows a slight preference (<10%) for websites to classify Afghanistan as Central Asia. The economy is closer to those of its Central Asian neighbors, but its trade is more with Pakistan. Geographically, the land is mostly mountains and high plains which would place it more with Central Asia. Geologically the majority of what is now Afghanistan in located on the Asian plate, and not on the Indian plate. It is not an obvious choice, but all-in-all I see no reason why it shouldn't be placed in Central Asia, and I see a slight set of reasons why that is preferable to placing it in South Asia. --Bejnar 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, since Afghanistan is famous for being at the cross-roads of the Himalayas, the Indian sub-continent, the Middle-East and Central Asia, one could say it belongs to all of them...:) that said, if one has to choose, I think Central Asia is to prefer. This is clear from a geopolitical point of view, what with the Great Game and all. Culturally, it also clearly has more ties with Central Asia: its people relates either to central Asian people (Tadjiks, Uzbeks) or Persian (Pashtun, Hazara). I think that placing it in South Asia is a remnant from the Cold War, when the rest of central Asia was in the "Eastern Bloc", and Afghanistan was sorted there for lack of a better category. I also agree with Future Perfect that it should not be marked as somehow disputed; the controversy is solely on wikipedia, while in the real world a thing can belong to several categories simultaneously--victor falk 13:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As we all know, the problem is that the borders don't always reflect the ethnic and social factors on the ground. Afghanistan is a middle ground between Central and South Asia. However, this is not just a "Wikipedia issue", it comes up quite a bit when classifying countries into regions (remember how up to 2002 the State Department still called Tajikistan "Europe" because it had yet to update from the Soviet days?). Afghanistan is and always will be tricky. Just from what I know, I would lean a bit more towards South Asia, mainly because when I think of Central Asia I think of Turkic peoples. While there are some in the north of Afghanistan, the majority, I believe, are not Turkic. More importantly though (to me), I don't like having the explanation in the middle of the template. We really should add footnotes as to which capitals are official, which are administrative, and that Afghanistan is debated. It would make the template look much nicer. Otebig (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we reach some kind of consensus? Not about which category is valid, but about which is the most useful? I happen to politely disagree with Otebig about the closeness of the Pashtuns and Tajiks of Afghanistan to the ethnicities of India, the majority in South Asia; however I too would like a conclusion. --Bejnar (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC Comment - avoiding personal WP:OR would be best, how is the country categorized by high profile encyclopedias? JaakobouChalk Talk 14:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Asian Capitals

Afghanistan may be considered geographically "South Asia" by many sources, which is perfectly acceptable. What does not make sense, is to double list the capital of Afghanistan, being Kabul, twice within a single template. It is either/or, and should only include a notation of sorts acknowledging the difference of common opinion. Atari400 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It does not go against academic views on the subject. I have cited many sources claiming that Afghanistan is South Asia. People have attempted to refute me and have given me a few sources claiming it as Central Asia and a few sources claiming it as the Middle East. Many scholars do say that Afghanistan is South Asian. Claims that it is disputed are true, but claims that it is an unacademic view point are entirely false[1][2][3][4][5] Thegreyanomaly 02:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are 10 sources that reference Afghanistan as being in either Central Asia, the Near East or the Middle East:
1 - [6]
2 - [7]
3 - [8]
4 - [9]
5 - [10]
6 - [11]
7 - [12]
8 - [13]
9 - [14]
10 - [15]
Serious scholarly works tend to view Afghanistan in the cultural and social arena of the Near East and Central Asia, and very rarely in the context of South Asia. To do so generally lands in the realm of political political irredentism. Atari400 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, I noticed that you have been requesting input on the subject. You apparently have focused on the people who are reverting my edits and have been unable to make definitive claims that Afghanistan is Central Asian. I hope you come to realize that there is a strong scholarly view that Afghanistan is South Asian and that it is not just "sometimes referred to as geographically South Asian in passing by various English language news services" Thegreyanomaly 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Naturally as a Wikipedia editor, I am seeking a consensus in the matter. As such, it appears that both facts and consensus numbers are leaning towards my side of the arguement. As someone with a connection to the region, I think I have a idea of what I am, and what we are. Tolerating viewpoints that may detour from reality is not in the interest of the Wikipedia project. Tolerating viewpoints that may reflect extremist nationalist ideals as the normal definition of reality are certainly not in the interest of myself or the project, either. Atari400 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is just to show you that many academic sources do not consider Afghanistan to be part of Central Asian
[16] Oklahoma State, only claims Afghanistan has links to Central Asia
[17] does not claim Afghanistan to be Central Asian
[18] only covers adjacent parts of Afghanistan
Thegreyanomaly 02:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
None of these references define Afghanistan as South Asian, either. Atari400 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok my commentary on your sites. 3 & 4 are the same source. You've got 10 sources, most of them either claims Afghanistan to be Middle Eastern, and the rest of them do not distinguish between ME or CA. You're claims that Afghanistan is Central Asian are not supported by your sources, at most you could use your sources and Beh-nam's sources to put Afghanistan down as Middle Eastern, but by no means Central Asian. I've got more sources for South Asia than you have for Central Asia. All you have done is proven the obvious, that Afghanistan is commonly viewed to be Middle Eastern Thegreyanomaly 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

TheGreyAnomaly's unavailing contention posits that because he lists more sources, his position that Afghanistan is South-Asian is more established. This notion is meritless since anyone highly experienced in conducting complex and sophisticated internet searches would always have the more "established" argument. Indeed, in any discussion section, a logical, concise and cogent dialogue is more valued or in the alternative a substantial majority known as a "consensus." Here, TheGreyAnomaly's erroneous argument forces all of us to accept Afghanistan as South Asia merely for some short-lived historic link with India that barely reached to a small portion of South Eastern Afghanistan, traditionally know as Gandhara. It defies logic to catagorize an entire nation based on a trivial link from one of its provinces. To view otherwise, would be to wrongfully view America as a Central American nation since Nevada and New Mexico had ties and/or were parts of Mexico. Scythian1 03:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

