Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2003–2009

Untitled

Text taken from Talk:Israel and Talk:Jerusalem archives

Jerusalem's status as capital

According to my American Heritage Dictionary, a capital is "A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation". Jerusalem fits this definition in regard of the State of Israel. This is not a matter of dispute. It is a simple fact.

A state capital serves many roles - and the location of foreign diplomatic missions is just one of them - hardly the most important. In all other regards, Jerusalem is serving as the capital of Israel, both formally (by laws passed by the Knesset), and practically - all the branches of Israeli government (Presidential, Legislative, Judicial, and Administrative) are seated in Jerusalem.

The fact that nearly all foreign countries chose to base their embassies to Israel outside Jerusalem (along with the US position on placing its own embassy) is discussed in detail inside the article. This fact is not central to the status of Jerusalem as capital (which is mainly an internal Israeli matter) - and does not require a mention in the introduction paragraph.

uriber 09:59, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Uriber is correct. There is a confusion about what the issue is. Most countries do not recognise Israel's annexation of the east part of Jerusalem and that is the reason (in theory!) they don't site their embassies there. It is not specifically about the role of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, nor anything specifically about the right of a country to choose its own capital even though it looks like that sometimes. If the annexation was accepted then the role as capital would immediately become a non-issue. --zero 12:28, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well,GOOD LUCK in maintaining your language in the article.Wik deleted language I inserted yesterday THREE TIMES,after an earlier attempt to get the same issue mentioned in the "Tel Aviv" article was met not only with erasure but page-protection by jtdirl. The censors here are determined that there be no intimation that it is in any way unusual for countries to assert a right to decide what another country's capital is. I feel strongly enough about this that I have ceased to make contributions of any kind to Wikipedia,and if you look up my contributions(12.144.5.2) you'll see that I have a wide range of interests and knowledge. I refuse to be part of an entity that only tolerates distorted presentations of facts!

Louis Epstein/12.144.5.2/le@put.com

Please read the discustion of this topic at Talk:Israel/Archive 1. Most countries don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and it isn't really as unusual as it may seem for foriegn countries to make this distinction. - Efghij 19:18, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Since Wik reverted my changes without making any attempt to answer my arguments here, I will try to un-revert. I hope that the fact that zero agrees with me on this one will at least make Wik and his friends think twice. I had several disputes with him over the last couple of weeks - and while I found his positions to be sometimes very different than my own - I came to respect him as a Wikipedian which is strongly devoted to the facts and to NPOV.

To Efghij - as I explained above, the fact that "most countries don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital" (which, BTW, i'm not sure is true - the fact that they don't keep their embassies in Jerusalem does not amount to a statement about whether it is the capital) has nearly no effect on its status as capital of Israel. If most countries won't recognize the sea to be wet, it will still be wet.

uriber 19:32, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

99% of the world does not recognize Jerusalem as capital so it is obviously POV to state "it is the capital of Israel". If a city is a capital of a country, it implies that the city is part of the country, which is what is disputed, and therefore it's not an internal matter. So all you can say is that it is the de facto capital. --Wik 20:15, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

The point is,countries claiming a right to decide what another country's capital is is just about unheard of.No other instances of this are alluded to in the Talk-Israel-Archive page that Efghij referred me to,and I can only think of one...whether East Berlin could be capital of divided East Germany.(The Soviets,whose sector it was under the Four Power Treaty,said yes,the other three Powers said no,and wouldn't let West Berlin be capital of West Germany). To say that telling a country "Your capital is City A,regardless of your government being in City B" is international business as usual is highly misleading and biased.

L.E.(12.144.5.2)

Ahhh, but the United Nations, a world council of countries, is based in New York City. Many countries have consulates there. Thus, according to the logic of some folks, NYC is the capital of the world, since there is a regular body of global policy based there, and many countries have consulates there, which might as well be embassies, and thus they recognize NYC as the world capital, eh? Rickyrab 20:23, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC) LOL Let's face it, the government of Israel runs the country from Jeruselem. Thus, Jerusalem, not Telaviv, is the capital of Israel.

You are not listening. I repeat: 1) The problem is not specifically the capital status of Jerusalem, but the status of the city itself. If you say "it is the capital of Israel" you're saying "it is a city in Israel". But this is disputed. 2) The fact that the government runs the country from Jerusalem makes Jerusalem no more and no less than the de facto capital. --Wik 20:33, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

But who is disputing that the western parts of Jerusalem are in Israel? Probably Libya, Iran, Sudan, and their friends. Hey - but these countries actually dispute Israel's right to exist at all - so they equally dispute that Tel Aviv (or any other city) is the capital of Israel. The fact that the government runs the country from Jerusalem makes it the de facto capital. The fact that the government (and the parliament) officially proclaimed Jerusalem as the capital makes it the de jure capital. Hence - it is the capital both de facto and de jure, and there is no need to complicate the article with this distinction. -- uriber 20:51, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mind if I point out that Rome is the capital of Italy and the Vatican? (That's right, a city can be in more than one country and still be a capital. Moreover, Jerusalem is at least partly within the borders of Israel, as enforced by Israeli soldiers, and thus the countries delude themselves when they say that Israeli territory is not part of Israel!) Rickyrab 20:37, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

1) Rome is not capital of the Vatican City State; it just encloses that state, but that's just a geographic anomaly, the two are administratively distinct. 2) You still haven't grasped the difference between a de facto status enforced by soldiers and an internationally recognized de jure status (of course it's de jure according to Israeli law, but that's not the point). --Wik 21:02, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Well, Rome and Vatican City are parts of the same conurbation, which could, for all intents and purposes, be called "Rome". I stand by my statement that Rome is the capital of two countries, for, even though the administration of those parts is different, those parts are still parts of the same city. (If you want to differentiate conurbations from cities, be my guest.) Rickyrab 22:13, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The capital of Vatican City is Vatican City as it is a city state. Secretlondon 22:25, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Which is practically part of the metropolis of Rome. Rickyrab 22:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Personally,I think MY language that Wik censored is a good compromise between his and Rickyrab's.Continue to lead with the fact that the status is disputed,but admit that the idea of designating a city in another country's capital as that country's capital against that country's wishes is a very unusual practice.

L.E./12.144.5.2

If the sovereignty over a city is disputed, then of course any country's claims of capital status will be disputed. This consequence is not unusual at all. What's unusual is that a country claims a disputed territory as its capital in the first place. --Wik 21:02, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

You guys are being childish about this!

If the nation of Israel says Jerusalem is it's capital, lets say that! If others say it shouldn't be, lets say that too. At least part of Jerusalem has been inside Israel since 1948. DJ Clayworth 20:54, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

De facto, all of it is controlled by Israel. De jure, the status is not settled at all. The original UN plan was to internationalize the whole city. --Wik 21:02, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

"De jure" means "by law". By Israel's law, Yerushalayim is the capital of the country. Rickyrab 21:04, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't accept the "A says X, B says Y" solution. It's like if the Moon article will say "some people say the moon is made of green cheese, other say it is made of rock". This is simply not acceptable. The fact that Israel says Jerusalem is its capital (and acts accordingly) makes Jerusalem Israel's capital. Others might not like this, or might want this to change. However, their dislike of the facts does not change them. The moon is not made of green cheese even if all humanity really wants it to be. -- uriber 21:05, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Uri, The stuff the moon is made of is an empirical question that was settled when man landed there. The designation of capitals lies in the virtual realm. Jerusalem was declared by Israel as its capital. Most other countries decided otherwise. There is no way to "prove" either claim. I suggest you save your time and effort for worthier causes, rather than fight this lost one. Nahum 07:41, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the designated capital, and it's disputed. Wikipedia is here to record the facts. Lets record them, and move on. DJ Clayworth 21:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As long as it's among the facts recorded that it is highly unusual to assert a right to determine another country's capital.The other countries aren't just saying "it's not Jerusalem",they are declaring "it's Tel Aviv",on NO authority but their own. It is hideous bias to pretend that this is business as usual between countries. L.E./12.144.5.2

L.E. - do you know if any countries actually claim Tel Aviv to be the capital of Israel? I know the people who keep reverting the Tel Aviv article think so - but I don't remember ever hearing any diplomatic source actually referring to Tel Aviv as Israel's capital. uriber 21:19, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry - certain things are matters of fact, not of opinion. The moon is not made of green cheese, and Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Claims to the contrary can be acknowledged and presented - but this can be done only after clearly presenting the facts. -- uriber 21:15, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How about "Israel uses Jerusalem as its meeting-place for government and calls Jerusalem its capital, but other countries call Tel Aviv Israel's capital"? Rickyrab 21:21, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The comment of mine that Wik kept censoring was on the line where it said all but three countries regard Tel Aviv as capital...see also what jtdirl said on Talk:Tel Aviv. I am trying to have it admitted that the idea of a country picking a capital for another independent country on its own is a rather unusual practice,not business as usual...the local censors can not abide this. L.E./12.144.5.2

I thought it was all but two countries. Rickyrab 21:31, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well done, Anthere. That's a good statement. Let's leave it there. DJ Clayworth 21:43, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Sorry, everybody. I just edited a "protected" article. I didn't realize it had been locked for editing when I did that, so I plead innocence. Still, if anyone wants it reverted on the grounds that I've unfairly used my sysop status... I hereby agree-in-advance to a reversion :-) --Uncle Ed 21:54, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

bad boy tse tse

I would like it reverted. The thing has already been edited three times since "protecting" it.

three times ? Well...as you wish...let's make it four :-)

You'll get no argument from me. Please, some sysop other than me, revert my change. --Uncle Ed 22:00, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

interesting to note is that in other countries there are diplomatic representatives in cities other than the official capitol. Amsterdam or The Hague? Which is the capital of the Netherlands? Where are the embassies? Where is the seat of governement?

What this guy(the one writing above) fails to realize though is that the reason other countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the "capital city of Israel" is because the "israel" that many countries recognize(including the U.S & Britain)does not extend into the east side of Jerusalem thus making it divided, so in turn "Israel" cannot claim this to be their capital city if the most part of it is not even recognized by the world(who put them their in the first place might i add)

Capital of Israel

"Most foreign embassies are based in the Tel Aviv area, rather than in the capital Jerusalem, which is not internationally recognized."

Perhaps we'll have to say that Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital while being careful to emphasize that dozens (hundreds?) of other nations refused to recognize Jerusalem" as the capital.

Are foreign embassies typically hosted in a country's capital? I think this matters, because the act of locating, e.g., the Jamaican Embassy in Tel Aviv rather than in Jerusalem would seem a rather pointed statement that Jamaica did not accept Jerusalem as the capital. Whether that means they regarded Tel Aviv as the capital or not, I'm not so sure. It might just mean that "we have to put our embassy somewhere so it may as well be a big city where all the other embassies are". --Uncle Ed 22:06, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No argument from me. I already made my points. Rickyrab 22:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This could be handled with sensitivity by avoiding the word recognize altogther. Example: Israel delcared Jerusalem its capital in 1950, butmost other countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.

I know that the reason the UK Embassy is in Tel Aviv is because the UK doesn't recognise Jerusalem is the Israeli Capital. I understand that the arguments in the US re: the Congress voting to move the embassy to Jerusalem were connected with recognising Jerusalem as Capital. Secretlondon 22:12, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Moved here from Wikipedia:Protected page by Uncle Ed:

• • *sigh* more twisting the facts. Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital. Diplomatically that is not internationally accepted by over 100 countries (2 or 3 accept it), who still recognise the previous capital in 1948, Tel Aviv as the de jure capital. This was explained in an NPOV manner in Israel and accepted by everyone months ago. (Even RK accepted the wording as OK!) Uriber and Rickrab suddenly decided now to wage POV edit wars in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to remove any mention of international controversy over the status of the two cities, even where it was carefully written in an NPOV manner so as not to state that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel or that Jerusalem is not. Anthere protected the pages to stop the farce. FearÉIREANN 22:49, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Oh Jt; I just love your "Even RK accepted the wording as OK!". That is a reference !;-) Anthère
      • :-) RK is so hypersensitive he reads anti-semitism in the location of a comma. Yet even he (after calming down) understood the point (no pun intended!). FearÉIREANN 23:15, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • LOLOLOL!!!!!!! Silly fool that guy is. Rickyrab 23:17, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I was NOT waging the war to eliminate mention of controversy over the capital. I was waging the war to state that Israel's capital is Jerusalem, which is, after all, where the gov't is seated, and that other countries consider the capital to be Tel Aviv.Rickyrab 23:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC) By the way, I already made my points. Rickyrab 23:14, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Dare we unprotect this page now? --Uncle Ed 01:14, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, do, I'm ready to paste a new revision up! Thanks!

Uncle Ed, if it's going to be awhile, do you mind if I enter a list of typoes and spelling errors here for you to take care of? Our current old version has a few.... Pakaran 01:21, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

'Tis unprotected. Good luck all :) --Camembert

Thanks :). Ignore the above, though - most of the things I saw were fixed by admins during the locked period. --Pakaran 01:28, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

borders

Many European maps show much of Jerusalem being in Palestine, and list Tel Aviv as the capital.

I Thought We'd Made Peace?

It seemed yesterday that all sides had accepted Anthere's version (last stable version), which retained my text noting that to declare a city in another country to be that country's capital against that country's wishes is highly unusual.Yet after the protection was lifted,someone snipped it out again.

If you can't show that this is remotely normal,don't let it pass as if it is!!

L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

As I said before, it is perfectly normal that the world does not recognize a capital in a disputed area. --Wik 15:08, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

could you please discuss the topic here before going on a cycle of rv again ? ~:-) Anthère

It has all been discussed before. Also, Anthère didn't revert to the last stable version (which should be the rule when protecting a page) but to the version that sparked the edit war. I will continue to revert 12.144's bizarre text which gives the impression that the world is acting in an unusual way towards Israel, when in fact it's Israel's action that is unusual. --Wik 15:26, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

The "world" action is essentially without precedent.Name ANY other case in which a right to designate a city in another country as that country's capital,against that country's wishes,has been asserted! There is no excuse for treating this as a normal course of behavior.What excuse there may be for denying that Jerusalem is Israel's capital,does NOT automatically extend to allowing specifying someplace else as Israel's capital,and that at least has never been known in any other case.

L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

It appears that the bane of this dispute is over the words "though the competence of other countries to decide what a given country's capital is has almost never been asserted elsewhere. " It is getting tiresome watching you two quibble over these words, it's very tempted to ask someone with admin rights to protect this article until you two start talking to each other & come to an agreement over this point. -- llywrch 01:33, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes,that is exactly the issue.He refuses to allow it to be said that REGARDLESS of the issue of whether or not Jerusalem is (wholly or partly) disputed,the idea of countries designating a city in another country as that country's capital is highly unusual. I am unaware of any instance that such a thing has ever happened elsewhere...it is a statement that needs to be made to make clear that this "co-ordinated diplomatic snub" (as jtdirl called in justifying erasing such a reference from the "Tel Aviv" article) is something that is far from business as usual between nations. Exact wording has varied in my attempts to get this across,but it is outrageous bias to just let it stand that other countries "regard Tel Aviv as the capital" without making clear that this is something very unusual.

L.E./12.244.5.2/le@put.com

Whilst nations refusing to recognise other nation's claims of a particular city being their capaital is unnusual, it is equally if nor more unnusual for a country to claim a capital in disputed territory. Northern Cyprus claim Nicosia as their capital, as does the south. But as no nation other than Turkey recognises Northern Cyprus, and consequently no-one recognises the capital of the north. Mintguy 01:52, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes,but if other countries DID recognize the Northern-Cypriot state,but declared its capital to be Kyrenia or Rizokarpaso,that would be the analogy.The countries who deny Israel exists aren't concerned with where its capital is. You can't cite any other cases where the international community is telling a country that it has a capital other than the city its government is in.

L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

I thought the discussion was about diplomatic recognition of the status of Jerusalem; who said anything about "countries who deny Israel exists"? If you are saying that any country who don't have embassies in Jerusalem want to deny Israel exists (which appears to be what you are saying above), then you are arguing from a logical fallacy.

AFAIK, every nation gets criticized for one act or another by every other nation, & this criticism is often expressed in symbolic acts (e.g., the US would often assign high-level African-American diplomats to South Africa). If you can't accept that Israel is being criticized for their placement of their capital, then I suspect you will be having a hard time understanding other people's POV here on Wikipedia.

(P.S., the US also gets criticized thru symbolic acts. Because I don't obsess over them, I'm unable to recall any specific one off the top of my head.) -- llywrch 18:55, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Which city is Israel's recognized capital?

This sentence might not be true:

All other states with diplomatic relations to Israel continue to regard Tel Aviv as the Israeli capital...a gesture virtually unique in diplomatic history.

Let's separate out fact from interpretation:

1. It is true that all other states with diplomatic relations to Israel maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.
2. It is an interpretation that the placement of the embassy in a city = regarding that city as the nation's capital

Pending any documentation that even ONE country calls Tel Aviv the capital of Israel, this sentence is best omitted from the article. --Uncle Ed 18:52, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Israel article has the minumum which needs to be in a Jerusalem article:

"1 Jerusalem is Israel's officially designated capital, and the location of its presidential residence and parliament. However, most countries do not recognize this designation, considering the status of Jerusalem an unresolved issue due to what they perceive as illegal Israeli actions in both designating the city to be its capital and in its seizure of Arab East Jerusalem. They believe that the final issue of the status of Jerusalem will be determined in future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations; these states instead recognize Tel Aviv, the original capital for a time in 1948, as the continuous legitimate capital, and as a result keep their embassies there. See the article on Jerusalem for more."

And given the more undertaking, the issue needs to be more fully explained in this article. That includes noting the official UN position that the whole Jerusalem area is not part of Israel but is an international zone not part of either the Israeli or Arab states established by General Assembly resolution 181(11). See the UN Cartographic unit statement on the matter. Note that it both describes it as the captial and notes that it is disputed. Israel isn't supposed to like the UN Resolutions any more than Iraq or South Africa under Apartheid did. JamesDay 20:28, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Jerusalem article certainly looks better without the sentence than with the version Wik would not permit to be amended.

In the Talk page for the Tel Aviv article,jtdirl does mention the "co-ordinated diplomatic snub" of other countries regarding Tel Aviv as Israel's capital.So that IS an intended subtext of the embassy placement,though I note that embassies to Saudi Arabia are generally in Jidda,not Riyadh where the government is.This I think is the Saudi government's preference,not a slap at them.The idea of telling another country what its capital is is however highly unusual...and if this action is discussed,that it is unusual should at least be mentioned.

L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2

---

I have made a couple of factual corrections, notably:

• the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not accepted by most states, all of whom base their diplomatic representatives in Tel Aviv (The US only accepted Jerusalem in 2002!) I have put both side by side with a footnote explaining how most of the world regards one city as the valid Israeli capital, while the Israeli state regards another city. Accepting either city without mentioning the long running dispute is POV. This way, both the view of Israel and of most of the rest of the world are respected and explained in a NPOV manner;
• Lest some people be confused and try to change what they think is an error, I have put in a footnote to explain that for a short period, Israeli prime ministers used to be directly elected, but that innovation had since been abandoned, having been seen as unsuccessful.
• a list of additional external links covering everything from relations with the European Union, the possibility of EU membership, the EU's attitude towards Israeli government policy, a link to a report about the US accepting Jerusalem as the Israeli capital in late 2002 and to the allegations of ethnic cleansing made by Arabs against Israel. Proper links should allow a reader to find a variety of sources, both pro- and contra-. The previous links were all universally supportive one one viewpoint and so POV.
• a neutrally worded few lines explaining in a non-judgment way the divergence between Israeli and Arab opinions on whether the Arabs displaced in 1948 left or were forced to leave, and how this divergence in analysis is central to the modern Israeli-Palestinian dispute. FearÉIREANN 23:18 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is a terrible idea to start up all of these disagreements all over again. All of these issues are already discussed in great detail, in many other articles on Israel, all of which link here. Why are you proposing that we do all this arguing again? RK

Because without them the article is biased and POV. FearÉIREANN 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Capital of Israel

I think modification of the footnote by RK was more POV than Jtdirl's original. Yes, I do think Tel Aviv should be left out of the template. However, the fact that most embassies are located in Tel Aviv makes it function in the diplomatic sense like a capital. Saying "Israel regards..." is more NPOV. Otherwise, you're just spurning all those states who don't recognize Jerusalem. Now isn't that taking sides? I vote to revert (except the template). --Jiang 00:46 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. JT's wording seemed to be far more professional and at least a bit more NPOV. --mav

Huh? It is grossly anti-Zionist and pro-Arab. How is lying about Israel's capital, and stating falsehoods, "professional"?

Actually I think all of this is somewhat misleading -- Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and this has been recognized for decades by nearly all countries. In fact, nearly all countries (including the US and most EU countries) had their embassies in Jerusalem until the early 1980s, and this was not controversial in the least. What happened was that Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and some surrounding areas in the early 1980s, and the United Nations passed a resolution opposing the annexation and requesting its member states to move their embassies to Tel Aviv in protest; nearly all countries, including the US, did so (the US did not vote for the resolution, but did not veto it either, and followed its request). This resolution did not state the Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel though -- only that the unilateral expansion of its municipal boundary was unacceptable. So, while Tel Aviv functions as the diplomatic center for many nations, they still recognize Jerusalem as the capital. --Delirium 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That is very interesting! Please integrate that into the text. --mav

I've made a first stab at it; correct as necessary. The article on Jerusalem has a lot more information. --Delirium 01:03 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Followup: so the comment Most states refuse to accept that designation in the footnote is factually incorrect. What most states refuse to accept is Israel's definition of the boundary of Jerusalem, not its being the capital. --Delirium 00:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your text Stored version Line 73: Line 73:

Because without them the article is biased and POV. FearÉIREANN 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC) Because without them the article is biased and POV. FearÉIREANN 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nonsense. You aren;' even looking in the correct article. Please read our many articles on these subjects. You can't claim that other articles (such as this one) are biased because the same damn arguments aren't repeated yet again. The topics you mention are already covered so extensively in Wikipedia that to claim we are leaving out is silly. We only need links to them. RK 01:04 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Capital of Israel

Actually I think all of this is somewhat misleading -- Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and this has been recognized for decades by nearly all countries. In fact, nearly all countries (including the US and most EU countries) had their embassies in Jerusalem until the early 1980s, and this was not controversial in the least. What happened was that Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and some surrounding areas in the early 1980s, and the United Nations passed a resolution opposing the annexation and requesting its member states to move their embassies to Tel Aviv in protest; nearly all countries, including the US, did so (the US did not vote for the resolution, but did not veto it either, and followed its request). This resolution did not state the Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel though -- only that the unilateral expansion of its municipal boundary was unacceptable. So, while Tel Aviv functions as the diplomatic center for many nations, they still recognize Jerusalem as the capital. --Delirium 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC) Actually I think all of this is somewhat misleading -- Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and this has been recognized for decades by nearly all countries. In fact, nearly all countries (including the US and most EU countries) had their embassies in Jerusalem until the early 1980s, and this was not controversial in the least. What happened was that Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and some surrounding areas in the early 1980s, and the United Nations passed a resolution opposing the annexation and requesting its member states to move their embassies to Tel Aviv in protest; nearly all countries, including the US, did so (the US did not vote for the resolution, but did not veto it either, and followed its request). This resolution did not state the Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel though -- only that the unilateral expansion of its municipal boundary was unacceptable. So, while Tel Aviv functions as the diplomatic center for many nations, they still recognize Jerusalem as the capital. --Delirium 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That is very interesting! Please integrate that into the text. --mav

Followup: so the comment Most states refuse to accept that designation in the footnote is factually incorrect. What most states refuse to accept is Israel's definition of the boundary of Jerusalem, not its being the capital. --Delirium 00:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)  : Followup: so the comment Most states refuse to accept that designation in the footnote is factually incorrect. What most states refuse to accept is Israel's definition of the boundary of Jerusalem, not its being the capital. --Delirium 00:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me that no one, other than Israelis, have any say in this matter. The capital of any nation is what its citizens say it is, period. That is not POV or an opinion, that is an indisputable fact. Since when do non-Israelis have any say over what the capital of Israel is? How would Catholic Italians like it if all the Jews and Muslims in the world united and claimed that Rome was not the capital of Italy? Besides being anti-Catholic and anti-Italian, it would also be false. Facts cannot be created by popular vote. We can say that most nations do not respect Israel's choice of capital, because that is a fact. But to claim that any other city is Israel's capital is a deliberate fiction, and totally unsupportable. RK 01:04 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If many of the functions normally carried out in a capital are carried out somewhere else then we need to report that. --mav 01:08 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully. The footnote never claimed that Jerusalem was not the capital and Tel Aviv was. It only stated "Israel regards" Jerusalem as the capital while other states do not. We didn't come out and say "Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel." How clearer can that be? We have to simply regard the truth--who regards what. Trying to ignore opinions and positions with undenably exist by labelling them "anti-Semetic" doesn't cut it. Now it is cleared out. --Jiang

The refusal to accept Jerusalem as the capital predates the takeover of Arab East Jerusalem. The international stance was that Jerusalem lacked the clarity of acceptance required in diplomatic protocol to be accepted as a capital. Its boundaries were questionable, its unified status illegal and its symbolism provocative. Thus from the foundation of the state, international states refused point blank to accept any right by Israel to claim a disputed city as its capital. When Israel contrary to international law took over the whole city, that enflamed those convictions further. Old copies of World Book, for example, stated that the capital of Israel was Tel Aviv. Diplomatic documents unambiguously listed the capital as Tel Aviv. Ambassadors were accredited to Tel Aviv, diplomatic compounds opened in Tel Aviv. Some opened consular missions, some embassies physically in Jerusalem while saying that did not mean recognition. And most of those ones pulled out when Israel took over Aran East Jerusalem contrary to international law.

There may be good reasons why Jerusalem should be the capital (I am not taking sides on that) but the fact is that some states say it is, most say it isn't, and no state has the unfettered freedom to designate a city as its capital. 99 times out of 100, the choice is so uncontroversial that they know there will be no problem. But if there is a problem once you are a member of the diplomatic community you are supposed to work on a protocol level with everyone else, including trying to smooth any problems that may arise over the designation of a capital. Listing either Jerusalem or Tel Aviv in isolation would be POV. Listing both, with a footnote explaining that Israel regards 'x' as its capital, most of the world regards 'y', is strict down the line neutrality, the NPOV that is at the heart of wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 01:15 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering what countries do recognize Jerusalem as the capital, here is a complete list:

• Costa Rica
• El Salvador
• United States

- Efghij

The question, I think, is one between de-jure and de-facto status. It has already been proven that the great majority of diplomatic functions are carried out in Tel Aviv. But that is only one function that a capital plays; more important is its role in the ruling of its nation. So where is the government of Israel based? Where does the Prime Minister have his office? I'm pretty sure the answer is Jerusalem.

Having just Jerusalem in the table with a footnote ref seems to be enough but I am slightly in favor of listing both since there are notable capital-like functions carried out in Tel Aviv and many nations do only recognize Tel Aviv. In short I can live with both options so long as the footnote stays in. --mav

More info: Tel Aviv was named as the provisional capital in 1948. It was intended by the international community to be the capital of Israel, with Jerusalem an international city. Israel's unilateral move to turn Jerusalem into its capital was viewed by the international community as a breach of the rules and agreements under which Israel was set up and was universally rejected as illegal, its non-capital status being one of the fundamental rules laid down at the start, because of the belief that making it the jewish capital would be an affront to other faiths (christians, muslims) who also saw Jerusalem as their city. The UN agreement on Jerusalem was on the basis that it would be in effect an open city, without any side assuming symbolic political control. In the last fifty years few states have accepted Jerusalem as Israel's capital. There was signs of some movement in the 1960s, but the seizure of Arab East Jerusalem reinforced the determination of the world community not to accept what it continues to regard as Israel's illegally declared new capital. In the US, for example Israeli groups have campaigned for decades to get Jerusalem accepted, on the basis that if the US accepted it, its NATO allies would and that would create a situation where it would get overwhelming international support. Though the US did finally accept Jerusalem in 2002 (something G.W. Bush supported in his 2000 campaign) other states have not followed suit and remain adamant that Tel Aviv is the legal capital as agreed when Israel was founded, with the capitalisation of Jerusalem a breach of law. FearÉIREANN 01:47 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

While this may be moving more into the range of political debate than wiki-debate, I'm not sure how anyone could claim that Israel making Jerusalem a capital is a breach of law. It is agreed by nearly all sides that West Jerusalem is part of Israel proper, as it's behind the 1967 "Green Line" that all but the most radical groups accept as the minimum boundaries of Israel proper. So, given that it's part of the country, and given that countries are allowed to choose the location of their own capitals, I don't see the problem. Claiming Jerusalem as an "undivided" capital of Israel -- as Israel has done -- is certainly problematic though. But that doesn't mean it'd be illegal to stick government buildings serving capital functions in West Jerusalem. --Delirium 01:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

To resolve this issue I think some more research is needed. At the very least, does anyone know the following: which countries had their embassies in Jerusalem up until 1981, and only moved them to Tel Aviv following the UN resolution, vs. which countries have always had their embasses in Tel Aviv. --Delirium 01:56 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Alright, well I'm still researching, but as far as I can tell the following are (some of) the facts. Originally Jerusalem was supposed to be an open city, under neither Israeli nor Arab sovereignty. However, in the 1948 war both sides violated this, Israel occupying the West portion, and Jordan occupying the East portion (and both sides expelled some of the other side's population). I'm not sure what the diplomatic status of Jerusalem was 1948-1967 -- whether there were embassies there or not, and whether Israel's government was located primarily there. In 1967 Israel occupied East Jerusalem. In the ensuing decade they began de facto integrating it into the City of Jerusalem as one municipality, and making it the country's capital; but this was all unofficial. I believe there may have been several embassies there, but I'm unable as of yet to find a list. In 1980 the Knesset officially annexed East Jerusalem (and surrounding areas), declaring Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel, despite Security Council warnings not to do so; so in 1981 the Security Council condemned the attempt to change the status and character of Jerusalem (by a vote of 14-0-1, US abstaining), declared the action void, and requested all member states to withdraw diplomatic missions from the city as a punitive measure. This is when the US embassy moved to Tel Aviv; I don't know which other embassies moved at this time as well, but I was under the impression that it was at least several, and possibly many.

The upshot of all this is: we need to find out whether other countries recognized West Jerusalem as capital in the period 1948-1967 and then in the period 1967-1980. Most today do not, but was this a punitive measure following the 1981 SC resolution, or has this always been the case?

In any case, in light of more information I'll change my original position. However, rather than "Jerusalem/Tel Aviv¹", I think we should put "Jerusalem (disputed)¹" with the explanation in the footnote. --Delirium 02:12 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I really like that solution. --mav

I would avoid (disputed) if possible. a) it is provocative, and I can see people queueing up with an 'no now it is not, oh yes it is' barney. and b) it isn't so much that one city is disputed, rather that two cities are endorsed by different groups. Putting them both in with a footnote is more NPOV than one either one would be with (disputed),

The boundaries of the original Israel as agreed when the state was founded were changed dramatically when Israel came into being, unilaterally by Israel. One of those areas whose status was changed unilaterally was Jerusalem, and that is separate to making its capital. Israel's effective seizure of Jerusalem and making it its capital was a breach of an internationally registered treaty and thus, like the breaking of any internationally registered treaty, illegal. While Israel could probably have secured eventual agreement on Jerusalem had in waited for a few years, its illegal assumption of it as its capital effectively pissed off the international community. By the 1960s, it could perhap have gained acceptance for West Jerusalem as its capital, but for its illegal seizure of East Jerusalem. The annexation of East Jerusalem further hardened most of the international community against accepting Jerusalem as the capital.

Re Efghi's complete list of those accepting Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, I knew the list was small, but 3 countries! Yikes! If Efghi is correct and only Costa Rica, El Salvador, United States accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital, that means in or around 150 don't, in which case we cannot possibly put down Jerusalem on its own as the capital. Even World Book, notorious as the most right encyclopædia, and the most pro-Israeli, used to list Tel Aviv not merely as one of the capitals, but the only one. That clearly would be wrong here (after all, since those days, the list of those accepting Jerusalem has grown from 2 to 3!) but both should be in, with the footnote explaining how the state of Israel insists on one city, and the diplomatic world bar 3 on another. FearÉIREANN 02:20 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, the boundaries weren't exactly changed unilaterally by Israel -- the Arab states refused to accept the 1948 Partition Plan, and invaded Israel. Israel came out on top in the war, but they hardly started it. Not that their actions since then have been exactly noble, but they don't deserve blame for failure of the original partition plan -- Jordan, Syria, and Egypt primarily do. --Delirium 02:24 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. But the result was that Israel got control of territory that it was not suppose to have. I can understand why and how, but it did sour relations with what it then did in Jerusalem. FearÉIREANN 02:27 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Re Efghi's complete list of those accepting Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, I knew the list was small, but 3 countries! Yikes! If Efghi is correct and only Costa Rica, El Salvador, United States accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital, that means in or around 150 don't, in which case we cannot possibly put down Jerusalem on its own as the capital. Even World Book, notorious as the most right encyclopædia, and the most pro-Israeli, used to list Tel Aviv not merely as one of the capitals, but the only one. That clearly would be wrong here (after all, since those days, the list of those accepting Jerusalem has grown from 2 to 3!) but both should be in, with the footnote explaining how the state of Israel insists on one city, and the diplomatic world bar 3 on another. FearÉIREANN 02:20 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have made a couple of minor changes to tighten up and NPOV the footnote. Saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is clearly POV since some people think so, others don't. I've put that in as the more NPOV "Jerusalem is Israel's officially designated capital." Other slight adaptions were made to avoid taking sides in the debate and leave it up to the reader to decide, not the writer to tell them what to decide. FearÉIREANN 02:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good to me. I think this issue should be handed somewhat similarly to the issue at Republic of Macedonia -- the UN, along with most of the world, does not recognize the name of that country, due to objections from several sources (but mainly Greece, which claims the name "Macedonia" as its own), but we still list the country under that name because it's the one they officially designate. Similarly, I think we should list Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel, despite others disagreeing (but should of course note those disagreements). --Delirium 03:41 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)~

Out of curiousity, how is Macedonia referred to in the US? In Europe it is known as the FYRM - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Re how to refer to Jerusalem - if the US still had its pre-2002 stance of recognising Tel Aviv as the capital, then wiki could use Jerusalem without any problems. But given that the US now regards Jerusalem as the capital, that makes it complicated for wiki, namely that the impression might be given that wiki is doing what it does because most of its contributors are American, it reflecting US viewpoints even when that US viewpoint is as in this case very much a minority viewpoint worldwide. I have no problem whether to list Jerusalem or Jerusalem/Tel Aviv (though I would marginally prefer J/T - and not just because it my initials!) but if wiki chooses the former, it would help if it could find some way of showing (as is the case) that its stance is based objectively on an overall wiki policy and is not reflecting either the American stance on Jerusalem or the internationally perceived American bias towards Israel.

Perhaps a general wiki disclaimer could be constructed, to cover places like Macedonia/FYRM, Northern Ireland (where you have Derry/Londonderry debates), here with Jerusalem vs Jerusalem/Tel Aviv, saying in effect where a dispute exists as to names to use, wikipedia's policy is use the official designation given by the relevant local authority. That should not be taken to indicate that wikipedia is expessing an opinion on the dispute in question ie, attention greeks, using Macedonia does not mean wiki is taking sides in the 'what to call Macedonia' debate, using Derry or Londonderry does not mean we are siding with either the nationalists or unionists. And using Jerusalem does not mean wiki is endorsing the Israeli viewpoint or siding with Israel, the US, El Salvador and Costa Rica against the rest of the world. It is simply following a standard wiki approach universally applied. Such a disclaimer might not seem important, but Macedonia is a massive issue for Greeks. If they were to think that wiki was "anti-Greek" wiki could kiss goodbye to having many friends in Greece. And putting in Jerusalem and so apparently endorsing the Israel stance in the face of worldwide opposition would hardly do wiki a hell of a lot of good in the Arab world. (Though it would make RK's millennium!) It is in our interests on these touchy issues (and lots more will arise) if we have to take a stance to minimise the danger of two much being read into it, with wiki unless it is cearly explained, being seen as biased in some way. FearÉIREANN 04:56 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Capital: the first phrase

I checked my dictionary again, and it still says that a capital is "A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation."[1] Since Jerusalem is a city, and is the official seat of the government of Israel (which is a state), it fits the definition perfectly.

Moreover, the fact that a city is the capital of a state is usually mentioned on Wikipedia in the first paragraph of the article on the city (see for example Paris or Rome). I see no reason why the same practice should not be followed in this case.

Wik, or the Arab world, or the UN, or every single person on the face of this earth might not like the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, might consider it "illegal", "immoral", "annoying" or anything else. Nothing of that changes the fact that it is the capital of Israel.

This is a very important issue to me. If Wikipedia fails to note simple, streightforward, facts (like this encyclopedia or this lexical databse do), just because someone is unhappy with them or "does not officially recognize them", then Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia but a political pamphlet.

I see this a somewhat of a test case. If I can't trust Wikipedia on simple issues such as this, I'll be forced to look elsewhere for my information (and I'll certainly be less enthusiastic in contributing to Wikipedia). I'm sure lots of you won't miss me.

-- uriber 21:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The current wording is like answering the question "what is the capital of Israel?" with "uh.. difficult question...". First and foremost WP is about to educate and I do believe it is of general interest for readers to know that most believe Jerusalem is Israel's capital. To be educative and understandable is more important than 100% NPOV accuracy IMHO. Wouldn't it be enough with "Jerusalem, capital of Israel (see not below)"? The "ancient capital of the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah" however, does not belong in the first sentence because of obvious reasons. BL 22:51, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Uriber, I would not like to see you leave but threatening to leave is probably a useless gesture. Anyway, to address this topic, I wonder if you would accept a diplomatic wording like "Israel's official capital" in the first sentence. It isn't quite as direct a statement as "the capital of Israel" but it would have the advantage of being more readily defended against attacks like Wik is mounting. On the second point, I agree with BL that the "ancient capital" part should not be in the first sentence. It is too much like "it was Jewish before the Jews were kicked out, then nothing happened for 2000 years, then it was Jewish again". It is strongly POV like that. --Zero 00:19, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Although I'm not thrilled with either of the suggestions above ("see note below" and "Israel's official capital"), I find them both acceptable (Zero's suggestion flows better with the text, I think). I agree that "ancient capital of the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah" does not belong in the intro paragraph.

I'm sorry if what I said was interpreted as a threat. As I said, I didn't really expect anyone to get excited or worried about it. I did, in fact take a two-months leave from Wikipedia in October, when Wik's version was protected, and I returned when I noticed that it was corrected - both without making any announcements or "threats". -- uriber 10:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am concerned that Wik has returned to push his POV once again, even though I thought a compromise was achieved back in October. (Did the language change significantly since then? If so, that should have been pointed out on this Talk: page.) As I understand the facts that this disagreement keeps chasing round & round are:

• Jerusalem was annexed following the 1968 War, unlike other territories it conquered. (And many of which have since been either returned to the original countries, or are acknowledged to be part of a Palestinian state.)
• Israel then made Jerusalem its official capital.
• This act was objected to by Arab nations, as well as a number of European nations, who expressed their displeasure by keeping their embassies in Tel Aviv.
• Israelis believe this is meddling in their internal affairs.
• Only the US & a few countries under US influence have relocated their embassies in Jerusalem.

