Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 23

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

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

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:

• Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, which I assume obviously not to represent a reliable third party source.

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)

• comment, I would like to remind all parties involved, that this is WP:NOT#FORUM. --Mor2 (talk) 14:46, 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)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

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

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

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)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

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)

• Yes to both ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes to both

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? 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)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

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)

• Miller, Jason, "Apple’s Jerusalem Problem" The Jewish Weekly, Sep 28, 2012 (also appeared in Huffington Post)
• Moussa, Julnar, "Interview with Jimmy Wales" Morning Talk. Al-Jazeera, Nov 25, 2010

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)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

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)