False, it was far more than just Gandhara. You have extremely underestimated the historic links. You are forgetting the Parthians and Kushans of the Hindu Kush, the Indo-Greeks of Bactria, and others who were Indosphere but not based in Gandhara. The Kush, Bactria, and Gandhara together make up the bulk of the nation. I have posted this on Scythian's user page. You two seem to be acting like no one of scholarly value views Afghanistan as South Asian (clearly false) and that the major concensus would support you, which you have not proven Thegreyanomaly 07:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Grey, rather than to address what I noted with regard to the Indo-Greeks, your latest response merely proffers a reassertion of your prior conclusory statements. If you want to effectively rebut a position, you need to provide a plausible and persuasive premise, something that you have repeatedly failed to do. Scythian1 04:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Indo-Greeks were atleast half Afghan. The ancient Greeks did not bring women with them when they expanded and colonized "new" regions. The Indo-Greeks intermixed with Afghan females. And besides the matters of genetics, the Indo-Greeks created a historical link between Afghanistan the rest of South Asia. The Indo-Greeks were based in Bactria, towards the north. The Kushans and the Indo-Parthians also linked Afghanistan to the rest of South Asia and were not in Gandhara either. The links extend beyond Gandhara. The genetic makeup of the people were not what matters. Also, you seem to be trying to attacks the scholars of the UC Berkeley Center for South Asia Studies, UW-Madison Center for South Asia Outreach, UPenn Department of South Asia Studies, USGS and other organizations through me. It is these scholarly authorities that claim Afghanistan to be South Asian. Do not attack me, attack them if you're angry at there placement of Afghanistan in South Asia. They are some of the scholarly authorities, you on the other hand are just an individual who has relation to the region and are angry. You and your anger cannot change that fact that the view of South Asian Afghanistan is completely valid. You are trying to claim that the view of a Central Asian Afghanistan (which is completely valid) is in some way better than the view of a South Asian Afghanistan. This is something that you have been asserting, but have not proven. Atari presented the overwhelming evidence that scholars view Afghanistan as MEern, so I moved them into that category. Interestingly enough, Iran (which you and Beh-nam have stated that Afghanistan is closely related to) is included in the Middle East, yet you insist that Afghanistan most belongs in Central Asia. Thegreyanomaly 05:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes one of the sources (Univ. of Wash.) I listed above that does not claim Afghanistan to be Central Asian in it Central Asia Studies dept., considers Afghanistan South Asian. Also Syracruse Univ. supports my claim. Thegreyanomaly 05:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether placing Afghanistan in either Central Asia or South Asia is valid. They are both valid placements. The question is what criteria are appropriate for categorizing Afghanistan in the Asian capitals template. Why are some criteria better than others? This is not about proof, this is about the utility to the user. Since most users if they do not find Afghanistan listed in one section will look at another, the question is where will most users look first. Who are the intended users of this template? Do analysis not name-calling. --Bejnar 16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
UN resolution 194 UN resolution 303. Are there others? I think it's time to find sources, pro and anti, about the question.--victor falk 09:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Capital of Israel

Tewfik asserts ([19], [20]) that the formulation of Jerusalem as Israel's "official" and "administrative" capital and Tel Aviv as its "diplomatic" capital is original research, and that featured articles Jerusalem and Tel Aviv show this with excellent references. Both statements are false.

Tel Aviv states that "the town served as Israel's provisional capital throughout the 1948 Arab-Israeli War due to the Arab blockade of Jerusalem, which was proclaimed capital in December 1949. Due to the international dispute over the status of Jerusalem, most embassies stayed in the Tel Aviv area. Thirteen more returned there in the early eighties as part of the UN's punitive measures responding to Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law.[15] [16] Today all but two of the international embassies to Israel are in Tel Aviv or the surrounding district." That is the only discussion of the capital issue (except for one throwaway, unsourced reference to it being "some 60 kilometers (37 mi) northwest of Jerusalem, Israel's capital city").

Jerusalem states that "Jerusalem ... is the capital and largest city of Israel". Interestingly, "largest city" has a blizzard of citations but "capital" has none, at least in the lede. There used to be an endnote there, which stated in full, "Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law. The presidential residence, government offices, supreme court and parliament (Knesset) are located there. The Palestinian Authority foresees East Jerusalem as the capital of its future state. The United Nations and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, arguing that the final status of Jerusalem is pending future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv (see CIA Factbook and Map of Israel) See Positions on Jerusalem for more information." The endnote is still at the bottom of the article, but the marker [iii] does not appear in the lede as it used to (including specifically in the Jerusalem FA promotion, where it was found to be a proper qualifier).

The lede adds, (with proper referencing this time) that "The status of a 'united Jerusalem' as Israel's 'eternal capital'[12][13] has not been officially recognized by most of the international community, and nearly all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.[14]" "In 1949, Israel designated West Jerusalem as its capital...in 1980 [it] declared Jerusalem, "complete and united", to be the capital of Israel.[59]" Other statements, such as those in "Capital of Israel" which links to Positions on Jerusalem for further information, are in the same vein. They all say that Israel proclaims its capital to be Jerusalem, not that Israel's capital is Jerusalem. Thus, the single unreferenced direct statement appears to be some kind of editing mistake or just POV pushing, and it was meant to be read with the endnote.

I will continue to revert any blanket description of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, with no reference to the controversy, to the greatest extent I am able, until Tewfik provides something more than a hand-waving feint of an argument. <eleland/talkedits> 22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