As a result, although Jerusalem is the de jure capital of Israel, this act is not recognized by the majority of other nations.

Is there a way to focus on the facts of the dispute, & stop asserting whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital? -- llywrch 19:21, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your first two points are factually wrong: The first only applies to the eastern part of Jerusalem (which was annexed following the 1967 war). Jerusalem was made capital way before that, in 1950.

I misspoke about East Jerusalem & the Old Town. However, this is the first I had heard that the capital had been moved so early. -- llywrch

Read Wikipedia - it's a pretty good source for such things :-) -- uriber 17:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem is both the de jure capital of Israel (as officially stated by Israeli law), and the de facto capital (it is the seat of the Parliament, Prisident's residence, Prime Minister's office, supreme court, etc.). Hence it is easier simply to say that it is the capital of Israel.

Have they been in East Jerusalem since 1950, & was the Old City incorporated into that municipality in 1967? -- llywrch

They haven't been in "East Jerusalem" in since 1950, and they're not there now. The Old City became part of Israeli Jerusalem when it was annexed following the Six-day war (in 1968, I think). -- uriber 17:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Location of embassies, and the recognition of Jerusalem as capital by foreign nations (which I'm not even sure is a real thing. I never heard of the concept of a nation recognizing (or not recognizing) another nation's capital, except in this case) - those issues are important enough to be mentioned in the article, but not important enough, IMO, to be mentioned in the first paragraph.

It's a diplomatic snub, as I said some months back. But I would be willing to agree to your point about not needing to mention this dispute explicitly in the first paragraph, as long as there is something like "(See further below)" next to it. -- llywrch

It's pretty common to give the basic facts in the intro paragraph, and to expand on them "below". I don't see a specific reason to say "see below" in this case, although if that's what it takes to reach an agreement, I'll accept it. -- uriber 17:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Jerusalem", not "Disputes regarding Jerusalem". Therefore, the focus has to be first and foremost on facts about Jerusalem (such as it being the capital), and only then on the dispute. -- uriber 19:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And we have (I just looked) an extensive section on the history of the city, therefore shouldn't this be moved to "History of Jerusalem"? The argument is the same for both; & the article is very long & in need of breaking up. -- llywrch

I'm not sure what exactly you're proposing to move to "History of Jerusalem". Certainly the fact that it's the capital should appear in the main article. -- uriber 17:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and your last point is factually wrong as well, of course. the United States keeps its embassy in Tel-Aviv. I'm not sure how much Costa Rica and El Salvador are "under US influence". As far as I know, the reason that Costa Rica has its embassy in Jerusalem is that there is an article in Costa Rican law saying something like "Costa Rica shall locate its embassies at the capitals of countries". And since Costa Rica abides by its own laws, its embassy is located at Jerusalem, which is the capital. Other countries do not have similar laws, and therefore can, when it is politically convinient for them, locate their embassies at cities other than the capital, such as Tel-Aviv. -- uriber 19:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Everything I have heard points to Costa Rica and El Salvador locating their embassies there entirely at the persuasion of the US. And this is the first that I have heard the US's ambassidor was not in Jerusalem; the fact the embassy was moved to Jerusalem is a point of contention within the US. -- llywrch 00:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Uriber is correct on all points. Sorry you are wrong, llywrch. The facts are very easy to check, all one needs is NPOV:

• http://www.americanconsulate.com/
• A Google search for 'american embassy israel'
• http://usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/replies.html

Humus sapiens 01:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just for comparsion, Britannica's versions of Paris and Jerusalem. May I suggest that we outright steal Britannica's Jerusalem article's first two sentences (not illegal)? Just to end the silly conflict. BL 21:34, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Excellent idea, BL. Here it is for convenience, reworded just enough to make it into sentences:

Jerusalem <multilanguage stuff> is an ancient city of the Middle East that since 1967 has been wholly in the possession of Israel. In 1949 the city was proclaimed its capital by Israel.

Does anyone object to these two sentences becoming the first paragraph of the article? Wik, please reply! --Zero 01:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's OK. --Wik 03:16, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

This is not much better than the current bad wording. I am against this Britannica's phrase on Jerusalem. BTW, the Paris text is OK by me, and also in favor of the compromise proposed by Zero earlier. This "silly conflict" is a part of consistent campaign to delegitimize Israel. Humus sapiens 03:12, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Content-wise, that seems fine with me, but how is that not a copyright violation? As to delegitimizing Israel, it is part of a campaign, perhaps, to delegitimize Israel's possession of Jerusalem. I don't know that one can say it is a campaign to delegitimize Israel as a whole. john 04:27, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It takes more than a few bland sentences to violate copyright. Anyway, here is another option that incorporates my wording suggested before.

Jerusalem <multilanguage stuff> is an ancient city of the Middle East, Israel's official capital since 1949.

How about that for the entire first paragraph? --Zero 05:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. I don't see how that is preferable to the present version. --Wik 05:58, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

The present version is not stable as you know. Sooner or later someone will add "the capital of Israel" into the first sentence and the reversion war will begin again. My suggestion is a compromise that states a plain fact about Jerusalem without indicating approval or disapproval of it. --Zero 06:21, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That will not be any more stable, because I will revert it. "Official capital" makes it sound even more legitimate than simply "capital". It is not a fact. I think the fact that it is disputed territory should be mentioned first, and then the fact that Israel declared it its capital, although this is not recognized by the rest of the world. --Wik 07:24, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

This is much better: short and neutral fact, no modal verbs. --Humus sapiens 07:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Sorry, missed this before when scanning changes). Yes - sounds OK to me (although I don't really see what the word "official" adds. Is there such a thing as an "unofficial capital"?) -- uriber 22:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On a question of facts, I think 1949 is more accurate than 1950. The first Knesset was officially opened in Jerusalem in Feb 1949 but the sessions were held near Tel-Aviv (supposedly because the facilities were inadequate in Jerusalem). In Dec 1949, Ben-Gurion told the Knesset that the Kneset would be returned to Jerusalem which "has always been and always will be [the] capital". This period involves the genesis of the dispute over the siting of the capital, since the UN Trusteeship Council was still trying to make Jerusalem into an international enclave at the same time as Israel was moving more and more government functions there. --Zero 05:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Knesset moved to Jerusalem in December 1949, but the definite proclamation was made January 23, 1950. --Wik 05:58, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

But the 1950 proclamation didn't state that Jerusalem was the capital from that moment on, but rather that it was the capital already. It was claimed to be an affirmation of the status quo rather than the creation of a new status. --Zero 06:21, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, that was just rhetoric, since before that date this claim was not explicitly made. --Wik 07:24, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. I quoted such an explicit claim just above and there were others like it. I can also produce UN documents from 1949 in which Israel claims Jerusalem as the capital. --Zero 08:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ben-Gurion's words weren't the law. There was nothing official, otherwise there would have been no need for the 1950 declaration. --Wik 19:02, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well, assuming copyright is not violated, the Britannica version seems fine. At any rate, I think anything which reeks of "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" with no qualification is to be avoided. Beyond that, there's probably various acceptable formulations. I wonder, is there any other example of a country whose capital is disputed in this way? Hopefully one which is rather less fraught with emotional baggage? What about East Berlin as capital of the German Democratic Republic? Surely there were similar issues involved with that, weren't there? john 07:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to say "no" to the Britanninca version (I agreed to two previous proposals, so I hope this won't be considered stubbornness). No argument was presented in favor of this version (except for "that's what Britannica says"). In fact, I haven't heard any real counter-argument to my original argument (Jerusalem fits the definition of "capital"). What people are saying is basically "you are correct, but putting this into the article will piss off many people, so let's find some way to weasel out of it". I'm reluctant to accept this reasoning, but I was willing to go with it a little bit. The "Britannica version" goes too far. We should also remember that Britannica is a commercial enterprise - they have to sell their encycloedia, and therefore "keep people happy" might be a legitimate consideration for them. I don't think it is for us.

Notwithstanding the above, if I'm out-voted and the "Britannica version" is accepted (once again - I very much hope this does not happen), I'd like to point out that Britannica does not mention anything about "not recognized internationally" or "most embassies are in Tel-Aviv" in the two opening paragraphs. Therefore "accepting the Britannica approach" should also mean removing these statements from our opening paragraphs.

(and I apologize for taking time to respond. I do have a job, and I also have to sleep from time to time)

-- uriber 17:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have refuted all of this back in October and I will not get into this again. --Wik 19:02, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem does not fit the definition of capital because many countries do not recognize Jerusalem to be a part of Israel. Certainly the Israeli government's position that all of Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not accepted. Again, does anybody know anything about the way the question of East Berlin, as capital of East Germany, was treated at the time? Since, presumably, whatever emotional issues attached to the question of East Berlin have largely settled down since 1989, this might prove a useful model, since Berlin was, I think, officially considered to still be under four power control for much of the DDR's existence. john 19:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any definition saying that a capital of a state has to be "recognized by all (or some) countries to be part of that state". Please provide a reference to such a definition, if there is one. The question whether part or all of Jerusalem being capital of Israel is "accepted" or not is separate from the question whether Jerusalem is, or isn't the capital. What's debated here is the latter. -- uriber 21:14, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, so if, say, the government of Zimbabwe transferred operations to the Zimbabwean consulate in Vladivostok and declared that to be its capital, we should just say that Vladivostok is the capital of Zimbabwe? Obviously an extreme case, much more so than that of Jerusalem, but the basic fact is that this is a complicated issue, and I don't see why some kind of explanation of the situation, rather than a direct statement that is sure to offend people, is inappropriate. john 02:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, if they would regularly hold sessions of the Zimbabwean parliament in Vladivostok, move the president's office there, move the supreme court there, accept official letters of credence from foreign ambassadors there, and generally govern the country from there, I would be inclined to say that Vladivostok is the capital of Zimbabwe (even if most foreign embassies are still in Harare). I would perhaps hesitate a bit in this very contrived and unrealistic example, since Vladivostok is not actually in Zimbabwe. Jerusalem, on the other hand, is a city in Israel - so saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" does not cause the same uneasy feeling as saying "Vladivostok is the capital of Zimbabwe" in your imaginary example. If you need me to explain why Jerusalem is in Israel (in spite of "many nations not recognizing", etc.), please ask and I'll explain. -- uriber 18:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ironically, John's example applies, but not where he intended. Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital for over 3,300 years. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanakh, 0 times in the Koran. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. In the search of historical precedents, try to find another nation which was expelled from their homeland for almost 2 millenia but never abandoned it and their capital. --Humus sapiens 21:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm with Wik on this. You can't just say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel while being neutral. Rather say something like they treat it as their capital. -- Dissident 20:22, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, you're entitled to your opinion. However, since this is a discussion, not a vote, it would be more productive if you give reasons for your opinion, rather than just state it. Specifically:

• Do you think that "you can't just say Jerusalem is the capital" because it is not actually the capital, or is it despite the fact that it is actually the capital?
• If the former is correct, what definition of "capital" are you using, and in what way does Jerusalem not fit it?
• If it's the latter, what would be the reason for omitting this fact from the first paragraph in an article about Jerusalem?

I'm eagerly expecting your answers (although I'll probably be able to see them only about a day from now). -- uriber 21:24, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I saw Wik's comment: (3 Zionist POV pushers is not "nearly everyone") - The first, and quite possibly last, time I have seen Zero0000 described as Zionist... Martin 21:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem does not necessarily fit the definition because no other country in the world recognizes East Jerusalem to even be a part of Israel. To call "Jerusalem" (as opposed to "West Jerusalem") the capital of Israel is to acknowledge Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. Similarly, East Berlin, and not Berlin, was the capital of the German Democratic Republic. (And, analogously, even East Berlin is a dubious case, because Berlin remained under four power control, at least theoretically, throughout much of the 2 Germanies period. Similarly, many countries never recognized West Jerusalem as a rightful part of Israel, which is why they put their embassies in Tel Aviv to begin with). At any rate, my point in the Zimbabwe example was that the reason for the dispute is that many people don't recognize Jerusalem (or, at the very least, all of Jerusalem) to be a part of Israel, which is why it's problematic to say it's the capital. Vladivostok as theoretical capital of Zimbabwe is similarly problematic, due to that city's not being a part of Zimbabwe, in spite of it being declared the capital. Also, how to deal with governments in exile? Were the capitals of Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, etc. etc. etc. in London during the Second World War? At any rate, the issue is complicated, and we shouldn't simply say the one thing. The very fact that there are many users saying that we shouldn't just say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel suggests that to say so would be POV, and that we need a less controversial formulation. john 23:18, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When you say "the definition" - what definition do you mean? The one I provided doesn't say anything about "other countries recognizing parts of the city to be part of the country", and as far as I know, no other definition was suggested.

"West Jerusalem" is a historic concept (somewhat like "West Berlin"). There currently does not exist an entity called "West Jerusalem", and therefore, it cannot be the capital of either Israel or any other country.

Once again, I don't see how the fact that "many people don't recognize Jerusalem (or part of it) to be a part of Israel" is relevant to the question whether it is capital or not. It's like saying that because at ancient times most people did not recognize the Earth to be nearly spherical, it actually wasn't.

London was never officially proclaimed capital of any of the countries you mention, so it clearly does not fit the definition. I don't think the comparison is relevant at all.

The issue is really not so complicated, and the fact that simple issues are often presented in a complicated way just to make everybody happy, is, IMO, one of the greatest weaknesses of Wikipedia in general.

That "many people say we shouldn't be saying something" proves absolutely nothing. I bet there are a lot of people which would say that about most of the evolution article, for example. Would you suggest to delete it? Wikipedia is here in order to provide readers with information, not in order to be "uncontroversial".

And finally: Suppose that, in addition to being the seat of Zimbabwean government and officially proclaimed capital, Vladivostok would also be populated mostly by Zimbabweans; that Zimbabwean police would be directing traffic there according to Zimbabwean traffic regulations, and arresting people breaking Zimbabwean law; and that those people would be brought before Zimbabwean courts and, if found guilty, would serve terms in Zimbabwean prisons; and that on Zimbabwean festivals Zimbabwean flags would be flown all over town by the city council (headed by a Zimbabwean mayor); and that one would not be required to carry a passport (or to pay customs) when traveling between Vladivostok and Harare; and furthermore, suppose that Vladivostok were't located thousands of miles away from the Zimbabwean mainland, but instead would be contiguous with it. And that the majority of its inhabitants, and actually, most of the world, wouldn't even call it by it's Russian name "Vladivostok", but instead call it by it's Zimbabwean name - let's say it was "Bulawayo". Would you still hesitate to say that Bulawayo (I mean, Vladivostok) is the capital of Zimbabwe? -- uriber 18:32, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Look, again, you're missing the point. The possession of "Jerusalem" as a single entity is disputed - no other country in the world recognizes there to be only a single "Jerusalem". I agree that it would make no sense to say "West Jerusalem" is the capital of Israel. But on the other hand, to say that "Jerusalem" is the capital of Israel implies that the whole city is part of Israel, which, again, implies things about the status of East Jerusalem that no other country in the world has recognized. Here, let me reverse it for you. Let's say in the 1967 war Israel had lost, and Jordan had taken control of all of the city of Jerusalem. West Jerusalem was annexed to Jordan, and King Hussein decided to move the government of Jordan to Jerusalem, and to proclaim Jerusalem the capital of Jordan. No other country in the world recognizes the annexation, and they all continue to have their embassies in Amman. Would you be willing to accept Wikipedia saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Jordan, with no qualification, at that point? john 20:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The 1st paragraph discussion, continued

Can anyone tell me what the problem is with the first paragraph as it is now (22:11, 29 Feb 2004 . . Wik (rv))? -- Dissident 22:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It fails to clearly note the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. -- uriber 22:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's not a neutral formulation as it implies that Jerusalem is a part of Israel. -- Dissident 23:14, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. It does not imply that.
2. Jerusalem is a part of Israel.

-- uriber 16:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. Some definitions of capital call it the "the chief city or town in a country" (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary) and in some languages it literally means that, the German "Hauptstadt" for example.
2. That part is actually internationally disputed, so we can be quick about that. I've got the impression from lots of countries that they would be willing to forego the international status of Jerusalem and accept West-Jerusalem as part of Israel if it on its turn accepts East-Jerusalem as part of a future Palestinian state.

Dissident 18:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. The part about "some languages" is irrelevant - this is the English Wikipedia. In addition to the Americam Heritage Dictionary definition I quoted above, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary says a capital (sense 3a) is "a city serving as a seat of government"[2].
2. The whole discussion of what "lots of countries" would be able to "forego" under some hypothetical circumstances is completely irrelevant to this question. I live in Jerusalem, and my everyday life experience tells me it is in Israel. Israeli cars with Israeli license plates driven by Israeli drivers, Israeli police on the streets, Israeli flags on holidays, my contract with my Israeli employer is subject to Israeli law, no passport required when I travel to Tel-Aviv - should I continue? All in all, nothing to suggest that Jerusalem is not in Israel. -- uriber 20:18, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I now also see that you (conveniently) ommitted the first part of Webster's definition that you quoted: "The seat of government" [3]. So Jerusalem fulfils this definition as well - even if you insist on not accepting that it is in Israel -- uriber 20:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hold it right there. The fact that the meaning is ambiguous strengthens my case rather than weakens it. -- Dissident 20:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see how "the meaning is ambiguous" strengthens your case that "saying that Jerusalem is capital implies it is in Israel". If the meaning was unambiguously "the chief town in a country" (as you tried to present it) - that would strengthen your case (on this specific point, regardless of the other one, of course). If the definition is really ambiguous, it means we can say "Jerusalem is the capital" without fear of being wrong (it will at least fit some - or in this case, nearly all - definitions of the word).

And here's another definition (by WordNet): "a seat of government" [4]. -- uriber 21:46, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would you be willing to accept the current formulation as a compromise (23:14, 3 Mar 2004 . . Dissident)? -- Dissident 23:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Jerusalem is not the capital only in the sense that "it is the location of its presidential residence and parliament" (and PM office, and supreme court, etc.), but also in the sense that "it is the official seat of government" (as stated in Israeli law), and in, short, in any reasonable sense by which Rome or Paris are capitals.

The word "currently" you added isn't really helpful either. Why doesn't the article on Rome say that it is "currently the capital city of Italy"? The only reason for introducing that word would be implying that Jerusalem's status is temporary in some way - which is either POV or pure speculation.

Also, I don't see why stating that Jerusalem is the capital should be pushed off to the third sentence. Compare, again, with Rome - another very ancient city, which became the capital of modern Italy only relatively recently in its history. Still - the first sentence in the article on Rome states that it is the capital. Everything else (location, history, etc.) is discussed later.

In short, I don't see why I should compromise on factual issues. Nevertheless, I did (very reluctantly) agree to three different compromises suggested here previously. They were all rejected (or, actually, just reverted) by Wik. -- uriber 16:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uriber, in the first place, Wik has also agreed to several different formulae. In the second place, other than you and Humus Sapiens, most people here seem to agree that there needs to be some form of qualification on the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That no country in the world is willing to recognize that half of Jerusalem is even part of Israel makes the whole issue very problematic. In the third place, I notice you have not answered my earlier query regarding a theoretical Jordanian takeover of all of Jerusalem in 1967 followed by a move of Jordan's official capital there. Would you in that case be fighting as hard to say that "Jerusalem is the capital of Jordan" as you are now to say that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"? I would agree, however, with your statement that Israel's present status should come in the first sentence. A further question. Would a phrase like "Designated capital" or some such, be acceptable to you? (And to Wik, for that matter) john 17:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Most people seem to agree" - if this was a vote, I would surely lose. However, in Wikipedia, unlike in the UN, things are not usually decided by a vote. Instead we are having a discussion, trying to bring convincing arguments for our positions. Until now, I have only seen two arguments against saying that Jerusalem is capital. One is Dissident's - "saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel implies that it is in Israel, which is wrong". I think I have pretty much refuted both sides of this argument (certainly the first one) in the discussion above.

The only other argument I'm seeing is your argument - "most people are saying we shouldn't say that, so we shouldn't say that". And the reason those people are giving? Simple - "most people say it". This is a cyclic argument, which is impossible to refute - but, on the other hand, it has no real merit - because the questions we're dealing with here are about Jerusalem, not about what most people say about Jerusalem (which is also important - but not important enough to appear in the first few sentences of the article).

Regarding your hypothetical question - I haven't answered it before because it's more of a personal question than a question about the topic at hand. However, if you insist - here's my answer: I would not be fighting as hard in that case to so say that "Jerusalem is the capital of Jordan" (I'm allowed to pick my fights). However, I also wouldn't fight against saying that.

The phrase "Designated capital" is not acceptable, because it implies that Jerusalem is not the actual capital. It would have been proper if Israel had officially designated Jerusalem as capital, while in practice the government had been operating from a different place. However this is not the case, as Jerusalem is both the officially designated capital, and the capital in practice.

I'm not in any kind of competition with Wik on who accepts more compromises. Actually, I'm a bit sorry I accepted those that I did (although I won't take it back). Keeping the article accurate should be more important than keeping some people (or even most people) happy. -- uriber 22:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I partly agree with Uriber, but only partly. I do not know of any principle in international law that denies a country the right to specify where its capital is. Therefore, the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a simple fact, and saying it does not indicate approval or disapproval. I don't believe it even implies that Jerusalem is in Israel. On the other hand, sovereignty is a matter which is subject to the most stringent principles of law, so in that case one cannot state "Jerusalem is in Israel" as a fact but only as a claim made by Israel. In this case it does not matter how much Jerusalem appears to be in Israel. Actually East Jerusalem is not in Israel according to the overwhelming legal consensus including the UN Security Council. I believe that a correct and neutral statement that could start the article would be "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is accepted by few countries or international bodies.". In this regard, I believe that the matter of sovereignty in East Jerusalem, and not the matter of where the capital is, is the main reason most countries don't site their embassies in Jerusalem. --Zero 11:18, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I incorporated this suggestion (with minor modifications - I hope my parentheses aren't considered POV) into a new intro paragraph. Let's see what happens. -- uriber 12:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Two minutes! I think this is a record even for Wik. -- uriber 12:14, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I'm willing to accept the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, if its intended meaning is immediately elaborated in the rest of the same sentence. -- Dissident 01:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The wording "Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس, al-Quds) is an ancient city which lies on the border between Israel and the West Bank. It is one of the most disputed territories in the world. Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950, and it is the location of its presidential residence and parliament, but this status is not internationally recognized and most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv" is fine so far as I'm concerned, though it should at some point be noted that the western side of the city is territory occupied by Israel in the war of independence and not yet a politically resolved matter between the concerned parties. Jamesday 05:17, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How sweet, we are moving backwards. Instead of trying to reconcile the text regarding East Jerusalem, by this new definition the "territory occupied by Israel in the war of independence and not yet a politically resolved matter between the concerned parties" would possibly include entire Israel from Naharia to Eilat. Why can't those pesky Jews just roll over and die? --Humus sapiens Talk 10:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're spouting off abusive language again! This time no less you're suggesting somebody is a genocidal maniac! Desist or I WILL report this! -- Dissident 02:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This time I'll ignore the ad-hom attack to prove that my goal is to improve the article, instead of bickering here. BTW, "spouting off" is duly noted. To the point: according to the twisted logic of the gentlemen above, it is somehow Israel's fault to have won the aggressive 1948 Arab-Israeli War waged by Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon and Transjordan with openly stated goal to annihilate the Jewish state. "Consider "Bigotry-finder rule 101": Take a situation, change the race, religion, sexual orientation, or other aspect of the players' identities, and see if the same results apply... Listen to the criticism of any other country: It is always a political party, a program, a policy, or a person that is criticized, never the legitimacy of a society. Except for Israel." [5] --Humus sapiens Talk 07:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I explained (several times) why it's not fine as far as I'm concerned, and unless you can explain why my arguments are invalid, irrelevant, POV, or whatever, instead of just "voting" for the current text, I'll simply ignore your POV. As for the last part of your comment - Humus put it nicely. -- uriber 15:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that Uriber has made his point very clear, though on some points of detail, I disagree. By saying that Jeruzalem was Israëls capital around 1272 B.C. is for me not a valid argument: they lost it to many conquerers like the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines and then the many Muslims (First indeed the Arabs and then the Turks) and indeed the Muslims lost it in 1967, actually they lost it in 1948 from the emerging state of Israël! More than one million Arab soldiers, trained by Brittish and equiped by Europeans, where unable to beat approx 400 thousand Jewish fighters..... if they failed then, they'll continue to fail so cut the bullshit and start living together! Israël cannot destroy the Palestinians because that should be genocide, the Palestinians cannot beat Israël because they are too weak! Then they should live together! Jeruzalem can be both the capital for Israël and Palestine, if necessary with a wall to divide them (worked with Berlin too for 50 years!) --Irsjad 18:33, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 16 edit war

Before making changes to the 1st paragraph, please explain what is factually wrong with the language below. --Humus sapiens Talk 19:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس, al-Quds) is the capital city of Israel (although Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is accepted by few countries or international bodies). It is one of the most ancient cities in the world, and has a long history of wars and controversy.

Just because something is factually correct doesn't mean it is the best way to present it in an encyclopedia. Explain what is factually wrong with this language: Anthony DiPierro 19:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس, al-Quds) is an ancient city which lies on the border between Israel and the West Bank. It is one of the most disputed territories in the world. Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950.

(I hope Humus won't mind if I answer this:) The text you are proposing fails to mention a central fact about Jerusalem: that it is the capital of Israel. Factual accuracy is as much as in what you don't say is it is in what you say. Would you accept an article about Rome which does not say "Rome is the capital of Italy" as factually correct? -- uriber 19:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It clearly says that "Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950." What other requirement is there to be a capital that I'm missing? Anthony DiPierro 19:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That Israel has since then (1950) never declared another city as capital, or revoked the 1950 declaration; that Jerusalem is the seat of Israeli parliament; that it is the location of the Prime Minister's office and nearly all other ministry headquarters; that it is the seat of Israeli Supreme Court; that it is the seat of Israel's national bank, etc., etc. All this information can easily be implied by the simple, factually correct, statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Refraining to do so and insisting on lenghty formulations just to avoid doing so is an introduction of POV. -- uriber 19:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950" is hardly a lengthy formulation. I'm saying this as someone who personally accepts the Israeli government's claim (I think a nation gets to decide what its own capital is) -- to be NPOV, we have to be clear in stating the Israeli government's position (Anthony is doing that) and in stating the reactions of foreign governments. That is a neutral point of view. Saying "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" isn't neutral....you and I can believe it is correct, but it's not neutral. Jwrosenzweig 19:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not lenghty, but on its own it is very lacking. To make it complete, you will have to also state everything I wrote in the above paragraph - which would make it lenghty. Also, the first sentence in an article should describe the current status of the city, not just mention some fact related to its history (the 1950 declaration in this case). Why is saying "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" not neutral? -- uriber 20:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's no need to explain every little detail in the first paragraph. "Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950" is sufficient. Anthony DiPierro 18:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But those (other than the first) are not requirements of a capital. Perhaps they would be inferred, perhaps not. I wouldn't personally infer those things without reading more. In fact, I wouldn't even infer that Israel even had any of those things without reading more. Anthony DiPierro 19:47, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They are not requirements, but they are things to be expected, as they constitute the essence of being a "seat of government", i.e., a capital. On the other hand, the text you are supporting implies that Israel's declarations was just that - a ceremonial declaration, and that Jerusalem is not the capital in practice. Now that I've answered some of your questions, would you mind telling me why you oppose the statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"? -- uriber 19:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's POV. It's not a statement that every Wikipedian would agree with. Anthony DiPierro 19:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that the definition of NPOV is something that "every Wikipedian would agree with". In any event, it's not a matter of agreement. It's a matter of fact. Jerusalem matches the definition of "capital". If someone disagrees, he can read the dictionary definition, and then research the facts, and he will notice (unless his logic is clouded by his POV) that the facts match the definition.

I must leave now. I'll be happy to continue the discussion tomorrow. -- uriber 20:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem matches your definition of "capital". Must all Wikipedians agree? No, but that's the goal. A fact is "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." There is a serious dispute as to the capital of Israel, so presenting it this way violates NPOV.

For determining whether something is fact or opinion in this sense, it does not matter what the actual truth of the matter is; there can at least in theory be "false facts" (things that everybody agrees upon, but which are, in fact, false), and there are very often "true opinions," though necessarily, it seems, there are more false ones. - Wikipedia:NPOV

Anthony DiPierro 20:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem does not match my definition of "capital". It matches the definition of "capital" from at least four respectable English dictionaries (see above). Do you know of a definition of "capital" (from a well-established authority) that Jerusalem does not match? Also - you say ther is a dispute. However, I didn't see anyone in this discussion saying that "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" (not even you). Maybe there's no real dispute about this fact? -- uriber 17:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Try doing a little googling. I think you'll see that there is a lot of dispute of whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. As for the definition, whether it's yours or that of a "respectable" dictionary, it's still irrelevant. Anthony DiPierro 18:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I won't do your research for you. You say it's disputed - prove it. And anyway, it's not even a matter of opinion, it's a fact. "The definition [...] is irrelevant"? Huh? So now we'll just use words however we like, regardless of what they mean? And why did you bother to emphasize the word your when you said "your definition", if you think definitions don't matter at all? Just to waste my time in explaining to you that it's not my definition? -- uriber 18:51, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's the definition you choose to use, therefore it's your definition. As for proving that it is disputed, I don't have to do that. It's absolutely obvious to anyone who has done the most basic of research into this issue. Anthony DiPierro 19:22, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. Thanks for recognizing the factual accuracy of the text you are trying to remove.
   • I did no such thing. Actually, whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel isn't even a fact, it's an opinion, more specifically, it's semantics. Anthony DiPierro 18:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"semantics [...] is traditionally defined as the study of meaning" (Wikipedia). When there is a dispute about the meaning of a word (i.e., about semantics), the proper way to resolve it is by consulting an authority on meanings of words - that is, dictionary (or several dictionaries). This is exactly what I did in this case - and at least as far as semantics go, the case is closed. -- uriber 19:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When there is a dispute about the meaning of a word, the proper way to resolve it is to rephrase the sentence in a way such that there is no dispute. There is no "authority on meanings of words." Dictionaries try their best to reflect common usage, but they are by no means vested with any authority to do so.

1. The Anthony's text suggests that it is somehow illegal for Israel to have its capital in Jerusalem. It doesn't mention that the dispute is only about East Jerusalem. To me, there is not much difference between this position and of those who delegitimize Israel right to Tel Aviv. See the discussion above.
   • Well, it's not "my" text. As for your point, I'll address it below. Anthony DiPierro 18:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. "the border between Israel and the West Bank" is being disputed and currently is the 1949 armistice line. It is not a border, nor was it meant to be. I don't think it is worth being mentioned in the 1st phrase, unless (see #2).
   • Good point, this should be fixed. Anthony DiPierro 18:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. I am not going to waste my time on silly edit wars. Unfortunately for WP, this is typical fate of almost every article related to Jews and Israel. Check for yourself. --Humus sapiens Talk 21:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

UK, Shm-UK

Jerusulem is not recognised by the UK government as the capital - see [6]. Secretlondon 18:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The page you linked does not even mention the word "capital" - so it is irrelevant. Anyway I never claimed that Jerusulem is recognised by the UK government as the capital. All I said is that Jerusalem is the capital, which is still true regardless of what the UK government recognizes. -- uriber 19:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You never claimed that Jerusulem is recognized by the UK government as the capital, however, you also claimed there was "no real dispute about this fact [the "fact" that Jerusulem is the capital]." Anthony DiPierro 19:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a big difference between not "officially recognizing" Jerusalem as capital (which is a matter of politics), and between saying that "Jerusalem is not the capital" (which is a matter of fact). Of course there's a political dispute about Jerusalem. I just said I don't think there is dispute about the facts. -- uriber 19:11, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it's just the opposite. Whether or not Jerusalem is officially recognized as the capital is a fact (at least, it can be, barring strange circumstances such as the United States where Congress passed a bill saying that Jerusalem is the capital but the President declared the bill Unconstitutional). Whether or not it is the capital is an opinion. Anthony DiPierro 19:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The UK is irrelevant here. If Israel does not recognize London as the UK capital, would it cease to be one? Prove why such dependency is important. BTW, the UK was one of only two countries (another was Pakistan) which _recognized_ Jordan's illegal annexation of the West Bank and E-Jlem in 1949 until it was liberated in 1967. Did it make it any more legal? We don't want to talk about Britain's long story of colluding with the Arabs, mismanaging the Mandate and shutting down Jewish immigration in the 30s and 40s, do we? --Humus sapiens Talk 19:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If Israel does not recognize London as the UK capital, then it would cease to be NPOV to call it one. Anthony DiPierro 19:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is your POV. I respectfully disagree and think it is irrelevant. None of dictionaries mention the "recognition" requirement. Being asked repeatedly, you were unable to prove it is important. At this point, we are arguing over POV, not facts. Should we strive for NPOV, though? --Humus sapiens Talk 19:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, think the dictionaries are irrelevant. If the dictionaries call London the capital of the UK, but Israel disagrees, then it is POV to call London the UK capital, because that is in dispute. Recognition is exactly what NPOV is all about. If something is not universally recognized as being true, then it is POV to assert that it is without attribution, regardless of what some dictionary may say. Anthony DiPierro 20:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to what you say, the articles on London, Rome, Paris, etc., should all be fixed, because they are now claiming as a fact something that is merely a POV (that these cities are capitals) - whereas none of these articles even mention the facts - by which countries these capitals are "recognized". I think you have a lot of work to do in order to make these articles (and about 200 others) NPOV. Good luck. -- uriber 19:32, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:NPOV again. I even quoted the relevant paragraph. By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." There is no serious dispute to the capital status of London, Rome, or Paris. Anthony DiPierro 19:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And BTW, which president declaired that bill Unconstitutional? I'm curious. Anyway, as far as I know it's not in the president's authority to declare bills "unconstitutional". -- uriber 19:32, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The President was Bush. [7] And any President can declare anything whatever he wants. Anthony DiPierro 19:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh - you are confusing your acts here. Bush's statement (which does not mention the word "unconstitutional", BTW) is regarding several clauses in the 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The act in which congress recognized Jerusalem as capital of Israel was the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, of which no president ever said it was unconstitutional. -- uriber 19:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

He may not use the word "unconsitutional", but he says that the act "impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs." As for the content of the act itself, it "obligates the US to identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in federally funded documents." [8]

Once again, the very fact that reasonable people are disputing this means that it is not NPOV to say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." Clearly, the situation is absolutely not analogous to the situation of Rome or Paris, where there is no basis to say that those cities are not the capital. Jerusalem, on the other hand, is not recognized as a part of the State of Israel by many countries. As I've said before, the only analogous example I can think of is East Berlin as the capital of the German Democratic Republic. I think that it would be similarly problematic to say "East Berlin was the capital of the German Democratic Republic," since a) the East Germans themselves called "Berlin" their capital; and b) Berlin was officially under four power control, and thus not a part of either German state (at least until the 70s...) What is needed here is to have some statement which says that Israel has its capital in Jerusalem without saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." This wouldn't be hard to do, I think, except that there's a lot of people here saying "We won't except anything except saying 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.'" That makes this essentially intractable. john 20:11, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Previously I suggested we write "Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel". I repeat that suggestion. The word "official" introduces some intentional ambiguity, in the time-honored fashion of diplomatic documents. Uriber didn't like this idea too much, but Wik was the one who reverted it. This relative symmetry of dislike suggests that it is close to the mark. --Zero 22:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If the word "official" is designed to confuse, it worked for me. Still, this is better than "Israel declared", as if they don't deserve it. In addition, we have agreed upon the NPOV disclaimer about Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem is recognized by few countries or international bodies. Other than accepting the Israel's right to exist, what's wrong with this phrase? --Humus sapiens Talk 05:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a dialect thing, but "official" seems even worse. It implies that not only is Israel the capital, but this is true by international law, or some other "official" acceptance. Not sounding like they deserve it is the intent, because whether they deserve it is POV. "Declared capital" is acceptable. Anthony DiPierro 11:21, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Like I said on Zero0000's Talk page, my vote goes to "de facto". -- Dissident 20:51, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about "official and de facto"? That would cover both aspects, and would be fine with me (much better than either of the adjectives by itself). -- uriber 21:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well if we're going to start combining adjectives, then I'll add Anthony's one instead: "declared and de facto". -- Dissident 21:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Official is POV. Adding other words doesn't resolve that. At least, unless those words modify official (declared to be official, for instance, which is obviously not the right words to use). Anthony DiPierro 22:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The argument here against "official" is wrong. There is no such concept as "official capital" in international law as far as I know, and the views of other countries have no legal import outside those countries. So the only valid meaning of the phrase is "capital according to Israel's official view". I support Uriber's suggestion "official and de facto". --Zero 23:10, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV

I'm going to repeat a quote from Wikipedia:NPOV, because people seem to be missing it (and not reading it for themselves).

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the nonbias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves. By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By "opinion," on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There's bound to be meta:borderline cases where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express opinions. That God exists is an opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band is an opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opinion.

For determining whether something is fact or opinion in this sense, it does not matter what the actual truth of the matter is; there can at least in theory be "false facts" (things that everybody agrees upon, but which are, in fact, false), and there are very often "true opinions," though necessarily, it seems, there are more false ones.

I'm not even going to bold the part that applies ("it does not matter what the actual truth of the matter is"). Read this whole thing, or better yet, read Wikipedia:NPOV. Anthony DiPierro 20:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What do other sources say?

• Je·ru·sa·lem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j-rs-lm, -z-) The capital of Israel... (Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
• Jerusalem \Je*ru"sa*lem\, n. [Gr. ?, fr. Heb. Y?r?sh[=a]laim.] The chief city of Palestine, intimately associated with the glory of the Jewish nation... (Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)
• Jerusalem n : capital and largest city of the modern state of Israel... (Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University)
• Main Entry: Je·ru·sa·lem Pronunciation: j&-'rü-s(&-)l&m, -'rü-z(&-)l&m Variant(s): or ancient Hi·ero·sol·y·ma /"hI-(&-)rO-'sä-l&-m&/ Usage: geographical name; city central Palestine NW of Dead Sea; divided 1948-67 between Jordan (old city) & Israel (new city) capital of Israel since 1950 & formerly capital of ancient kingdoms of Israel & Judah; old city under Israeli control since 1967 population 544,200 (Source: Merriam-Webster online)
• Jerusalem Related: Israel Geography (jeroo´selem, -zelem) , Heb. Yerushalayim, Arab. Al Quds, city (1994 pop. 578,800), capital of Israel.... (Source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/J/Jerusale.asp, http://www.infoplease.com, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. - The same contents)

Pls. see www.dictionary.com for refs. --Humus sapiens | Talk 22:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The current first paragraph seems to be neutral, factual and correct. So I would stick with it. Current is of course: Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس, al-Quds) is the capital city of Israel (although Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is accepted by few countries or international bodies). It is one of the most ancient cities in the world, and has a long history of wars and controversy. -Marduk

Reading this, I'm at a bit of a loss why this is even up for debate. Israel says its capital is Jerusalem. Its legislative functions are there. Its laws say that its capital of Jerusalem. Officially and functionally, it is the capital of Israel. Heck, the dictionary says that its the capital of Israel. Isn't this enough to define the place as the capital? And for those on the other side - if Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel, what is, and what evidence is there to support that? Ambivalenthysteria 10:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel. Just that its status as capital is problematic enough that the capital information should not be stated as though it is an uncontroversial fact. Certainly one might argue that West Jerusalem, and not Jerusalem, is the capital of Israel. john 17:35, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From PenguiN42

Sorry for jumping in to the conversation, but has discussion about this reached a stalemate? No one has posted a major contribution to the discussion in a few days.... Unless it's going on somewhere else and I'm missing it. Anyway, I had some questions: a previous version was posted by Uriber that was worded "Jerusalem (Hebrew: #1497;רושלים Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس, al-Quds) is an ancient city of the Middle East, Israel's official capital since 1949. Jerusalem's status as capital is not internationally recognized, and most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv." [9] -- it was reverted by Wik, who objected to calling the city "Israel's official capital." My first question is for Wik: why isn't saying "status as capital is not internationally recognized" an acceptable qualification? Secondly, for Uriber, why is it an acceptable qualification, while stating "Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950" [10] is not? PenguiN42 22:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I stopped commenting here a few days ago because I felt I have said everything I have to say on the subject, and repeating myself over and over is a waste of my time an Wikipedia's disk space. However, since you're new to the discussion, I'll try to answer your questions. As to why saying "Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950" is not acceptable, see my reply to Anthony DiPierro dated 19:42, 16 Mar 2004. -- uriber 22:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your feeling of frustration, and that you've "said everything you have to say." However, if no one reaches a consensus about this issue (or at least an agreement not to revert a certain change), then the page will never stabilize and will be locked forever... And I think a locked page about such an important issue is much worse for wikipedia in the long run than some disk space being used up by talking :) PenguiN42 02:24, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the page

Secondly, I feel that the fact that there *is* so much dispute here over whether to explicitly state that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" proves that it's a POV statement -- that is, a statement whose truth is under serious dispute. Facts that are not in dispute are the fact that Israel declared Jerusalem to be its capital, and the fact that much of its government is run out of Jerusalem. These are the facts of the matter -- "jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a conclusion drawn from those facts. And it's obvious that there's some dispute over whether that conclusion is 100% unquestionable. Whether Jerusalem actuallyis the capital of Israel or not is irrelevant, as clearly stated in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Therefore, I would argue for placing the undisputed facts listed above in the article, instead of the disputed conclusion. Some have argued that saying "Israel declared Jerusalem its capital" implies that Israel's declaration isn't legitimate -- I argue that it says nothing either way about the declaration, but leaves it up to the reader to decide. However, saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" pretty clearly states that Israel's declaration is legitimate (therefore being less NPOV than possibly implying that it might not be, even though the previous statement doesn't imply this) -- and, more importantly, it implies to most people that Israel has sovereignty over all of Jerusalem -- a point which is clearly in dispute. PenguiN42 22:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I said this several times before, but I'll try to say this even more clearly. The fact that there is a dispute over whether "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is NPOV or not does not prove that it is not NPOV. (The idea that one can win an argument simply by stating his position is quite absurd). If there were a dispute over whether Jerusalem is the capital or not - that might have made the statement non-NPOV. However, nobody seriously claimed, during this entire discussion, that "Jerusalem is not the capital". So there's no evidence that saying "Jerusalem is the capital" is not NPOV. Just a few people claiming it to be non-NPOV, with no convincing arguments to back them up.

It is not obvious that there's some dispute over whether Jerusalem is capital is 100% unquestionable. And saying that it's obvious does not prove it is obvious. It doesn't even constitute an argument.

Saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" does not state that Israel's declaration is legitimate. How can a factual comment bare a "legal" meaning? Does saying "Bill is dead" state that "Joe's killing of Bill was legitimate"?

About sovereignty - you are claiming that most people understand the word "capital" very differently than the way it is defined in four different dictionaries. This is a very strong claim - do you have any data to back it up? -- uriber 22:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure if this made it more clear for me. First I'd like to respond to "It is not obvious that there's some dispute over whether Jerusalem is capital is 100% unquestionable. And saying that it's obvious does not prove it is obvious. It doesn't even constitute an argument." -- I think you misunderstand me, because what i meant was that everything that's being argued in here is "dispute over whether 'Jerusalem is capital' is 100% unquestionable" -- that is, we're arguing over whether 'Jerusalem is capital' is all fact (ie, 100% unquestionable), or whether it contains or implies POV. The fact that this argument exists makes it obvious that there's a dispute. Please read this carefully, as the wording is tricky, and I don't want to have to explain myself several times. As for the other points, I'll try to split up the different implications you seem to be making (here and elsewhere), paraphrased as to my understanding, and respond to each in turn:

Agreed. There is some kind of dispute going on here. However, after so many kilobytes of arguments, I don't see how noting this obvious fact contributes to the discussion in any way. -- uriber 09:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. That there's a dispute over whether or not the statement is NPOV does not mean that there's a dispute over the truth of the statement itself -- yeah, I see now that I made a logical error in stating this. You're right on this count. Consider my assertions to this effect retracted.
2. Nobody seriously claimed, during this discussion, that Jerusalem is not the capital, therefore there is no serious dispute over whether Jerusalem is the capital. -- Just because no one in this discussion has seriously claimed that jerusalem is not the capital doesn't mean there's no serious dispute somewhere in the world. So the question then becomes, is there serious dispute somewhere in the world? Two points have been raised to support that there is: First, some countries don't "officially recognize" Jerusalem as the capital; and Second, not all of Jerusalem is indisputably recognized as part of Israel, and some claim that this means it can't be Israel's indisputable capital. I'll address these points further below.
3. The fact that Israel calls Jerusalem its capital, and treats the city like a capital, means it's the capital. Other countries' recognition of Israel as the capital aren't relevant to this fact -- I think we need to clear up some ambiguities, here. Because it seems to me that a country refusing to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is tantamount to disputing the fact that Jerusalem is the captial of Israel. How can this be interpreted any other way? Likewise, how can Israel's declaration that Jerusalem is the capital be "Illegitimate" if Jerusalem is Israel's capital? You imply that "legitimacy" is a legal definition, and has no bearing on the facts. I think this is not a very clear concept, and needs some more elaboration. Remember, POV is not concerned with what the actual truth is, but rather whether that fact is in dispute. Why don't legal definitions count towards disputes of a fact? Why do only dictionary definitions count? Why don't peoples own interpretations of words (which may carry connotations that the dictionary doesn't specify) count? Is it possible for someone to both believe that Jerusalem is not the legitimate capital of Israel and believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? It seems like a contradiction to me. I guess the problem is -- what exactly does "legitimate" mean? I don't think it's only a legal definition, and I bet your four dictionaries would agree with me.
4. Whether or not Israel owns/controls/has sovereignty over Jerusalem isn't relevant to the fact -- you back this up by showing that dictionary definitions don't require that the captial has to be part of the country in order for it to be the capital. I would argue, however, that dictionaries don't always include every necessary defining element of a word. Also, peoples usage and understanding of a word don't always match what the dictionary says. Regardless, you're right that the burden of proof is on me to show that "most people understand the word "capital" very differently than the way it is defined in four different dictionaries." And I'm really not sure how I would be able to "prove" this as it is an inductive claim -- "most people." However, I think an easier claim (though more subjective) would be a "significant number of people." And I think polling is a good way to gather evidence for such a claim. So how about it? Would anyone care to vote for whether the captial of a country has to be completely a part of that country?

• I'll start off by voting for myself, that yes, the capital as to be completely a part of the country. PenguiN42

As a final point, I contend that saying that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" implies, to, say, a person who knows nothing about Jerusalem, that the whole of Jerusalem is a part of Israel and that Israel has sovereignty over it. However, saying that "Israel declared Jerusalem to be its capital," to a person who knows nothing about Jerusalem, does *not* imply that the declaration wasn't valid. This is related to the above point about people's understanding of the word "capital," but it's not quite the same thing. This is more about people's interpretation of the context surrounding the word.

Anyway, that's it for now... I hope! PenguiN42 04:00, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. So that's settled.
2. You are presenting an argument which I never argued, and then you argue with it. What I did say is that "'there's no evidence' that saying 'Jerusalem is the capital' is not NPOV". As for the "evidence" you are producing, see below.
3. I disagree that "a country refusing to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is tantamount to disputing the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". The matter of a country "recognizing" another country's capital is not well defined, and has no clear meaning. Generally, official statements made by countries do not necessarily reflect actual people's POVs about facts. Rather, they reflect what the officials making them consider to be the best thing to say in order to serve the political interests of the entity they are representing. That the UK says it does "not recognize Jerusalem as capital" is certainly not the same as saying that someone in the UK government actually believes that "Jerusalem is not the capital". It merely means that the UK government believes that "not recognizing Jerusalem as capital" serves best the diplomatic and political interests of the UK. In any event, I have previously supported a phrasing which makes it absolutely clear that Jerusalem's status is not politically recognized by other countries[11]. This was reverted by Wik, which refuses to discuss.

See, I would have agreed to the wording in that URL. I'm really not sure why Wik didn't. His assertion that "there is nothing "balanced" about saying it is the official capital when this is disputed by almost the entire rest of the world" doesn't even make sense since it clearly states in the next statement that it *is* disputed my much of the rest of the world. This makes it balanced in my opinion. And, to me, "official capital" means it's Israel's official capital, nothing more. Anyone know if Wik is still banned? If he is, I lean towards this wording, as long as no one else disagrees with it. PenguiN42 12:48, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, above, has expresses his disagreement to the word "official". I'm not happy with it either (exactly because of what you say - it implies that it is the "official capital and nothing more" - which is wrong: Jerusalem is also the de facto capital). I suggested "official and de facto", which Anthony rejected. The best thing as far as I'm concerned would be to drop the word altogether - but then you will probably disagree. Anyway, the reason I brought up this phrasing in this stage of the discussion is because of the following sentence - regarding international recognition. -- uriber 13:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree that "legitimate", in this context, is not a very clear concept, and therefore I suggest that the issue of legitimacy (which is a matter of POV) should not be handled in the introduction paragraph - which should be devoted to laying down the basic facts. So I propose that we keep the question of "legitimacy" out of this discussion as well. BTW, I did not check all of my four dictionaries, but the first one I did (AHD) says that "legitimate" means "Being in compliance with the law; lawful" (there are other definitions as well, of course, but that is the primary one).

Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopedia intended for the general English-speaking public - not a legal document, intended for lawyers - which is why definitions from English dictionaries count, whereas legal definitions do not.

Is it possible for someone to both believe that Jerusalem is not the legitimate capital of Israel and believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?. Yes, it is - for the same reason that it possible for someone to both believe that Bill was not legitimately killed, and yet believe that Bill is dead.

As I said above - I'm not sure what was your point in bringing the whole issue of "legitimacy" into the discussion. It seems to be counter-productive to introduce yet another not-clearly-defined, probably disputed, element into an already long and complicated discussion.

• Do you also think it is a problem to say that "Rome is the capital of Italy"? As far as I know, part of Rome is not under Italian sovereignty - and that is not even disputed. Anyway, just in case some people might (correctly or wrongly) assume that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" implies that there is no dispute about any part of Jerusalem being under Israeli sovereignty, I previously actively supported the phrasing Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel (although Israeli sovereignty over east Jerusalem is accepted by few countries or international bodies) [12]. This should fully address your concerns of a possible implications of the word "capital" as understood by some people. It also supplies context to the statement about Jerusalem being capital. However, this was reverted by both Wik and Anthony.

-- uriber 09:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That the UK says it does "not recognize Jerusalem as capital" is certainly not the same as saying that someone in the UK government actually believes that "Jerusalem is not the capital". It merely means that the UK government believes that "not recognizing Jerusalem as capital" serves best the diplomatic and political interests of the UK.

This is true, however, I believe that the UK says it does "not recognize Jerusalem as capital" does imply that someone must believe that "Jerusalem is not the capital". Otherwise, why would it serve best the diplomatic and political interests of the UK? anthony 11:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are basically two explanations. One is regarding the past of the city. Specifically, some people believe that Jerusalem became the capital of Israel as a result of "illegitimate", "illegal", "unjust", or otherwise condemnable actions. Those who hold these beliefs probably feel that "officially recognizing" Jerusalem as capital somehow rewards those actions. It is not necessarily that the UK government itself (as an example) actually holds such beliefs - but more likely, the UK has an interest in maintaining good relations with forces which do hold them.

The other explanation has to do with the future of the city - which, unlike its present status, really is disputed. There are many who, for various reasons, wish to change the status of Jerusalem - by re-dividing it, internationalizing it, or taking it out of Israeli control in some other way. This goal would be more difficult to achieve if Jerusalem is internationally recognized as Israel's capital. Once again, changing the status of Jerusalem in this manner might not be a direct interest of the UK, but maintaining good relations with those supporting such change certainly is. Making official statements about the present status of the city has implications on its future, and therefore, such statements are made, regardless of the city's true current status.

Neither explanation requires the assumption that anybody actually disputes the city's present status as capital. -- uriber 13:01, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

how about something like "Jerusalem is currently Israel's capital, although not all countries recognize its status as such." .. or something? PenguiN42 13:34, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why the word "currently" is necessary. By default, facts stated in the present tense in Wikipedia describe the current situation. Adding the word "currently" implies (or at least might be understood as implying) that Jerusalem's status is somehow temporary - which is an introduction of POV. Other than that - it's fine. -- uriber 13:46, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think "not all" is a little weasely: I would prefer "Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but only the United States formally recognises it as such". Assuming that that is correct, of course. Martin 20:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is very unusual for any country to formally recognise a city as another country's capital. The usual thing is to recognise the country itself then to accept by default whatever city that other country says its capital is. So the "not all" formulation is less misleading than the "only the US" formulation. --Zero 23:58, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Zero. Also, "only the US" is not factually correct. Four other countries base their embassis in Jerusalem or its suburbs - which I think implies recognizing Jerusalem as capital. Other countries, not basing their embassy in Jerusalem, do not necessarily not recognize Jerusalem - as the US example shows. According to what Zero says, by default we should assume that any country recognizing Israel also recognizes whatever capital Israel has chosen (that is, Jerusalem) unless it specifically declared otherwise (which I'm not sure how many countries did). -- uriber 19:33, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More sources

This is from the CIA World Factbook:

Jerusalem; note - Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like nearly all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv

Is that source comprehensive enough for you people? ugen64 23:44, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Nonetheless, dictionary.com does define capital city differently:

A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation

So obviously, a country can decide where its own capital city is, and therefore it's NPOV that Jerusalem is Israel's capital (because it's a fact). ugen64 23:47, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

There are legitimate disputes to the statement. Therefore it's not NPOV (because it's not a wikipedia:fact). anthony 23:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions from Martin

Folks here may be interested in UN Security Council Resolution 478 - it sounds like you're all experts on the subject. Martin 00:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would "working capital" be a useful phrase? Martin 17:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would it be useful for Paris or London? I guess not. And not useful here either, from the same reasons. -- uriber 19:38, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is Jerusalem Paris or London? I guess not.

Jerusalem is not Paris or London, but it is is the capital of Israel in the same sense that London is the capital of the UK, aad Paris is that of France - hence the analogy. -- uriber 18:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uriber, if you were to reject anything that isn't a mirror image of Paris, then we're not going to get a solution that makes you and everyone else happy. However, I've already seen you accept compromises ("see note below", "official", etc) in the talk page archives, so I know that you are willing to give a little to get a little.

I'm not interested is a solution that makes me and everyone else happy. I'm imterested in a solution which is factually correct and NPOV - no matter how many people would be unhappy about it. I'm willing to give a little when it comes to phrasing - as long as the phrasing still accurately conveys the facts. I originally agreed to "official" because I saw it as just an extra word, having no effect on the overall meaning (since all capitals are "official"). I later realized that it could be understood as somehow limiting the sense in which Jerusalem is capital (as if this was only a formal, official, status - with no practical consequnces) - so I withdrew my acceptance of "official capital", and replaced it by accepting "official and de-facto capital", which to me means more or less the same thing as "capital" (but is awkwardly phrased). -- uriber 18:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, I hadn't spotted your acceptance of "official and de facto capital". This sounds acceptable to me, though I would prefer to be specific about the manner in which it is official (IE, declared under Israeli law). Martin 23:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, what makes "working capital" so much worse than "official capital"? If you tell us why you consider one OK, and the other not OK, then it's going to be easier to resolve the issue. Martin 22:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "working capital" means. To me it sounds somewhat like "de-facto capital", which leaves out an important aspect of Jerusalem's status - that is, its official status as capital in Israeli law. Also "working" seems to hint something temporary. If you can point out to me which of the definitions of "working" (e.g., from here) you are referring to, I might be able to re-consider and give you a more specific answer. -- uriber 18:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying about it being ambiguous. By "working capital", I personally meant that Jerusalem works as Israel's capital, but I can see why others might interpret it differently.

How about "de facto capital and capital under Israeli law"? We can leave out the stuff about it not being the capital in the eyes of the United Nations till later in the article. Martin 23:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Getting specific

• Publisher agrees not to name Jerusalem as capital of Israel
• According to the official website of the ATHENS 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Israel doesn't have a capital city.

I don't see what these links (posted here by Anthony) add to the discussion, except for proving the fact that some people don't like seeing the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" published anywhere - a fact which is already pretty obvious given that this discussion is even taking place. -- uriber 19:41, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

People suggested that there was no serious dispute to the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." While I agree it's obvious that there is a dispute, some people said that merely saying that it was obvious was not enough. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 23:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what a "dispute to a sentence" means. It's obvious that there is a dispute over whether encyclopedias in general, and Wikipedia in particular, should say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It is not obvious that there is a dispute over whether Jerusaelm is the capital of Israel or not, and the links you provided do not contain any evidence that there is such dispute. If you are having difficulties understanding the difference between these two questions, I warmly recommend that you read Gödel, Escher, Bach - an excellent book which explains, among other things, what levels of reference are, and what happens when you mix them. -- uriber 21:08, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think uriber is right that there is a difference between saying "Capital: None", and simply not having a "Capital" line. The former would be more convincing (to me) than the latter. Martin 22:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You have to look at the change in context. At one point the capital was listed as Tel Aviv. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 23:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, given the extremely detailed account of Jerusalem's present status in the article, the current formulation doesn't really seem worth fighting over. john 05:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dawn of the dead

I thought this issue was already settled. Dead. Buried. Why has it risen to haunt us again? I had even used it as an example in the NPOV tutorial Eloquence asked me to write. *sigh*

Why can't we just say this:

• Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital; and
• No other country except X, Y and Z accept (or recognize?) this designation.

--Uncle Ed 22:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have explained many, many times in the discussion above (now partially archived) why we can't (just) say that. Have you read the entire discussion? If you have, and still do not see why what you propose is unacceptable, I'll try to explain (again). -- uriber 22:36, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To summarise for Ed: merely describing Jerusalem as the "proclaimed capital" misses the fact that it also acts as a capital. IE: seat of government, etc.

Hmm, so how about "Jerusalem is Isreal's seat of government and declared capital". More wordy than "de facto and official", but more precise. Martin 23:10, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I timed out a bunch of protections, including this one. I've made a few edits, but I'm off to bed now. After I grab something to eat... Martin 23:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I object to the mention of 1950 in the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph should describe the current status of the city. I don't think 1950 is especially important here. I also replaced "declared" by "official" - once again to put the focus on the current situation, not some declaration in the past.

I would like to emphasize that in the entire very long discussion above, I have not seen any valid argument for why "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is non-NPOV (except for the concern that it may imply that "Jerusalem is completely within Israel" - which is disputed. I agreed to address this concern by adding aanother full sentence clarifying the situation). Therefore, the current wording (after my latest edit), is the most drastic compromise I'm willing to accept (unless someone convinces me that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is non-NPOV). -- uriber 09:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Ok, another factual and neutral formulation I can think of is: "Israel (declared and) treats Jerusalem as its capital... -- Dissident 01:22, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

internationally recognised

I thought this incorrectly implied that no other country recognised it, which isn't true: the US recognise it, at least. I think "recognised by the UN" is more accurate. Martin 14:13, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to Israeli law...

As according to Israeli law, Jerusalem is treated by Israel as its capital;

I think this is wrong. The Israeli laws don't say "Israel will treat Jerusalem as its capital". Rather, they say "Jerusalem is Israel's capital". So I think this phrasing is misleading.

I don't think it's really misleading; it's just a weaker statement. -- Dissident 14:29, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since the stronger statement is also true and NPOV, what benefit do we get from using the weaker statement? Martin 14:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I guess it all goes back to the question of what it means for a city to be some country's capital. -- Dissident 14:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not quie clear on your point here. Obviously we can debate whether J is I's capital, but it seems to me undisputable that Israeli law claims that J is I's capital. Martin 18:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I changed According to Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, to Jerusalem is the capital of Israel according to Israeli law. This is an important distinction: The first implies that Israeli law is just some POV on the subject ("According to Israeli law it is capital, according to someone else it isn't"). The corrected sentence makes it more clear that Isreali law is what makes Jerusalem the capital. -- uriber 16:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's clearly an important distinction to you. To me, the two sentences are effectively identical. So this is a good compromise, I think, since it makes you happy and doesn't make me unhappy. :) Martin 18:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy you're not unhappy, and I'm not unhappy about your change of "according to" to "under" either. Now we just have to hope that Wik is happy, or else we will all be quite unhappy soon. -- uriber 18:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Edit War

Yes, I'm having an edit war with Wik. Yes, I know, edit wars are bad. Yet there is no other way to communicate with Wik, as he refuses to discuss on the talk page. So there's not much choice left to me - edit war or surrender. I'm fully aware that I could be brouggt to Quickpoll justice for this, and I'm willing to bear the consequnces. -- uriber 17:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, Wik's reverts in the last 14 hours:

• 12:05, 3 Apr 2004
• 12:16, 3 Apr 2004 (revert+wikify one word)
• 16:34, 3 Apr 2004
• 16:51, 3 Apr 2004

A sysop might judge that in violation of his parole. I'm not sure, myself.

The recent debate seems to be between "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel according to Israeli law" and "According to Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". I like the former, actually. I think "According to" could be "under", which would be better yet. Both are compact, but still put in the key qualiication that Wik's looking for. Martin 18:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Designation of capitals

This Wikipedia page outlines agreed-upon policy for describing the capital cities of nation states.

In nearly every case, nation states designate a city as their "capital". Other nations typically post ambassadors who take up residence there and discuss matters of mutual concern. In most cases, they own or rent a building as an official "embassy", which his extraterritoriality (i.e., the embassy is considered "foreign soil" under international law).

How shall we Wikipedians describe Jerusalem? (Vote below, picking as many statements as you believe to be ACCURATE and NEUTRAL.)

• As a matter of "fact", Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
• Israel "regards" Jerusalem as its capital.
• There is no dispute over whether Jerusalem is "really" Israel's capital.
• A dispute exists over whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital.
• Every nation has the undisputed and indisputable right to designate any city, anywhere in the world as its "capital".
• No, silly! The city has to be entirely within the nation's borders.
• Oh, so that means Israel calling Jerusalem its capital = Israel calling Jerusalem its "territory".

Sheesh

\\\\\Much of the discussion below could be avoided by noting that there is some question as to the legitimacy of Israel. If one accepts Israel as being legit, them there is a q of Jerusalem as a legitmate terrritory, let alone capital, thereof. Further anyone can say anyhing they want, like NYC is the capital of Israel, it certainly has claims upon the title, or Washington DC is the capital..., or Hollywood... but the more certain rules are by establishing a proper definition..., and authorities where the senses fail. Some say it's the capital because it once was, on the authotity of the Gaseous Invertrabrate War God Of the Bronze Age ( GIWGOBA ), that's good enough for many but not all. So J is a disputed capital of I, or I says J is the capital of..., or many Zionauts and fellow travellers say... etc is as far as one can go without sacrificing credibility to those who care about such things.////

To use a Middle Eastern expression, sheesh! All we need to say is:

• Israel regards Jerusalem as its capital, although hardly any other country recognizes it as such.
• The seat of the Israeli government is in Jerusalem.
• The X, Y, Z & Q embassies are in Jerusalem, reflecting official recognition by those countries that it is Israel's rightful capital.
• The other N embassies are in Tel Aviv, because these countries do not want to be seen as "recognizing" Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

We can also say:

• Two elements fuel the controversy.
• Many countries dispute Israel's claim to all of Jerusalem, regarding parts A, B & C as occupied territory. For these countries, to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's captial would be to legitimize Israel's claim on "occupied territory".
• Some countries or nationalistic movements regard Jerusalem as the rightful capital of Palestine -- not of Israel. --Uncle Ed 12:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I strongly object to the first point in this proposal. It suggests that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is merely the POV of Israel, and that the question is disputed. As I succesfully argued above, this is not a POV issue, but a matter of factual accuracy, which should not be compromised. Saying "Jerusalem is the capital" would also eliminate the need for the second point. Details of which countries base their embassies where are not important enough to get in to the first pargraph. There's much (much!) more to Jerusalem than a list of embassies. -- uriber 12:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know any other way of putting it. Unless you want the more cumbersome:

According to Israel and 4 other countries, Jerusulem is the capital of Israel. In an odd turn of events, Israel is the only country in the world whose capital is not recognized by the world community at large. This is largely because... --Uncle Ed 12:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Except this is, in addition to being cumbersome, also false. You assume here that any country not basing its embassy in Jerusalem actually does not recognize it as capital - which is of course not true (see the US example). Anyway, as I said (many!) times before, the first paragraph should not focus on the diplomatic formal concept of "recognition" (mainly, because there is no such concept when it comes to capital - see Zero's comments), but rather on the factual status of Jerusalem - namely, it being capital.

Once again, there is no dispute here. No-one, throughout this entire discussion has claimed that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is false (i.e., that it is not the capital), or even provided evidence that anybody on earth believes that it is false. There is simply no dispute that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel - and therefore this fact should be clearly noted in the first few sentences of the article, as it is for any other capital. Isuues of "recognition", disputes about "legitimacy", and visions about the future should all be explained later, after stating the undisputed facts. -- uriber 13:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed replies: Don't get me wrong, Uriber. I personally believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But some Arabs dispute this, particularly those calling themselves "Palestinians".

Please provide at least one quote of anybody (be that Palestinian or other) saying "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel", with reasonable justification. (People saying "Jerusalem should not be the capital of Israel", "Jerusalem being capital of israel is illegitimate", etc. don't count, ofcourse) -- uriber 14:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• The Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (CAABU) discovered that Harper Collins' 2002 reprint of their "Mini Atlas of the World" states on pages 136/7 that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite the fact that the UN and the international community has never recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital. [13]

• The publishers have stated that it will add a footnote against Jerusalem where it appears in country listings, which will state "De facto capital. Disputed". [14]

This was brought up before (you did read the entire discussion before jumping into this, right?) Anyway - as I said when it it was first brought up, it proves nothing. Harper Colins' are commited to keeping everybody happy (and ultimately, to their sales figures) not to NPOV. -- uriber

This short article sounds neutral, but check it out and see for yourself: http://www.centerpeace.org/factsheets/fact-sheet-jerusalem.htm

From this article: "Jerusalem is [...] claimed as its capital by two peoples - Israelis and Palestinians." Is this even English? Anyway, it clearly deals with "claims", not with the current factual status of Jerusalem - so it is more-or-less irrelevant to the question at hand. -- uriber 14:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Claims are entirely relevant to the discussion. It is not the place of Wikipedia to decide the factual status of Jerusalem, but the report the fact that one group claims X, one group claims Y, etc. That's exactly how Wikipedia:NPOV works. We can argue till we're blue in the face over whether "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is true fact, false fact, or opinion, but there should be no argument at all with the fact that "The government of Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital," and "Palestinians dispute the claim of Israel to Jerusalem." The fact that these people claim these things is indisputable and well-documented. Jdavidb 20:38, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and "sheesh" is not a Middle Eastern expression. To the best of my knowledge, it's an Eastern European Jewish expression.  :-) -- uriber 14:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I provide enough baksheesh to the right party, can I make "sheesh" a Middle Eastern expression? Okay, you're obviously right about that. And I agree that Jerusalem is Israel's capital -- because I recognize any nation's right to designate any of its cities as its capital.

But did you know that a certain group (hint: starts with A) (a) disputes Israel's claim to Jerusalem (can't designate what you don't "have") and (b) has managed to get all but a handful of the world's nations to go along with them (clever devils, aren't they?).

None of them claim that Israel does not have Jerusalem. All they say is that Israel should not have Jerusalem - which is their POV and they are entitled to it. However the facts (as opposed to what should be) are not disputed - Jeusalem is Israel's capital. -- uriber 15:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now, between you and me this dispute may sound as silly as the flat earth theory, but to be both accurate and neutral shouldn't we say something about the dispute? --Uncle Ed 15:09, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, the dispute over the future of Jerusaelm is not silly. It is very serious. However, the dispute about the present status of Jerusalem (which is what we are concerned with here) simply does not exist. And I have no problem mentioning (and even discussing in depth) the disputes that do exist. But only after the facts are laid out. -- uriber 15:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like there are two issues here, which I conflated into one.

1. Whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel -- a matter of fact
2. Whether or not various nations recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel --Uncle Ed 19:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you got it backward. Whether or not various nations recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a fact. Whether or not Jerusalem is the capital is an opinion. anthony (see warning) 21:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To Ed: Exactly! That's what I'm trying to explain to people here for the last couple of months. By treating those questions separately, we can give clear and simple answers to both of them: Israel is the capital of israel, but most governments don't recognize it as such. Now that you got it, will you help me set this straight in the article? -- uriber 21:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uriber, whether or not East Jerusalem can be considered a part of Israel is certainly disputed. As such, it is also disputable whether Jerusalem can be the "indivisible" capital of Israel... john 21:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I never suggested using the word "indivisible" in the article. So what's your point here? -- uriber 21:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, the official position of Israel is that Jerusalem, not West Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. No other country in the world recognizes East Jerusalem as being part of Israel. So Jerusalem (as opposed to West Jerusalem) can't be the capital of Israel unless we recognize East Jerusalem to be part of Israel. BTW, if you say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but most governments don't recognize it as such," then that means you're saying that those governments are wrong. How is that NPOV? john 23:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply - I somehow missed this before.

I previously explained in length why saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" does not imply that "all of Jerusalem is indisputably part of Israel". Go back to the archives, and read what I said.

"West Jerusalem" and "East Jerusalem" are basically historic concepts. None of them exists as a separate entity today, and therefore none of them can be capital of any nation.

If I would say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but most people think it is not" - than I would be saying that most people are wrong - which is obviously not NPOV. I explained previously in detail the difference between an individual (or a collective) holding a belief (or having a POV) on a subject, and, on the other hand, the formal concept of "diplomatic recognition" - which is unrelated, and does not imply any POV. Again - look in the archives if you want details. -- uriber 19:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I can certianly believe I missed something, and if this has been brought up, forgive me, I don't mean to butt into the discussion, but Israel declared jerusalem something like its "Eternal and undivided" capital (I think in 1950). As far as I know, theres nothign to stop Israel from declaring western jerusalem as it's capital, it's the inclusion of the rest of it, the occupied territories part - that problematic, and denied by other countires. Datepalm17

---

Capital

The problem here is that nobody has defined capital. The page given is a circular definition (capital is the seat of government, seat of goverment is the capital). Define seat of government. Bensaccount 23:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seat of government is the location of the government. - Wikipedia

Now the real question is where is Israel's government located. Bensaccount 23:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To quote the article: "All the branches of Israeli government (Presidential, Legislative, Judicial, and Administrative) are seated in Jerusalem". Martin 23:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way, capital is not identical with seat of government. Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, but the seat of government is The Hague. john 23:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are on the wrong page. Go to capital or seat of government. Bensaccount 23:33, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

God you're obnoxious. john 23:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm objective. Bensaccount 23:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel every book on countries i read since i was five years old stated that!--Plato 01:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quite a few that I have read state the capital to be Tel Aviv. Ender 08:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Government

A government is an organization that has the power to make and enforce laws for a certain territory. - Wikipedia

---

Regarding Martin's compromise

I accepted Martin's suggestion ("under Israeli law") before. I deeply regret doing so - this is an awful solution, not much different than the one I was fighting against to begin with. However, I did accept it (what was I thinking?), and I feel it would be wrong of me to remove it now if it's put up again. However, this applies only to the exact phrasing as it was in this edit - including the fact that the capital issue was on the first paragraph. I regard myself free to actively object to any other formulation (even if only different by a comma), and to replace any such phrasing by one which I find to be more correct. -- uriber 23:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the capital issue into the first paragraph. Martin 23:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm interested in why you so deeply regret accepting my compromise. From what you said, I thought your only issue with it was wordiness? What have I failed to understand? Martin 23:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For a much better answer than the one I gave you below (a few hours ago), please see my response to Slrubenstein's suggestion, further below -- uriber 13:58, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because the convoluted wording sends a strong message to the reader that Jerusalem is somehow not "really" the capital - the same way e.g. London is. Think - would you accept "London is the capital of the UK under British law, and functions as capital"? It sounds silly, and makes you look for some hidden message ("why don't they just say it's the capital, then?"). Since Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in exactly the same manner that London is the capital of the UK, I can't really be happy about and formulation which I wouldn't find acceptable for London. -- uriber 08:33, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, the suggested wording implies (perhaps not as strongly as other suggested formulations, but still) that Jerusalem being capital of Israel is a matter of POV. Throughout this entire discussion, nobody actually presented evidence that "Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel" is, in fact, disputed (e.g., a quote from someone saying "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel"). What's the point of successfully arguing, if you then have to give in and compromise? I have a natural tendency to try and compromise when I'm faced with someone with obvious good intentions (such as you). But looking at the end result later, I realized that compromising on this issue (to such a degree as I did) was wrong. Goodwill should not be allowed to supersede good arguments - which those opposing to "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (period)" have none of. -- uriber 09:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One more thing - Uriber, would you consider "Under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" (IE, reverse the order), or would that be as unacceptable as the "According to Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" phrasing favoured by Wik which you disapprove of?

I'm afraid I won't accept it. Just like "accordnig to...", it puts the emphasis on a phrase which appears to be limiting the sense in which Jerusaelm is the capital, instead of on the main fact - that it is the capital. This might look like a silly distinction, but since the "capital under Israeli law" formulation is already at very edge of what I'm willing to accept (actually, several inches beyond that edge), I'm not willing to move any further away from what I think is the most correct formulation ("Jerusalem is the capital of Israel."), which is also NPOV. -- uriber 08:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Another thought that occured to me was writing "Under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel". I'm not sure how well that would fly - probably not so well. Martin 23:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As you suspected - this is even worse. The article isn't about Israeli law. It's about Jerusalem. -- uriber 08:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for all your responses. Martin 21:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Capital is a location of lawmaker issue. There is no law I am aware of that says thay Jerusalem is a capital (prove me wrong). So you would not say "under Israeli law, its the capital", but rather "As the location of the government, Jerusalem is the capital."Bensaccount 23:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) (minor semantics really)

I disagree that location of the government is the sole determining factor for being the capital, in all senses of that word. Martin 00:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are on the wrong page. If you want to discuss what determines a capital go to capital. Currently it is just location. Bensaccount 02:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mote, eye, log, eye. Martin 21:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's absolutely not what it says. Note: It may consist of or be separate from the actual seat of government. Thus, Amsterdam. No one would contest that Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government. john 23:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is an Israeli law which says that Jerusalem is its capital. john 23:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does it say that the government cannot legally leave Jerusalem? Bensaccount 00:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I may be back later. Bensaccount 00:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From the article, there is a 1980 Israeli law claiming Jer. as Isr.'s "eternal and indivisible capital". Martin 00:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What a ridiculous law. Bensaccount 02:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More to the point, there's a UN Security Council resolution declaring the Israeli law null and void and instructing member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from Jerusalem. Virtually all countries embassies are in Tel Aviv for this reason Ender 08:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the phrasing where the disputed point about the capital is placed before the sentence on who actually controls the city. Whether or not Jerusalem is the capital is trivia compared to which country exerts control over it. But in the interests of getting a stable version of the beginning text, I'll leave it unless someone else edits it first. anthony (see warning) 10:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony. Martin 21:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposal by Slrubenstein

May I propose the following introduction to the article?

Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim, Arabic: القدس al-Quds) is located at (31°47'N, 35°13'E) and has a population of 630,000. It is the largest city in, and official capital of Israel, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled. Jerusalem consists of an Old City, itself divided into Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Armenian Quarters; a New City; and a surrounding district. After the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, Great Britain controlled Palestine through a mandate of the League of Nations. From 1923 to 1948 Jerusalem was the capital of Palestine. When the United Nations recommended a partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State, it recommended that Jerusalem be an international city, although both Jews and Arabs claimed it. After the declaration of a cease-fire in 1948, Jews controlled the New City and declared it their capital; Jordan occupied and annexed the Old City. During the 1967 War Israel occupied the Old City. In 1980 Israel declared a unified Jerusalem its capital, although in Resolution 478 the United Nations Security Council censured Israel’s act and declared it null and void. Under Israeli law; it serves as the country's seat of government and otherwise functions as capital, but most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.

I have tried to follow the format used in Wikipedia for other cities, while calling attention to Jerusalem's contested situation. Slrubenstein

I don't think you will have much luck with this paragraph due to the ongoing argument over the bolded sentence. It still has not been decided on this page what determines that a city is a capital. Bensaccount 13:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here's my take at the paragraph attempting to fix the bolded sentence, which some regard as a problem (thanks, Uncle Ed, for your sheesh post which suggested this change):

Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim, Arabic: القدس al-Quds) is located at (31°47'N, 35°13'E) and has a population of 630,000. It is the largest city in Israel, which regards the city as its capital, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled. Jerusalem consists of an Old City, itself divided into Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Armenian Quarters; a New City; and a surrounding district. After the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, Great Britain controlled Palestine through a mandate of the League of Nations. From 1923 to 1948 Jerusalem was the capital of Palestine. When the United Nations recommended a partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State, it recommended that Jerusalem be an international city, although both Jews and Arabs claimed it. After the declaration of a cease-fire in 1948, Jews controlled the New City and declared it their capital; Jordan occupied and annexed the Old City. During the 1967 War Israel occupied the Old City. In 1980 Israel declared a unified Jerusalem its capital, although in Resolution 478 the United Nations Security Council censured Israel’s act and declared it null and void. Under Israeli law; it serves as the country's seat of government and otherwise functions as capital, but most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.