None of what you say has any bearing on the theory that Tel Aviv is a "diplomatic capital", whatever that means. The Featured Article Jerusalem clearly deals with this issue at several points on both its talk and FA review, and the GA Tel Aviv does as well, and none of them support the original formulation that you've inserted. Telling me that you've read those pages, where the idea that Tel Aviv is a "capital" is clearly rejected, and then alleging bad-faith on my part is absolutely inappropriate, as of course is the extremely incivil nature of your comments. Wikipedia is not a battleground, TewfikTalk 00:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice bait-and-switch there, Tewfik. You're removing all mention of Jerusalem's disputed status on the basis that "Tel Aviv (diplomatic)" is a clumsy wording? No, of course not. Why don't you stop wasting our time with hand-waving, and tell us what you really think? <eleland/talkedits> 01:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition, first you were saying that the articles themselves proved your case, now you're directing me to the talk pages and FA discussions (without saying specifically where) to prove your case. How about you prove your own case instead of making vague and unsupported assertions, then switching to new ones when they're disproved? <eleland/talkedits> 01:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, not this again. Tewfik is absolutely correct. There is no dispute that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. The dispute is about whether it should be Israel's capital, and whether Israel has the right to declare Jerusalem as its capital, and that is covered in more than one article. However, it is the capital. Any statement that Tel Aviv is a "diplomatic" capital is original research. There is no reliable source that says that other nations (or the UN) get to decide what a country's capital is. This dispute results from confusion between what some people want to be true, and what is actually true. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Jerusalem answers every definition of capital. Having embassies has nothing to do with it. It's the seat of government, parliament, supreme court, presidents quarters; Israel has designated it as capital; Israel controls it. Whatever other city foreign governments choose for their embassies is irrelevant. okedem (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, look at that, a bunch of Tewfik's buddies showed up right after he canvassed at Talk:Jerusalem. What a surprise.
Jerusalem includes East Jerusalem. Israel's control of East Jerusalem is considered illegitimate by virtually every government in the world, including the USA's, and by the United Nations. By listing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, without some kind of notice of the dispute, Wikipedia is taking the side of an extreme minority of sources. It has nothing to do with wishful thinking as 6SJ7 asserts, and everything to do with remaining fair and neutral in an active controversy. <eleland/talkedits> 20:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should mention the USA, considering the US Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act back in 1995, which maintains that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel." Newtman (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
How about noting Jerusalem as de facto capital and Tel Aviv as internationally recognised capital, in line with this: Capital City: Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognised by the international community from [21]? --Peter cohen (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) There are no sources that Israel has a defacto capital. This issue has been discussed literally dozens of times on the FAs Jerusalem and Israel, as well as on the GA Tel Aviv. "Tewfik's buddies" in this case would be the editors who monitor Talk:Jerusalem, and who can affirm the consensus there. If editors want to challenge the consensus on Jerusalem as the capital, that is the place to do it. TewfikTalk 23:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
No sources? Have you even tried Googling for de facto+Jerusalem+capital? "For while the United States and every other Western country de facto treat West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, no government formally accepts Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem in its pre- or post-1967 borders." from [22] --Peter cohen (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking at various country profiles accessible from [23] I see that the BBC list Israel as having a seat of government, the Palestinian territories as having an intended seat of government, and all the other countries I've tried (Hungary, Taiwan, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, India and Micronesia) as having capitals.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Which proves only that the BBC is as susceptible to political pressure as some people would like Wikipedia to be. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
And you don't think that the whole allegations of apartheid business and what you and Tewfik are doing here is political pressure?--Peter cohen (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Classic, 6SJ7. We all know that if the BBC had listed Jerusalem as Israel's capital, you'd be all over it, crowing that the ultimate reliable source proves your point. But since it contradicts you, it stops being reliable. <eleland/talkedits> 17:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
He didn't say the BBC was unreliable. The BBC called Jerusalem Israel's "seat of government", which is certainly true. They say, as Peter pointed out, nothing about Israel's "capital"; they're simply side-stepping the controversy by using a term – seat of government – which is 100% irrefutable. That sidestepping, unfortunately, does not help us here. -- tariqabjotu 17:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent, from somewhere) I don't believe the Jerusalem footnote is necessary here. It certainly belongs in the Jerusalem article, and possibly in the Israel article, but this explanatory note is too much for a quick and dirty template like this one. -- tariqabjotu 05:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I think it is a good compromise.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Just to clear things up - "capital" is word. As such, it can be found in a dictionary. Should one look it up, in any common dictionary, one would find that Jerusalem answers all definitions there. International opinion is not one of the requirements/definitions.
  2. "Diplomatic capital" is an interesting invention, but doesn't exist. Mind you, when ambassadors, foreign leaders, etc, want to speak with the PM, the Knesset, or any other official body, they usually have to go to Jerusalem. They somehow make it. (by the way, some embassies are located in Ramat-Gan, Mevaseret Zion, Herzliya - so why talk about Tel-Aviv?)
  3. No country can "recognize" Tel-Aviv as Israel's capital, as recognition is a two-way process - one side says something ("my capital is X"), and other chooses to recognize this, or not. A foreign body cannot unilaterally say "I recognize Tel-Aviv as capital", since Israel doesn't claim it's the capital. okedem (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

i agree with Okedam.

this is from capital (on wikipedia):

"In politics, a capital (also called capital city or political capital — although the latter phrase has a second meaning based on an alternative sense of "capital") is the center of government. It is almost always the city which physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government and fixed by law. The Hague and Amsterdam in the Netherlands are an exception to this rule; the former is the seat of government while the latter is the official capital."

it's as simple as that, Jerusalem *is* Israel's center of government and *is* physically encompassing the offices and meeting place of the seat of government and *is* the city fixed by Israeli law as Israel's capital.