Meanwhile, let me again say that it is not for Wikipedia to decide what is and is not a capital, but merely to report the claims of various groups. Jdavidb 20:52, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've looked over the talk page and earlier versions of the article and see no explanation of why Jerusalem is not the official capital of Israel. What is your definition of "capital?" Do you propose changing the articles on Rome and Paris? Slrubenstein

You underestimate the importance of knowing what a capital is before writing about one. I have searched on google and I can't find any useful definitions of capital. The wikipedia definition is actually the best out there. (Britannica and Encarta have no page for capital). OneLook produces hundreds of dictionary entries that seem to all define capital vaguely as the "seat of government".

Wikipedia says that a capital is the seat of government but sometimes the seat of government is seperate from the capital. (huh?). Bensaccount 13:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, while I'm sure you mean well, I do not think that seeking a compromise solution is the correct way to go in this case (although I have cooperated with such efforts before - only to regret it later). Before we decide on exact phrasing, etc., we have to answer one question: Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel? This might have three different answers:

1. Yes
2. No
3. The matter is disputed, i.e. some people believe it is the capital, while others believe it is not the capital.

If we reach the conclusion that the correct answer is 3, then we should seek some formulation stating all POVs on the matter, or concentrate on laying down the very basic facts, avoiding the question altogether. This is where compromises might be useful. If, however, we reach the conclusion that the correct answer is 1 (as I believe is the ultimate outcome of the discussion going on here for the last several months), there should be no further objection to simply saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" (while of course later describing disputes regarding sovereignty, diplomatic status, etc.) -- uriber 13:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Geez Uriber. Do you really think that everybody on earth believes Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Well, let's end this argument here and now. I DO NOT BELIEVE JERUSALEM IS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL. There. Now I have proven that teh correct and logical answer is 3. I don't want you throwing arguments at me about why it really IS the capital, because you aren't going to change my opinion. The fact of the matter is, NOT EVERYBODY BELIEVES JERUSALEM TO BE THE CAPITAL OF THE MODERN STATE OF ISRAEL. If you really must say it IS the capital of Israel, we should say it is the capital of Palestine as well because Palestinians lay similar claims to the city as their capital. Hell, we even have an article regarding why some people think Kyoto is the capital of Japan instead of Tokyo, even though there are far fewer people who think that than people who believe Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. And, as mentioned earlier, seat of government is NOT the sole determinant of a nation's capital, eg The Hague vs. Amsterdam in the Netherlands, or cases where there is more than one seat of gov't such as South Africa (I believe Durban is the location of the judicial branch, Johannesburg is the location of the... oh crap, nevermind)... so HAH! - Node

But urbier, that's not correct. Wikipedia editors are not to concern themselves with deciding the facts of the matter, but only reporting the various views. Wikipedia does not need to decide if Jerusalem is or is not the capital; only what people's views are. So Wikipedia should report:

1. Some people (group A) believe Jerusalem is the capital
2. Why group A believes Jerusalem is the capital
3. Some people (group B) believe Jerusalem is not the capital
4. Why group B believes Jerusalem is not the capital
5. Why group B rejects group A's reason for believing Jerusalem is the capital
6. Why group A rejects group B's reason for believing Jerusalem is the capital
7. Group C's beliefs, reasons, etc. as above, if applicable, etc.
8. The fact that many Wikipedians are fed up with the whole argument. :)

There is no need to answer the question "Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel," and, in fact, answering the question is irrelevant because you can't report it in the article. See Wikipedia:NPOV Jdavidb 20:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you know what a capital is. Bensaccount 14:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personally I believe "1," although my understanding of the UN resolutions is that the legal issues is not whether or not Jerusalem is the capital, but rather, what are the territorial boundaries of the Israeli city, "Jerusalem?" (in other words, the New city can be Israel's capital, but Israel has no right to annex the Old City). In any event, since many people dispute Israel's capital, an NPOV article must acknowledge what you have as "3." And this is exactly what I did in the part of my paragraph that Bensaccount bolded. Jerusalem is the capital; its status is unsettled -- these are both facts. So I do not see the problem, yet. Can you and Besnaccount be clearer? Slrubenstein

I don't think you know what a capital is. Bensaccount 14:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think you know what a capital is. But that is neither here nor there. This is an article on Jerusalem. I went to the Jerusalme webpage and it describes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I went to the Israel webpage and it says that it's capital is Jerusalem. I went to the webpages of Rome and Paris and London, and they all identify these cities as "capitals," so I know that Wikipedia articles are concerned with identifying "capitals." That is ALL that I need to know to write this encyclopedia article. This is an encyclopedia. Perhaps you should check the various community portal pages on what Wikipedia is and is not. This is not a forum for personal essays or primary research; it is simply not appropriate to depate political or philosophical issues here. Slrubenstein

In other words you are telling me to get lost because you want to fight with Uriber about something you both know nothing about. Bensaccount 14:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"In other words?" No, stick to the words I use -- I didn't say "get lost." I said that this is an article on Jerusalem, and should conform as best possible to other Wikipedia articles on cities. Wikipedia always mentions in the first paragraph when a city is a capital city. Jerusalem is Israel's capital city, so we must mention that. Since there are disputes concerning the status of Jerusalem, we should also mention that. You are concerned with "what a capital is." If you are concerned with this, great! Do some research on different kinds of capitals, and the legal traditions concerning the designation of capitals, and work on the article "capital!" Don't "get lost," I encourage you to do the serious research Wikipedia needs. But if you are interested in learning more about the idea of "capital," go work on the appropriate article!Slrubenstein

I dont care what a capital is. You need to, because you are arguing about it. Bensaccount 14:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean when you say "many people dispute Israel's capital". Does it mean "many people believe that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital (excluding people who believe this as a result of simple ignorance or misinformation)"? Had it been so, I would have agreed that the correct answer is "3", and that there is a NPOV issue. However, I do not think that this is what you mean. What you mean is that many people think something like "Israel has no right to have Jerusalem as its capital". That's a fair statement 9false, but fair) - however, it has nothing to do with the question I presented - and so it leaves that question undisputedly answered "Yes". And the fact that the UN resolution deals with territorial boundaries, not the question of capital, just goes to strenghthen my point about the capital issue being undisputed. -- uriber 13:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd say the answer is 2. If the vast majority of the countries in the world don't recognize the city as the capital, then it's not the capital. anthony (see warning) 01:19, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How can you write about a capital if you havent defined what a capital is? Bensaccount 13:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For Bensaccount -- interesting theoretical question, worth considering on some other page (where you can consider Wittgenstein and other philosophers of language). The fact remeans, people do talk about words without defining them, and manage to communicate quite effectively. If you do not understand how, take a philosophy or linguistics course.

You may use words without defining them but you definately do not communicate effectively. In fact you do not communicate at all. Bensaccount 14:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When I see you raising this point on the pages for Rome, Paris, London, etc., I will take you seriously.

For those pages the capital definition which I currently have created is sufficient. (see Seat of government). You cant argue that the meaning of words is not necessary for their use. Its absurd. Bensaccount 14:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For Uriber, I understand your point and that you are trying to be systematic and constructive. nevertheless, I think you are going off on an unnecessary and onconstructive tangent. In my proposal, I wrote "It is the largest city in, and official capital of Israel, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled." Is this in your view a false statement? Slrubenstein

It is not a false statement. However, it is an incomplete one (because it only emphesizes Jerusalem's official status as capital, pushing off the very important fact that it is also the capital in practice to the very end of a very long introduction). I also believe that the factual correctness of information presented is not the only criterion by which a text should be judged, and that the manner in which this information is presented is important as well. If you systematically avoid saying "Jerusalem is the capital" (which is the standard wording on articles about other capitals), then at least some readers will get the impression that in some way, Jerusalem is not the capital (even if this is not explicitly said anywhere). -- uriber 14:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks -- this is a reasonable response. Does this mean that you would accept the paragraph I proposed, if I delete "official?" Slrubenstein

Yes, I would happily accept it. I have some aesthetic reservations regarding having so detailed historic information in what is supposed to be an introduction paragraph - but this is a matter of style, not something I'd go to war over. -- uriber 15:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For Uriber, you dont have to answer Slurbenstein because he doesnt know how to communicate. Bensaccount 14:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You will have to fogive me for respectfully disagreeing with you, and answering Slurbenstein in spite of your giving me permission not to do so. -- uriber 14:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To Slrub: "official" is ok, but I think it's a little vague. I prefer "under Israeli law", which is more precise. Also, where you write "Under Israeli law; it serves as the country's seat of government and otherwise functions as capital" - in this sentence, I don't believe the qualifier "under Israeli law" is required. I prefer the current formulation, all in all.

To Uriber: I think you're missing an option to the question "Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?" My answer would be "It depends what you mean by that". It is the capital under Israeli law. It is also the capital in practice. It may or may not be the capital under international law (I don't think we ever got a firm answer on that). It's not the internationally recognised capital. It's disputed whether Jerusalem is possessed by Israel, as "capital of Israel" implies by use of the possessive tense. So there are many layers here, and it's not a simple yes or no answer.

By way of contrast, London is the capital of the UK under international law, is internationally recognised as such, and everyone agrees that the UK possesses London. So, for London it's much simpler, and thus "London is the capital of the UK" is trickier. Martin 21:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Summary

Uriber wants to write one thing about Jerusalem as capital. Slurbenstein wants to write another thing about Jerusalem as capital.

I find it interesting to see how these kinds of conflicts get resolved which is why I am here.

There are several pathways that are possible if progress is to be made:

1. One person steps down for no reason.
2. A vote is held
3. One of you proves your point of view by presenting your argument based on the definition of capital.

In my mind the only fair way is option 3. Bensaccount 15:03, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Example for option 3:

When King Solomon built the Temple on Mount Moriah, Jerusalem was sanctified and became the international religious center of the Jewish people. Solomon also built his palace, the city was fortified, treasure houses were built, as were markets and palaces for the king's wives. It was largely due to the many wonderful buildings that Jerusalem became one of the world's most beautiful cities during this period. Furthermore, economic prosperity during Solomon's reign consolidated Jerusalem's position as an important city, the capital of Israel in the eyes of many nations.

(Moving foreward by trying to define what makes a capital). Bensaccount 15:06, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not commit myself to that definition of capital by the way. Bensaccount 15:07, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your account above does not explain why Solomon built his temple on Mt. Moriah. Also, why is your account a better explanation of why Jerusalme is Israel's capital, than the fact that the Website for Israel names Jerusalem its capital? By the way, if it isn't clear to you, when the article says Jerusalem is Israel's capital it means the modern state of Israel, not the Ancient Kingdom of Israel! Slrubenstein

Again, this is an attempt to determine what makes a capital. So when you ask the question "why is your account a better explanation of why Jerusalme is Israel's capital, than the fact that the Website for Israel names Jerusalem its capital?" That is exactly the point im making, (what determines a capital).Bensaccount 17:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A capital is a center of important activity. In states, the most important activity is governance. However, in some states (e.g. some kingdoms) the "capital" is wherever the King's court is, and the king's court moves from palace to palace. In many states, especially republics, the political capital is fixed. Since law is a function of governance, usually only the political capital is official (this is the case with Jerusalem) -- the economic capital is evident (the city with the largest port, manufacturing, or financial sectors). Some countries have two capitals -- political and economic. In some states the political capital is divided (the representative branch is seated in one city, the executive branch in another (In Israel, all branches of government are seated in Jerusalem). In societies with official religions there can be a religious capital as well, although in many states the religious, economic and political capital are the same. So it varies from state to state and time to time. Slrubenstein

Well anyways it seems that it has been agreed upon that Jerusalem is the capital (Its too bad that the only result from all this discussion that points towards towards this conclusion, is what you just said, but I guess explaining after resolution is better than resolving and never explaining why. Just dont tell me it was never an issue.). If this issue rearises that last point you made will be the only outcome from this discussion that helps, since the still hasn't been formally defined in the article. Bensaccount 17:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, it has not been agreed upon. We cannot let the article become the basis for someone to say, "According to Wikipedia, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Because that would mean we were taking sides in a dispute.

I'm deeply saddened that you are still holding this view. You did not respond to my request to provide some evidence that such a dispute exists. I for one very much hope that the article will become the basis for someone to say, "According to Wikipedia, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Because that would mean that that someone had learned something from Wikipedia - something that is not disputed, but that a surprising number of people do not know. -- uriber 18:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm on the same side. But as an editor I have to acknowledge that there is a dispute. Don't try to sweep it under the rug. It makes the rug lumpy, and eventually it will start to rot and make a big stink. --Uncle Ed 17:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, Ed, what do you think of the version I proposed above? You didn't comment on it (or haven't, yet).Slrubenstein By the way, Ed, even in jest don't say "crazy Arabs and their sick puppy friends." It's a very unconstructive attitude. Also, it is my sense that the only Arabs who do not recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel are those who do not recognize the State of Israel. The really divisive issues for many Arabs, including those who accept the existence of Israel, is not whether or not Jerusalem is the capital but rather Israel's unlawful annexation of East Jerusalem. Slrubenstein

I took back that crack. Sorry.

I like the phrasing of It is the largest city in, and official capital of Israel, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled better than It is the capital of Israel. --Uncle Ed 18:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

largest city [...] in Israel? That's even worse! Now Wikipedia would REALLY endorse the view that the whole of Jerusalem is part of and/or belongs to Israel! -- a sick puppy friend AKA Dissident

Well, I thought that the context made your point clear. But how about "Including areas occupied by Israel, it is ...?" Slrubenstein

Take a look at the third paragraph. -- Dissident 19:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Talk)

Okay, but every other article on a major city has the population in the first paragraph. This seems reasonable, and in this case relative uniformity of style in an encyclopedia makes sense. Slrubenstein

Jerusalem as capital of Israel

Is it disputed that Jerusalem is the capital of israel? Its hard to tell (despite the endless discussion that seems to be about it).Bensaccount 20:35, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Based on what has currently been said (and what is given in Wikipedia), the following questions define whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

1. Is Jerusalem the city or town that contains the government of Israel?
2. Is Jerusalem a center of important activity in Israel?

Bensaccount 21:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Based on what has been said so far,

1. Jerusalem does contain the government of Israel.
2. Jerusalem is a center of important activity.

Therefore the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. Bensaccount 21:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't put any faith in Wikipedia as a source on the matter. Anyone can edit it. Madness. Martin 21:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you dont have any faith in Wikipedia why are you here? Bensaccount 21:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because it won't always be this abysmal. Martin 21:40, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I dont see what you are getting at. Are you suggesting that some other source is used to define capital (politics) and this page be based on that? Wouldn't it make more sense to base it on something that is in Wikipedia? Bensaccount 21:43, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No one disputes that Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel. What is in question is whether it is its de jure capital; by Israeli law, of course, it is, but whether it is by international law is highly questionable. In particular, East Jerusalem has never formally been annexed by Israel (according to Christians for Israel: http://www.c4israel.org/articles/english/e-c-00-3-kort-judicialjerus.htm ), and thus remains not a part of Israel by international law (even independent of any questions about the legality of such an annexation.) This means that de jure, at most, West Jerusalem can be described as the capital; in practice, most nations' legal position is that Israel's de jure capital is still Tel Aviv. Of course, as Bensaccount suggests, this throws into question which factor should be taken as primary in defining "capital"... - Mustafaa 21:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mustafaa, nice to see someone new here. I'm afraid you are presenting the information from the article you provided in a somewhat misleading way. It is true that Israel does not officially use the term "annexation" for describing the change in the status of East Jerusalem in 1968 - because you can only "annex" something which formerly lawfully belonged to a different country - and Israel never recognized any foreign sovereignty over any part of what used to be the British Mandate on Palestine. So officially what Israel did was "applying the It's laws, jurisdiction and administration". However, by doing so, Israel brought it to the same official status of the rest of Israeli territory (including West Jerusalem). So the difference in terminology has to do only with the previous status of East Jerusalem (before the "annexation" / "applying of jurisdiction and administration") - not with its status afterwards. So De jure, all of Jerusalem can be described as the capital. -- uriber 22:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"De jure" depends on who has stated the law. Bensaccount 22:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Finally some progress.

Jerusalem contains the Israeli government and is a center of activity in Israel. Israeli law states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but Jerusalem is not stated as the capital of Israel by international law. Bensaccount 22:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that International Law deals with the question of which city is capital of what country. Please provide some reference to prove that it does. -- uriber 22:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Uriber. Please tell us an example of a city that is "stated by international law" to be the capital of any country. --Zero 22:35, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not here to research. If noone can state for sure how international law deals with Jerusalem as capital:

Jerusalem contains the Israeli government and is a center of activity in Israel. Israeli law states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Bensaccount 22:42, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I can't seem to find any references for international law affecting capitals per se; my assumption was that if the territory in question is not legally part of Israel, it cannot therefore legally be its capital, but I don't actually know of any legal principle explicitly preventing a capital from being, indeed, entirely outside the country of which it is the capital if it so desires - anomalous as that would be. That's not to say no such principle exists: IANAL... Unless someone does know the details of international law on that, I'm fine with the current compromise.Mustafaa 23:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To Ben: well that's what the intro already says:

# Jer. is capital under Isr. law.

# Jer. is de facto capital.

Seems you're just rephrasing what we already have? However, what we already have is a somewhat fragile consensus, so I don't think it should be replaced without agreement (IE, I agree with Uriber again).

I realize thats what it says. It said that before it was decided why it should say that. I just filled in the reasoning. Bensaccount 00:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the point about international law and the position of the UN is important enough that we perhaps shouldn't say "Jer. is the capital", but not so important that it needs to be in the intro.

Personally, I have decided I would be willing to accept "Jerusalem is the Israeli capital (but see note)". I think "Israeli" (an adjective) is much better than "Israel's" (possessive tense). However, I can't speak for Anthony or Wik on this. Martin 23:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about "Israel made Jerusalem its capital, but..."? -- Dissident 23:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, that has the possessive, which I dislike unattributed in this case ("its"). Also, I doubt that that will satisfy Uriber - it only deals with the de jure bit, not the de facto bit (both are worth mentioning, IMO). Martin 23:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital too?AndyL 00:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Change by Wik

Wik changed "under Israel's law" to "claimed by Israel". This is a step in the wrong direction, making the statement less clear. (Claim means demand capitals arent defined by demands). Bensaccount 01:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And yet, Wik is so pro-government when it comes to the Indonesian (Islamic) occupation of West Papua (Christian), he even disputes the known English name is West Papua and moved the article to Papua (Indonesian province) where it would be so easy to find (not), or confused with Papua the Island instead; not to mention how he keeps replacing the West Papuan Genocide with a re-direct. A new meaning to the term NPOV I suspect. ;-)Daeron 11:32, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Testimonials

Not bad, compare with [[15]]. Bensaccount 00:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uriber's version of 09:03, 7 Apr 2004 is an excellent compromise and has my support. --Zero 09:17, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can also accept the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law", but just barely. Consider this to be an extremely hard-fought compromise. -- Dissident 09:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You might compare this formulation to

• China considers Taiwan a breakaway province, not a seperate country.

Even thought the ROC has been holding its own national elections for more years than I can count! --Uncle Ed 12:24, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, China may consider them to be provincial elections instead. :-) -- Dissident 18:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Palestinians and Jerusalem as capital

Do Palestinians really "aspire" that Jerusalem become their capital? Bensaccount 16:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Claim" really is more accurate AndyL

I note that different approaches seems to have been taken in other controversial cases: Laayoune is described as the "unofficial capital" of Western Sahara, Jaffna as the "cultural capital" of Sri Lankan Tamils, Taipei as the "provisional capital" of Taiwan, and "The capital of Somaliland is Hargeisa". Western Sahara strikes me as the nearest parallel, as Laayoune has been under Moroccan control and annexed by Morocco (under Moroccan law, at any rate) ever since Spain left. But "unofficial capital" doesn't have the right ring to it, to my ears; if anything, it's more the official capital (as enshrined in PLO declarations, etc.) than the unofficial one. Mustafaa 18:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How did West Germany describe Berlin before unification? Bonn was the capital of West Germany but Berlin was always considered the "real" capital but I foget the language that was used/AndyL

Was it "titular capital"? That sounds familiar... - Mustafaa 19:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "also" in this sentence is incorrect. Saying also requires similarity.Bensaccount 17:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Number of countries which dispute the sovereignty

Wik wrote, in an edit summary:

most countries dispute Israeli sovereignty over either the entire or the eastern part of the city

Please list (or at least count) these countries, and supply a source. --Uncle Ed 18:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See List of countries, minus Costa Rica and El Salvador. --Wik 18:13, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Ha, ha. Do you think US and UK dispute Israeli de jure sovereignty over Jerusalem? Also, there's a difference between (a) "hasn't made a statement in support of" and (b) "has made a statement disputing". --Uncle Ed 18:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course they do, otherwise they would have their embassies there. --Wik 18:42, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that's the reason, considering the close alliance between the three nations. The reason, at least I think, is that Jerusalem is volatile enough, and many Palestinians would consider a U.S embassy there a serious affront. I mean, not like the U.S. cares what Palestinians think or say, but I guess it's just a fear of controversy and possible violence. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The UK's position is quite clear, it does not consider Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Foreign Office article on Israel --Ptclark 18:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A newspaper article

A dispute over the future of Jerusalem is at the heart of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

Divided by barbed wire into Israeli and Jordanian rule in 1948, it was reunited under Israeli sovereignty as a result of the 1967 Six-Day war. Israel claims the entire city of Jerusalem as its eternal, indivisible capital. The Palestinians want at least the eastern part of the city to become the capital of a future state. Most countries of the world have never recognized Israel's right to Jerusalem. More than a dozen withdrew their embassies to Tel Aviv in protest in 1980 when Israel enshrined its claim in law. Only three Latin American countries now have their embassies here - Costa Rica, Bolivia and El Salvador. [16]

Just to make clear that West Jerusalem is almost equally disputed, I may note that even before the 1980 decision, only thirteen countries had their embassies in Jerusalem: Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, the Netherlands, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela. All of them moved to Tel Aviv after the UN Security Council resolution, although Costa Rica and El Salvador moved back to Jerusalem in 1984. --Wik 18:18, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

All of them, eh? What about Bolivia? According to the cns news article Bolivia currently has its embassy there. But you said "all of them" moved to Tel Aviv. Did you mean "all but Bolivia" or what?

The article is mistaken. Bolivia's embassy now is at Mevaseret Zion, which is a suburb of Jerusalem but outside the city limits. --Wik 18:40, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Why this issue is so hard

Each side wants to justify its own aspirations. Israel wants sovereignty over ALL of Jerusalem. Various groups of Arabs want:

1. sovereignty over PART of Jerusalem
2. sovereignty over ALL of Jerusalem

One may suppose that to concede (or "recognize") Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem would hurt Arabs' chances of getting ahold of it themselves. Refusing to recognize Israel's claim to the city is part of a public relations campaign aimed at getting other countries to pressure Israel into ceding control of it. (I think this strategy used to be called "land for peace", although I haven't looked at that article for a while.) --Uncle Ed 18:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are only about 20 Arab countries out there - a drop in the bucket compared to the 200 or so that don't recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem. - Mustafaa 18:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here is another quote about the sovereigty of Jerusalem. From the National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education (NITLE):

Even Jerusalem, the city Israel claims as its capital, remains an area of dispute. Predominantly Jewish West Jerusalem has been part of Israel since independence in 1948; Israel captured mostly Arab East Jerusalem in 1967. Israel has since claimed the entire city as its capital. However, the United Nations does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. [17]

Nobody's posted a comment here in two millenia, er, weeks! Does that mean the "capital" issue has been settled to everyone's satisfaction? --Uncle Ed 19:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The way this issue has been "settled" is completely unacceptable, and I'm anything but satisfied with it. My deep disappointment at this result, and the process that led to it, is the reason I've stopped making edits to Wikipedia for the last couple of weeks, and why I probably won't be coming back any time soon. -- uriber 21:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I inserted the NPOV note. As I said earlier, I consider this case a litmus test for WP. See what half-a-dozen of other encyclopedias say in the first phrase. Not a single compromise was acceptable here. So let's pick one option out of two: WP is either biased or neutral. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to vs Under

I prefer "Under Israeli law" to "According to Israeli law", as it is shorter, and makes more sense (laws have jurisdictions, hence "under", while people have opinions, hence "according to"). So I've gone back to that wording. Martin 21:41, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

"Under" is not restrictive enough. It suggests that Israeli law is all that is necessary to make it capital. "Under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is like "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Israeli law makes it so." On the other hand, "according to" makes it clear that it is just one view (according to Israeli law, it is the capital; according to others, it isn't). --Wik 14:27, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

OK - I can understand that, even if I'm not convinced myself. Thanks for explaining. Martin

I am really not convinced. We're back a step. Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel from Israel's point of view, but since Israel controls Jerusalem it is UNDER Israeli law a capital. The next sentence - about the disputes shows the other points of view. If nobody replies to my claim I am going to change the "according to" back to "Under".

---

FYI: British official position on the status of Jerusalem

Occupied

Talk:Israel#Occupation is about whether the current situation should be described as "occupation", not the situation in 1948 and 1967. "occupied" is a good word choice. "gained control" is a clumsy alternative, in context. Martin 20:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Capital

Jhon Den Hauge is the capital of the Netherlands even though that the main center is Amsterdam.

Intro section

I have again edited the last sentence of the first paragraph (the one about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, which it is) to acknowledge that there is a dispute about Israel's right to have its capital there, while removing the irrelevant information about what other countries recognize or don't recognize. I have also deleted the sentence about the "law" supposedly passed to declare Jerusalem the capital of a future Palestinian state. Reading the article cited as a source reveals several discrepancies with the sentence that was in the article. Once it is corrected, a place could be found for it lower down in the article. A fact that is this trivial does not belong in the introduction. 6SJ7 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Jerusalem (capital or not)

I've removed the sentence which people seem to be fighting over. The issue is discussed in more detail in the article. MP (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I never read the archived talks specifically about this topic! - Will revert back. MP (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of reading through all the discussions, it would really help if someone who has been discussing this 'Jerusalem is Israel's capital' issue for a while could update me on the situation. Thanks. MP (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Adam, can you please write your comments more coherently; you wrote on my talk page, "no not better as I think that there was a time in which it was not it's capital but it has always wanted it to be and it is" I don't agree with the last 3 words of that quote (and neither do many nations), so what you said there is incorrect. If Israel says that Jerusalem is it's capital, that don't make it so, as many countries don't recognise the occupation of East Jerusalem as illegal. It's ambiguous. MP (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now changed the last sentence of the first paragraph to the version that I wrote back on October 11: "The State of Israel has its capital at Jerusalem, although its right to do so is disputed." Let me explain why. When I first saw this article in October, I found that the issue of Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel had been a subject of very bitter controversy, edit/revert wars, etc. for a considerable period. There was so much discussion that it had an archived talk page all its own. The sentence in the first paragraph about Jerusalem as capital was horrible -- I do not remember what it said, but it was anti-Israel POV. After first writing my own sentence, approximately "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," and seeing it reverted or edited back to something ridiculous, I proposed a new compromise (same as quoted above, which as of right now is what the article says.) I felt that this capsulized the situation, while introducing the "dispute" which was (and is) detailed further down in the article. Sometime after that, someone else came along and removed the second half of the sentence, so it just said "The State of Israel has its capital at Jerusalem." That solution, either the complete sentence I wrote back on October 11, or the shortened version, has been in place for most of the past almost-3-months, with a few exceptions in which there were some minor edit battles. (They did not rise to the "war" level.) Now, someone has questioned the syntax of "The State of Israel has its capital at Jerusalem," rather than "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." I acknowledge that the sentence structure is not ideal, but I did that for a reason. In my opinion, the two mean the same thing, but the indirect phrase "has its capital" was intended to at least placate (if not satisfy) the anti-Israel POV-ers, by implying that Israel had acted unilaterally in declaring Jerusalem as its capital. As I said, it does mean the same thing as "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." MP says that just because Israel says Jerusalem is its capital does not make it so, and if that was all that has happened, MP would be correct. However, in addition to Israel's declaration, Israel actually does have the headquarters, seat or what-have-you of all the branches of its government in (or in the "softer" phrase that I used, "at") Jerusalem. Those two facts, the declaration and the actual location of the government institutions, together, make Jerusalem the capital. The fact that many other nations choose to have their embassies elsewhere, which is a great point of contention on the archived talk page, really is irrelevant, but in any event the phrase "its right to do so is disputed" covers that. Note, the location of the capital is not in dispute, what is in dispute is only the right, or legality, or whatever, of Israel having it there. But it is there. 6SJ7 03:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian claims/aspirations

The article currently states: "The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem (Al-Quds) as the capital of a future Palestinian state. In 2000 the Palestinian Authority passed a law designating East Jerusalem as such, and in 2002 this law was ratified."

I am not sure as to the basis on which "East Jerusalem" rather than "Jerusalem" is cited here, and it doesn't seem to be borne out by either of the sources given. Certainly, the Palestinians have laid no claim to West Jerusalem and their negotiating position has entirely related to East Jerusalem, but all the legal references are to an unqualified "Jerusalem". Can anyone offer any thoughts/clarifications? Palmiro | Talk 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding the Palestinian position

I have reverted or altered most of the entries that occurred over the past few days regarding the Palestinian position:

• "which has been administered by Israel since 1967 and has large Jewish and Arab populations". This is misrepresentative, as there was a purging of indigenous Palestinian Jews and Arabs from eastern and western Jerusalem by Jordan and Israel respectively. In 1967, there were no Jews in most of East Jerusalem, and those that have since moved there are considered settlers by the international community. Rather than go into all this in the intro, better to just leave it out.
• This talk about the 'official' Palestinian position being that the Palestinian capital should be in the Jerusalem 'urban areas' is mere opinion by a few and not an official position, and I have modified it to be more accurate and NPOV. There is no official (or even unofficial) Palestinian position that excludes the relevant parts of the Old City.
• "reflecting a general aspiration among Palestinians to establish their capital there" is redundant language as it is already mentioned in the sentence before it.
• The paragraph beginning with "Since the late 1990s, a consensus has been developing in Israeli and Palestinian public opinion...." is inaccurate. There is no such consensus that leaves out the Old City at all. This is partly why the Camp David summit on 2000 failed. It is absolutely incorrect to refer to, among other things, the construction of the separation wall within Palestinian areas as reflecting some sort of 'consensus' between the two sides as opposed to a unilateral act by Israel. Nobody disputes that! I have modified this paragraph, deleting a large part of it.

Ramallite ^(talk) 21:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro and other new texts

The intro of this article has been turned into a terrible mess. I am not necessarily blaming any particular person or any particular "side" (partly because I do not feel like delving into all the different versions and figuring out who made the edits that brought us to this point.) I do not see why it cannot be something much more simple, such as this version [[18]] or this version. [[19]] Both of them were compromises. Either would be much preferable to the current fiasco. I hesitate to just do the edit myself because I know it will just be reverted or otherwise edited by one of the many POV-mongers on this issue. 6SJ7 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, further to 6SJ7's points and the discussion with Ramalite I have made some changes in the intro and in virtually all chapters of this article. We still need many more texts for the article to be about Jerusalem and not about the Jerusalem question. I have dumped these texts temporarily in the article positions on Jerusalem. I am sure that many more discussions on a better name and structure will follow. This is just the beginning. gidonb 09:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not climb on the wall by the deep movements of texts out of the article, I would like to move some texts back, also on the status of Jerusalem (religious, capital, territorial) and the history of Jerusalem. For the history chapter I have not moved anything in or out, as the history article is a mess. Perhaps I will find some better texts for the current status over there. gidonb 10:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have added some more neutral content to the intro. Please do not revert, but continue editing where I stopped. I worked already many hours by now. Further tomorrow. gidonb 10:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry by the way for the many separate edits. The advantage is that one can follow the process, the (greater) disadvantage that there is now one screen with only my edits. Oh well, I think the article has made a long way. I look forward to additions, corrections. gidonb 13:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The introduction to this aticle has been changed drastically many times. I myself did edit it few minutes ago. The introduction before I edit it was biased towards the Israeli POV and stressing in a biased way the importance of the city for the Israelis. I did the changes because I did not like that second paragraph in the article. But I think the result is bad and weak. We need a real neutral introduction. Changes and counter changes are no good. I may write a new introduction and see how it goes with others. Or may be some one else car write it.

The reason I did not like the second paragraph are: 1. It mentioned ONLY that Jerusalem was the capital of the ancient Jewish kingdoms. Why mention this in an itroduction? there is a historical section where this can be mentioned. But if we will mention this in the intro, then we need to mention the pre-Israeli and post Israeli political importance of the city. I mentioned the cannanites and the Islamic rule. But the end result is all over weak .

2. It was mentioned that Jerusalem is the holiest place for the Jews, but of "key" importance to other religions. This is not true. It is the holiest place for the Jews. But it is too the Holliest place for the Christians and is the third hoiest place for the muslims, which is more than a "key" importance. I changed that too. But again the result is not very satisfactory to me.

3. Was mentioned that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and east part is disputed. If we skip over the Capital issue, which was deeply discussed, then it is more proper to say that West Jerusalem is the capital, because the government is there and East Jerusalem is occupied. Also if we will mention that Jerusalem is the capital, then we need to mention that the East part is the disputed and the Palestinians have capital claims to it. I changed that too.

But as I said I do not like this very cramped introduction. We need a better one. I do not want to write a one now cuz I know it will be changed soon. I donno. --Thameen 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Positions on Jersualem

I copied these out of the concise history section where they do not belong. Perhaps they can be used elsewehere. The texts are not mine. gidonb 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

According to an Israeli law from January 1950, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. In 1967, the city was reunified and the Eastern part was separated administratively from the militarily occupied West Bank and annexed to Israel. In 1980, the Israeli Knesset passed the Basic Law: Jerusalem — Capital of Israel reaffirming the status of Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal and indivisible capital". The UN Security Council Resolution 478 condemned the Jerusalem Law as "a violation of international law" and most countries prefer to keep their embassies in Tel Aviv. According to the United States Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, 1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; 2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; 3) The United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31 1999.

Copied from the intro

To all: Please stop front-loading the contents of this article, there are sections on the status and history of Jerusalem and separate articles as well. This article has a tendency to become extremely politicized and repetitious every time one looks in the other direction. How about expanding the culture for a change? gidonb 22:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem has a long history. Archaeological findings indicate the existence of a settlement in Jerusalem in the 3rd millennium BCE. The first mention of the city in historic sources begins in the 2nd millennium BCE. First built and founded by Canaanite peoples (possibly, but not necessarily the Jebusites who occupied the city during the late Bronze Age), it became the capital of the Jewish kingdoms of Israel, Judah and Judea in the First Temple and Second Temple periods. It continued to be an important city in the Holy Land during the Muslim rule. It is the holiest city of Judaism, and is of special significance to Christianity and Islam.

From 1948 until 1967, the Western part of Jerusalem was administered by Israel as its capital, while East Jerusalem was administered by Jordan. The city was reunited by the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War, although its status remains disputed. An Israeli law of 1980 declared Jerusalem to be the 'eternal, undivided' capital of Israel, while East Jerusalem is being claimed as the intended capital of a future Palestinian state. The status of the city's holy places is also disputed.

gidonb, for someone who claims to oppose vandalizing wiki, you made a good job of vandalizing Jerusalem. You are not a 5th grade essay teacher, but a wikipedian, so please have respect for other people's work. The intro for such a complex and detailed article is concise and even-handed. so please stop mass-moving large texts meticulously prepared by other wikipedians with a coarse brush. Or if you like, go and set up a gidonpedia somewhere else, which only you can edit. Monosig 10:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem has a long history. Archaeological findings indicate the existence of a settlement in Jerusalem in the 3rd millennium BCE. The first mention of the city in historic sources begins in the 2nd millennium BCE. First built and founded by Canaanite peoples (possibly, but not necessarily the Jebusites who occupied the city during the late Bronze Age), it became the capital of the Jewish kingdoms of Israel, Judah and Judea in the First Temple and Second Temple periods. Although it never again served as a national capital until modern times, throughout the centuries it continued to be an important city in the Holy Land under Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader and Turkish Ottoman rule. It is the holiest city of Judaism, and is of special significance to Christianity and Islam.

In modern times, it was part of the Ottoman Empire until 1917 and the seat of government under the British Mandate, from 1917 until 1948. From 1948 until 1967, the Western part of Jerusalem was administered by Israel as its capital, while East Jerusalem was administered by Jordan. The city was reunited by the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War, although its status remains disputed. An Israeli law of 1980 declared Jerusalem to be the 'eternal, undivided' capital of Israel, while East Jerusalem is being claimed as the intended capital of a future Palestinian state. The status of the city's holy places is also disputed.

Monosig, I copied your edits here in the hopes that we can add any useful information. Note that the reason for all these moves and reverts is that your intro mostly repeats data already included in other parts of the article. I'm glad that you posted to the Talk page, but note that in order for discussions to be productive, they must be WP:civil. Also, beware of personal attacks. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Capital

I just want to explain my edit of just now, that removed a mention of the Jerusalem as capital of Israel from the lead paragraph. Few people have been as insistent as I have that the first paragraph of this article state that Jerusalem is the capital. However, there is no need to say it twice in one paragraph. Whoever keeps putting this fact into the first sentence, please note that this fact is already in the lead, a bit lower down, as part of a sentence that I believe I wrote, which acknowledges that there is a dispute over this designation, while at the same time containing a clear statement that it is the capital. I edited this into the lead months ago as a compromise, and it has help up fairly well. Although a few people have tried to unbalance the sentence, it has always been reverted to its balanced form, usually not by me. The assertion that it is the capital, without acknowledging a dispute, while well-intentioned, always seems to invite a lot of nonsense that results in the fact not being in the lead at all. So I think it's pretty good the way it is right now. 6SJ7 03:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the holiest city to Christians and Christianity

Introduction

Really unhappy about the POV that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel it the introduction. I don't think this represents a world wide opinion as only a few countries recognise this (Israel, El Salvador, Costa Rica and US being the only ones I can think of). I therefore believe the strength of the sentence should be reduced to something like Jerusalem is considered to be the capital of Israel or Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city (as worded by the UK foreign office: [UK FCO page on Isreal]) --Ptclark 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I recognise that this is a page of special importance to Jewish history but concerned that this may lead to bias in the article. --Ptclark 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What part of the definition of Capital does Jerusalem fail to meet? Jon513 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Being actually in the country, but my point is that most of the world does not recognise Jerusalem as the capital and therefore this is an opinion (I'm not saying that it isn't the capital nor am I saying that it is - I am saying that is is an opinion that Jerusalem is that capital) --Ptclark 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been debated to death. Pls. see archives. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Except for those that say Israel has no right to exist, does anyone claim that west Jerusalem is not part of Israel (that is west Jerusalem has been part of Israel since 48)? Jon513 11:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelavent, if you read the link I put up above (as an example) you will see that the UK doesn't recognise Jerusalem as the capital and therefore it is a POV that Jerusalem is the capital. As Humus says though, been debated to death and we will never reach a consensus. --Ptclark 11:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem, or at least its western part, is definitely the de facto capital of Israel. Jerusalem is the venue of all nationwide political and administrative activities. Foreign embassadors and delegates have to drive all the way from Tel Aviv (where their embassies are located) to Jerusalem in order to deal with the Israeli government. I think the only exception to that is the Minisry of Defense which is located in Tel Aviv. This reality is not recognized by the international community, which is why the foreign embassies are based in Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan and Mevaseret Tzion. This is the reality and this is how it should be described in this article. It is a bit like the status of Northern Cyprus - no country but Turkey recognizes it officially, but no one can deny that there is a functioning state there. drork 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

indeed - but worldwide opinion should be notedJebus1 07:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Capital and largest city

Setting aside for a moment the utter illegality, flagrant immorality, and blatant antisemitism of denying Israel its right to designate its own capital, it is certainly accurate to write that it is Israel's capital, then follow it up with mention of the controversy. The implication of doing otherwise would be to imply that Israel has no capital, which may be the intent of some people, but not the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Leifern 00:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is the offical new intro template for capitals - I changed Tehran too. Iran does not maintain diplomatic relations with either the United States or Israel and has disputes with several more countries, therefore soverignity is disputed. Amoruso 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Legally

Jebus1, end the reverting. It was legal according to Israeli law. We are talking about actions by the State of Israel according to its laws. According to those laws, it was LEGAL. I am also not disputing that Hitler legally killed 6 million Jews. I am also not disputing that Iraq legally confisquated all properties of all Jews it exiled. I am also not disputing that China legally kills babies. Get it? Legally here obviously means 'according to Israeli law'. Please bring me a source stating that Israeli law does not consider East Jerusalem to be part of Israel. And yes, you do need to find a dictionary if you do not understand that the term 'legally' is relative to the laws of the country in question and not relative to your own POV or to what the majority of the world thinks. Go and learn English. I know this even without a dictionary and I have never set foot in any English-speaking country. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the territory is internationally disputed, one country cannot decide the legality of it. The UN disputes the legality so it is not POV, it is representative of world opinion. Your examples are irrelevant and emotive. Basically your argument it 'this is ours because we say so'. Jebus1 10:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jebus, read up about international law. International sovereignty reigns supreme over any other consideration, and to deny Israel of its right to name its own capital is in flagrant violation of international law. Oslo is the capital of Norway because Norwegians said it is so; Bern is the capital of Switzerland because that's what the Swiss decided. The whole world may decide that Bergen or Zürich would be better, but it would be irrelevant. --Leifern 12:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not the point I was arguing. The point was that one cannot say that Jerusalem is in Israel if the territory is disputed internationally.Jebus1 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My dear, please read the following which I wrote on my talk page.

The majority of Orthodox Judaism was, is, and will always reject the dirty Zionist ideology, and their founders, the heretical Jew-haters Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann and the likes, may their names and memories be destroyed from history. They are cursed, the Zionists are cursed and im yirtzeh Hashem they will be completely defeated soon. They are traitors, informers, they are worse than the Christians, worse than the Karaites, Sadducees, worse than the followers of Shabsai Tzvi, worse than the Reform. Three times a day we pray that they should be destroyed. Not that they should repent, no, we pray that they should be destroyed. The best of the goyim will be turned into our enemies, and all troubles in the world, for the cursed Zionists are the root of all evil and the source of all impurity in the world. It is the worst idolatry of all idolatries that exist in the entire world.

Does it look to you like I am here to defend the Zionists? If that's what it looks like to you, you need medication. I hate the Zionists as much as Ahmedinejad and Khaled Meshal do. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This kind of language has dangerous precedents, as you alluded to in your first statement. Jebus1 10:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What kind of language? The things I wrote about Zionists? Well, it just happens to be that I am loyal to what all of the greatest rabbis have always said. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Try reading 'Mein Kampf'.Jebus1 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't get what you're saying. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am just making the point that if you dehumanise a group of people, this can have terrible consequences. I don't support some of the actions of Israelis, but they are still people.Jebus1 10:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Israelis are not Zionists. I live amongst Israelis and I carry an Israeli identity card. I am talking here about the first early Zionists, their leaders, and about current figures such as the ones behind the Temple Institute and Kach. I'm not talking about poor Iraqi Jews in Sderot. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just two points to make things straight:

1. Zionists are people.
2. Zionism is a diverse movement in which Kach or Temple Institute are not considered mainstream. In fact, the former was outlawed in Israel, and the latter is subject to restrictions. drork 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, well made. Jebus1 07:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

regarding capital/sovereignty of "State of Israel" i think that the following is factually accurate:

"this designation is not widely recognised by the international community (see Positions on Jerusalem)" and should be stated. Jebus1 11:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It would help to separate issues pertaining to the "biggest city in Israel" from discussion on "Capital of Israel". The former is mostly about relative ranking and (barring the point of your objections to inclusion of Jerusalem into enumeration of Israeli cities) can be seen as factual assertion. Regarding the latter designation you suggest saying that it is ...not widely recognized what in my view sounds like gauging (what is the measure of "wide recognition" then - simple arithmetic majority? majority by combined GDP of recognizers? etc.) so I think saying that it is ...not universally recognized will be more exact because will not assign qualitative judgements whatsoever and yet will remain correct. DBWikis 13:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This could imply that most countries accept it except for a few arab/persian neighbours who'd prefer it not to be there at all. This isn't the case, eg the EU, who is Israel's main trading partner, does not recognise it. Furthermore, this comes from the UN who represent the international community. Maybe 'not recognised' would be better, as claimed on the UK Foreign Office website UK FCO position. Jebus1 15:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The position of British is worth noticing and was duly attended to in article Positions on Jerusalem in section devoted to UK and I think that structured approach is working reasonably well, i.e. in my view there is no real need to keep reminding to the reader of Jerusalem article all the time that this is under dispute, and that is focus of contention, and so on; as if said reader is assumed to be impared with short-term working memory deficiency. For example on the highway it is sufficient to post the max speed limit and then there is no need in incessant remainders; it is assumed that the driver has taken notice and stays informed. Likewise there is no need (unless warrented by lack of clarity) to keep repeating that Jerusalem is not universally recognized as a capital of Jewish state. Stating upfront that there is a dispute and multilayered controversy should be enough. After the reader had an explanation that some Israel's neighbours are less then happy about its claim to the city the factual account should follow unhindered by conditionals like ... according to the views of one of the parties of said dispute the fact that Eurovision contest was twice held in Jerusalem may lead to the conclusion that Israel could claim that it hosted the contest in its capital... No Sir, the logic of the article being discussed is like the following: (a) the disput is acknowledged; (b) facts are given bearing that in mind. Ergo it is logical to disclose in the introduction that Jerusalem's status is disputed and there are conflicting position regarding it; having acknowledged that, we go to the facts, e.g. that the State of Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital and that it has not (yet) met with universal recognition.

As to the question how the level of acceptance among the international community should be gauged: not wide, or not universal -- it must be clarified that the current wide rejection of Israeli claim *does not* mean wide acceptance of the contrary claims as you probably would like to argue. Instead it must be emphasized that this wide rejection is tentative, i.e. parts if the international community currently have chosen no to take sides, but this should not mean their opposition to Israeli claim is derived from the conviction that Jerusalem must be claimed by Arabs instead. It is better to explain that in fact the root cause of the current wide non-recognition is not the opposition to the claim per se but rather to the unilateral actions taken by Israel. And I am going to reread all archival talks pertaining to the subject again. DBWikis 17:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not actually taking sides and certainly not arguing the contrary position. I agree with the above. The only thing i wish to stress is that, according to worldwide opinion, that the Israeli sovereignty over some/all of Jerusalem is not (yet) established. As such, I think that the neutrality of the position on this page is important. I hope that this is an uncontrovertial statement. Jebus1 17:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide opinion about Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem is not seriously contested (except by groups such as Hamas), and West Jerusalem is still Israel's most populous city. Further attempts to change this wording will simply be reverted out of hand. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not actually true - indeed the only country i know of that accepts it openly is the US. Read the Positions on Jerusalem and the above comment which was expressed very well by DBWikis at 17:01, 2nd Sep.Jebus1 07:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg: i am not trying to promote a propagandist line - just represent a neutral opinion. Neutral, which I take to mean worldwide opinion as expressed by the UN, which represents the international community. Just because you don't agree with this opinion does not make it propagandist or biased. Perhaps you may wish to look at international opinions on this before deciding that they are wrong. This is not an anti-Israeli view. Jebus1 10:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Which countries dispute Israel's sovereignty over "west" Jerusalem? Aside from the various Arab countries etc. that do not recognize Israel at all? Does the U.N. dispute Israel's sovereignty over "west" Jerusalem? In fact, it has accepted its jurisdiction over Jerusalem, since Security Council resolutions regarding the the region all talk about land captured as a result of the 1967 war, not land captured in the 1948 war. The reality is that Jerusalem is an Israeli city, Israel's most populous city. Please stop trying to turn Wikipedia into a platform for your personal political views. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the UK for one. But it seems that you are unconcerned with international opinion and will take your unilateral action anyway. Good luck with that attitude. Jebus1 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

wow, that's interesting, I didn't know that about the UK. Saying "the UK for one" implies that there are others, perhaps you meant to say "the only one is the UK". Jon513 15:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly not what i meant but thank you for your misrepresentation.Jebus1 15:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction (yet again)

It is depressing to see that after such exhausting amounts of debate we have ended up with such a POV introduction. There is a very simple rule that should guide us here: Nothing should be stated as a fact or implied to be a fact unless it is near-universally accepted to be true. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" (WP:NPOV). Much has been said on this page about the definition of "capital"; this is not relevant. For Wikipedia to define for the World what a "capital" is would be original research. What is relevant is the definition of "fact". Because it is far from universally accepted that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, we should not state it as a fact. Period.

The present introduction states "Jerusalem... is Israel's capital [implying that it is a universally accepted fact that it is the capital] and largest city [implying that it is a universally accepted fact that Jerusalem in its entirety is an Israeli city], and uses the phrase The status of the united Jerusalem, which implies that a united Jerusalem exists as a matter of accepted fact, with merely its status subject to debate. It goes on to say that Jerusalem's status... as Israel's capital is not widely recognised by the international community, which is a blatantly misleading understatement, since not a single nation has recognized such a status. Stating that Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is particularly controversial is also an understatement: "widely condemned" would be closer.

For some fresh air, it may be helpful to step back and look at how others – fellow Wikipedians writing in other languages – have attempted to deal with the same issue. Here are a few leads from some languages that I can attempt to translate:

French:

Jerusalem... is a middle-eastern city which has a dominant place in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions, and in Israeli and Palestinian national sentiment. The state of Israel has declared unified Jerusalem as its "eternal capital". This designation is not accepted by the international community. East Jerusalem is also claimed as capital of a potential future Palestinian state.

Swedish:

Jerusalem... is since 1949 the de facto capital of Israel, a status that has met weak international recognition. Most countries keep their embassies in Tel Aviv.

German:

Jerusalem... is the capital of the state of Israel. The presidency and... are located there.

East Jerusalem was conquered during the six-day war and annexed in 1980 by a constitutinal amendment. The annexation is condemned as illegal by the international community and is therefore not recognized. There are thus international reservations about the extensions of Israeli rights to the eastern parts of the city and the expansion of the city boundary (and thereby the status as capital) to the east. The Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city as capital of a future Palestinian state.

Italian:

Jerusalem... is located...enormous historical and geopolitical importance... symbolic place for... Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

The international governance originally called for by the UN for the city of Jerusalem (corpus separatum) was never realized. Actually, the international community considers East Jerusalem to be occupied territory, in the sense of the IV Geneva Convention, while the state of Israel considers East Jerusalem an integral part of its own territory, although it does not recognize citizenship rights of its inhabitants. The state of Israel has declared Jerusalem as its capital since 1950 and introduced legislation to this effect in 1980, but no other UN member state recognizes this, and most countries maintain their diplomatic missions in Tel-Aviv, the economic and financial center of the country.

None of these leads are perfect either, but I hope it is clear by contrast how biased the present English Wikipedia article comes across. For example, note that three of those four leads chose to avoid stating that Jerusalem "is" the capital.

I would think that anybody who actually wants a NPOV article should be able to agree on a policy of simply not stating as a fact anything that is at all debated. We don't need to state that Jerusalem "is" the capital, we can stick to universally agreed facts, such as what the Israli, Palestinian, and UN positions are. We don't need to imply that all of Jerusalem belongs to Israel; we can easily formulate any population information etc. without falling into this trap.

To be NPOV, we must also mention in the lead Palestinian as well as Isreali claims to Jerusalem. And we cannot gloss over the international condemnation of the annexation (nor should we affirm that condemnation, we should merely report it fairly). --mglg_(talk) 20:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does define what a capital city is -- not for the "World", but just for Wikipedia. I have never read it before just now, and the first sentence needs some rewriting, but the upshot of the "Capital" article is that a capital is the seat of a country's government. And so Jerusalem is, indisputably -- all three branches of the Israeli government are headquartered in Israel, and Israel says that Jerusalem is its capital. Nothing more is required. What is disputed is whether Jerusalem should be the capital, but that is a different issue. By the way, the "Capital" article lists Jerusalem under "Unorthodox (ha ha) capital city arrangements", which seems pretty fair. As for what this article should say, I have in the past written two different compromises for the first paragraph, both of which consisted of a separate sentence (at the end of the paragaph) stating that Israel is the capital but recognizing the dispute. Unfortunately, the former consensus to keep it that way apparently vanished a month or two ago, and I got tired of changing it, so I stopped. The result is the current unqualified statement about Israel being the capital. I do feel strongly that Israel should be identified as the capital in the first paragraph, because it is. 6SJ7 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what you wish to change here - the version is exactly the same as the German version and others. It says it's the capital and still in the intro it says "The status of the united Jerusalem as Israel's capital is not widely recognised by the international community (see Positions on Jerusalem), and Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is particularly controversial.". Nothing more clear than this. Amoruso 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, they are exactly the same? So you wouldn't mind if I substituted one of the others? mglg_(talk) 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, ours is still better. Amoruso 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing other wikipedia languages is irrelevant. Some countries especially in europe that you quoted are very hostile to Israel and thus their introductions will be quite similar to Arab versions and not to the Israel version. I see the German version actually says "is the capital of Israel" though you didn't emphasise it. It's practically the same. The article deals extensively with the status of jerusalem in international law. it doesn't change the fact that it is the capital of Israel and it follows other introductions of other capitals, as an important opening line. Amoruso 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you like to dismiss opinions of entire continents, you may wish to reconsider whether you ought to participate in international efforts like Wikipedia. English-language Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia that should reflect a global perspective. --mglg_(talk) 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take that into account. Wikipedia doesn't have to be biased like the U.N which is a political forum and this on the other hand is an encyclopedia. We deal with facts, not with anti Israel opinions advocated by political groups. Amoruso 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The UN is indeed a political forum. A forum where almost all states in the world are represented. Even Israel. Expression of opinion that disagrees with Israeli opinion is not anti-Israeli and nor is it inherently biased. Jebus1 10:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Having one Jewish state in the U.N while having 22 Arab states and giving 1 vote each is a bias to begin with. You can read the article on criticizm of U.N, this system is obviously flawed. Amoruso 00:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

One state (of small population) with a very powerful ally as a permanent member of the security council vetoing any decision contrary to its interests. Jebus1 08:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously that ally didn't vetoe enough S.C res. since half of them address Israel more or less. Israel is the only country not invinted to be a part of this S.C at one point or another. Amoruso 08:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This is not a political debate. This is a debate about facts and how they should be presented. Once you use the term "capital city" you commit yourself to a certain definition, you cannot avoid that. Let us take an example which is less politically charged. Here is the definition of Amsterdam in the intorduction to the article: "Amsterdam, the official capital of the Netherlands". The fact is that none of the government institutes of The Kingdom of the Netherlands is located in Amsterdam, and yet the article still defines it as an "official capital". The Hague on the other hand is defined as the third largest city in the Netherlands and "the seat of government". Jerusalem is in fact both the declared capital of Israel and the seat of the Israeli government. There is a UN resolution which rejects that, and all foreign embassies are located outside Jerusalem, and yet all foreign delegates and officials come to Jerusalem to meet with Israeli officials and to attend official ceremonies. The facts on the ground do suggest that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It should be pointed out in the introduction, though, that this status is internationally contested and that there are Palestinian claims to this city. drork 21:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevant question is not whether it is true that Jerusalem "is" the capital, or a wholly Israeli city at all, but whether these things are universally accepted, which they very obviously are not. 210.255.218.52 11:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the goal of Wikipedia is to present facts rather than beliefs or aspirations. Therefore I find your remark rather peculiar. drork 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the beginning of this section. Yes, the goal of Wikipedia is indeed to present "facts". And this, again, is how Wikipedia defines a "fact": "By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute' (WP:NPOV). If there is any disagreement about something, it is a particular POV and should not be presented as a fact on Wikipedia. Even things that the author can prove to be true (!) cannot be presented as facts unless there is near-universal agreement about them. If this policy is unclear to you, please read WP:NOR which explains it clearly. Since there very obviously is no global agreement that Jerusalem in its entirety belongs to Israel, we must not state directly or indirectly that it is. Period. Therefore we cannot state that it is "the capital and largest city of the State of Israel", because saying so implies that it belongs, in its entirety, to the State of Israel. And there is no reason to make any such statement: we can convey the actual situation with similar brevity and and much higher precision by explaining that Israel claims it as its capital. --mglg_(talk) 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no improvement in a month, I will go ahead and make the edit myself. Please respond to the above reasoning before reverting. --mglg_(talk) 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Even though some people may not like it, Jerusalem is under Israel's control, and is the largest city in Israel. Also, it displays all the features of a capital, and serves as such de facto, and is designated as such by Israeli law (de jure). Thus, it is the capital of Israel. This has nothing to do with what's "right", or "acceptable", it only deals with the facts of the situation. okedem 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts, and they're properly sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, jayjg. With your long Wikipedia experience, you surely understand the WP:NPOV policy that the only things that can be stated as facts are those "about which there is no serious dispute"? --mglg_(talk) 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The introduction fairly characterizes the position of those who dispute Jerusalem's status; that satisfies WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious fact, I've added 8 good sources attesting to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Capital of Israel

Since Jerusalem is not considered part of, or capital of Israel, except by USA and Israel itself, the first paragraph is misleading. I have tried to include this fact in the text several times, but it was deleted. Obviously this article cannot be considered to be written from a NPOV. --Gerash77 22:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, looking at famous Encyclopedia articles on this city, and compare it to the wiki one, makes this POV more clear:

BRITANNICA © :

Jerusalem Hebrew Jerushalayim, Arabic Bayt al-Muqaddas or Al-Quds ancient city of the Middle East that since 1967 has been wholly in the possession of Israel. In 1949 the city was proclaimed its capital by Israel.

Jerusalem plays a central role in the spiritual and emotional perspective of the three major monotheistic religions. For Jews throughout the world, it is the focus of age-old yearnings, a living proof ofancient grandeur and independence and a centre of national renaissance;for Christians, it is the scene of their Saviour's agony and triumph; for Muslims, it is the goal of the Prophet Muhammad's mystic night journey and the site of one ofIslam's most sacred shrines. For all three faiths it is a centre of pilgrimage—the Holy City, the earthly prototype of the heavenly Jerusalem.

ENCARTA © :

Jerusalem (Hebrew Yerushalayim; Arabic Al Quds), city lying at the intersection of Israel and the West Bank, located between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, about 50 km (about 30 mi) southeast of the Israeli city of Tel Aviv-Yafo. Jerusalem is composed of two distinct sections: West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem, which is inhabited almost entirely by Jews, has been part of Israel since Israel was established in 1948. East Jerusalem, which has a large Palestinian Arab population and recently constructed Jewish areas, was held by Jordan between 1949 and the Six-Day War of 1967. During the war, East Jerusalem was captured by Israel, which has administered it since. Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital, but Palestinians dispute the claim and the United Nations has not recognized it as such. Jews, Christians, and Muslims consider Jerusalem a holy city, and it contains sites sacred to all three religions.

--Gerash77 22:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We've had this discussion too many times, and it always amounts to this:

1. Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel, by law.
2. Jerusalem serves as capital for the citizens of Israel, holding the parliament, government offices, supreme court, official quarters of the PM and president, etc.

These facts make it capital, and the status of a city as capital has nothing to do with international recognition. okedem 07:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the tag doesn't belong in the top because of one issue like explained in my revert reason. Cheers. Amoruso 09:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless 2, the Britannica reference is a pretty bad one for your argument because it says : "in 1949 the city was proclaimed its capital by Israel" and doesn't say it's disputed, so I'm not sure what you were getting at. It even says that whole Jerusalem is in possession of Israel (!) if you don't know, possession implies legality in law, it doesn't say occupation. I think this wikipedia article is much more WP:NPOV or WP:POV AGAINST Israel as you can see in the section Jerusalem#Jerusalem as the capital of Israel which is basically an attack on Israel so I'm not sure what bothered you in terms of POV actually. Amoruso 09:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Possession implies legality in law... Which law are you talking about? FrancescoMazzucotelli 15:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument about how to handle the "capital" issue is one of longest running in all of Wikipedia and it got real boring round about 3 years ago. Anyway, I just want to point out that the Britannica wording shows that they have the same problem and chose their words real carefully to avoid saying either that Jerusalem is sovereign Israel or not, or whether it is the capital or not. Btw, it is true that I possess the things I own, but the word "possession" certainly does not imply ownership. See possession of stolen goods. --Zero^talk 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: the sovereignty of Jerusalem is what's disputed, not Israel's right to establish a capital on its sovereign soil. The legal status of Jerusalem is very complex, but I think the correct way to think of it is that Israel has established its capital in Jerusalem, but the international community does not universally accept Israel's sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem in which governmental offices are established. If the international community disputes Israel's right to determine where its capital should be, we are dealing with discrimination that is probably without parallel in human history. --Leifern 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"...sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem in which governmental offices are established" - The governmental offices, the parliament, the supreme court, etc., are all located in West Jerusalem, which has been under Israel control since 1948/9. That part of Jerusalem is just as Israeli as any other part of the country, in its 1967 borders. So there's no point in arguing over "parts of Jerusalem". okedem 20:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, okedem, you actually edit-conflicted me out from asking that question, because what you say is what I have understood from past discussions. The structures that make Jerusalem the capital have always been in Israel. As I also understand, it is the Israeli declaration that the "complete and undivided Jerusalem" is its capital that the UN and most nations cited in their various protests. So unless one believes that all of Jerusalem was "stolen" by Israel, there is no allegation that Israel's capital is on stolen land. The protest is against Israel's occupation and later annexation of eastern Jerusalem, having nothing to do with where the capital is actually located. It is all symbolic and meaningless. 6SJ7 21:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Leifern is correct in that the issue is sovereignty. The dispute about the capital would immediately vanish if Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem was confirmed by the international community. The counter-argument about West versus East Jerusalem doesn't work for several reasons. A legal reason is that the UN has never accepted Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem (the SC resolutions denouncing the annexation of West Jerusalem were never repealed). That's why no nations agreed to treat Jerusalem as the capital from 1948 to 1967. A more important reason today is that Israel is adamant that the whole of Jerusalem is the capital. This means that other nations cannot accept the Israeli declaration without in effect acceding to the annexation of East Jerusalem. That's why they don't accept it. If Israel announced tomorrow that only West Jerusalem was the capital, probably lots of nations would accept it. That won't happen though. --Zero^talk 09:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The international recognition is irrelevant. Jerusalem is Israel's capital, whether other nations accept it or not. That's just the fact of the matter. The sovereignty issue is dealt with in the lead itself, and that's why the "neutrality" tag should be removed.

The UN's issue with west Jerusalem stems from the partition plan of 1947, which called for the internationalization of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, that plan was rejected by the Arab leadership, and so was not implemented. Other parts of the country, like some of the Galilee, were supposed to be a part of the Arab state, however, those are internationally recognized as legally as part of Israel. The partition plan is now long defunct, and so is the internationalization idea.

And as a city, it's the largest in Israel - it has the most residents, and is under complete Israeli control. okedem 18:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest quite NPOV change in the lead: "... is de facto capital of ...". --Magabund 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it now. Thats exactly what it is, all these goyims attacking Israel on their biased media.--Gerash77 04:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Goyims"? You didn't even bother to learn some Hebrew grammar before using a Jewish language to attack the Jews. Beit Or 08:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Largest and most populous city in Israel

Even if we accept the claim over "capital of Israel", the article claims it is the "largest city of Israel", with the population including the occupied territories. Unless there is a consensus on this, the sentence will remain disputed, and any removal of the tag is vandalism and will be reverted.--Gerash77 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"And as a city, it's the largest in Israel - it has the most residents, and is under complete Israeli control. " - Okedem

No, the fact that it is occupied by Israel, doesn't make it the largest city in Israel. Israel also occupies many cities in the west bank, but that doesn't mean they are cities of Israel. You are trying so hard to show that your statement is neutral, but it is not logical anyway you look at it.--Gerash77 19:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The cities is the west bank aren't under Israeli law, aren't filled with Israeli citizens, and aren't governed by Israeli municipal authorities. I know Jerusalem has a special status, but it's still an Israeli city, even if you (or anyone else) thinks it shouldn't be. okedem 20:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Since, "me and anyone else" including United Nations say otherwise, it is obviously not an statement without dispute. Hence the tag should remain. I understand this is an emotional issue for Jews, which is why I think its better to keep the sentence, and not to go for an edit war. Nevertheless, the least we could say is that it is a disputed statement, (if not totally false).--Gerash77 20:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The status of Jerusalem is dealt with in the lead. The tag needs to go. okedem 21:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One more time: The tagged sentence is not neutral.--Gerash77 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll make it clearer - the "neutrality" tag is a terrible thing to use - it adds no data for the reader, only confuses him:

a. The first part of the sentence states that its Israel's capital. There's no neutrality issue here, it is the capital.

b. The second part says it's the largest. If you think that's not neutral, suggest ways to fix it. Don't use the tag, it doesn't help anyone!

Anyway, sometimes we have to use statements that may seem less than ideal. That's reality. That's also why we can address these issues in another sentence, as the lead does, which solves the NPOV issue. okedem 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You could write "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and its proclaimed capital. It is cosidered the largest city in Israel, though Israel's sovereignty over the city is disputed." This is a pretty accurate description of the current situation in the city. It is worth while to point out that En-Wikipedia uses terms like "Republic of China" rather than "Chinese Taipei" and "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" rather than "Turkish occupation in northern Cyprus", so apparently we do value self-proclamation more than we value international resolutions. drork 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point drork, but the problem is not only in lead. There is quite scarce information about Jerusalem's international status in article. For example "...during which time West Jerusalem was part of Israel and East Jerusalem was part of Jordan" would sound more NPOV when construed like "...during which time West Jerusalem was under the control of Israel and East Jerusalem under Jordanian control". --Magabund 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact the Jerusalem is the seat of government of the state of Israel is not disputed; nor is that fact that it is the proclaimed capital. Only the legitmacy of its sovereignty is disputed. As other have pointed out, why can't we just use language that indiciates such? "The proclaimed capital and seat of government is in Jerusalem; however, Israel's sovereignty over Eastern Jerusalem is not internationally recognized." Anything along those lines should resolve most of the problem, though the exact language will need tweaking.Zalotiye 23:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC) And for Gerash77, goyim is already plural. The singular is goy; goyim is plural.

Long ago it was decided not to include the sovereignty issue of Jerusalem into the first paragraph. In fact, now that I've rechecked the history of the article, it seems the capital/largest city issue was unilaterally added to the article by User:Amoruso in early September.

Before:

Jerusalem ([[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]: , Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Greek: Ιεροσόλυμα, Ierosólyma or Ιερουσαλήμ, Ierousalēm; Latin: Hierosolyma; Arabic: , al-Quds; official Arabic in Israel: أورشليم القدس, Urshalim-Al-Quds) is an ancient Middle Eastern city on the watershed between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea at an elevation of 650-840 metres (about 2000-2500 feet). Jerusalem is Israel's official capital, although Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem is not widely recognised by the international community (see Positions on Jerusalem).

After his/her edits, the second sentence in the paragraph became grammatically incorrect, which to this date remains so! Hence, I think a reversion of the first paragraph will solve the issue. --Gerash77 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was better worded and more neutral before. Let's put it back. --Zero^talk 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What does unilaterly added mean  ? the changes were largely accepted by many users at the time Amoruso 07:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You have managed to do it again. Wait for a consensus before going to an edit war. If you read your edits for late August and early September, you will see that you only succeeded to add the changes after persistent edit war. Even now that you have managed to keep the statement there, you can't accept that there is a dispute regarding to the statement. I will keep an eye on the article from now on, please stop your vandalism.--Gerash77 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't accuse others of bad faith or vandalism when it's essentially the only thing you've contributed to this article. If you wanted to maintain some credibility, you would atleast have contributed to the article in a positive way like I and the other users have done instead of rv'ing and generic tags for your POV purposes. You obviously have no knowledge or interest of Jerusalem and your only motive seems to be to remove any mention of "capital" in Jerusalem article. That's disruptive behaviour and you should leave the article to those people knowledgable or interested about Jerusalem. This article is not a place to politically war edit like you've done. You'd notice that in contrast to you I also made considerable actual non political edits to this article and therefore it's you who is suspiciouslly acting of bad faith. Please refer to articles in your actual interest and expertise. Amoruso 09:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Who's trying to deislamize and dearabize Jerusalem by usinmg the sand box?

Robin Hood 1212 13:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that user's edits, but that's exactly what I thought when reading the current intro. I am neither Arab nor Muslim, by the way, and I have a lot of sympathy for Israel, compared with for my own country (the US). However, regardless of that, this introduction is ridiculously poor. Not only is it offensively biased in one direction (and I'm not just talking about the capital dispute that is swept under the rug, but the wording of the whole intro). Aside from POV concerns, it has ridiculous facts (if the Old City of Jerusalem's claim to fame is Good Morning America stating it's a wonder of the world, then maybe this really shouldn't be mentioned at all. just silly), lots of over-specific information about land areas, and the citations are even MORE ridiculous- about 10 citations for the claim that Israel has the largest population in Israel. THIS IS NOT WHAT IS DISPUTED. Besides, all the citations basically say the same exact thing, and the ones from fringe news sources such as The Washington Times could certainly be removed in favor of the more credible sources, if a neutrality dispute was the reason for all those citations.

But anyway, whether Israel controls Jerusalem is not disputed. Whether Jerusalem is Israel's own official capital in all senses is not disputed. What is disputed is whether Israel has a right to ALL of Jerusalem as its "eternal capital", because that is the all or nothing choice they have given the international community. I am not trying to argue that Israel does not have this right, but the point is, in this case the vast majority of the world weighs it against the apparent right of others that Israel's right appears to be infringing upon and sides against Israel's determination that Jerusalem is its capital in the sense that Israel means (i.e. ALL of Jerusalem, NOT NEGOTIABLE).

It becomes problematic if a Wikipedia article exists to further the ideological agenda of a particular government or people, even though in many cases, and apparently here, it is naturally those exact people at the center of the issue who are most enthusiastic about contributing to the article and determining its slant. Now, the rest of the article appears great. But when it comes time to summarize it up at the top, the summary only reflects facts that paint the situation in a way favorable to one side, with meager token inclusions for "objectivity", and certain key facts being left out in favor of nebulous assertions and lots of utter trivia. Other even more key general facts about Jerusalem's various religious heritages and status as a holy city are also poorly expressed or shortchanged, out of incompetent editing rather than POV, I assume, while at the same time overly specific information about styles of Jewish and Muslim prayers somehow qualified for inclusion in the intro.

The point is, leaving a claim that Israel is Jerusalem's eternal capital unchallenged until the very end of the intro, is only the beginning. The intro is about as blatantly awful as anything I have seen in such a major wiki article- just compare this to the painstakingly worded God or Jesus or September 11 or whatever huge and contentious article may be out there. I expected this would be one of those, that I wouldn't even think of touching, and I was shocked that I obviously knew more about the subject than some of the people who have been editing this, even though I wouldn't claim to know very much. Oh yes, I did try to change it, but apparently it became too objective (or too long) for some people. But I looked in the history though a bit, and I saw that any changes to the pro-Israel bias in the intro seem to get magically reverted over time, as it seesaws back from accuracy to its natural biased state.

This is simply a POV intro would be immediately laughed off the page if it were submitted to a "proper" encyclopedia (from the US or anywhere, certainly even in Israel). I guess this is one case where the article (intro) will never be able to meet standards due to the emotional feelings involved and people's (mostly pro-Israel in this case it appears) inability to see things outside their own little framework. That is sad, but I suppose it pales in comparison with the sadness of the real life situations that would inspire such an inability to be objective.

It's still very surprising there isn't more dispute over this current intro (basically none for months, it seems) but I guess all the Arabs or Muslims, or Europeans, or basically anyone who isn't either a hardcore settler or an American ignorant of the whole conflict and just sticking up for their little friends who do their dirty work... I guess they must have given up when they realized the pro-Israeli contributors are greater in number on English Wikipedia and will determine the bias of this article. Good job with your little club and consensus, guys. 172.144.0.252 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to comment about everything, but just this one thing - obviously, you haven't been working on Israel related articles for very long, otherwise you'd know - everything is in dispute. The population, for instance, is also problematic - something like half of the populous live in East Jerusalem - so can we include them in Israel's figures?

However, if there are several good sources, we can remove fringe ones. Anyway, please discuss changes before making them, otherwise things can get pretty heated around here... okedem 04:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me respond to some of these things.

• First, about the capital; it's potentially problematic for the first sentence of an article. I feel a better wording would be Israel's seat of government as that is certainly undisputed. For someone who does not know the whole story, saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel without qualification in the first sentence is confusing. I understand what it means and I'd even be inclined to say it's correct, but it's nevertheless confusing.
• Yes, there are clearly some trivial facts in the intro. The Good Morning America item is one; the number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in certain books is another. Feel free to remove them now, but I'm personally going to work on the rest of the article first before tackling the creation of a spectacular intro. If an intro is supposed to sum up an article, I feel the article should be written first.
• I have no idea why the size of Jerusalem needs so many references either.

Still, I would request that you not attack writers of the article. You raised some very good points in your comment, but there is no need to fling insults at those doing their best to improve it. Those insults – particularly in the last 2.5 paragraphs – doesn't help you one bit. -- tariqabjotu 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, on the capital thing. Find me a definition for capital according to which Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital. I truly tire of this. It's the capital. It doesn't need international recognition, nor does the location of embassies mean anything.

The dispute should be mentioned, certainly, but for all intents and purposes, it is the capital.

Please don't remove references. At most - place them in hidden comments, without changes their location. Saves trouble later on. okedem 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... were you responding to me? If so, let me point out that I said that I agree that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but just think saying that upfront is misleading (whereas instead saying seat of government unqualified is perfectly fine). I'm not really a fan of the we've talked about this before, so don't challenge it approach, especially when that before is nearly three years ago.

About the last part, I have not removed any references from the article, but I don't see why that would be a problem. We do not need eight references for the largest city item. I'm not sure what trouble commenting out the references will save later on. -- tariqabjotu 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, saying it's "the seat of government" sounds like an evasion, and is really incomplete - it's also the seat of parliament, supreme court, presidents quarters, etc. The word for its function is capital, nothing else.

I did not make myself clear, I'm afraid. I'm not saying "don't challenge it", not at all. I'm just saying I tire of it, because this argument repeats itself on a monthly basis (forget the link on the top - go through the archives of this talk page, and Israel's talk page).

Refs - unless it's a really fringe source - we shouldn't delete it. Some sources might be challenged, others might go offline. If someone went to the trouble of finding sources, it's best to keep them. okedem 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a new replacement intro. Tell me if it is not more properly NPOV than what we had.

Jerusalem (Hebrew: , Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: , al-Quds ("the Holy")) is an ancient Middle Eastern city that is Israel's national capital and has pivotal importance to the world's major Abrahamic religions, among them Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel, with a population of 724,000 (as of May 24, 2006). Jerusalem is landlocked, on the watershed between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, residing at elevations between 650 and 840 metres (approximately 2000-2500 feet) and on a total area of 123 km² (47 mi²). The city is situated southeast of Tel Aviv, south of Ramallah, southwest of Jericho, and north of Bethlehem. Politically, Jerusalem neighbours the Palestinian Territories of the West Bank, which Israelis know as Judea and Samaria, a disputed region under Israeli control since 1967.

Since approximately the 10th century BCE, Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual homeland of the Jewish people, appearing at least 700 times in the Hebrew Bible. According to the Gospels and the New Testament, Jesus died, rose from the dead and will return again to Jerusalem, giving the city great importance to many denominations of Christianity. Jerusalem is generally regarded as the third holiest site in Islam, and it is narrated in orthodox Muslim sources to be the destination of Muhammad's miraculous journey, as well as the original qibla (direction of prayer) for Muslims. Historically, Crusades have been fought between Christians and Muslims for control of the city and the surrounding "Holy Land", and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is said to commemorate the site of Jesus' crucifixion. Today, Jerusalem's most important and contested landmarks are the Western Wall (Wailing Wall) of the Temple Mount for Jews, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock for Muslims.

Jerusalem currently has a large Jewish majority, but the city represents a wide range of national, religious, and socioeconomic groups. The section called the Old City is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Barely one kilometer square, it is surrounded by walls and consists of four quarters: the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters. Surrounding the Old City are modern areas. The civic and cultural centre of modern Israel in western Jerusalem stretches toward the country's other urban areas to the west, while Palestinian areas dominate to the north, east and south of the Old City, with many citizens of Israel as well. However, despite or because of the diverse population, Jerusalem remains central to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel's annexation of the primarily Arab neighbourhoods known as East Jerusalem is particularly controversial, as Jerusalem has been claimed by Palestinians as the capital for a future Palestinian state. Thus, the status of united Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital" is not widely recognised by the international community, and most countries locate their embassies in Tel Aviv.

The current mayor of Jerusalem is Uri Lupolianski, the first Haredi Jew ever to hold this position.

Here is the OLD one for comparison:

it's this version

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&oldid=102474689

Jerusalem (Hebrew: , Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: , al-Quds ("the Holy")) is Israel's largest city and national capital, with a population of 724,000 (as of May 24, 2006). An ancient Middle Eastern city on the watershed between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem resides at elevations between 650 and 840 metres (approximately 2000-2500 feet) and on a total area of 123 km² (47 mi²). The city is situated southeast of Tel Aviv, south of Ramallah, southwest of Jericho, and north of Bethlehem.

Jerusalem has a large Jewish majority, but the city still represents a wide range of national, religious, and socioeconomic groups. Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism (and has been since approximately the 10th century BCE) and some denominations of Christianity (since the 5th century CE). Jewish religious law holds that prayers should be conducted facing the direction of the city and specifically in the direction of the Temple Mount. Jerusalem is generally revered by Muslims as the location of al-Aqsa Mosque, generally regarded as the "third holiest site in Islam", and the original qibla (direction of prayer), prior to Mecca. Jerusalem appears in the Hebrew Bible 669 times, while "Zion" (which usually means Jerusalem, although sometimes the Land of Israel) appears 154 times. Alternatively, the New Testament mentions "Jerusalem" 154 times and "Zion" seven times. No reference to the city is found in the Qur'an.