how can you despute the fact that Jerusalem is the capital if it fits the definition of capital perfectly? Resurrection of Lazarus (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there lies the rub; it does not perfectly fit the definition. That's the opinion of all the governments that haven't moved their embassies, among others. Many others. Refer to the cold war: West Germany claimed Berlin as its capital, but it did not move the government there, because it knew very well it wouldn't be accepted by the international community and the public opinion in general, unlike Israel that has done so to establish a "fact on the ground" wiktionary def . Myself, I agree with user:peter cohen that the "de facto" and "recognised" most simply and most succintly describes the situation.--victor falk (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Israel didn't "move" its government buildings to Jerusalem to establish a fact on the ground. Those buildings have resided there since the 1950s, well before there was a controversy over whether Jerusalem is should be the capital of Israel. -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
So, Tel Aviv was the capital between 1948 and whatever year in the fifties then? So it must have moved somehow, oder?--victor falk (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That is not well before controversy over Jerusalem. The UN position on the city was that it should be a corpus separatum and this was supported by various resolutions. Neither Israel's nor Jordan's occupation of the different parts of the city were officially recognised as legitimate. Therefore it was even then not regarded as an acceptable capital for Israel.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? Quoting the 1947 UN Plan for Israel is a bit ridiculous, considering the critical parties (surrounding Arab countries) did not recognize it, and it in no way reflects the reality of the past 60 years. How about we deal in reality and not in "what might have beens"? Whatever you might like to hope for, a country gets to define it's own capital, and not the UN, which has a long history of ill-conceived and one-sided resolutions against Israel. Newtman (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You're avoiding the point. According to the dictionary meaning of "capital", as can be found in any dictionary, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Do you dispute this point?
To quote myself from a totally unrelated discussion: "my 1964 Oxford Concise beats the crap out of your Merriam Webster any day of the week"--victor falk (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether you think it's "ridiculous", or whether you think the UN is "one-sided against Israel", really doesn't address the issue. Mr. Cohen is correct, the controversy over Israel's designation of Jerusalem as its capital stems from the partition plan and the 1948 war. That's a factual statement about the policy positions of world governments and the UN, and can't be dismissed by questioning their logic or motivations. <eleland/talkedits> 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to dismiss the controversy, but there's a big difference between acknowledging controversy, and going onto a template of all things, and trying to change "reality". If you look on the edit history of the Israel page, I helped clear up the fact that there is a controversy. There is certainly a place for this discussion, but it hardly seems like a template change will do it justice. Newtman (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
And as I said before, no one can "recognize" Tel-Aviv as capital, since recognition is two-way - first Israel has to claim Tel-Aviv is its capital, then other people can choose to "recognize" it or not. Foreign bodies can't decide what a country's capital is on their own. okedem (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're actually shooting yourself in the foot. If recognition has to be both ways, neither Tel Aviv nor Jerusalem can be considered Israel's capital*.--victor falk (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
*(single, undisputed, accepted, yadda yadda blah yadda)--victor falk (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not. As I've said so many times before - recognition isn't part of the deal. Recognition matters with international relations, sure, but it cannot determine what is or isn't a capital. It has nothing to do with it. okedem (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, if West Germany had moved its capital to West Berlin, nobody could have determined that it wouldn't be the de facto capital, short of the Warsaw Pact starting World War III. [Recognition, or whatever the deal is] does matter, because the untriviality of the matter. If it's OK to note that Afghanistan is sometimes considered to be Central Asian, then it's strongly a fortiori advisable to do so for Israel's capital. As for what is and isn't a capital, see below.--victor falk (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC
West Berlin is not relevant here. If West Germany did not move its government there, then it was not the capital. Israel's government is in Jerusalem, and combined with the fact that Israel says it is the capital, that makes it the capital. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent from somewhere) There's a lot of "Jerusalem is the capital", "Jerusalem is the capital", "Jerusalem is the capital" here. "Is". What a treacherous little word. Enforcing E-prime throughout wikipedia would not be a good idea, but I myself always try to write in its spirit--victor falk (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless and until you can cite adequate reliable sources stating that under international law (that would be a treaty to which the country in question, in this case, Israel, is a party), other countries get to decide what a country's capital is, there really isn't anything to discuss. Jerusalem fulfills every attribute needed to be a capital city. Tel Aviv does not. Does that mean Israel has no capital at all? No, it means that Israel's choice of capital is controversial, and we have articles that say so. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I could demand that unless and until you can cite reliable sources that the general public consensus is that "Jerusalem fulfills every attribute needed to be a capital city", it should be acknoledged that it isn't so, but I won't sink to your level. Frankly, I find it tiresome to stumble on the IP conflict wikiwar that metastases all over wikipedia, creating general disruption that has to be adressed through endless AfDs, DRVs, RfCs, and ArbCom interventions (the latest one)--victor falk (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
We have the definition of the word capital, so we just need to prove that Jerusalem fits that definition. This has been done several times over, but if you want someone to do it again, I'd be glad to do that. -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the page has been protected for a month -- on the wrong version, of course. Congratulations to the proponents of pure fiction on Wikipedia, you have once again managed to manipulate this project to reflect your fantasies. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A month seems long. (Although see m:The Wrong Version.) Of course, we can use the time to productively work out our dispute, right? <eleland/talkedits> 01:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Tel Aviv is the "recognized" capital? I'd love to see a source on this; having an embassy in Tel Aviv is not equivalent to recognizing Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. -- tariqabjotu 04:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Where I make a comment that feel that I shouldn't have to make on a wikipedia talk page

That is, where I feel obliged to state some opinions about the general IP mess. First, how I came across it: this summer, when "allegations of French apartheid" (now merged into Social situation in the French suburbs) was AfDed a few days after its creation on Bastille Day... As I have some knowledge about France, I naïvely thought I could contribute to the discussion; well, it didn't take long to discover that this article wasn't really about France.

I participated a lot in the centralised discussion, but I got fed up with it before the ArbCom for "allegations of X apartheid" started. Things quieten down while it was in process (maybe there should be a permanent IP arbcom? If the quitening effect is also permanent, I'm very much for it), but over the last few days it seems an "upsurge in hostilities" has occured.

I know nothing about what happens at the proper IP articles, so I don't know if something happened over there that triggered this; but, at AfD, user:T. Anthony, that seem seemed unaware of the situation, created an article called "allegations of apartheid against Roma in Czech and Slovakia"[24]. It has now, of course, degenerated into yet another battlefield. Maybe some interpreted this as "the cease-fire is over".

I'm very disappointed in having to use so many militaristic metaphores in describing the situation, as a member of wp:milhist. I have among other things an interest in fourth generation warfare (about which some Israelis may be familiar through the works of Martin van Creveld), but I wish to write about military stuff on wikipedia (like the Thirty Years War, the war of spanish succession, the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war, and comtemporary conflicts like the Afghan Civil War), not practise what I know about information warfare, not the least because it might incite some to stuff beans up their nose. Skills I do try to practise on wikipedia is conflict resolution. --victor falk 03:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I gotta say, requesting protection on an article that hasn't been touched in a day, just so that you can get the last word through your edit immediately prior to said request, is a very bad way to show people that you're interested in conflict resolution. Newtman (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
See my comments on ANI. [25] [26] --victor falk 03:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I did, and they don't seem to have any bearing on my point. Newtman (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That it hadn't been reverted for 22 hrs, I presume? I feel it's secondary as to why I requested protection. To adress that, if one checks the history, one'll see the revert war has been ongoing for months, so a 22 hrs truce is hardly impressive.--victor falk 04:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, that's quite an exaggeration. Looking at the logs, except for an edit on Sept 7th, 2007 (which was undisputed), the "Israel revert war" did not begin till Nov 4th, when an *anonymous* editor decided to make a major controversial revert without so much as an edit summary. Newtman (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
ok, weeks instead of months. Same same but different--victor falk 04:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I modified Jerusalem in August, and Tewfik reverted me ~1 month later, and then I reverted him ~1 month later, and he reverted me ~1 month later. Then it sped up, but it's >4 months old. <eleland/talkedits> 04:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