The section called the Old City (barely one square kilometer) is surrounded by walls and consists of four quarters: the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters. The Old City was named by the American television show Good Morning America and newspaper USA Today as one of the "New Seven Wonders of the World" in 2006. However, despite the diverse, heterogeneous presence, Jerusalem remains central to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The status of united Jerusalem as Israel's capital is not universally recognised by the international community and Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is particularly controversial. East Jerusalem has been claimed by Palestinians as the desired capital for a future Palestinian state.

The current Israeli mayor of Jerusalem is Uri Lupolianski, the first Haredi Jew ever to hold this position.

172.144.0.252 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with your suggestion. One point - I don't know if most countries base their embassies in Tel Aviv. Many have embassies in other cities, like Herzlia. Unless we can find a source, we'd better just say - "...in other cities, like Tel Aviv." okedem 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken out some of the unnecessary wordiness, unsourced, POV, and circumlocutions, as well as political discussions that weren't actually about Jerusalem. By the way, if both the New York Times and Microsoft Encarta can call Jerusalem "Israel's largest city", then so can we. If you don't like my cleanup, we can certainly return to the original consensus introduction instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, was that directed at me? Because I never took out anything about Jerusalem being Israel's largest city, I just put it in the second sentence to focus the first one on it being Israel's capital, and on the religious significance, both of which I think we could all agree are the most important facts about Jerusalem- and having the three religions mentioned in the first sentence, plus calling it "a Middle Eastern city which is Israel's capital", seems like it may help to keep a feeling of objectivity without seeming to privilege one side. Maybe. and then of course the special Jewish significance must be noted first, in the next para that talks about the significance to religions.

No one can deny that it is Israel's capital, as your side keeps pointing out. In the same way no one can deny the West Bank is under Israeli control. Whether you choose to say Jerusalem is "the largest city IN ISRAEL", or that "Palestinian territories are under Israeli OCCUPATION"... those words are slightly inflammatory despite in both cases being quite true on their face, so it's a different story depending on viewpoint. I just found out in researching this that the government of Israel has refused to ever specify the borders of Jerusalem! So there is not even any way for someone to object to the borders. they are also intentionally being ambiguous with the "security barrier"/"apartheid wall" and where they choose to construct that, whether in or out of the "green line".

so to say Jerusalem is "in" Israel in the very first sentence intro==could appear to be pushing a certain idea, that whatever idea anyone has about Jerusalem, the absolute most important thing is that it (by extension, all of it, however the Israeli government chooses to define it, if ever) is "in" Israel. this would certainly be highly POV and unlikely to find agreement by the vast majority of earth's population.

It also seemed slightly like the population stuff, along with the reference to how many times Jerusalem is named in various religions' holy books, had a strong bias with the way whoever wrote the previous version had been presenting it (with the punchline being that Jerusalem is never in the Quran- hmm, so why mention it?). But no, I didn't delete the population thing. The population and the fact that it's the largest city in Israel is still duly noted in the second line. The only sources I deleted were for things that already had 10 OTHER MORE REPUTABLE SOURCES cited saying the same thing. Whoever made these sources was actually very clever. I think they were trying not to find real sources for contentious stuff but to make the intro so unwieldy and unreadable to an editor that they would not be able to figure out how to remove the POV assertions in it, and they succeeded... for a while.

And whatever "consensus" resulted in that atrocity of a former introduction I posted for comparison, was probably the consensus of the few biased people who hadn't given up on the article. If you want to revert it, maybe you should go back much further in time. But I see it's still the same version, so I don't know if your owrk was reverted or what. 172.144.0.252 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a "side", the writing is better in this version, the sources say it's Israel's largest city, this article is about Jerusalem not the status of the West Bank (and people know what the West Bank is anyway), the religious stuff should not be mentioned twice in the same lead, and you messed up the grammar around the quarters. The next time I go back to the consensus version. I'm willing to compromise, but you can't keep POVing this intro. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph could really do better in the Religious significance section, which is really struggling at the moment. -- tariqabjotu 02:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources (January 2007)

I removed three more sources – the ones that were other encyclopedias. They are, for the most part, doing the same thing we are (compiling information) so, although they are correct, it would be better to use other sources, if possible. Three sources still exist so I thought removing the encyclopedia sources was fine; others could also easily be found if there is a dire need for more. In regards to the footnote I added, I simply copied what was stated in the footnote in the Israel article; I assumed that wording got consensus there at some point. Either way, in my opinion, it summarizes the situation well while not dodging the word capital which seems to be a non-negotiable. -- tariqabjotu 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove sources; in contentious articles more sources are always required, never fewer. Contrary to the suspicions of the IP editor above, extra sources are always needed for this kind of thing because otherwise people start removing simple facts from articles because they contradict their own political biases. I've allowed a couple of sources to be deleted, but that's the limit. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Tertiary sources can be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. Articles signed by experts should be regarded as more reliable than unsigned articles. Unsigned articles should not be used to support any controversial or complex points. Secondary sources should be given priority over tertiary ones. So, essentially we're using three tertiary sources to help support a controversial point, even though there are more than enough secondary sources available. If you want six sources, get six good sources; resorting to three encyclopedias suggests we were having trouble finding enough sources to back our point. Please also respond to my comment about the footnote that you removed. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that wording was changed, and not by consensus, less that two weeks ago. Before then it never said anything about unsigned articles not being "used to support any controversial or complex points", and specifically mentioned Encylopedia Brittanica as a reliable source. I've restored the original wording. If you want to add the other footnote, please feel free to, but please don't combine it with a complex edit removing other footnotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to say I didn't mean to remove that part, just say that. Don't make it sound as if there was some ulterior motive in making more than one change at a time. And don't make it sound as if it's a federal crime to revert only part of an edit. Sheesh. -- tariqabjotu 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Capital, "largest city" out of intro

The question of which city is Israel's largest is, imo, spectacularly uninteresting. However, a google search for "largest city Tel-Aviv" (including the quotes) will find a large number of contrary claims, many satisfying the usual criteria for "reliable source". The point is that the number of citations is not the issue. Rather than citing a long list of sources that could easily be countered by an equally long list of disagreeing sources, the footnote should clearly state what definition of "largest" is being used and link to the official statistics that establish it. --Zero^talk 06:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zero0000's comment, though I would add that a claim so obviously questionable and so unessential to the definition and introduction of Jerusalem probably should not be part of the first sentence of the article. Palmiro | Talk 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you find some reliable, non-partisan sources that say that some other city is actually Israel's largest city? Then we can talk. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Source [20] To Rule Jerusalem by Richard D. Hecht, Roger Friedland , 2000, University of California Press

In 1967, Tel Aviv was the largest city in Israel. By 1987, more Jews lived in Jerusalem than the toral population of Tel Aviv. Jerusalem had become Israel's premier city.

The Arab population of East Jerusalem, which had stagnated under Jordanian rule, doubleed during these first two decades of Israeli administration. Whereas the city's Jewish population is fed by continous streams of immigrants. Arab population growth has depended almost exclusively on natural increase. The Israeli goverment makes it very difficult for Palestinians who live on what most Israelis consider to be "occupied" territories, even if they own property in Jerusalem proper, to migrate into the city. According to Israeli law, a Palestinian from the West Bank is not allowed even to stay overnight in Jerusalem without formal permission. Despite this prohibition, the economic lure of Jerusalem-both jobs and health, insurance, and educational benefits that come with residence - has been such that thousands of West Bank Palestinians maintain an illegal residence in Jerusalem....

128.32.48.91 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the source you've quoted supports the point that Jerusalem is Israel's largest city, and has been so since 1987. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) 128.32.38.119 21:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. First, the largest city fact is controversial so we need as many sources as possible. Now, it's completely uncontroversial so there's no need to move it out of the first sentence. Which is it? Would it be too much to reword the first paragraph to something along the lines of:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: , Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: , al-Quds ("the Holy")) is a landlocked Middle Eastern city located in an enclave of the West Bank between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea. Jerusalem is Israel's national capital, although its status as such has been disputed by the United Nations and much of the international community since the annexation of East Jerusalem into Israel. With a population of approximately 724,000 and an area totaling 123 km² (47 mi²), Jerusalem is also Israel's largest city in both population and area.

(I omitted the information about elevation and proximity to other cities because that seems more relevant in the #Physical geography section). -- tariqabjotu 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You're misstating the issue; it is a simple fact that Jerusalem is Israel's largest city, as attested by many reliable sources. However, that doesn't mean that it still isn't controversial; indeed, even the simplest facts about Israel are contested by partisans on a daily basis. The statement that Jerusalem was Israel's largest city was originally simply in the article; then an IP editor started editing this and other articles solely for the purpose of insisting that Tel Aviv was Israel's largest city, not Jerusalem. This went on for weeks and weeks; thus, in the end, a large number of high-quality sources had to be brought to point out that amongst non-partisan reliable sources this was seen as a simple fact, regardless of the polemical political bias individual editors wished to insert into the subject. As for your intro, it is incorrect; Jerusalem has served as Israel's capital for much longer than that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As for your intro, it is incorrect; Jerusalem has served as Israel's capital for much longer than that. I know it has been the capital for over half a century, but I said the unified Jerusalem. Nevertheless, I have rephrased the sentence...

Jerusalem is Israel's national capital, although its status as such has been disputed by the United Nations and much of the international community since the annexation of East Jerusalem into Israel.

...to clarify what I meant (I think it sounds better this way anyway). Now, can you get around to addressing the concept of moving the capital and largest city facts out of the first sentence? -- tariqabjotu 03:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not irredeemable, but it seems that instead of addressing what are the typically most relevant facts about a city, instead it tries to push some political POV right up front. The article on Shanghai says Shanghai (Chinese: 上海; pinyin: Shànghǎi (help·info); Wu (Long-short): Zånhae; Shanghainese (IPA): [zɑ̃'he]), situated on the banks of the Yangtze River Delta in East China, is the largest city of the People's Republic of China and the eighth largest in the world. The article on Moscow says Moscow (Russian: Москва́, Romanized: Moskva, IPA: [mʌsk'va] (help·info)) is the capital of Russia and the country's principal political, economic, financial, educational, and transportation center, located on the Moskva River in the Central Federal District, in the European part of Russia. The name of the city is usually pronounced "Mos-koh" (rhyming with "toe") in British English and "Mos-kow" (rhyming with "now") in US English. The city's population of 10.4 million permanent inhabitants within the city boundaries [1] constitutes about 7% of the total Russian population. Likewise, it is the most populous city in Europe. New York City says New York City is the most populous city in the United States and one of the major global cities of the world. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

<-(removing indents) Would you accuse Encarta of pushing a political POV because they don't mention that it's the capital of Israel until the sixth sentence and even then, they note that Palestinians and the United Nations dispute the claim? Is Britannica pushing a political point-of-view as well because they neglect to mention the capital fact upfront? Do you also blame Britannica for noting that the annexation of East Jerusalem is what makes Jerusalem the largest city in Israel? I must have missed something in regards to your examples of Shanghai, Moscow, and New York. Has Moscow's status as the capital of Russia been rejected by the United Nations? Or has New York's position as the most populous city in the United States come under fire? We can still mention that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel without saying that in the first sentence (like it does in my example) and we call say that Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel (as it does in the example). However, we would be doing readers a great disservice if we forced them to look at the footnote or a couple paragraphs later for a fact that is just as important and relevant and very easy to note (that the annexation of East Jerusalem has caused the capital fact to be disputed and resulted in Jerusalem being Israel's largest city). And to be honest, relegating to a footnote or a subsequent paragraph a short mention of the dispute would be itself a push of a political point-of-view. -- tariqabjotu 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Britannica Concise states Jerusalem is the capital of Israel right at the top of its article. Also, none of those encyclopedias seem to push the political controversy into the second sentence. In addition, it wasn't the annexation of East Jerusalem that cause Jerusalem to be the largest Israeli city, but rather the huge growth in the Jewish population there. And, while I recognize that there is a controversy about Jerusalem being Israel's capital, where is the "controversy" about Jerusalem being Israel's largest city, except in the minds of Wikipedia editors? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Britannica Concise states Jerusalem is the capital of Israel right at the top of its article. And that makes perfect sense for an article that's barely a paragraph long. Nevertheless, it says (see below), an obvious allusion to the note about the controversy in the subsequent paragraph. If it weren't for East Jerusalem's population, Tel Aviv would be Israel's most populous city (and perhaps largest in area? unsure). And although Encarta does not mention the controversy in the second sentence, it is mentioned in the sixth – at the same time the capital designation is mentioned. The distance between our mention of the capital and the controversy is large and although it is mentioned in the footnote, it could very easily fit in the text like it was prior to September 2006. [W]here is the "controversy" about Jerusalem being Israel's largest city, except in the minds of Wikipedia editors? My guess comes in the fact that many do not see the annexation as legitimate, but this controversy is not as significant as the one in regards to the capital. -- tariqabjotu 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Tariqabjotu. I think your proposed intro there might be considered beyond the pale to most here because it relegates the Israeli-ness of Jerusalem to sounding like a secondary point. But I noticed the article has since been edited again, to remove the changes I made to be more objective, and is blatantly POV at the moment. Take a look at the current editor's efforts to establish the number of times "Jerusalem" and (!) "Zion" are mentioned in different Holy Books and how they're never mentioned in the Quran as a way of, well, de-Arabizing and de-Islamizing Jerusalem. Even the most hardcore pro-Israeli editors should notice this kind of stuff is ridiculous for an intro.

I am done here, it's too contentious and I wouldn't want to do much to articles like this without just an IP without signing-up. I think my intro was much better than what we have now, though, even if it could also have been improved.

I also think the solution to this "political" problem is to mention Jerusalem's "pivotally important" status for three major religions in the very first sentence, along with its status as Israel's capital, and then to put information about it being the largest city in Israel in the NEXT sentence. This dodges the question of West Bank/Palestinians/etc (which some feel is irrelevant, just like they feel the people are irrelevant) but does include Islam right there with Judaism and Xtianity, reducing the possibility of edit wars. It also makes sense for encylopedic grounds regardless of being politically correct, since the religious significance of Jerusalem is probably the MOST important thing about it from a WORLDWIDE VIEW. The fact that it's a capital is a fact that must be mentioned first (and qualified later, perhaps). But the info about the size of the city is not quite as important, unless someone has a certain interest in ramming the Israeli-ness of Jerusalem down people's throats in the first sentence. Not all Jews are Israelis either, so Jerusalem's status as an important city for Jews worldwide (not to mention Christians and Muslims) is also being sold short by not mentioning religion early. imo. The only reason Jerusalem is much of a city today at all is basically for religious reasons! That's why Zionists went there at first, even if they were secular and the importance was just symbolic. I am not a religious person though, it's just it seems that is the main way people view Jerusalem, including a lot of those who live there, and would be appropriate for line #1.

Keep up the watching of this page Tariqa to make sure the NPOV warning stays there until the intro changes please. 172.144.0.252 18:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A new proposal

I would still like to see the current controversy over the city put closer to the capital fact, but if the RfC consensus appears to go the other way, I'll live with it. In the event (wishful thinking?) this article becomes a featured article and gets set for an appearance on the Main Page, a different one-paragraph summary different from the first paragraph of the article can be used (one, I hope, mentions the current status of the city in some way). But that's for another day. Currently, there are seriously trivial facts that appear in the intro. As a result, here is a suggestion:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: , Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: , al-Quds ("the Holy")) is Israel's capital and largest city both in population and area, with a population of approximately 724,000 (as of 2006) and an area totaling 123 km² (47 mi²).

Located in an enclave of the West Bank between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem is considered a holy city in three major religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual homeland of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE. The city is often regarded as the third-holiest in Islam and it contains a number of significant and ancient Christian landmarks. Thus, while the city has a large Jewish majority, a wide range of national, religious, and socioeconomic groups are represented. The section called the Old City is a UNESCO World Heritage Site consisting of four ethnic and religious divisions – the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters. Barely one kilometer square, the Old City is home to several of Jerusalem's most important and contested religious sites, including the Western Wall and Temple Mount for Jews and the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque for Muslims.

Surrounding the Old City are more modern areas of Jerusalem. The civic and cultural centre of modern Israel in western Jerusalem stretches toward the country's other urban areas to the west, while majority Palestinian areas dominate the north, east and south of the Old City. Today, Jerusalem remains central to the Arab-Israeli conflict; Israel's annexation of the primarily Arab neighbourhoods known as East Jerusalem is particularly controversial, as Jerusalem has been claimed by Palestinians as the capital for a future Palestinian state. Thus, the status of united Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital" is not widely recognised by the international community, and most countries locate their embassies in Tel Aviv.

Aside from the capital fact, there really is nothing controversial about this article. The vast majority of the article should be no problem. Once I get the time back, I'll continue adding references and improving the rest of the article. -- tariqabjotu 20:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes for better wording and accuracy; it doesn't look bad now. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "enclave of the West Bank", the wording implies a relationship with the West Bank that is unjustified. The notion of a "West Bank" is recent, and Jerusalem was never considered part of it; see Image:1947PartitionPlan.PNG. And in any event, Jerusalem is unquestionably located on the Judean Mountains. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "enclave" is actually incorrect for two different reasons. In order for a place to be an "enclave", it must be a part of a larger political unit, and it must be physically separated from that larger unit by territory of another unit. (See Enclave and exclave; the issue of which of those two terms would properly apply here (or both) would be an interesting one, except that neither applies.) As Jay points out, Jerusalem is not part of a larger political entity, the West Bank. (And that is leaving aside the fact that it is really part of Israel, since Israel controls all of it, contains part of it within its "border" and has annexed the remainder of it; but since it is contiguous with Israel, it is not an enclave/exclave of Israel either.) Therefore it does not satisfy the "political" aspect of being an enclave/exclave. As for the "physical" aspect, since Jerusalem borders on the West Bank (wherever exactly that border may be), and therefore there is no physical separation, and therefore cannot be an enclave/exclave for that reason as well. 6SJ7 21:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com, an enclave is a country, or esp., an outlying portion of a country, entirely or mostly surrounded by the territory of another country. The first sentence of the enclave and exclave article reflects the use of the word mostly. If that was not intended (or water was meant as the remaining portion) the article should be clarified. Regardless, this is no longer relevant for this article; the use of the Judean Mountains to designate the location is sufficient for me as well and no one else has appeared to want to re-insert the enclave piece. -- tariqabjotu 22:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the only controversial issue is Jerusalem's status as capital. In archeological circles, the claim that Jerusalem has been the spiritual center of Judaism since the 10th century would be an extreme position at best. The 10th century date is a religious belief, and the references cited are religious, as one would expect. For example, To Rule Jerusalem was written by two Professors of Religous Studies.

The 10th century date is important, but in order to be NPOV, it must be mentioned in the correct context. For example, the sentence:

Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual center of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE.

could be rewritten as:

According to biblical sources, Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual center of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE.

EllenS 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that makes it seem as though the whole "holiest city" thing is only according to biblical sources. The sentence is fine the way it is, and there are enough references for that. The Jewish connection to Jerusalem is well documented in non-biblical sources, and the kingdom of Judah has some fine archaeological evidence. If we went by biblical sources alone, we'd say it was something like the 11th century BC (David). okedem 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is in no way fine the way it is. It is clearly POV and needs to be altered. If you have non-biblical sources, fine. But not one of the references used actually qualifies as NPOV. Outside of the Biblical sources, the one and only archeological find that even comes close is the Tel Dan Stele, which itself is controversial. And even for those of us who feel the stele is genuine, it fails to provide evidence that backs the claim that Jerusalem was the spiritual center of Judaism in the 10 century BC.

I would hate to tag an otherwise well done artical with a POV tag. However if the references to this claim are not qualified, I will have no choice. EllenS 01:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As noted below, I don't believe the large number of references is the appropriate remedy. Fewer supporting references and a note similar to the one under footnote 21 could suffice. -- tariqabjotu 16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not the number of references, but their presentation as NPOV sources. They are largely religion based and all are POV. As long as the statements are qualified, I have no problem with the sources. EllenS 01:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

All sources are POV. The idea that there such a thing as an "NPOV" source isn't consistent with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Wikipedia requires representing all significant points of view on the subject. If the issue is that an editor disagrees with the source it would be best to say so explicitly. In this case if we are asking if Jerusalem is the "holiest city", this is an essentially religious claim and I'm not sure if there could be any other reliable source then religious sources. If the question is whether it was the spiritual center of the Bible in the 10th century BCE, this is both a religious and an historical claim. "According to the Bible" could be used to present the religious POV involved. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Shirahadasha, for clarifying the point I was trying to express. It is the historical, not the religious aspect that is questionable. Again, with the proper qualification, there is nothing wrong with the references. EllenS 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think the sources in question are "largely religion based"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added a footnote regarding the Biblical accounts (and I have also moved a few other non-references out of the References section as there was some complex linking that appeared to work better this way). I hope this is sufficient. -- tariqabjotu 05:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the changes are not sufficient. The statements which reference the 10th century date need to be qualified as both Shirahadasha and I have suggested.EllenS 13:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more you're asking for; "according to the Bible" was added in the footnote. In the same manner we shouldn't add the lengthy capital footnote to the body of the article, we shouldn't be adding the footnote regarding Biblical sources to the article (as the time period is a generally-accepted historical fact). There's more detail under #History. I also believe the {{POV}} template for this one bit is, at best, an exaggeration. -- tariqabjotu 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Qualified in what way? Can you be explicit, and refer back to the sources in question for any claims you make? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What is this bit about "not being widely recognized"? What kind of nonsense is that? I don't see any such thing regarding other capitals around the world and it is out of place here.

--Gilabrand 17:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because Jerusalem is unique in its regard as "not being widely recognized" as the capital of Israel. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Should the facts about Jerusalem being Israel's largest city and capital be moved out of the first sentence of the article and into later on in the first paragraph so that more detail can be added? (see #Capital, "largest city" out of intro) 14:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course not! Jerusalem IS mainly Israel's largest city and capital, crisis.

Maybe we'll declare Jerusalem as the capital of the state of palestine, nothing more and nothig less, and put it to an end??

This has become ridicules... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.167.95 (talk • contribs)

The placement is fine where it is. Blueboar 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

To 194.90.167.95 (talk · contribs), no one has suggested calling Jerusalem the capital of Palestine or even saying the facts are wrong. The reasoning behind the suggestion is to add some information currently only present in the footnotes without making the first sentence excessively long. For those of you (understandably) unwilling to look through the entire #Capital, "largest city" out of intro section, the only alternative to the current version put on the table thus far is:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: , Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: , al-Quds ("the Holy")) is a landlocked Middle Eastern city located in an enclave of the West Bank between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea. Jerusalem is Israel's national capital, although its status as such has been disputed by the United Nations and much of the international community since the annexation of East Jerusalem into Israel. With a population of approximately 724,000 and an area totaling 123 km² (47 mi²), Jerusalem is also Israel's largest city in both population and area.

Nothing about Palestine, and the text says Jerusalem is Israel's national capital. For some arguments already presented for or against this type of rephrasing, see the whole talk page section. -- tariqabjotu 17:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at articles on other capital cities (see: London, Washington D.C., Amman, and Cairo just to name a few) a statement that the city in question is the capital of its country seems to always come in the first sentence. Thus, I see no need to change the placement in this article. Blueboar 18:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

But Jerusalem is unique in that its status as capital is rejected by much of the international community. -- tariqabjotu 19:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

To me that does not affect the placement of the sentence. The convention is that such information goes in the first sentence. I suppose if one had to get ultra picky and ultra NPOV, you could say something along the line of: "Jerusalem is Israel's capital city, although that status is questioned by [names of specific countries or groups that question its status]. It is Israel's largest city both in ...." Out of curiosity... What city does this "much of the international community" say IS the capital of Israel? (and what constitues "much"). Blueboar 02:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're saying "much of the international community" as if this is a spurious claim. By much of the international community, it is meant the majority of countries; that [names of specific countries or groups that question its status] piece would get quite long. Nearly every country has complied with United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 as no country currently has an embassy in Jerusalem (most have been moved to Tel Aviv). However, there is no way really to force Israel to stop using Jerusalem as its capital so it still is so; the status as such has just been rejected. Take a look at the last sentence of the current intro. This is not something I just made up as you make it sound; that kind of language has existed in the intro for awhile, just in a different location. See also: Positions on Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to fuel the fire, but the UN also calls the entire Middle East "Southwest Asia", which no one uses popularly. I also would venture to say that none of the natives of the region would consider themselves Asian, either. In the same vein, it might be better to encompass all the POVs, popular, official and otherwise, but do it in two sentences, not one. It's clearly Israel's largest city. Set that on its own, and then address the capital issue in the next sentence. MSJapan 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu - I am sure you know the details about Jerusalem's status far better than I... and I don't really want to debate the issue with you. I came here because you posted a RFC. I am sorry that my comments do not fit the answer you obviously wanted to hear.

From your comments, it seems that the real issue here is "Should the article say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?" This is a vastly different question, and not what was asked at the RfC. There, the assumption was that the statement was uncontested, and the only question was "Where should we put the statement". I gave you my opinion, and the reasoning behind it. Assuming that the article is going to continue to bluntly state "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", I feel that the statement should go in the first sentence... so that it conforms to other articles on capital cities. That's my opinion... Take it or leave it as you wish. Alternatives are: 1) Say that Jerusalem is the capital according to Israel, but not according to others (you can figure out the wording ... but I would still put that info in the first sentence) 2) DO NOT say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. 3) Delete the RfC and do what you want.

Please do not bother to reply, or to put additional comments on my talk page. I have given you my opinion and now I'm done. Good luck with this article. Blueboar 14:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to be very knowledgeable about the status of Jerusalem as the capital (and I really can't say the same), but your admission is precisely why I responded. I'm not trying to beat you into agreeing with me; I clearly said on your talk page that if you understood the question, there was no need to do anything. But you continued the discussion, which is entirely reasonable because RfCs are not just a solicitation of opinions without discussion. From your latest statement to which I replied, it seemed as if you were not aware of the controversy surrounding the city. So, why wouldn't I explain it to you? (It's in the article footnote #3 but, naturally, many people assume they're just references and nothing real important). In fact, you ended your comment with two questions. And so I answered your questions. I feel it is the obligation of anyone involved in this article to ensure that those responding to the RfC have some knowledge of the controversy surrounding the city. With any RfC in fact, it is expected that those responding either have some knowledge of the dispute or at least are willing to look at the appropriate section(s) (which was linked in the original question) to gather the requisite knowledge. If the opposition feels anyone was misinformed, they are free to chime in. And, no the question is not "Should the article say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?" as I tried to clarify when I responded to the IP; no one (at least recently) has suggested saying it's not. You say you weren't going to respond any more, but do whatever you please; this is a discussion and not a straw poll. -- tariqabjotu 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence absolutely should say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, because it is, and because it is one of the facts about the city that is so significant that it needs to be in the intro. (Or to paraphrase what someone else said, "convention" on Wikipedia is that the fact that a city is a national capital receives prominent mention in the intro.) The controversy over Jerusalem's status and the reaction of the UN and other countries is amply covered (perhaps more than amply covered) in this article and others. 6SJ7 20:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned earlier on that is not accepted de jure as the capital of Israel by most countries. As it is now, omitting this fact while rambling about stuff like "spiritual homeland of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE." it just looks poor. Of course this stuff deserves a prominent place in the article, but the City's legal status in the eyes of the world is a hard fact and should be there already in the first paragraph. "The status of Jerusalem as capital of Israel is disputed by many countries." pertn 13:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with 6SJ7 on this point. Lets keep in mind that this formulation is the product of a long-argued discussion, and so we should not be so eager to overturn this consensus. Tewfik^Talk 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion (see FAC discussion)

We currently have:

Today, Jerusalem remains central to the Arab-Israeli conflict; Israel's annexation of the primarily Arab neighborhoods that form East Jerusalem has been particularly controversial, as Jerusalem has been claimed by Palestinians as the capital for a future Palestinian state. Thus, the status of united Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital" is not widely recognized by the international community, and most countries locate their embassies in Tel Aviv.

My suggestion is to rewrite this into (changes underlined):

Today, Jerusalem remains central to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a great part of its territory is in the occupied territory of West Bank; Israel's annexation of the primarily Arab neighborhoods that form East Jerusalem has been particularly controversial, as Jerusalem has been claimed by Palestinians as the capital for a future Palestinian state. Thus, the status of united Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital" is not widely recognized by the international community, and most countries locate their embassies in Tel Aviv.

My rationale is to make it more explicit that a part of the city's territory is in a disputed area, and that Israel has formalised its position in the pertinent law. International criticism of Israel's position is covered by the link to Positions on Jerusalem. Kosebamse 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we really need to go into much more detail in the lead about the present conflict (it seems like recentism) but I believe you have a decent re-wording. However, I believe the semi-colon should be changed to a period (since the sentence has gotten much longer). Additionally, I'd reword the first sentence to remove ambiguity (note how territory is used twice and the use of great). Perhaps something like...

...as a large portion of the city is in the West Bank, an occupied territory.

Furthermore, the sentence might be able to do without the occupied territory of as it's just the lead. -- tariqabjotu 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your points and would be happy to see the phrase introduced into the article in the form that you suggest. Kosebamse 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; a few extra words isn't a big deal. I re-worded my previous suggestion so as not to give the impression that only part of the West Bank is an occupied territory. -- tariqabjotu 13:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, I would prefer not to change the article myself because I have criticised it on FAC. Would you like to do it?Kosebamse 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone objecting to an FAC and also making a change. I was thinking of waiting for okedem to chime in, but this is not a real dramatic change. So, I went ahead and did it. If okedem has something to say about the matter, he can comment when he gets back on Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I fine with it. okedem 14:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

Idea: we can make the beginning less divisive by moving up "Jerusalem has been claimed by Palestinians as the capital for a future Palestinian state" to be second sentence in the first paragraph. (Re: discussion inWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem/archive1) nadav 11:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I could agree to that. Depends if this would be the end of it, or if other concerns would be raised. okedem 11:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and there shouldn't be given undue weight to "claims", definitely not in the beginning. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Amoruso 11:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So you prefer not getting FA, if it comes to that?? The weight given these "claims" is not undue if the claims are strong enough to prevent the article's promotion. nadav 12:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso - the crystal ball point would fit if we were to say "Jerusalem is... and the future capital of a Palestinian State". However, the suggestion is to mention the claim - they're making this claim today, not in the future, thus - no crystal ball.

The claim is a major issue in Jerusalem, and, as a compromise, I think we can place it after the first sentence (though I prefer its current location). I can agree to this as a compromise, not as a basis for further changes to the lead. If there are more suggestions - let's review them now. okedem 12:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with the idea, but I believe that we should instead move up the piece about the UN resolution and the embassies not being located in the city. That seems more pertinent and current. I believe we have been dancing around the issue of the "capital" on its own in the lead for so long, but it's time we must do something; there have been too many complaints to ignore them. -- tariqabjotu 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be an overload of particulars. Instead of starting off with the fine details, I think we should jump right to the heart of the matter: that the Palestinians would also like to see Jerusalem as their capital. The other facts are corollaries that, in my opinon, are well situated in their current position. nadav 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I believe we need to ensure we have smooth transitions between paragraphs. We seem to have that at the moment, but suddenly interjecting with something about controversy of the city may seem out of place. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nadav, thank you for coming up with this; I think it's a good idea. I'll check the rest of the article later. Tony 22:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu's point about the transition highlights for me the odd placement of this type of statement. When I object on the grounds of undue weight, I don't just mean in terms of competing POVs, but in terms of the recentist angle. It just doesn't seem appropriate to deal with anywhere other than where it is now. The brief mention of Israel in the first line is only warranted by convention, otherwise such a modern fact would also be out of place. I also want to make sure that the FA folk realise the amount of tedious discussion over a period of years that went into the extremely precise wording we now have. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made a few changes, per the conversation here and per a few suggestions on the FAC. I basically moved the Palestinian state piece toward the front and added a few intermediary sentences to set up the concept created by the sentence and the subsequent paragraph. Presuming this doesn't get reverted outright, I hope some of you will reconsider your positions on the FAC. -- tariqabjotu 06:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope they'll help, they seem good to me... okedem 07:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Though I think that, if we're listing some of the inhabitants - why not list all - would be longer, but more complete: "its inhabitants have included Jebusites, Jews, Babylonians, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders, Ottomans, and Israelis." (Otherwise, listing the Jesubites but not the Ottomans would seem strange - the ottomans held it for 400 years, of relatively modern history. The British held it for a short time, and only under a mandate for the Arabs and Jews, so they're not worth listing here). I know it's long, but at least it's inclusive... okedem 08:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mostly it seems very good. What was the basis for the choice of nations you included as inhabitants? I am assuming it is the historical groups that had the largest populations living in the city? This may need to be clarified or sourced... nadav 09:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My goodness; people need to chill. Not every paragraph, sentence, word, and letter has some hidden meaning. They're examples. Do whatever you want guys; I made a huge mistake thinking I could get this article featured without having every little bit analyzed to death. -- tariqabjotu 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this must be extremely frustrating to you. I understand, believe me. But I'm trying to avoid problems later, with people jumping up and down, yelling - "why isn't X listed?" and so on. The lead is always the most analyzed, and most people don't even bother reading anything else before expressing some opinion about the article. Trust me, better to just list them all now (I've listed them by order of their control of the city, not necessarily having a majority of inhabitants), and avoid problems later, even if it looks a bit worse. okedem 11:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, if we attempt to list every group that has lived in Jerusalem but miss one or two, someone is definitely going to complain. If you think the list you devised is truly exhaustive, go ahead and add it. However, I find that highly improbable (what about Europeans?). Regardless, I'm not married to the idea and I won't make a big ruckus either way. -- tariqabjotu 15:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Why do we want to list inhabitants, instead of just rulers? That'll be easier, since the rulers were pretty much only those I mentioned. (except for the British, and I explained why). okedem 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I dont find the current wording much of an improvement. The sentence "Today the city is governed by Israel but remains meaningful to Palestinians, who see it as the capital for a future Palestinian state" seems very general. Since I objected to this intro, i'll go ahead and make my own suggestion on how to handle the capital issue.

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea about 50 km (about 30 mi) southeast of the Israeli city of Tel Aviv-Yafo. The city consists of two distinct parts, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jeursalem has been Israel's capital since the 1949 Armistice Agreements. East Jerusalem, with its large Palestinian population, has been administered by Israel as part of its capital following the Six Day War in 1967 and its subsequent annexation, something both the Palestinians and United Nations do not recognise

I based this on the Encarta intro which i pasted in the FAC page. You'll see it begins with a general geographic statement and explains the capital issue only as part of the greater conflict. I find this npov, but i'm sure some people will completely oppose this. --A.Garnet 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object. The city is not two separate districts, it's one city, and you can't see any division. Jerusalem, as a whole, is the capital, not just the Western part (see the 1980 law about that). West Jerusalem served as capital from 1949 (after the end of the war, when the western part of Jerusalem was finally in Israeli hands). The area of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line has a very large Jewish population. And, quite frankly, no one asked the Palestinians for their recognition - they're not a sovereign entity. The controversy about control is already handled in the lead, and way more clearly than this suggestion. okedem 18:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited from "separate districts" to "distinct parts". Also added "since 1949 Armistice Agreements", is this correct? As for the Palestinians, they are part of the dispute so I think they warrant a mention... --A.Garnet 18:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's incorrect. It's not distinct parts or districts, or anything. It's one city. The only distinction remains on the maps, not in real life. It's not from the armistice agreements, but from December 1949, and, again, the entire city of Jerusalem is now the capital, not just the western part. The Palestinians are mentioned in the current phrasing.

I'm sorry, but your attempt seems to be going the wrong way, in my view, and no amount of minor changes will fix it - the whole structure is faulty. okedem 20:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I will wait for other views also. --A.Garnet 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative rewrite:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea about 50 km (about 30 mi) southeast of the Israeli city of Tel Aviv-Yafo. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the city was divided into two parts, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem was designated Israel's capital in 1949. After the 1967 conflict, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and declared the unified city to be its capital. However, East Jerusalem has a majority Palestinian population, and Palestinans as well as the United Nations do not recognize the annexation. The annexation has been a major source of conflict, as Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state. nadav 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is excellent Nadav, it is factual, concise and neutral. I cannot see any reason why anyone would oppose this. --A.Garnet 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I oppose. It doesn't say that Jerusalem is the capital (it only says that about West Jerusalem), or the largest city. It gives too much weight to the very close history, bombarding the reader with an issue that is better served in the appropriate sections.

I'm sorry. I can accept many compromises, but I see no good reason to stray from the current structure and phrasing of the lead, in particular, the first paragraph of it. No reason to turn this into a history section, and/or another "conflict" article. okedem 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot "largest city", but we can easily add that. I did write "declared the unified city to be its capital". Is that not good enough? As for emphasis on history, you guys have to compromise. Some of you are saying that without it, it suffers from recentism or doesnt sufficiently cover the disputed status. Others are saying the history is too much. We can't have both. nadav 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not, since the reader has to read the entire paragraph, to start understanding what the city is now (and still not really get it). I don't understand the need to alter the current, very clear phrasing: "Jerusalem is Israel's capital and seat of government. It is Israel's largest city...". These are the most basic facts regarding Jerusalem's current status, and are way more relevant than any claims or changes which might, some day in the future, occur (or not). I'm fine with placing the Palestinians' claim (or something like "The eastern part of the city was captured in the 1967 six day war, and remains disputed".) right after these first two sentences, before anything else, but not with your formulation. It just seems to muddle things up, and I've yet to see a good reason for it.

History/Recentism - in a city with several millennia of history, placing a lot of emphasis on events from the last 60 years is recentism. okedem 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another go at it:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands many times. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the city was divided into two parts, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem was designated Israel's capital in 1949. After the 1967 conflict, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and declared the unified city to be its capital. However, East Jerusalem has a majority Palestinian population, and Palestinans as well as the United Nations do not recognize the annexation. The annexation has been a major source of conflict, as Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state. nadav 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Better, but still - trying to tell the whole story here is too much for the lead, and does seem to me to suffer from recentism. I don't think the finer points of this need to be in the lead, and the mention they do have now is more than enough. okedem 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It goes into far too much detail on recent events and I would prefer that the second sentence is followed by something related to the five-thousand year history (rather than the recent sixty-year conflict). -- tariqabjotu 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Per my previous comments, these changes are destined to lead to renewed controversy, and inevitably recentism, in what was a deliberately worded section. I think we should restore the consensus version prior to this discussion and the attempt to accommodate it. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd love to go back to that version. But I don't think a consensus has formed yet about the shape or priorities for the lead. We should set up a poll to pick from the leading options. Here is one more option. This one significantly reduces the details about wars and so forth:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands repeatedly. In recent times, the annexation of the eastern part of the city by Israel has been a major source of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians, along with the United Nations, do not recognize the annexation and see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nadav1 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Poll to help form consensus on lead

Feel free to modify the table, add a candidate, or get rid of the table if it's annoying. nadav 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Version 1

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands repeatedly. In recent times, the annexation of the eastern part of the city by Israel has been a major source of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians, along with the United Nations, do not recognize the annexation and see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state.