On the subject matter

It seems a bit silly to ask that *after* making the change and subsequently pleading for article protection. Generally one tries to seek answers to such questions *before* making changes and invoking administrative actions. Newtman (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I did try seeking for answers before requesting page protection. Sometimes you have to risk silliness by stepping out of the line. I hope I won't be proved silly by this discussion reaching a consensus soon. --victor falk 07:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's okay to have more than one capital for a country in the template if the said country has more than one capital. If you're alluding to Israel, that's not the case, so no. -- tariqabjotu 04:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of Afghanistan. I'm trying to exclude exogenous factors that could have an impact on Israel's capital(s, in the context of this template). Someone said something upthread to the effect that only one capital per country is permissible in this template, and nothing else but that. En passant, I'm shocked, I say shocked, that template:European capitals does not exist. Someone {{sofixit}} wiki wiki. Next question: if a country has several "capitals", official, informal, administrative, seat of parliament, of high court, whatever, is it okay to point that out in the template?--victor falk 07:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions. Greetings. I looked over this page (but not all possible links and related articles, sorry!), I'd like to ask a few questions to try to sort out the dispute. I apologize if certain questions are distracting or miss the mark. (1) Sources. It sounds like folks are mostly debating about the views of various countries, incl Israel, regarding Israel's capital(s). But shouldn't the debate hinge primarily on the most reliable sources? I do see some discussion of BBC, but what about other sources? Does anybody dispute that a properly sourced designation could justify inclusion in the list? Or are we specifically dealing with a difference between the "mainstream" and the "significant minority" view of Israel's capital? (2) Criteria. Part of the discussion concerns the criteria for resolving the capital question. So, for Eleland and others who object to characterizing Jerusalem as the capital, I'm curious about your view of the principle of self-determination. To what extent do you think that this principle, whether in its Wikipedian-policy usage or its general use for reasoning, could apply to Israel's designation of its capital(s)? (3) Jerusalem. Is it true nobody would exclude Jerusalem from the template, you're just arguing about whether/how to parenthetically qualify it's inclusion? If so, I'm again curious about how reliable sources qualify, if at all, their naming of Jerusalem as a capital. Off the top of my head, I don't grok how de facto can make sense -- because isn't it a de jure capital under Israeli law? What other ways, if any, to qualify Jerusalem are common in good quality sources? (4) Tel Aviv -- it's inclusion seems to be the real bone of contention. Leaving aside the self-determination criterion, and regardless of what happens with Jerusalem, are there any other criteria to exclude Tel Aviv from the list? I didn't notice any above. (5) At the risk of annoying everybody, what happens if you can't agree on a way to concisely qualify Tel Aviv's inclusion (and/or Jerusalem's)? Though it obviously wouldn't be anybody's first choice, who could accept a template that lists both cities without any parenthetical qualifiers? Again, sorry if I'm missing the point, feel free to only respond to whatever q's are helpful. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, before we just go and acknowledge Tel Aviv as the "recognized" capital of Israel, I'd like to see some strong sources of major nations/international bodies that actually consider Tel Aviv to be "the" capital. Even the UN does not list Tel Aviv as the capital, they state the capital as following: Jerusalem (Not recognized by the U.N.) ( http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/infonation/index.asp?id=376 ). I think reaching consensus on the validity of including Tel Aviv will simplify the rest of the argument, at least somewhat. Newtman (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is consistent with my 4th question. I just wanted to ask if only WP:RS and other ordinary criteria apply. Thanks. HG | Talk 05:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I would say only include Tel Aviv if a decent selection of WP:RS can actually be found showing other nations officially recognize it as the capital. Otherwise, it's just further crowding the template, and should be left to a more appropriate page such as Israel, Tel Aviv, etc. BTW, thank you for having the cohones to get involved in this discussion, it's always good to get some fresh thinking involved. Newtman (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with Newtman here. I understand the concept of m:The Wrong Version, but this version is not "wrong" in the sense that one party doesn't like it; it's wrong in the sense that there has been no source to support the idea that Tel Aviv is the "recognized" capital of Israel. People are assuming that a country not recognizing (or at least disputing) the status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a recognition of Tel Aviv as the capital. -- tariqabjotu 05:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (1): I think finding other sources corroborating the beeb should be trivial. I feel people more knowledgeable than me about Israel should help out with that. Re. wp:undue. I think that if one was to categorise capitals into "primary", "secondary", "tertiary", etc, we'd all agree that Jerusalem is primary, ie that the "significant minority" contesting that would be marginal and neglectable --victor falk 06:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think there are (it seems in the minority) editors here who would disagree that Jerusalem is primary, I think that's been one of the active issues. Newtman (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (2): Having "Jerusalem (self-styled)" would not be a NPOV description:) Is there such a self-style from the Israeli government? I think that nobody here objects to Jerusalem being qualified either "the" or "a" capital, do they? In my opinion, "official" might be better than "de facto". A "less is more" solution might be having just "Jerusalem, Tel Aviv" and let people discover for themselves what their status is by clicking the links --victor falk 06:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it does say that Tel Aviv was the first capital, that moving to Jerusalem wasn't accepted internationally, etc, doesn't it? The problem might be that it doesn't do so in the lede.--victor falk 07:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (3): Are there people claiming that Tel Aviv is the sole and uncontested capital of Israel? sources for that?--victor falk 06:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (4): see my reply above--victor falk 06:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot to answer here, but it's way too late and I'm going to bed. This note is just to say that I'd be fine with the formulation, "Jerusalem (de facto), Israel" and no mention of Tel Aviv. "De facto" is obviously factual, and doesn't actually dispute Jerusalem's status as capital, it just alerts the reader that there's some type of controversy or exception there. The wl to Positions on Jerusalem explains it without cluttering up the template. Tel Aviv is not the capital and nobody says it is - that's an understandable objection, which I would have accepted months ago had anyone actually made it instead of just reverting with vague and non-specific explanation and pointers to megabytes worth of talkpage verbiage which I was supposed to trawl through to extract an argument. Anyway, consider that proposal. <eleland/talkedits> 08:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm ok with the concept of what you've suggested, but I'm not a big fan of the term de facto, as it seems to suggest something not official. Jerusalem is "officially" the capital of Israel in some circles, but quite possibly not in others (we still need those sources). Some other term suggesting extra detail/controversy behind Jerusalem would be preferred in my mind. At the moment I'm blanking on such a term. Have a good night all. Newtman (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not just de-facto, it's also de-jure, since it's the capital according to Israeli law, and that's the one that relevant. Sorry, Jerusalem answers every definition of capital, and international opinion is simply irrelevant to that point. Whatever other countries think - that it shouldn't be capital, that Israel is wrong in doing this, whatever - it still doesn't change the fact of Jerusalem being the capital. okedem (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
International law is also relevant, as only a country that wasn't a member of any organisation and wouldn't have signed any treaty would have unlimited sovereignty--victor falk 09:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
UN resolution 194 UN resolution 303. Are there others? I think it's time to find sources, pro and anti, about the question.--victor falk 09:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you keep dancing around the issue. Capital is a dictionary word. Jerusalem fits the definition. Thus - it is capital. okedem (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
He addressed your claim about de jure at the start of the post to which he is commenting. You can't expect everyone to follow your restrictions on a debate.--Peter cohen (talk)

Suggestion

  • Suggestion It's quite clear that Tel Aviv is not recognised as a capital city - countries only have their embassies there because it is the biggest city and the Jerusalem issue is not solved. Why not just have Jerusalem (disputed), Israel in the template? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think "Jerusalem (disputed)" might work. I'd like to point out that with all this talk about Tel Aviv, we haven't said nothing about West and East Jerusalem--victor falk 10:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This formulation with the wikilink to the article on the disputed status of the city looks fine.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the disputed link is a good idea. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
'(disputed)' is far better than de facto -- because the dispute itself is about whether it is the de facto or the de jure capital. Ideally, though, I would want to see an analysis of reliable sources and whether they find it necessary to use 'disputed' or the like. HG | Talk 16:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
"Disputed" is fine, and is functionally the same as "de facto" above, which was not meant to take any position on the de jure status of Jerusalem, as I tried to make clear. Your point about source analysis is a good one, but it seems kind of redundant, since so far as I can see nobody disputes that all the sources call Jerusalem disputed or the like. They just favour the official Israeli view that they can declare their capital wherever they like. For starters try "BBC sorry for calling Jerusalem capital of Israel", the CIA factbook which lists capital as Jerusalem with "note: Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like nearly all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv". Here's a Reuters "Factbox" which notes, "Israel at present regards all of Jerusalem as its capital but this is not recognised internationally." This 1962 State department memo clarifies the issue for anyone who still thinks it dates from 1967. And finally, the ultimate reliable source, weighs in on the issue. Cheers. <eleland/talkedits> 19:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
A problem in the paletisraelian wikiwar is that both sides contest every single word, so every article with controversial stuff tend to look like this. You don't need no sources in a template. They are available in Positions on Jerusalem, which is linked from the template. That's the proper place for that information.--victor falk 20:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think "Jerusalem (disputed), Israel" works okay. -- tariqabjotu 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
For lack of a better word, I think disputed works. Newtman (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There is still disagreement, probably from Tewfik and also from 6SJ7 who said above: "There is no dispute that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. The dispute is about whether it should be Israel's capital...." Personally, I don't quite understand 6SJ7's reasoning. Perhaps this concern can be resolved via sources? As 6SJ7 may know, the BBC apologized earlier this year for stating that Jerusalem is the capital. In addition, I found in Nexis that a Canadian court ruled against a finding of Jerusalem as the capital. ("The applicant is completely free to sincerely believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, to declare this belief openly, and to personally teach and disseminate that belief," the ruling said. "However, no matter how sincere that belief, it does not give the applicant the right to compel the (Canadian government) to reflect that belief in its communications with other governments." -- The Gazette (Montreal) May 2, 2006) Thus, it seems that Canada disputes the view that Jerusalem is the capital currently ("is") not merely for the future ("should"). See also an Israeli mag or NYT. In any case, let me suggest an alternative compromise. What if a simple footnote were added? Just something like "Jerusalem is not recognized by most countries as Israel's capital." (i.e., Leave out the Tel Aviv, intl community, eternal capital, etcetera rhetoric.) Hope this is helpful. HG | Talk 06:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you are a bit ahead of yourself by saying there is still disagreement - everyone that has responded so far has agreed. Also, footnotes are a bad (and ugly) idea for templates. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd be more comfortable with waiting another day or two and seeing if anyone lodges any complaints about this compromise, especially since some of the other editors involved are American, and may be away from their computers due to the holiday. If after that period there's still no complaints, then I think we could safely go ahead without the risk of someone crying foul. Newtman (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well here I am.
As no one here brought any source for a definition of "capital" that doesn't fit Jerusalem, I cannot agree to "disputed".
It's not recognized as capital by most countries, but that cannot change the reality of it being capital. The political considerations of nations and organizations cannot change reality, nor can a Canadian court ruling.
If we must, I will agree to a footnote, as suggested by HG. okedem (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing new has been said here that hasn't been said at the two previous FA discussions, which were far more rigorous. The BBC is free to say what it likes, as is the Government of Canada, but a capital is a move that a country makes on its own. The dispute is to what extent Israel should be allowed to assert sovereignty in what parts of that city. That Israel has done so is not disputed, and is in fact the cause of the disputes. TewfikTalk 10:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tewfik. You mention sovereignty but that is a bit different. Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital under its 1980 Basic Law. However, many countries (and concomitant reliable sources) do not recognize (i.e., dispute) Israel's declaration of its capital. This situation is highly unusual and notable. (The cause of the dispute is not an issue here.) On what grounds, then, would you think it inapt to add a qualifier ("disputed") or a simple footnote, as suggested above? Thanks. HG | Talk 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll answer the question too, though it wasn't directed at me. First off, Jerusalem was declared capital in 1949, and there were quite a few embassies there. In 1980 the Jerusalem Law said that Jerusalem is Israel "eternal, unified capital", thus declaring Israel would not divide it in a future peace agreement. This annoyed the international community, caused the UN resolution, and resulted in moving most embassies out of Jerusalem.
The point is, the dispute isn't over "is Jerusalem the capital". Given that it answers every definition of capital, it's a no-brainer. The dispute is whether or not it should be capital, whether Israel made an "illegal" move. But regardless of legality, the reality stays the same.
Unless someone can come up with a commonly used definition of capital stating that international recognition, or the presence of embassies, are required, I don't see how Jerusalem's status can be disputed here. okedem (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be going off of what reliable sources say, rather than finding a definition of "capital" and making our own judgment? And I thought we established already that the dispute dates to well before 1980 or 1967 - there were relatively few embassies moved out in the eighties, because most never left Tel Aviv. <eleland/talkedits> 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not a judgment on our part, but simply opening up a dictionary and using words to describe the facts no one disputes - Jerusalem is the seat of the government, and it has been designated by Israel as capital. There's nothing more to it, and those two facts are obviously extremely easy to source, so no argument there. While many bodies/governments don't call it "capital" for their own political reasons, we shouldn't apply such irrelevant considerations to our articles. okedem (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion

I'm close to withdrawing my support of the previous suggestion. Even though it should not be, the "disputed" can easily be misinterpreted as meaning that there is a dispute over whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel rather than over whether Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. So, I suggest the following:

Instead of having the footnote in the template (which looks rather unsightly), we could just link to the footnote that explains the whole situation. -- tariqabjotu 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems fine. okedem (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that it's fine to have five words about a ridiculous semantic issue like whether Afghanistan is in Central or South Asia, but the simple and factual "disputed" is too much for one of the most contentious and struggled-over pieces of territory in human history? The only argument against "disputed" is that, according to two Wikipedians offering no sources, the dispute isn't about what the entire world says it's about — recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. As usual, the arguments (Jerusalem is a purely internal Israeli affair, the dispute isn't really a dispute, wishful thinking by Arab irredentists, etc) could be lifted straight from a pro-Israel op-ed in the Washington Times. Whatever happened to NPOV? A seemingly random "‡" looks more like a transmission error than a piece of information. It's better than nothing, but not by much. <eleland/talkedits> 02:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but my argument is that the dispute is over the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. However, lack of recognition by the international community does not translate to a dispute over whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That dispute is a mirage. This site, provided by Newtman earlier, exemplifies the difference between the two controversies (one that exists, and one that does not): the U.N. site says "Capital: Jerusalem", but then adds "(not recognized by the UN)". So, the capital is Jerusalem, but the UN – and many countries – refuse to recognize it as such, as a punitive measure. A potential problem with "disputed" is that, as I said in my original comment, it could suggest that there is some internal dispute over whether Jerusalem is the capital of the country, rather than an external dispute over whether the city should be the capital of Israel. -- tariqabjotu 16:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
And in case there is any question about what my position is, it is what Tariqabjotu just said, word for word. Of course there is a "dispute", but it is not about what Israel's capital actually is. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the UN's "Cyber School Bus" page is not the most reliable source I can think of. Secondly, it actually undercuts your own point, since the map on the left puts the capital "*" on Tel Aviv. You may think it "exemplifies" your preferred interpretation of the dispute, but there's absolutely no objective reason for anybody else to. We've provided multiple high quality sources which explicitly state that they do not and will not describe Jerusalem as capital. Not that they don't like Jerusalem as capital or don't want Jerusalem to be capital, but that as far as they're concerned, Jerusalem is not capital. The BBC states "the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and ... the BBC should not describe it as such," calling one such reference a "factual mistake." A recent Canadian court case in which the plaintiff tried to force us to call Jerusalem the capital was rejected, the judge sainy in part, "no matter how sincere that belief [that Jerusalem is capital], it does not give the applicant the right to compel [the gov't] to reflect that belief".
Again, there are sources which do state that Jerusalem is a purely internal affair, and that the international community isn't really saying Jerusalem isn't capital, because that's out of their remit. For instance, the JPost article on the BBC thing quotes an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman saying, "Jerusalem is Israel's capital. It is the right of every sovereign state to determine which city will be its capital. If this is not accepted by everyone today, I am confident it will be in the future." That's the Israeli line. We don't edit from the Israeli line, we edit from NPOV, and the overwhelming weight of sources say that the Jerusalem issue is completely unresolved, and do not describe Jerusalem as capital, or describe it as capital with a parenthetical note to the effect that it is unrecognized or disputed.
You've said you don't like "disputed". How about "unrecognized"? <eleland/talkedits> 19:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Except unrecognized seems to imply that no legitimate powers recognize Israel as the capital, which is not true (ie USA with the Jerusalem Embassy Act). I really don't see any way to reconciliate the controversy over Jerusalem into one word, which is why I feel a link to the Jerusalem footnote would be more appropriate. Newtman (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Besides the fact that you've ignored virtually everything else I've said, the United States Congress does not have the power to recognize any country or capital, or to determine the siting of embassies. The Jerusalem act has no relevance to anything; the most Congress could do would be to withhold funding until the executive takes a desired action - something Congress has declined to do. <eleland/talkedits> 21:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
How about we keep off the attacks, I've paid attention to this entire discussion. But there's the rub, if USA recognition of Jerusalem has no relevance, why would the lack of recognition by other bodies matter? I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If it's disputed, its because some bodies recognize Jerusalem, while others don't. Therefore by definition calling Jerusalem simply "unrecognized" would be a logical fallacy. Now how about we work towards consensus without trying to be petty? Newtman (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If the U.S. Congress is not entitled to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on behalf of the U.S., who does? And what makes you believe the U.S. has not recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? -- tariqabjotu 00:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Echoing Newtman, "unrecognized" implies no country (or, more generally, no one outside Israel) recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That's not the case. -- tariqabjotu 00:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
We're not writing from the Israeli line; we are editing from a line that displays the facts. Jerusalem fits the definition of capital from every angle: the heads of the judiciary, legislative, and executive functions all reside in the city and the Israeli government has chosen, in no uncertain terms, Jerusalem as its capital. That most countries and the UN don't recognize it as such is definitely worthy of note – it seems everyone here believes (or at least accepts) that we should not leave the template as "Jerusalem, Israel" – but the international community does not have the power to make a clear fact false. -- tariqabjotu 00:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

*Bravo. Unobstrusive, and addresses a matter notable enough within the scope of this template.--victor falk 03:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

With all this narrow focus on a single word, I forgot about the rest of the template; like Eleland says, having a whole sentence about an arbitrary geographical division while restricting the most notable controversy about a capital with major international political consequences in the world to a single symbol raises major issues of wp:undue.--victor falk 22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Another argument for not having a ‡: we are not seeing this from the user's perspective. It may be unobstrusive to us, but for people not too familiar with computers or wikipedia, it will only be rather confusing, if it registers at all at a conscious level.--victor falk 23:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight: because an unrelated, and in your opinion more minor, issue (the region in which Afghanistan is located) is explained directly in the template, linking to the Jerusalem conversation with just a symbol is a violation of WP:UNDUE? That's not what WP:UNDUE says. If you have a problem with the way Kabul is addressed, perhaps you should bring that up (personally, I don't see why this template is separated by region in the first place; Template:African capitals isn't, and Africa has more countries). In the meantime, I believe the region issue is explained in the template here because it's so easy to explain in a few words. Explaining the Jerusalem issue is not so easy.
Now for the obtrusiveness: do you have an idea for a less conspicuous symbol? Or would it be better to frame Jerusalem as "Jerusalem, Israel (see note)"? Or do you have another idea entirely? -- tariqabjotu 00:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • By all measures, this option ( a link to the Jerusalem footnote ) seems like the least contentious option, as it bypasses squabbles of what part is disputed and what isn't, when the Jerusalem page already handles this topic relatively well. Can we reach some consensus on this instead of devolving into another line of "I'm right, you're wrong" back and forths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtman (talk • contribs) 20:35, 24 November 2007
  • Looks fine. TewfikTalk 21:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I prefer a word a phrase such as "disputed", "not recognised internationally", "de facto" etc so that the reader can see that there is an issue.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