• Neutral. I'll take anything people agree to (as long as it's not very anti-Israel). nadav 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why settle for even slightly anti-Israel. If its the objective truth then it should be stated that way, period. I can't understand why we Jews have an innate need to give in. Nadav; I respect your edits and my comment should be taken in the proper light. Itzse 21:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • First, I find your third sentence offensive, not to mention ridiculous. Realize that the "objective truth" may not be pleasant and may portray the Israelis or the Palestinians in a bad light. Sensitive facts should merely be used cautiously and with the appropriate amount of weight – not too much and not too little. -- tariqabjotu 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Look you seem to be finding offense again where none was intended. I disagree totally with your premise, you read me completely wrong. This is an encyclopedia of facts created not to make anybody happy, but to inform the truth or where there is a dispute to inform the reader with both perspectives. I'm absolutely against Wikipedia appeasing anyone and let it state facts as unpleasant as it is and it if portrays people in a bad light, then so be it; remember we are not creating facts, we are only reporting them. Itzse 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • "Again"?? I understood you and I know you didn't intend to offend, but you did. If I said "I can't understand why you Jews have an innate need to give in," someone would take issue (with good reason). Replacing "you" with "us" does not make it any better. As for the part about the article itself, I don't think we're in disagreement; you basically repeated what I said. -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
          • So then the only thing left is the perceived offense. If I would make such a statement about lets say a Chinese; then he would rightfully be offended. But I made a blanket statement about Jews in general; from one of the tribe to one of the tribe. I'm sure Nadav wasn't offended, he knows exactly what I mean; if you don't believe me, then ask him. Itzse 23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
            • The perceived offense is not important. Let's drop it and finish working with the article. -- tariqabjotu 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
              • On that high note we proceed.Itzse 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral This version gives the impression that the United Nations sees East Jerusalem as the future capital of Palestinian state. Is that true? Additionally, I'm not sure why the first sentence of the article was changed; it seemed okay to me, clearer, and more likely to be described as "compelling, even brilliant" prose. I'm not 100% happy with the fact that the long history was mentioned so briefly in comparison on the recent events, but it's better than Version 2 and I won't complain profusely. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't thinking about the 1st sentence. Yes, your 1st sentence is better. nadav 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Contains elements from various proposals to some extent. nadav 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Version 2

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands many times. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the city was divided into two parts, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem was designated Israel's capital in 1949. After the 1967 conflict, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and declared the unified city to be its capital. However, East Jerusalem has a majority Palestinian population, and Palestinans as well as the United Nations do not recognize the annexation. The annexation has been a major source of conflict, as Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state.

• Oppose This places too much emphasis on recent events, which, in the grand scheme of things, are insignificant. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Closer to Abu Ali and A. Garnet's preference. nadav 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Version 3

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is Israel's seat of government, capital,[iii] and largest city both in population and area, with a population of approximately 724,000 (as of 2006) in an area totaling 126 square kilometers (49 sq mi). Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes as far back as the 4th millennium BCE. Since then, its inhabitants have included Jebusites, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, and Israelis. Today the city is governed by Israel but remains meaningful to Palestinians, who see it as the capital for a future Palestinian state.

• Support -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Leaning towards this version, which is close to the current form of the article, though perhaps current "Today the city is governed by Israel but is seen by Palestinian Arabs as a future capital for a Palestinian state" is better. nadav 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's fine too, although I tweaked the wording. -- tariqabjotu 03:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• tariqabjotu's version nadav 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Overkill

I believe this straw poll is overkill. Things have not gotten this bad. Really. All this does is give the impression that there is more instability than there really is. There are going to be some people would won't stop complaining until we declare Palestine the rightful owners of Jerusalem... er... al-Quds and there are others who won't stop until we paint the town with blue and white. But ultimately, we're going to have to stick with verifiable statements, presenting the issue briefly. We can't please everyone and we should stop attempting to do so; that would be hopelessly futile. We agreed on the "compromise" to move the Palestinian state piece up. If people didn't like my intermediary sentences, fine; suggest a new rewording. However, I'm afraid some of the original signers and witnesses of the compromise are now trying to muscle more out of their opposition. At the very least, version two ought to be completely off the table. Ideally, this straw poll should be eliminated and converted to regular discussion. -- tariqabjotu 03:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in hindsight I'm not sure I was right in creating this poll. I may have been too hasty in trying to appease a small number of objectors whose opinions are irreconcilable. Most of us are happy with how the aricle looks now. Others can suggest small changes. The lead was stable for a long while before this discussion began, and tariq's changes have already made it even more acceptable. nadav 05:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think we should go back to the previous consensus version. With all due respect to the FA discussion, a balance in the weight and placement of content is/was extremely difficult to come by, and upsetting the stasis will only result in the same discussions had months and years ago being rehashed. Any suggestions as to style etc. should be welcomed, but something as sensitive as the lead shouldn't undergo these changes at this point in the article's life. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. When decent objections are raised on an FAC, I feel the main contributors to the article have the obligation to attempt to resolve them (to an extent). A few editors complained about the lack of prevalence given to what is a somewhat important issue (the political status of Jerusalem) and another editor objected to the minimal coverage of Jerusalem's lengthy history. Those issues may or may not have been resolved through the "compromise", which newcomers and regular contributors to this article alike have given a (dim) green light. Note that the discussion resulting the current intro was actually brief; it occurred in late January and is visible under Talk:Jerusalem#Capital, "largest city" out of intro. So... it actually wasn't exactly extremely difficult to come by. -- tariqabjotu 06:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That compromise maybe, but this specific point has been a focus of contention throughout the article's [relatively] long life (certainly for the brief period of my involvement way back when). Eitherway, in light of what you are saying Nadav, and what I think you recognise Tariq, what shall be done? I still feel that even the small line brought up is far to recentist, and I'm not sure that the listing of different inhabitants will be the most stable way to relate the city's long history...would you oppose going back? Tewfik^Talk 06:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The key word in what I said below is if. As it is, we must determine whether any non-radical change (as opposed to ver. 2 above) will win over anyone. So far, it sadly hasn't. nadav 07:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If we could only make the people on FAC see how much effort and argument went into forging that consensus, they would surely agree with you (Tewfik). I only attempted a new version because of the objections, but I see now that there were an equal number of objectors from both sides, which is inevitable for any compromise. nadav 06:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we necessarily have to limit ourselves to the demands of some of those voices, especially when they are in any event drawn to such radical versions. As for the lines moved up, I believe that we yielded far to easily on that point, which hasn't produced the sought after harmony in any event. I will restore the previous consensus version with just brief mention of the history, though if one of you truly objects, I suppose you could revert. Tewfik^Talk 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if a compromise can be reached; in the long run it can not hold; and when this discussion is archived; a new round will inevitably begin. Therefore why not debate the changes as we go, where edits that are true will stand the test of time and edits that are false will eventually fall. The good news with such an approach is that occasionally someone comes along and brings proper references and another nail is driven into the coffin, or comes up with such wording which objectively states different perceptions, leaving even less to debate, until theoretically the article is crafted and worded in such a way in which most people while not being happy can at least digest it.

To kick it off; I'll start by dividing the first paragraph. The reason being, that I checked out quite a few capital cities and found that all of them first state in two or three lines what it is; then the following paragraphs go into detail. The way it currently is, is IMO one big mumble jumble.

If anyone objects please spell out your reasons. Itzse 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this latest edit (with my emendation) is any better than the previous attempts, since it is still recentist to make an attempt to have 'the controversy strike the reader in the beginning'. Beyond that, like moving up the other line before it, this removes it from the summarised narrative (i.e. where it was previously) and breaks the flow. Thoughts? Tewfik^Talk 07:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about the recentist issue, however I do agree that this edit breaks the flow. If there were a consensus that the controversy should be introduced off the bat, then any of the proposals above would be a superior choice for doing that. I am still unsure where most people stand on the issue of recentistism vs. controversy in the lead. In any any case, I ask people who make big changes in the lead to discuss them here first, since they are controversial. nadav 07:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry to have not discussed the intended changes in the lead. I came to the article after a long hiatus (read the article in the beginning of the first version of the FAC), and was largely unaware of the proceedings in the talk page.

Ok, the sentence that I moved from the last para of the lead to the second line, does break the continuity. However, the continuity can somewhat be regained if the third sentence in the first para of the lead (in the present version) is shifted to be the first line of the second paragraph of the lead. This will make the second paragraph concerned with location, history and religious importances — leaving the first paragraph to deal with what is Jerusalem (a city, a capital, the largest city) and the controversy. Someone can say that still the first para contains geographic info (size and population), but that is in order to prove that it is the largest city. In fact, the data on exact size and population can be removed from the lead, and shifted to relevant parts of the article (geography, demographics). That will leave the first paragraph of the lead (which will be a short, two-sentence paragraph) solely concerned with what is Jerusalem and what is the controversy. Comments?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, population is basically the most important stat there it. It has to remain. okedem 08:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I institutes the changes proposed. Please check, modify or revert, as needed. Sorry, did not know population stat is important in the lead beginning . It can be easily incorporated (for example, within brackets—though that somewhat hinders the reading). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the previous lead was better. Although controversy surround Jerusalem, I don't think it should surround the lead, and in it's current from we start we the controversy (first paragraph), and end with it (third paragraph), and we also lost the population figure, and size. (I don't think we should place it in brackets). I'll revert to a previous version. okedem 09:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem is NOT Israel's capital

please correct the article as Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as Israel's capital. Even the Israeli government states its capital to be TEL AVIV. 122.105.139.197 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Even the Israeli government states its capital to be TEL AVIV. That is not true. -- tariqabjotu 01:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

anther thing to correct is that the Egyptian and Syrian armies were not dfeated by Israel in the 6th of October 1973 war and that in this war israel was defeated and was losing its army in Sinai, and the evidences on what I am saying are: 1- Resignition of prime minister Golda Maeir, after asking the Americans to save Israel. 2- The Egyptian army was able to restore almost 26 Km from Sinai before the arrival of the American reinforcements to save Israel. 3- The American army sent to save israeli army on the borders of Egypt. 4- The total destruction of the Israeli defences and specially the Barlief defencive line built by Israelies on the eastern bank of the Egyptian Suez canal. 5- Finally the Israeli and the Americans were begging the Egyptians to accept the first fire hold on the 26th of October .

I'm sorry, you don't seem to know anything about the war.

1. Golda did not resign until long after the war (after she was re-elected).
2. The Egyptian army managed to catch Israel by surprise, so they did take some of the the Sinai. They were, however, later pushed back, and Israeli war free to march on the Cairo, if it wished to do so.
3. The American Army never came to Israel. The US sent military supplies. Even before Israel got the supplies, the Arab armies called on the Soviets for an "aerial train" or supplies. This war mere days after the war they had been planning for years, and they still didn't bother to amass enough supplies for more than a couple of days of fighting. They did get a huge amount of supplies from the Soviets.
4. Again, Israel's defences along the canal were indeed destroyed, but this was only the first phase of the war. You don't judge the outcome of a war by what happened in the first few days. In the end, Egypt and Syria were in far worse shape after the war, and suffered a lot more casualties than Israel did (15,000 dead, versus 2,700 dead in Israel. 8,700 Arabs captured, vs. 300 Irsaelis).
5. By October 24th (this is the first and only Seize fire), Israel's army had crossed the canal into Egypt, and was only 100 km from Cairo, with no Egyptian forces between it and the city. The Egyptian 3rd Army was under siege in the Sinai, refusing to surrender, but out of supplies. They eventually got supplies after Soviet intervention. On the northern front, the IDF was 35 km from Damascus. The Arab defenses were basically non-existant at this time. Not Israel or the US wanted a seize fire at this time, but the Arabs, and the Soviet. To prevent a complete Egyptian defeat (as I said, their army was gone), the Soviets were preparing to attack Israel themselves; this helped them force a seize fire on Israel (and Egypt and Syria) by a UN Security Council resolution.

So... Check your facts. okedem (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what it has to do with the subject? Northern (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

a) it has nothing to do with wether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and b) It doesn't matter what the international community thinks the capital is (note how the international community is so regularly ignored) it only matters what the nation says its capital is and since most of Israel's government is in Jerusalem how much do you want to bet they think their capital is Jerusalem.--UESPArules (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

-- It is wrong to say that Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital, as the Knesset (parlament's seat) is there. Tel Aviv is just more populated and more towards the state's center of population. I guess you said that from the point of view of a palestinian, so please do not post opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.148.47 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Even the USA does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Why are there no embassies in Jerusalem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbeyK (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about what a capital city is. As this is an English Wikipedia, both the Webster and Oxford dictionaries define "capital" as the seat of government (and not where foreign embassies are located, or what other countries recognize). Israel's Knesset (parliament) and government reside in Jerusalem, so that should end this discussion. 217.132.149.112 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Casual Reader, Feb 26, 2008.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Jerusalem ... is the capital of Israel." Doright (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

This is highly controversial, and a more neutral language should be presented. According to international laws, and according to the UN, East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel. And most embassies are located in Tel Aviv. Imad marie (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No reason to muck up[21] a featured article; Gain consensus first. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You call putting the "dubious" tag mucking up? Anyhow, my argument is already presented, there is international consensus that East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel, marking Jerusalem simply as the capital of Israel ignores all related international laws. I suggest a more neutral language. Imad marie (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to comment on the fact that the information already exists in a well-visible footnote. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk)

Really? So you want to put false information in the article, and then explain that in the footnote?! I advice you to come to your senses. Imad marie (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And I advise you to stop personally attacking other users and review Wikipedia's policies before further vandalizing the page. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't put content inside footnotes, footnotes are just there to link or reference your sources. You put content inside the article. Imad marie (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okedem, the factual accuracy of this article is disputed, there is no need for you to remove the tag. Also, about your bizarre edit summary here, since when we put content inside footnotes?! Imad marie (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this is your first time encountering content in footnotes on Wikipedia. This is not uncommon, and footnotes (as opposed to references, although on Wikipedia they are often grouped) are intended to provide explanations for information inside the article where you don't have enough space for an elaboration. Okedem is 100% right. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For any definition of the word "capital", Jerusalem is Israel's capital, de jure, and de facto. It's Israel seat of government, and Israel designated it as its capital - thus it's the capital. International recognition plays no part in this. Any objections other countries may have cannot change that simple fact, and that's why we should only mention them in a footnote for the lead. Yes, we do put content in footnotes, I don't know what you're surprised about.

I'm removing the tag. The article received FA status with this wording, which enjoys a wide consensus, for being factual and accurate. We can't place tags every time an editor is unhappy with something. okedem (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

First, this article being FA does not mean it's indisputable and untouchable, editors may have concerns about the neutrality and factuality about this FA.

Second, about Jerusalem, and about your later edit, concerning the occupation of West Bank and Gaza: East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza, are recognized by the international community to be occupied by Israel, there is an international consensus about this. Naturally Israel denies and opposes this, providing its own claims. What you are doing here, is that you are promoting minority views; Israel's view related to the international view is considered to be minor. We have an entire article talking about the complex situation of Jerusalem, putting the simple sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" in this article would be way unfactual. Imad marie (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• You're ignoring what I said. "Capital" is a simple word, found in every dictionary. If you go and search for it, you'll find the definition is usually "seat of government", or close to that. Jerusalem has been designated as capital by Israel, and so is the capital de jure. And it is Israel's seat of government - housing the Parliament, Government ministries, Prime Minister's quarters, President's quarters, Supreme Court and others - so it is the capital de facto. These are the simple facts. While other countries choose not to recognize Jerusalem's status as capital, they cannot change that status. By the very definition of the word, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. International recognition plays no part in this matter.
• The difference between "held" and "occupied" is a fine legal matter, concerning the existence or lack thereof of a sovereign in the territory. For example, as Syria is the internationally recognized sovereign in the Golan heights, it is "occupied" by Israel. On the contrary, no country was recognized as legal sovereign in the West Bank or Gaza before or after 1967, and no country claims these areas (Jordan dropped its demand for the West Bank back in the '80s. The term "held" does not mean it's any less severe than occupation. Anyway, I won't argue over this, the distinction isn't very important.
• The article being FA does not mean it's perfect. It does mean that the phrasing in it is in the consensus, and means that when an editor disagrees with something, they should not hastily place tags. They can discuss the issue on the talk page, but still - unless shown otherwise, the phrasing on the article most likely still represent the consensus, and so will remain. You have to understand something - few editors are completely pleased with the phrasings here. We reached them through a process of compromise. okedem (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a few facts that show that Jerusalem is not an undisputed capital of a country. To start with its eastern part is not part of a recognized country. Therefore we should not show 'Jerusalem capital' as a fact. We should expose the considerations to this end.

No-one says it's "undisputed", but that is irrelevant. The definition of capital does not require any recognition from other countries, the sole criteria being the seat of government, and the country's choice (look the definitions up). Embassies etc. have nothing to do with this. Thus, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. okedem (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to repeat that 'Jerusalem is Israel's capital'. I understand that this is important for you. This is not the point of my question. My point is that Jerusalem being capital is disputed. The 1st words of the capital article are 'A capital is the area of a country'. Whether the whole of Jerusalem sits in Israel is disputed. Therefore the capital status is debatable. You just wrote 'No-one says it's "undisputed"'. From there comes the question: should disputed notions appear above the table of contents: in the definition paragraphs and the top-right table? I propose that in these two sections we could simply replace 'capital' by 'biggest city': no dispute there any more but still the important mention of Jerusalem. Winetype (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can repeat it a few more times, because it's the fact. International recognition is irrelevant, only the facts. And the facts are, Jerusalem answers the criteria for capital. Whether or not Israel should control the whole of Jerusalem is in dispute; the fact that Jerusalem serves as Israel's capital is not. Borders disputes etc. can't change facts. okedem (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes but you are hiding the fact that this is highly disputable, citing the dispute in a footnote is not enough. Imad marie (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not hiding anything. The dispute is secondary to the facts - Jerusalem is the capital. What other countries think of it is of lesser importance than the fact. The footnote calls enough attention to this. okedem (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a disputed fact and should therefore not be presented on top. Let's replace 'capital' by 'biggest city' in the parts above the Table of Contents. Winetype (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No. If France decided that Canberra shouldn't be Australia's capital and moved its own embassy to Sydney, that would not mean Canberra is no longer Australia's capital. If dozens of countries did this, it wouldn't change things. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So what is disputed about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. Jerusalem is the seat of government and it is the capital according to the Jerusalem law. Thus Jerusalem is the effective and the official capital. What is disputed is whether East Jerusalem is a part of Israel or occupied by Israel, but that has no bearing on whether Jerusalem is the capital or not.

Novidmarana (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that most countries choose not to recognise Taiwan as a country out of deference to China doesnt mean it cant claim to be a country. The capital of East Germany was Berlin even though the Western part of the city was in West Germany. Gacole (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting example. The capital of East Germany was East Berlin. Consequently it would be correct to say that West Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vic242 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If dozens of countries decided that Canberra shouldn't be Australia's capital and moved their embassies to Sydney, that would not mean Canberra is no longer Australia's capital. Yet it would imply that the Australia article should mention this fact to follow Wikipedia:NPOV.

Indeed there is a strong perspective to show that Jerusalem as a whole is seen by notable parties as not being the capital. This must be stated in the body of the article alongside the state POV. Explaining all this in the lead or the top-right box is too much. Winetype (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the scope of this discussion is beyond this article, I think we should open a thread about this in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Imad marie (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I opened a thread about this here. Imad marie (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Capital City

Canadian Monkey keeps removing any qualification on the claim that Jerusalem is Israel's capital despite the fact that no other country in the world recognizes Jerusalem and there is also a lengthy footnote that explains this. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral so it's wrong for this article to assert that Jerusalem is Israel's capital without any sort of qualification such as "disputed" or "not internationally recognized". Claiming that this is "original research" is just laughable- it's a well established fact and I really think Canadian Monkey must know this. Strongbrow (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. He's right, and I'll also continue to revert your edits. ref check out "Capital" from that reference. Beam 03:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain it too, because I'm nice ;). A capital is a seat of government, no one else has to support the country's designation of a capital. See Burma etc. Jerusalem by definition, is the capital of the Israeli state. Beam 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly your opinion but that's all it is. I'll be nice so I'll explain this carefully, Jerusalem is not recognized by any foreign country or the UN as Israel's capital and that needs to be expressed. Not doing that pushes means wikipedia is taking sides. See, for instance, what Britannica's sidebar on Israel says. Having a tiny little footnote isn't sufficient - there has to be a clear explanation that while Israel asserts that Jerusalem is its capital this is disputed or not recognized by the rest of the world. Strongbrow (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

But a foreign country nor UN has to recognize a Country's capital. A capital is simply where a country houses its government. I learned this at this very talk page myself, but I checked it out and it's true. It makes sense if you think about it. Certainly no one has recognize that Washington D.C. is the capital of the USA, and if no other country did recognize it, D.C. would still be the capital. Beam 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From that article on Israel, in Britannica: "Jerusalem is the capital and the seat of government." Beam 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And from its sidebar "Capital (proclaimed): Jerusalem; international recognition of its capital status has largely been withheld". Strongbrow (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah their sidebar and our infobox are different. Heck, as I state on my talk page, Wikipedia (thankfully) is not a normal encyclopedia. It's a Wikipedia! Beam 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That argument is invalid as its based on Special pleading. Strongbrow (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is within our infobox we are stating that the Capital is simply the seat of government. Which doesn't need to be internationally recognized, since the country itself decides where its seat of government is located. I wont' edit it anymore, but I hope you try to gain consensus within this page before you edit again. If not, so be it. But rest assured that other editors will revert it back to the consensus version, that's how consensus works. Beam 04:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus here for your preferred version. Also, the global consensus is against you. Strongbrow (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe the dispute is at very least noteworthy. You may know, in Guatemala the maps show Belize as a part of Guatemala, but the country's Wiki page does not reflect that. Yes, different situations but the point is a country's territorial and political claims must be considered not only vis-a-vis Wikipedia editors' consensus but also within the international political consensus. RomaC (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital by any foreign government, however." Is this really necessary? 70.52.45.45 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Beam 13:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It's factual even if you don't like it. Strongbrow (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the prior discussion where this consensus came from --> Talk:Israel#Jerusalem_as_the_capital_of_Israel and Tariq's comments here Talk:Israel#Wording_.22Israel.27s_main_financial_center.22. And Strong and Romac, you guys have completely got me all wrong. Read my comments throughout this talk page. I am no Israel Brochure writer, and I would love for more criticism (rightful criticism imo) of Israel to be present in THROUGHOUT this article for neutrality's sake. The thing is that when it comes to the meaning of Capital, it is as Britannica says and most dictionaries say: simply the seat of government.

Within the article I definitely support that the dispute over East Jerusalem should be mentioned, and I'm pretty sure it already is. But within the infobox there is no need because Jerusalem is the capital. A capital doesn't need any recognition, it's just a fact, that's where the seat of government is. Again, go read up on myself on this talk page. Look at where my support lies as far as criticism of Israel and this article stand. Thanks.Beam 17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And please go read this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Jerusalem_as_the_capital_of_Israel where this whole situation was talked about in vast detail. I hope you guys read what I asked you to regarding my stance on this article. I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm some sort of jerk. Beam 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Solution ( the NPOV way): just make a (small) note of the competing claims. Both claims (of being capital and not being capital) are significant. Please make this note short as this article is about "Israel" not "rest of the world". Adding "(proclaimed)" is not a bad idea.Bless sins (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Support adding "proclaimed." RomaC (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you all not see Beam refer you to the ongoing discussion in the WikiProject? You can't just reduce this to a straw poll. However, let me correct you, Bless: you talk about two "competed claims" -- one saying that Jerusalem is the capital and one saying it's not. That second claim doesn't really exist, except as denialism. It is true that most countries, and the United Nations, do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but saying "I don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is not the same as saying "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". No matter how many countries disagree with Israel's choice or the manner in which Israel has occupied East Jerusalem or anywhere else, it is impossible to change the fact that Jerusalem is, in fact, currently the capital of Israel. Israel calls it such and treats it as such, locating their executive, legislative, and judicial heads there. Adding "proclaimed" or "disputed" or whatever suggests Israel's capital is somewhere else, when it's not. Most countries want Israel's capital to be located somewhere else, but as for now, it's not. A footnote describing some details on the status of Jerusalem is already included. -- tariqabjotu 07:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it true that countries have left their embassies in Tel-Aviv, instead of moving them to Jerusalem? In that case wouldn't Tel-Aviv be the capital in the sense of foreign relations and diplomatic missions?Bless sins (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are embassies in Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, Herzeliya, Mevaseret Zion, etc. But the location of embassies has nothing to do with the status of capital, so that's just irrelevant. okedem (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Are people still going on about this? Countries decide on their own capitals, it's not up for a vote, nor does it depend on the locations of embassies. Israel, like every other country in the world, has decided on its own capital. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How about add a self proclaimed capital to solve this matter? I think it would settle this issue. - PHW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.67.181.231 (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Disputed Capital" as leading sentence.

Given that the leading sentence is designed to summarize the entire article, don't you think that 'disputed capital' is a better lead than simply 'capital of Israel,' given the highly contentious nature of this and that the lead tends to read like a nationalist disgrace.

Crum375 noted that 'A sovereign country determines its own capital -- it can't be decided or imposed externally.' but to simply lead with what a sovereign nation determines leads to the nationalistic lead that I and others have a problem with. A sovereign nation intrinsically relies on its recognition of sovereignty, both wholly and over certain territories for it to be a sovereign nation. Given that no other sovereign nation recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and many academic articles mention that in the UN's eyes Jerusalem is not even a part of [sovereign] Israel.

So Crum375, I wonder if the United States, as a sovereign nation decided that Israel was a part of the United States, if that’s how we would lead with the Israel article. Something along the lines of Israel is a suzerain of the United States of America. Clearly, sovereignty is given by and relies on external powers, none of which in this case have recognised the legitimacy of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Further, sovereignty does not intrinsically bestow its holder with the ability to decide the view of the international community on places and incidents within or outside of their territory. Why does Wikipedia lead with such a misleading opening sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You should follow the footnote at the end of the lead sentence, and see that it is the capital by Israeli law. There is no other capital, since that can't be imposed externally. Crum375 (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is named as the capital by the CIA world fact book.[22] Crum375 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that particular Israeli Law is disputed by the International Community. Why can't we mention that? Just because Israel decided this does not mean we should ignore what the rest of the world thinks about it in the lead of the article on Wikipedia. That leads to a nationalistic article. You know perfectly well that the recognition of a capital is imperative to it being such. If the United States of America declared Jerusalem as its capital, then is that what we'd say on Wikipedia? You know it is intrinsically reliant on recognition of other sovereign nations. None recognise it as such. In fact, it is extreemly misleading of you to call Jerusalem (entirely) a part of 'soveriegn israel,' as it is hardly so. No nation, at least that I know of, recognises Israel's sovereignty over the entirerty of Jerusalem, and according to the UN Israel has no sovereignty at all over any of Jerusalem, as the sovereign of Jerusalem was decided much earlier. Sovereign Israel, as far as I am aware anyway, is the Israeli state that was declared in 1948 within the borders set to it by the United Nations. If it isn't that, then it must be the Israel within Armistice lines that seems to be so internationally recognised. So, again, if the U.K. decided Paris was its capital, is that what we'd just say on wikipedia? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your example of the UK declaring Paris as capital is misleading, because no-one recognizes Paris as British territory, while virtually the entire world recognizes Jerusalem, at least its western and by far largest part, as part of Israel. So clearly Israeli law applies to its own territory, and they can declare their own capital anywhere they want within it. Also, on Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, and the most reliable and most often used source for such information is the CIA world fact book, which clearly states Jerusalem is the capital. We do add a footnote explaining the issue, and the issue is discussed at length in the body and in a dedicated article. Crum375 (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You can open any dictionary, and look up the definition of "capital". It's something along the lines of "seat of government". As Israel's government, parliament, supreme court, etc, are located in Jerusalem, and it has been designated as capital by Israel - its the capital. okedem (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not any more misleading than misleading readers into believing Western Jerusalem and Jerusalem are the same thing. Israel, as not the sovereign over the whole of Jerusalem, cannot declare the whole of Jerusalem its capital. Further, given that it is so heavily disputed, you have not answered my question as to why we cannot inform the reader of such in the opening sentence, especially given that according to wiki policy it is ment to summarize the entire article. Plenty of reliable sources will also highlight the disputed nature of this, and plenty of other reliable and academic sources will declare Israel has no sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. So why can this sort of vital information not be mentioned, or are you just looking to decieve people and pass crude nationalist propaganda off as fact? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okedem, which side of Jerusalem are they located in? Just because its seat of government was built there, the fact it is unrecognised and disputed in legal terms as the capital by the rest of the world as the capital cannot be mentioned? I dont disagree it is the capital, but you canot however deny that it is - in the rest of the worlds eyes - a disputed capital, now can you? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Colour, if you look at CIA factbook, you'll note that they say Jerusalem is the capital, and then they follow it with an explanatory note as to the specific situation. We do the same, except our footnote is on the word "capital", whereas it may make more sense to have the footnote at the end of the sentence, past the period. In any case, our goal is not to fight wars on WP, but to follow reliable sources, and that's what we do here. Crum375 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

CITM, I am joining the discussion here in spite of your groundless personal attack on me and Crum375 in the form of a "metapuppetry" accusation and report to the authorities. The preceding discussion (which is very long) convinces me that "disputed" isn't even the right word. By conventional definitions of what a "capital" is, as Okedem has reminded us, Jerusalem is the capital. The world at large may not approve, but that does not modify the status as capital. The fact that exceptions are taken is set forth in the endnote (iii). This is the structure worked out at great length and with great effort. There is no consensus for the change you have been making. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We have an entire paragraph dedicated to the dispute right in the lead. It was added at the request of some editors, who felt the dispute wasn't obvious enough. We also have an entire section in the article body discussing this issue. okedem (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, a prior discussion is not definitive, and Okedem's points are not by any means well sourced, but are based on inferences from a dictionary. If you look at the BBC you will note that it formally apologized for using the expression 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel'. JONNY PAUL, 'BBC sorry for calling Jerusalem capital of Israel', Jerusalem Post, Jun 15, 2007. If the BBC and Encarta are very careful not to repeat what is a piece of patter reflecting the Israeli government's POV, there is good reason for it. To use that phrase means to espouse one view as objective, and deny other views as irrelevant. The BBC is a RS if any. The question is why does the NPOV standard in Wiki not observe what other global sources of reliable information observe in regard to this question. There is no iron consensus on this, as one can see from the exchanges at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of IsraelNishidani (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone using a word like 'jew crew' as Cush has just done should be banned from Wiki for several months. I hope he is reported.Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the common expression on internet fora for followers of Judaism and citizens of Israel who push for certain issues to be seen their way.

The fact of the matter is that Jerusalem is not the internationally recognized capital of Israel. Its status is yet to be determinded in negotiations with a future Palestinian-Arab government of an independent and unoccupied Palestine. The personal opinions of Jews or Israelis who want to depict the situation in a way sympathetic to them, for obvious reasons, cannot dictate the content of an internationally accessible article on wikipedia. This is no pro-Israeli propaganda platform and if they want to post their minority opinion they should mark it as that. Cush (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is notoriously anti-Israel. I cannot see ussing them as a definitive source here. I'm also wondering, if Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital, what city is? IronDuke 16:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Israel is code language for any source that does not reflect Israeli government policy, and meaningless jargon. True it has to cater to the sensitivities of a large Muslim population, unlike Israel and the United States, the only two countries which agree on everything the Israeli government proposes, but that simply means that the simple reflection of a standard ideological, ethnically-biased, or occidentalocentric mindset is no longer accepted as 'neutral'. The world changes, and we are not living in the naive monocular world of yesteryear, where power dictated the way news was slanted to mass audiences.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Though your post contains a fair amount of venom, I can see no coherent point in, or reason for, making it. Did you want to address what I in fact said? IronDuke 17:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: So if I think that Fox, CBS, etc. are notoriously anti-Palestinian, what sources are we left with? We all need to compromise a bit here. All news sources exhibit bias in one direction or another. We need to trust that we are capable of filtering out the spin and extracting the fundamental facts remaining regardless. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I myself would not rely on Fox News to be the sole determinant of whether Jerusalem was or was not the capital of Israel. I see the BBC come up a lot in these discussions, and often it's because they're a rich mine of anti-Israel bias. And again I ask: is Israel a country with no capital city? IronDuke 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The capital of Israel is inJerusalem. It's that simple, and the novel wording is required to avoid violations of both legal reality and NPOV rules.Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That is your private interpretation, which is WP:OR. The reliably sourced version is that the capital is Jerusalem, per CIA factbook. There there are issues about recognition or other disputes, and that's mentioned in the note. Both the factbook and WP handle it in the same way, which is how it should be. Crum375 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. You are administrator and should know what the rules mean. I made a suggestion as to an appropriate linguistic form which would surmount the evident difficulty in the POV phrasing under dispute. This is not a 'private interpretation'. The phrase 'The capital of Israel is Jerusalem' historically always meant, from when it was coined in 1948 down to 1967, West Jerusalem, since in that period East Jerusalem was Jordanian. Nothing I have said is an infringement of WP:OR, unless informing oneself of the history of a subject on contributes to is WP:OR, in which case we should leave the drafting of wiki articles to people who know little about the subject (actually that's not far from the truth all too often). Sigh Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The CIA factbook is one source. The BBC and Encarta is another. When good sources are in conflict, one is biased to favour one over the other. One mediates for a compromise. To favour one source over another reliable source is to show one's bias, and politics.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Nishidani, as an administrator my opinion carries no extra weight, but I do know that we operate by consensus. In this case, there was a prolonged discussion about this specific issue, and the current language reflects consensus. If you'd like to change that consensus, the discussion would need to be broad and include many people. If they all (or a reasonable majority) agree to the change, then that can be done. In my own humble opinion, the CIA factbook is a very neutral source, unlike the BBC, for example that is not. Crum375 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that the CIA Factbook - operated by the same people responsible for covert international operations, and controlled by a government that generally supports Israel is more neutral than the BBC or one of the many other news sources that could be found that dispute Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?Colourinthemeaning (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(r to Nishdani) I have never heard of a situation in which a building was itself the capital of a country, and I know of no RS's that support this thesis. All countries have some city that they designate as their capital. Israel designates Jerusalem. That some take issue with their choice doesn't mean they haven't made one. IronDuke 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be true IronDuke, but there are also not many other cases of a declared Capital being unrecognised by the rest of the world. This is surely a vital piece of information that needs to be mentioned, and summarised in the lead. Without it, its just a nationlist page. Wikipedia is not here to, as Richard Falk would call this 'create facts'. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 Unlike many I discuss problems at great length before pushing what I think onto the page. There is now a very lengthy discussion underway over at the Wiki Palestine page on Jerusalem, the discussion is broad and intense. The CIA factbook does not care for the fine distinctions historical study requires. It tabulates data according to a schema. All countries have a capital. Israel is a capital. The entry for capital is Jerusalem. I know young people like this kind of quick lookup format, but in many cases it proves to be misleading, because the format in which the information is classified excludes by its criteria the sort of close distinctions historians, specialists, political analysts make.- If the CIA factbook were reliable, why is it that the Bush Administration, the most pro-Israeli administration in American history, made a formal statement countering Obama Barak's declaration that Jerusalem will remain an undivided city? The factbook simply doesn't count as significant for its ends other facts, such as the fact that in world political language, and in the US., it is not acceptable to affirm that Jerusalem is a unified city (the basis for Okedem's defence of the phrasing), since that prejudices Palestinian claims that part of the city does not form part of the state of Israel, and therefore in so far as it is not part of Israel, cannot, as an Arab sector, be qualified as part of the capital of Israel. This is obvious, but rejected because the political advantage of having the phrase is enormous. Once more, wiki is not a RS. By the way, the CIA is not a reliable source, to judge from Tenet's memoirs. The BBC reportage on the road to war was far more informative than anything we got from the CIA :)Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Nishidani, the point was made by others above. Every country in the world declares its own capital. Some (or many) countries have disputes over their territory and other issues. But each country has a selected capital, and it is never dictated externally, they just decide on their own. That there are disputes about this is clear, and we note those disputes in an extensive footnote and elsewhere. The point again is: if Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, then what city is? Crum375 (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the US, Europe and most countries in the world Tel Aviv is the recognized capital. Could you provide a list of which countries have their embassy to Israel in Jerusalem? Strongbrow (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a silly point, a country can only declare a capital within it's own borders. Jerusalem is occupied (world court has ruled). Germany could not have declared Paris it's capital during the occupation. Israel cannot legally declare Jerusalem as it's capital. The lead sentence is grossly misleading . I doubt there is a consensus for it. It needs changing. The footnote is accurate and perhaps ought to replace the lead sentence Domminico (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC).

The current phrasing achieved wide consensus, considering the footnote and the whole paragraph dealing with the dispute in the lead, which were added as a compromise position. Not only that, but the article, with this phrasing, passed extensive discussion towards FA status, and was voted FA with this phrasing.