None of those one word summaries are going to be perceived as neutral, because even something like "disputed" is very easily misunderstood to say something that is not true. Perhaps, Tariq, an asterisk or something else would be a more recognisable symbol, if that is the issue. TewfikTalk 13:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said in response to Victor above, I have no problem with a symbol that might be less conspicuous or even "Jerusalem, Israel (see note)" or something to that effect. I don't believe any single word or short phrase can accurate capture the controversy; it's best to just link to the footnote that describes the controversy in greater detail. -- tariqabjotu 14:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)
OK, so can we agree, we're all fine with a WL to Positions on Jerusalem, we're just not clear on what the language of the link (‡, disputed, see note, etc) should be? <eleland/talkedits> 06:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get that impression. The proposal in this section is in regards to a link to Jerusalem#endnote_capital. Those agreeing to this link may also agree to a link to Positions on Jerusalem, but I can't say for sure. -- tariqabjotu 06:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting more and more weary of repeating the Jerusalem discussion here, on what should be a simple template. Maybe some note would be appropriate if there were actually some other possible capital, maybe Tel Aviv. However there is no mention of controversies regarding the naming of Myanmar/Burma and its capital, or the defacto existence of N. Cyprus and its capital, all of which are dealt with on their respective entries, just as the issues surrounding Jerusalem are prominently dealt with at the beginning of and elsewhere in its entry. TewfikTalk 11:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion 3

hi everybody, I've a bit busy in reality lately, but I'm back. Tariqabotjou makes an interesting reply to my comment about Afghanistan, that's what I mean, all capitals should be treated equal; I'm not opposed to having other footnotes, as Tewfik says, for other capitals. But I think there is a misunderstanding, I want it more conspicuous, less users miss the link to "positions on Jerusalem". So, I propose the following:

victor falk 10:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Newtman (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, but with a few minor changes: I would (a) move the markers to after the countries (or at least after the comma), (b) change "Kabul is often..." to "Afghanistan is often...", and (c) add a  · between the two footnotes. I also feel like there's a word missing in the Jerusalem footnote; perhaps it should say "...for details on its status...". -- tariqabjotu 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm Eleland and I approve this message. <eleland/talkedits> 02:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly this wording again gives the impression that the controversy is about whether it is the capital, rather than about whether certain parts of Jerusalem should be Israeli. Moreover, it shouldn't be more conspicuous - this is after all a template. All controversies are dealt with on the appropriate pages, and any wording is inherently not going to give due justice to a complex issue. Most support was for Jerusalem#endnote_capital, which I feel is probably already inappropriate for a template. The Kabul issue differs because it is related to where in the template it should be placed, and on that I agree with those who have above said that as other templates don't have such subsections, neither should this. TewfikTalk 09:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The assertion about the nature of the controversy has been made many times on this talk page, but I've yet to see any sources to back that interpretation. Indeed, several sources have been provided which contradict it, explicitly stating that the dispute is over Jerusalem's current status, not over its anticipated or desired status. I don't see how we can move forward without actual sources to back the factual assertions being made.
  • It's of course correct that no wording will be entirely fair — certainly not in the limited space of a template — but since that same objection applies to any wording, even a wording which omits any note of the issue at all.
  • The idea of linking to Jerusalem#endnote_capital is an interesting one, and unprecedented so far as I know. Linking to the end-note of a very large article from a template is a rather odd idea, and likely to confuse and annoy readers who will be staring at the article's lede for a good period of time while the rest of it loads. In any case, all of the information in that endnote is also found in Positions on Jerusalem, which begins "Israel has de facto control over all of Jerusalem..."
  • Finally, if other templates assign ownership over some of the most contentious pieces of real estate on the planet, they need end-notes, too. If they don't, then they can't be a guide to this template. <eleland/talkedits> 02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

what they all said! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.203.226.4 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dharamsala

Dharamsala should not be on the template. Tibet is part of China. Canationalist (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole Tibet debate aside, the CTA is an exile government in Indian territory. Exile government don't have capitals. 128.12.90.195 (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From what times Moscow is in Asia?

--Dojarca (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the capital of a sae hat is largely in Asia.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't include Paris as South American capitals.--Dojarca (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Moscow is the capital of thr Russian Federation, whose land is 75% in Asia. This template is about the capital of the countries in Asia, and not of the capital cities in Asia, there is a difference.--BJ2911 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.228.143 (talk)
French Guiana is in South America. Should Paris be included as American capitals?--Dojarca (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Brunei

Brunei's capital (Bandar Seri Begawan) ought to be included under Southeast Asia, as it is included in the Southeast Asia article. Mathpianist93 (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war: Hong Kong/Macau capitols

The articles for Hong Kong and Macau both state they DO NOT HAVE A CAPITOL. The place for discussing this is on the talk pages of those articles if you believe that is incorrect, not edit warring on a template. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm working to bring this template in line with the European counterpart. If you disagree with the inclusion of Hong Kong and Macau, remove them and bring the matter here to discuss. Don't disregard all of my edits and breaking the 3RR rule. You'd actually reverted 5 times within an hour to the same version while I was working to improve this template. This is counter-productive. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The presence of banned users is counter-productive. Go away. You are using "good" edits to masquerade bad ones. This is disruptive and the type of disruption you were banned for. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
This edit was completely unproductive. Repeatedly inserting something false that you will not discuss, even if you place a "dubious" tag on it, is the opposite of "facilitating discussion". Quigley (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Please modify only what you disagree. Don't undo anything irrelevant to Hong Kong or Macau. [28] <== The multiple reverts were indeed disruptive. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what banned user are you talking about. If you disagree with the inclusion of Hong Kong and Macau, please proceed to propose to remove them. Don't break the 3RR rule by undoing all my edits (including those unrelated to Hong Kong or Macau) and restoring to your own version while I was working to improve this template. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:List_of_Asian_capitals_by_region/Archive_1&oldid=1119512254"