I won't repeat the entire argument, you can read it here, in archives, and in other pages, but the gist of it is that as Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and declared as capital, it is, by definition, the capital, regardless of the legal points regarding Israel's control. Other editors dispute this, offering alternative interpretations to the usage of "capital". okedem (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re to Domminico: yes, in fact, Germany could have declared Paris as its capital if it had wanted to. There might well have been resitance to this idea in the rest of the world, but that can't change the facts, any more than wishing Israelis didn't live in Jerusalem can eliminate their presence. You mights as well go to the Israel article and say "Israel is a disputed country." IronDuke 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Most countries in the world, including the US, do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the Palestinians also have claims on the city as their capital. At the very least wikipedia should acknowledge both claims and recognize that the global community doesn't recognize either at the moment. The current opening paragraph takes sides by stating as a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Strongbrow (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of balance. The article starts with the statement - immediately qualified by a footnote - that Jerusalem is Israel's capital; it then also devotes an entire paragraph to the dispute. You claim the balance is wrong; others agree the balance is wrong but would prefer the dispute be downplayed. This is why some of us continue to suggest that you consult the archived discussions, to get a sense of what it took to achieve the consensus that led to the current version. This might help in developing an understanding of what it would take to get consensus for any change - indeed the very low likelihood of any such change. All of these arguments have been made before, many times. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just realized I don't know the answer to a very interesting question: before 1967, where did other countries locate their embassies in Israel? One frequent claim made in relation to this issue is that many countries decline to put their embassies in Jerusalem because of the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem after 1967 - hence the difficulty of recognizing "Jerusalem" (not just what was once the Israeli part) as the capital. This might imply that, prior to 1967, the embassies were in Jerusalem and then were relocated effectively in protest of the occupation. Alternatively, the problem might have deeper roots, going back to designation of Jerusalem as an "international city" (whatever that means) - such that embassies were never located in Jerusalem, in protest of the results of the 1948 war. Can anyone tell me which scenario holds? I'm not sure how it might bear on this discussion, but anyway a better understanding of history wouldn't hurt. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read, there were no embassies in Jerusalem prior to 1967, but I might be mistaken. After 1967, some embassies were moved to it, and in 1980 there were 13 embassies in Jerusalem, representing Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela and The Netherlands. After Israel passed the "Jerusalem Law", the UN called it "null and void", and all these embassies were removed from the city. okedem (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since people only seem to be quoting from the CIA factbook or BBC, I thought it would help the discussion to add a couple more reliable sources and see what they say as to the capital of Israel. The Canadian government Canadian Foreign Affairs Country Insights page lists the capital as Jerusalem. Here is Britians country profile Leppi (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The CIA's position on the issue, or the US position, is of no relevance, as there can be expected no objectivity from that corner. Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel by the United Nations, i.e. the international community. That is all that matters and that defines the legal status of the city. The leading sentence of the article MUST be altered. Cush (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Capital and NPOV

I read through the discussion and wanted to pose a question:

is the POV tag exclusively about the capital issue?

if so may I suggest the phrase "proclaimed capital"? I think that is neutral and accurate, washington is the proclaimed capital of the united states. and there is no negative overtones to the word whatso ever, I suppose a very pro-israeli person might say there is no such word preceding washington D.C. what is the difference between DC and jerusalem? well.. I'd say the fact that not a single country in the world is willing to place their embassy there not even israel's closest ally, and that another community claims it as there's. And I suppose a very pro-palastinian person might say just the very fact that they say its their capital must be disputed so that should be in the lead. well.. I'd say whether you like it or not it is their dejure and almost completely defacto capital (excluding the embassies and foreign recognition), which is not the case for the as yet for either palestinian "governments" hamas or fata, the israeli's have their parliment executive judiciary etc there.. and wanting to put the word disputed before any countries capital is going to lead to a dispute tag... and that's not a good thing...isn't the neutral term "proclaimed" just as true as "disputed"?

I doubt either side will accept but hey! I gave it a shot.  :)

Esmehwa (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is appreciated, but I'm afraid it's been rejected before. -- Nudve (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because we're here to write facts, not please partisans. Oh, and there was already a whole lot of compromise, it's just that one side tries to get more and more, trampling any previous compromise to pull the article their way. okedem (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you couldn't just respond to Esmehwa's comment without making unnecessary jabs at other editors. I'm not particularly happy with your style of editing recently, which appears to be based largely on suggesting that edits contrary to yours come from bias. And, to make things worse, I'd say the to talking about editsto talking about editssum of all the edits made in the past couple weeks have harmed the article on the whole, turning this into a dumping ground for minutiae on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Anyway, this point has been mentioned time and time again, and this overused angle of approaching this capital issue is really futile. The fact that no other country (except maybe the United States) recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel does not mean that Israel is not the capital of Israel. This is akin to most Arab countries not recognizing Israel; it's not that they think Israel's not there. Non-recognition -- both on the capital issue and on the grander issue of Israel's existence -- is a punitive measure. In the case of the capital issue, the punitive measure is in response to Israel occupying East Jerusalem. The word "proclaimed" does not encapsulate these points. It's true that Jerusalem is Israel's proclaimed capital, but it's not just its proclaimed capital. Israel's executive, legislative, and judicial branches are all headed there -- Israel treats Jerusalem as its capital. So what if no embassies are located there? Do the scores of other countries in the world have the authority to suddenly make Tel Aviv the capital of Israel? No. So, Jerusalem's not just Israel's proclaimed capital; it's its actual capital. The non-recognition is certainly worthy of note, though, and so its presentation really would be only thing that might be on the table.

Lastly, let's stop talking about "sides". We're not fighting a war here. There is no line in the sand; it's not as if everyone but you (Esmehwa and LamaLoLeshLa) has to be pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian and you're the holier-than-thou mediator(s). Let's stick to talking about edits. -- tariqabjotu 21:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(Response to comments by LamaLoLeshLa, subsequently removed by same) Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I get the impression that you have not read the discussions of Jerusalem as capital, archived on this page (accessed via link in red near top of page). I urge you (and all other concerned parties) to study the previous discussions so as to know what has already been considered (involving considerable time, effort and participation), what has been rejected, on what grounds, etc., and the compromises made in configuring the lead as it is now constituted. To fill pages with your own discussions on the matter without first becoming familiar with the foregoing is not only like reinventing the wheel, but can put you on a collision course with the established solution. BTW, the lead sentence does indeed reflect the disputed status; it is detailed in endnote iii, cited there. Please go and study. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read everything, all the archives. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This was deleted, although it could have been merely edited, and needs to be replaced in some form or another: "By Israeli law, Jerusalem is the de-jure capital of Israel, and de-facto contains the parliament, government offices, Supreme Court, President's quarters, and Prime Ministers's quarters. However Jerusalem has not been recognized internationally as the capital of Israel. Many countries see Jerusalem as equally the capital of the future Palestinian state, or view the city as a shared international heritage site that should be governed by a range of stakeholders locally and worldwide."LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way: the necessary information is all there, it is just arranged and presented in an obviously biased way.

• "Jerusalem is is the capital of Israel and its largest city [lots of soundbites in footnote to back up the second claim]
• in a footnote, we get the full story that "Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law. The presidential residence, government offices, supreme court and parliament (Knesset) are located there. The Palestinian Authority foresees East Jerusalem as the capital of its future state. The United Nations and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, taking the position that the final status of Jerusalem is pending future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv (see CIA Factbook and "Map of Israel" (PDF). (319 KB)) See Positions on Jerusalem for more information."
• at the very bottom of the intro, the question is taken up again: "Israel's annexation of occupied East Jerusalem has been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations and related bodies, and Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. In the wake of United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, most foreign embassies moved out of Jerusalem."

taken together, these three parts give the full story. Their being taken apart, presenting the Israeli position as the first phrase defining Jerusalem, relegating the actual status-quo in international law to a footnote, and moving the Palestinian position to the end of the intro betrays a clear bias towards the Israeli position, against international law, of whoever came up with the "consensus" for the current revision. The intro cannot be considered in compliance with WP:NPOV until this unhappy presentation is improved. No material not already in the article is needed, just a re-arrangement avoiding a prejudice on the part of Wikipedia. A neutral way of phrasing it would be, "Jerusalem is a city under de-facto control of Israel, and Israel's capital under Israeli law. Under international law, its status is pending future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. East Jerusalem is disputed territory, claimed by Israel in the Jerusalem Law, a step chastised in United Nations Security Council Resolution 478." As always on Wikipedia, if there is a dispute, we can't avoid stating up-front that there is one. In cases where there is a UN position on the question, we should state the UN view first by default, and dissenting views listed by notability. Any presentation of dissenting views over the UN view, let alone hiding away the UN view in footnotes, cannot result in a stable article --dab (⁳) 09:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Although longtime editors to an article may convey the (often false) appearance of babysitting, the positive thing is that they feel compelled to follow the discussion -- you know, by reading what people say (even if the response is disagreeing with such comments). You, however, didn't seem to do that here. At first, your statement above appears to echo my point (independently, of course) that the presentation of the facts is the only thing on the table. But then, for some odd reason, you made this change. De-facto??? How many times does this need to be said? Point me to where a country's capital is defined by where other countries put their embassies or how many countries recognize it. I already stated this in this precise thread -- Israel states that its capital is Jerusalem and Israel treats the city as such. No one but Israel has the power to suddenly change that. While the non-recognition is significant, it does not invalidate the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This is extraordinarily tiring; why are so many people incapable of understanding this? Discuss the presentation, rather than proposing -- and, worse, single-handedly implementing -- non-starters like that. -- tariqabjotu 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I am 100% against the weasel wording presented with "Jerusalem is a city under de-facto control of Israel, and Israel's capital under Israeli law". "De-facto" control? As opposed to actual control? What is that? And, as I stated, it's not just Israel's capital "under Israeli law". -- tariqabjotu 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is arguing passionately for the use of the term "de jure" or "de facto." It;s just a way to express that the issue is complex. Those unwilling to allow any other language than "jerusalem is the capital" are wanting to keep the issue simple upfront. That's their prerogative, and it;s the prerogative of others to disagree, to want to see the complexity represented up front.LamaLoLeshLa (talk)

What's wrong with

"Jerusalem is a city divided between Israel and the occupied West Bank and is the capital of Israel under Israeli Law {cite note iii about UN recognition and embassies here}. It is the largest city.. blah blah" that is accurate and represents the situation more clearly than the current opening sentence which is certainly misleading Domminico (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the United Nations, Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel NOT Jerusalem Houssamsatak 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA?

"The United Nations and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital and maintain their embassies in other cities such as Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Herzliya."

This information keeps being deleted by Okedem. I dont think it is trivia.--Abuk78 (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, quick tip. If you want people to take you seriously, don't write provocative titles in ALL CAPS. It's shouting, and it's rude.

What you write is just another piece of information related to Israel. There are many such pieces of information, all true and referenced. Not all of them can be in a article, and certainly they can't all be in the lead. Thus, we have to pick the most important points. The identity of a nation's capital is certainly relevant, and you can see it mentioned in the lead of most country articles. International opinion regarding the capital, is not quite so important. It does not change anything about the capital, which is defined as a nation's seat of government. Jerusalem still fulfills its functions as the nation capital, regardless of what other countries think of it. Thus, that piece of information is not important enough for the lead. It is mentioned in the footnote from the info-box.

Beyond that explanation, note this - this article, like many other contentious ones, has been heavily debated and changed. As always, the lead receives the greatest amount of attention. The current phrasing is the result of many discussions and arguments, and represents the opinion of many editors. This is also the version that got FA status. When you wish to make a change to such an article, the proper way to do so is to suggest your alternative version in the talk page, and get other people's opinions. Constant re-insertion of your phrasings, without trying to discuss things, is edit-warring. Even if you think your version if "the right one", respect other people's opinions, and try to collaborate, not force your way.

I am reverting your version, and adding a link to said footnote from the lead. A change will only happen if there's major support for your change on the talk page, and not before. okedem (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that CAPS are rude, but also agree that the the information is important enough to be included here. RomaC (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a true, referenced and important piece of information. "Anyone" can edit FAs. This edit doesn't change the FA status of this article and adds value to the article. But as far as I can see you are another article guardian in Wikipedia. --Abuk78 (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Okedem is right. This is detailed in the footnote. It is also well explained in Jerusalem and Positions on Jerusalem. It is also detailed in Tel Aviv. No need to push it everywhere. -- Nudve (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it relevant enough? It's nothing but a minor point. It changes nothing of Jerusalem being the capital. It has no bearing on the lives of Israelis. For all intents and purposes, by all definitions, Jerusalem is the capital. As interesting as international opinion may be, it is far from notable enough for the lead. It is important for the article about Jerusalem, but not for the entire country, and certainly not for the lead.

If you want to discuss this further - sure. Explain how it's important enough for the lead. Why it's on the same level as the country's location, the few sentences about its history, or its political system. But first - revert to the stable version, instead of pushing your version by force. okedem (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; classic case of WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is by no means a case of WP:UNDUE since the vast majority of the world does not consider Jerusalem as the capital of israel, simply because it does not belong to that country. Okedem seems to find a "minor" detail the fact that Israel stolen Jerusalem, breaking the very agreement that created it. Eshneto (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagee with Okedem. It seems clear (see Positions on Jerusalem article) that this article should instead state "Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital". The existing phrase "Jerusalem is the country's capital" indicates bias and asserts something as fact which is contrary to majority international opinion. Wikiwikiwwwest (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel controls Jerusalem and there for it is the countries capital even though its disputed. I agree that there should be a comment added on afterwards saying something like, it is the capital although this is disputed by some etc. Information on another article or in a footnote is not going to be seen by many people so it would be helpful to include it but i dont see the need to say its "claimed by" that too would be bias in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Control" isn't even the point. There's no precedent anywhere I know of for other countries to have any say whatsoever regarding a country's choice for capital city. They can have an opinion, certainly, but for every country in the world, throughout history, it appears that their capital is exactly where they choose their capital to be. "Claim" indicates bias; neutrality simply says "Jerusalem is Israle's capital." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a strong precedent for not allowing the capital of a nation-state to be outside that nation-states territory (and certainly not in disputed territory). I'm pretty sure Denmark has a say in whether or not China's capital city can be within Denmark. Another case in point as the republic of China's capital - listed as being "De Facto" and "Provisional" in wikipedia because their chosen capital is under the control of another state. In the case of Israel they "claim" a capital that is on land that was not allocated to them. As such they have had to militarily occupy the capital to make this happen. If control has nothing to do with it, they could have chosen New York city and not occupied it - would that then make new york the capital of Israel for our purposes? (Come to think of it, I might suggest that Sealand legislate New York to be their capital). I don't think it's neutral to state that Jerusalem is Israels capital without qualification. You would be taking the offical view of only Israel and the US govt (and a few others) into account - the official stance of my government is that the capital of Israel is Tel Aviv. (ps:how do I sign?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.252.146 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible to have something along the lines of 'Jerusalem is Israel's Capital, but as parts of it are occupied territory this is not recongised by much of the international community'.EoinBach (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is ABSOLUTELY relevant to state, right up front, that Israel considers Jerusalem its capital but that this does not have international recognition. There are 2 pieces of information in that phrase, and each part is equally important. The only reason to mention the lack of international recognition in a footnote is so that most readers do not see it. 67.193.235.12 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Capital city

The capital city of Israel is Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. If Jerusalem was ever made capital city that would cause war as the three main religions would have trouble deciding on a chief of state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.41.81 (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The capital is Jerusalem. There is no reliable source that states the capital of Israel Tel Aviv. Please post your source if you feel this is incorrect. Otherwise, please stop trying to conform wikipedia to your biased point of view. This article could becoming locked from vandalism if everyone cannot be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm.....No. The UN and International law does not recognize Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel. Please refer to the 1997 UN report titled "The Status of Jerusalem" which calls it essentially an international city. Please stop with your biased POV.... And acknowledge International law on the issue.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.41.91 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, international law doesn't control Israel. The capital is Jerusalem whether you like it or not. This is not a biased POV, it is clear by looking at any map that exists. There is no need to acknowledge international law since Israel declared it as its capital when they became independent. End of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A capital city of a country is by definition, the city where the country's government is based, and the Israeli government is based in Jerusalem. However, the reason why the United Nations and most countries don't see Jerusalem as Israel's capital is because it is being ilegally occupied by Israel. Jerusalem should really belong to Palestine because Israel is breaking international law. So Tel Aviv should be the capital of Israel, but it isn't. Jprulestheworld (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the archives on this subject; it has been discussed ad infinitum. The editors have decided to leave Jerusalem as the listed capital in the article with a footnote explaining why. Thank you Goalie1998 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI most of Jerusalem is not considered to be "occupied territory", that is to say it was not conquered in 1967. The Israeli government and ministries are located in West-Jerusalem which has been part of Israel since independence.

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As this topic keeps coming up, probably a link to a summary of the main arguments should be left at the top of the talk page. Squash Racket (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic does not keep coming up, it is settled and then rehashed by talk members wishing to change the article's content. Anyone who disagrees with the issue need only to look up the sources cited in the article. Instead, they add opinion to lengthen the talk page and create controversy because of their emotions and feelings toward this country. Ignore the arguments against Jerusalem, it is the capital of Israel no matter how many times they cover their ears or close their eyes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the archives on this subject; it has been discussed ad infinitum. The editors have decided to leave Jerusalem as the listed capital in the article with a footnote explaining why. Thank you, Goalie1998 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not know how much you know about Israel but you have a mistake: Jerusalem is not all occupied. Where I live, and where the Knneset is and many other places in jerusalem are in thh non-occupied area. just for your knowledge. Meitar --62.219.228.172 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there IS a link above already. OK, I was thinking about something like that. Squash Racket (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Footnote

The fact that the United Nations and most countries in the world do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital should be stated within the article itself, and not in a footnote. This fact is obviously important on many levels, given the regional importance of Jerusalem and what it means to the current conflict. By not laying the dispute over Jerusalem and the international view of Jerusalem clearly on the table, things become unclear and ambiguous. Furthermore, the article becomes weakened and less of a reliable source for visitors of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.128.51 (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognition is irrelevant the the city's role as capital. International recognition is not, and never was, a prerequisite for a capital city's status, and so is of little importance in this regard. okedem (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If America labeled Ottawa, Canada as its capital, it would be relevant, as everyone recognizes Ottawa as OUTSIDE of America. Unfortunately for Israel, Jerusalem is not part of their recognized borders (the pre-1967 ones). Tel Aviv is where everything is and is at the least a de facto capital worthy of listing next to Jerusalem, which should say "(disputed)" after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.234.234 (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

West-Jerusalem is part of pre-1967 Israel borders. Benjil (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Capital is defined (open a dictionary) as a country's seat of government. Israel's parliament, government offices, PM office, president's quarters, supreme court, etc. are all located in Jerusalem, and Israel has designated it as the capital - thus, it is the capital. Recognition or international borders are beside the point. If the US had control of Ottawa, and placed its entire government there, then it would be its capital, even if Canada and every other country in the world protested it. okedem (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Capital of Israel

Could there be a footnote to the status of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. Israel seems to be the only nation that regards it as such. No nation has an embassy in jerusalem, but tel aviv, which is regarded by all other countries to be the capital.

I dont want to be accused of being anti-semitic or anything, Im just finding that the whole of wikipedia where it concerns israel or even jews or judaism is plagued by opinionation and things regarded as completely false by the vast majority of the world. Many of these articles are protected in a status of extreme bias that seems to serve the purpose of anti-semitic people more than the general openess of discussion that seems applicable to almost all of the rest of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.222.207 (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean ? There is a footnote. Besides, most countries officially consider that Israel has no capital city. To the best of my knowledge (but do correct me with sourced information if I'm wrong), only Switzerland officially regards Tel Aviv as the capital city of Israel. Oyp (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I've said on multiple occasions. Foreign nations do not determine a country's capital, and their recognition or lack-thereof has no bearing on the issue. A capital is the city serving as the country's "seat of government". Factually, that is 100% correct in the case of Israel and Jerusalem, as Jerusalem is home to Israel Parliament, government offices, PM's office, Supreme Court, President's quarters, etc. Even if Israel control of Jerusalem is wrong, or illegal, or whatever, that does not change the facts. okedem (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Capital of Israel?

Isn't this biased and one sided? Since the Palestinians claim it as their capital also. It should say it is a disputed city. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A capital is the city serving as the country's "seat of government". That is 100% correct in the case of Israel and Jerusalem, as Jerusalem is home to Israel Parliament, government offices, PM's office, Supreme Court, President's quarters, etc. Even if Israel control of Jerusalem is wrong, or illegal, or whatever, that does not change the facts. Palestinians would like it to be their capital, and maybe one day it will be, but today they don't control it, and don't have their government there, so it's not their capital. okedem (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem may well be the seat of Israeli government. But Jerusalem is not the Internationally recognised Capital of Israel. No country has an Embassy there, only consulates.

The indisputable fact is that only Israeli's call Jerusalem the Capital of Israel. Wikipedia is a International reference encyclopedia not a pro-Israeli propaganda tool. Please amend this article to reflect the accepted world view and the indisputable facts. , —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.249.160 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not change anything. International recognition is not a criteria for a city to be a capital. Jerusalem is Israel's capital and Wikipedia's role is not to reflect the opinion of such or such country but to state the facts. Benjil (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet this article fails to reflect the indisputable fact the Jerusalem is not recognised by the International community as Israels capital, and it also fails to state that UN resolution 478 makes Israels claim to Jerusalem as its capital city Illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.249.160 (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Read better, this is written.Benjil (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be overlooking Endnote iii. The language and structure in the lead were carefully crafted by consensus in response to lengthy discussions, for a record of which please see red link near top of this talk page. Please be more careful about what you label as "illegal" and "indisputable fact". Hertz1888 (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just read the entire article, and it seems to me that the controversy surrounding Jerusalems status as Israels capital city, becomes a footnote, buried in the blurb, rather than a statement of facts, which should appear in the opening paragraph... Maybe the editor of this article would care to amend that. Probably not. :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.249.160 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Many many people have complained about the same thing. I agree its a huge problem and part of the reason this article cannot sustain featured article status. While the consensus in the international community is that Jerusalem is illegally occupied, and while no country has an embassy in Jerusalem (they are all in Tel Aviv), some editors think that the only view that matters on this issue is Israel's and that only Israel can decide what its capital is. For some reason WP:NPOV can never be applied to this issue in this article. Its a massive failure of the Wiki system actually that a few hard-core editors can hold up WP:CONSENSUS by insisting their view is the only view that matters. Tiamut^talk 22:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the number of editors who oppose the current wording is definitely significant. We do not have consensus for the current wording, nor we have consensus to change it. Don't know where this leaves us. Imad marie (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital per the definition of the word, "seat of government". Some dispute Israel's right to set Jerusalem as its capital, yet they cannot change the reality of it. okedem (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital. What we are trying to explain is that the vast majority of the world disputes this designation, viewing Israel's occupation of Jerusalem in 1967 as illegal. Oddly, the world's viewpoint is relegated to a footnote, while Israel's POV is highlighted in the main text. This is not NPOV. Not even close. Tiamut^talk 13:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And you still do not understand that this is not a question of viewpoint but of facts. Jerusalem is Israel's capital. This is not a claim, this is just a description of things as they are. The "world" may or may not agree but this changes nothing to the reality. On the other hand, the dispute about Jerusalem's status needs to be addressed and it is. So everything is fine with the article. Benjil (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not about viewpoints, it's about what makes a capital a capital. The whole lengthy discussion archived above (link highlighted in red) couldn't change that. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The rationals have been discussed in depth before, and I think it's useless to discuss the rationals any further.

My point is that we have a significant number of editors who oppose the current wording and they are being rejected by the same editors over time. Imad marie (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem was the capital of Israel since 1948. It remains the capital today. The fact that Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 war has as much to do with Jerusalem's status as capital as Israel's capture of the Golan Heights or the Sinai or the Gaza Strip. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite any injustices Israel may or may not have committed against Palestinians. Furthermore, capitals don't require foreign embassies to be located within their borders.

The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East is incredibly succinct on Jerusalem's status: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" (491). This is the first sentence of the encyclopedia's entry under "Jerusalem." Other reference books that explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel include The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44), and Britanica Online Encyclopedia. This has already been discussed and agreed upon here. --GHcool (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is denying that the state of Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital, and no one should deny that this claim is disputed by the rest of the world. These are both "facts" and should be given equal prominence IN THE OPENING SENTENCE. --itihasi (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.253.100 (talk)

Agreed. NPOV means representing all significant viewpoints. Israel's viewpoint that Jerusalem is its capital is one, the world's viewpoint that Jerusalem is illegally occupied and cannot be its capital is another. Both can and should be mentioned side by side. Tiamut^talk 13:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no point in this discussion if you continue to ignore what is said. This is not a conflict of viewpoints between 2 claims. Israel does not "claim" that Jerusalem is its capital. Jerusalem is Israel capital. Do you understand the difference ? Benjil (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I could parrot the same thing back to you: There is no point in this discussion if you continue to ignore what is said. This is not a conflict of viewpoints between 2 claims. The world does not recognize that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and there are no emabssies there, they are all in Tel aviv; ergo, Jerusalem is not Israel's capital.

However, I prefer that we recognize that there are no "facts" in this debate. There is an Israeli perspective and a world persepctive. Currently, the Israeli perspective is given undue prominence over the world's perspective. To correct this, we should include the world's perspective alongside Israel's. Tiamut^talk 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously... Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Most other countries do not recognize it. But, guess what, international recognition has never been part of the definition of what a capital is, neither where the embassies are. So the article should stay as it is: stating the reality as it is - Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and in a footnote, that many countries do not recognize it. Benjil (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously ... Jerusalem is Palestine's capital. Most other countries do not recognize it. But guess what, international recognition has never been part of the definition of what a capital is, neither where the embassies are.

So the article should mention that Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel and the proclaimed capital of Palestine and that the international community does not recognize either claim, since they are waiting for the outcome of negotiations between the two parties concerned. I've changed it to read that way. Tiamut^talk 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You are ridiculous and proving how much your argument is weak. Jerusalem is not Palestine's capital. You see, I live in Jerusalem so I would have noticed... But, the Palestinians claim Jerusalem for capital. Now, you understand the difference or is it still too sophisticated for you ? Benjil (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to resort to personal attacks. I'm sufficiently sophiscated and serious enough to understand the arguments thank you very much.

While your personal experience is interesting - I too have lived in East Jerusalem and the people there definitely view it as Palestine's capital - neither yours nor mine is relevant.

What is relevant is that both Palestinians and Israelis claim Jerusalem as their capital. I noticed that Hertz1888 just removed "proclaimed" from before "capital" for the sentence on Israel. I don't think that's appropriate or NPOV. Both sides have made claims. Neither sides claims are recognized to be true by the international community who has held off of recognition until the two can come to a final agreement. Why should we be writing that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital," without any qualifier when this is the case? Tiamut^talk 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that there is anything I could add that would be clearer than what Benjil has written. Countries—not "the world", and certainly not would-be countries—determine their capitals. It is a matter of function, not recognition or mere proclamation. Lengthy prior discussions always come around to this basic fact. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is your viewpoint, shouldn't we change the text about Palestine to read "Jerusalem is also the capital of Palestine", without the qualifier "proclaimed"? It may be a country with limited recognition, but then so is Israel. NPOV requires us to treat both claims equally. So either they are both "proclaimed capitals" or they are both simply "capitals". Tiamut^talk 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I've now removed "proclaimed" from before "capital" for the sentence on Palestine. Either we describe them both as "proclaimed capitals" or they are both simply "capitals". I prefer using "proclaimed capital" for both given the lack of international recognition for either claim, but since neither of you thinks that "proclaimed" is necessary (even given the lack of international recognition), we'll go with "capital" for both. Tiamut^talk 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the difference. "Proclaimed" is necessary in the latter case (if the added statement even belongs) because functionality is lacking. Please refrain from making instant changes in a matter where consensus may require long-term discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because there is no difference. Both countries claim the capital as their own. The international community has withheld recognition from both claims. The idea that "functionality" is required for a place is a new one you've just now introduced. The argument that Benjil made (to which you said you had nothing to add) was simply (I'm paraphrasing): "Jerusalem is Israel's capital because Israel says it is." I'm telling you that if that is your viewpoint, then logically it follows that: "Jerusalem is Palestine's capital because Palestine says it is." I personally think it's best to say both are "proclaimed capitals" rather than "capitals" without qualification. You think it's best to say it's a capital for Israel and a claimed capital for Palestine. But that's not NPOV. Sorry. Tiamut^talk 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And Hertz1888, I'd ask that you not mark edits like this as minor. It may be one word, but since we are discussing it on the talk page, and it clearly matters to both you and me how it reads, marking it as minor is inappropriate. Tiamut^talk 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Functionality? Not a new idea. Please see previous discussions, including the major archive (red URL near top of page), for background. It has to do with where the seat of government is physically located, among other things. Jerusalem does not function as anybody else's capital in this way. That's a real difference, not a point of view. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read the archives and participated in many of these prior discussions (and that red URL at the top of the page doesn't impress me. It's meant only to pretend that there is some kind of consensus on this issue when there is not). I was referring to your arguments here and now, in which you did not mention functionality but simply referred me to Benjil's arguments.

But if you do want to discuss functionality, Jerusalem has functioned as the capital of Palestine. The PLO, the official representative of the Palestinian people and State of Palestine in the United Nations had their head office there (Orient House). The building was confiscated by Israel in 2001. That Israel has forcibly prevented Palestine from exercising functions in the capital should not be held against the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem.

This is all however beside the point. Both capitals are not recognized by the international community so both should read "proclaimed". That may not sit well with people on both sides of the fence, but it's the truth in the eyes of the world. Tiamut^talk 16:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, this has been discussed in depth many times before, with pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli editors fighting; consensus has never been reached. I suggest WP:RFC for neutral opinions from uninvolved editors. Imad marie (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much point in an RFC, we've had those already w/o any real progress (not that I really oppose).

As for the actual issue (overlooking the question of whether Jerusalem is or isn't the capital of Israel; the issue has been discussed to death and lacking any real world developments there's just no point in yet more discussion), Jerusalem most definitely is just the "claimed" or "proclaimed" capital of Palestine. Tiamut, your own source confirms this: "The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state"[23] Rami R 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):If you think it will help, go ahead and file one. I think it will attract the same editors it always does anyway and that it behooves us to try and work out these things together here and now. The current version of the page is fine for me, though I would prefer that the word "proclaimed" precede the word "capital" for both Israel and Palestine. However, if people want to let Israel and Palestine define their capitals for themselves without the word "proclaimed", all I ask is that we be consistent about it and not attach "claimed" or "proclaimed" to only one of those parties since that would be taking sides and the jury (in terms of world opinion) is still out. Tiamut^talk 16:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And Rami R, that's not my source. It was there in the article and I moved it up to attach to the sentence on Palestine because I don't believe in deleting sources. My source is the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Palestine Basic Law of 2002 which states unambiguously, "Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine" [24])

As for sources, sources that say Jerusalem is Israel's claimed capital (not it's actual capital) are easily found, and there are some in the article. All of this is beside the point. :We all recognize the deep contestation nover Jerusalem. We all recognize that two parties claim it as their own. Per NPOV, we should treat those claims equally. Either it is the capital of both Palestine and Israel or it is the "proclaimed capital" of both Palestine and Israel. NPOV requires nothing less. Tiamut^talk 16:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked if it was too much sophisticated for you, and yes it was. I don't know how to put it simpler than that: Jerusalem is Israel's capital as Paris is France's capital. The city is under Israel's control and sovereignty and the seat of government is there. That answers all the definition about what a capital is. The Palestinians want it to be there capital also. We all know it. But in the meantime, this is not. Benjil (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Control and sovereignty are two different things. It is under Israel's control, but East Jerusalem is not in Israel so it is not under its sovereignty as in Israel does not have the right to control E. Jerusalem. Nobody says Paris is not in France so the two are not analogous. Also, I dont think there is much you could say that would be too "sophisticated" for Tiamut, so I suggest you stop being so condescending. nableezy - 19:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But west Jerusalem(where the seat of government is located) certanly is so I don't see a problem there. Fipplet (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. This article does not say west Jerusalem though, it just says Jerusalem. nableezy - 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the capital is Jerusalem even though not all parts are under complete undisputed Israeli sovreignty. You see West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem are not two separate cities but forms one city. The only city is Jerusalem and that city hosts Israel's government. Fipplet (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reality (or CNN disagrees with you.

Israel claimed Jerusalem as its "eternal and undivided" capital. The barbed wire and minefields that divided the city from 1948 until June 1967 might be gone, but invisible barriers still exist. If you want to take a taxi from Israeli West Jerusalem to a Palestinian neighborhood in the east, you ask the driver first. More often than not, Israeli taxi drivers will refuse to take you. You also are unlikely to find an Israeli strolling down the main Palestinian shopping district on Salah al-Din Street. The divide is also in wealth. According to the Jerusalem Center for Economic and Social Rights, nearly 50 percent of Jerusalem's Palestinian population is classified as low income -- those who earn less than $500 a month -- compared with around 20 percent among Israeli residents of the city. By most estimates, the growth of the Palestinian population of Jerusalem outstrips that of the Israelis, and no Palestinian faction would ever advocate relinquishing the Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem. And even Israel's claim that Jerusalem is its capital is one most countries around the world don't recognize. Almost all embassies, including that of the United States, are in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem.

Tiamut^talk 19:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explane how CNN disagrees withe me? Fipplet (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article first might be helpful. Try beginning with the title: "Forty years later, Jerusalem still a divided city," and ending with "Israel and the Palestinians are still at war, 40 years later." Tiamut^talk 20:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• On a related subject, our article though broadly defined to include East Jerusalem and the expanded municipal boundaries that reach into the West Bank, fails to mention anything about the reality of life in Jerusalem. Daily life in ancient and modern Jerusalem looks like it could provide a lot of good information that is currently missing. It says for example:

  "The main business section in West Jerusalem is almost entirely Jewish. The Old City, in East Jerusalem, is almost entirely Arab. Welfare policies in the two sections are handled differently. Each side maintains its own fire departments, hospitals, and medical emergency crews. Schools are entirely separate. Two different bus systems travel the city, often following the same routes. Jews try to avoid using Muslim-controlled electric companies, and Arabs try to avoid using Israeli-owned banks. New roads make it possible for Israeli in Jerusalem's suburbs to travel back and forth almost without seeing an Arab."

  This is a much more NPOV description of the reality of life in Jerusalem then what we have up on our page. There are at least two peoples/nations living in this city, and this article tries to pretend that there is only one. Tiamut^talk 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

All the arguments in the world have been discussed before so I think an RFC is necessary here. I filed for one. Imad marie (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to facts

Again I must return to the basic point, that some people choose to ignore. "Capital" isn't about proclamations or opinions, declarations or aspirations, rights or morals. A capital is, per definition, the "seat of government". Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, home to the parliament, government offices, PM's office and home, President's office and home, the Supreme Court, etc. That is a government, and it sits in Jerusalem. Thus, Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, and thus capital. No opinions or claims, just facts. International recognition and the placing of embassies doesn't, and never had, any relevance to a city's status as capital. You can go back to the recognition bit as many times as you like - but it changes nothing of the status of capital.

Even if we forgo the discussion of whether the PNA is up to the level of an actual state, its governing bodies do not sit in Jerusalem, so it is not its "seat of government", and thus, not the capital. That's it. I'm reverting the addition of the Palestinian claim, as it is of little importance today. Their aspirations are mentioned in the footnote, and that's enough. okedem (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

PNA != state of Palestine. A state is an entity recognized by other states as such. The state of Palestine has such recognition. nableezy - 20:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant for this discussion. Capital = seat of government (open a dictionary). That holds true for Israel regarding Jerusalem. It doesn't hold true for a "Palestinian State". The governing bodies of the PNA (which you say is a different thing) are seated elsewhere, and the supposed "Palestinian State" doesn't even have an actual government, much less any physical presence, anywhere.

If you want to make a controversial change in the article, gain consensus before edit-warring to push it it. okedem (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I made one revert of this material, you have made 2. Which of us is edit-warring? nableezy - 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You joined in with other users to push through a controversial change to a stable version of an article. I don't care how many edits you yourself made. Once you see a change is in real dispute, you leave the article as it was for a long time, and try to gain consensus on the talk page, instead of trying to force it. okedem (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What a terrible crime! Trying to improve an article that many people claim is POV by editing it to be less so. As I said below, this version has been kept this way largely by refusing to acknowledge the enormous dissatisfaction with it, claiming consensus must be achieved prior to any changes, and then holding up all efforts at forging a new consensus by pointing to big red box at the top. It's time for a change. Tiamut^talk 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Get consensus for changes. That is a Wikipedia cornerstone. If you want to ignore it, go away. If you want to stay - play be the rules. That means - not editing by your gut instincts, but by actual evidence. Going by the facts, not what you'd like them be. In the above discussion you refuse to do so, and so I have little hope for the future. okedem (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. And of all the people who engaged in this discussion, I think I'm the only one who actually cited sources. Read your comment back to yourself. Tiamut^talk 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you're being ridicules. It is you who wrote, about me: "Okedem just blanket reverted to what he claims is the stable consensus version of this article". Instead of discussing the issue, you chose to accuse me of lying. Amusing indeed.

Open a dictionary, and look up capital. Then come back, and see if it applies to Israel, and if it applies to "Palestine". okedem (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't write Wikipedia articles using dictionaries. This encyclopedia provides an interesting deinition though: "Jerusalem: Historic capital of Palestine [...] On 23 January 1950 Israel proclaimed Jerusalem the capital of Israel, but this was not recognized by the UN. In November 1999 the Israeli representative in the General Assembly reiterated that Jerusalem was the capital." Then there is a length discussion of how Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city, how Israel annexed it but how that recognition is not legal under international law, etc, etc. Note that any mention of Jerusalem being Israel's capital is attributed to an Israeli speaker or preceded by the qualifier "proclaimed". Just like the CNN article above which says that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital. Very few reliable sources say it is the capital without qualifications. That's what NPOV is, reflecting the reality represented in reliable sources. Not picking up a dictionary, looking up capital, and engaging in WP:OR to try and fit the definition to Israel and exclude its application to Palestine. Tiamut^talk 21:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A dictionary is an RS for words, and in this case there's zero ambiguity in the definition of "capital". You don't like the outcome, but that doesn't change a word's meaning. Avi provided enough sources for you in the discussion below. okedem (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A dictionary would be a reliable source in the capital article, but we use sources to determine how to use words. Not determine on our own whether or not they apply. Just think of what would be done if we started determining what fits the definition of another word, let's just say the word "apartheid". nableezy - 05:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing, really. The dictionaries define it as what it is - the policy implemented in South Africa. Capital is very simply defined, no room for interpretation or mistakes. And, again, Avi provided enough sources below. okedem (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A city without a single foreign embassy - some capital city! itihasi (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.11.198 (talk)

RFC: Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

Should we highlight the disputed nature of Jerusalem when stating that it is the capital of Israel? like saying that "Jerusalem is the disputed capital of Israel" or "Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel"? Imad marie (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes Jerusalem has a unique case like no other capital. East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel which caused all countries in the world to place their embassies outside of Jerusalem and to dispute the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Imad marie (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It is the official policy of the US that Jerusalem is, and should be, the capital of the State of Israel. The stated reason the US hasn't moved its capital to Jerusalem is out of "safety concerns". -shirulashem^(talk) 00:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Slightly more complicated than that. "Section 214, concerning Jerusalem, impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Moreover, the purported direction in section 214 would, if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, impermissibly interfere with the President's constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States, speak for the Nation in international affairs, and determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states. U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed" in a statement saying that the provisions of the law stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel are "advisory" only and refusing to implement them in relocating the embassy. nableezy - 00:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• (adding Yes) and Comment: Just a comment that to me the issue at hand is more the following: Both Palestine and Israel claim Jerusalem as their capital city. Neither claim is recognized by the international community. Should we note the lack of international recognition for both by prefacing "capital" with "proclaimed", or should we simply state that Jerusalem is the capital for both, without using any qualifiers? Tiamut^talk 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Um... okay, except you're missing one minor, little detail: Israel is a country and Palestine is not. -- tariqabjotu 09:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That's your opinion Tariq, to which you are of course entitled. But we don't write based on your opinion. Read State of Palestine. Most of the world disagrees with you. Tiamut^talk 11:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • "The State of Palestine is a political entity that enjoys limited recognition as a state, but has no control over any territory." Right. As I said, Israel is a country and Palestine is not. Or, if you want me to tear down your false equivalence another way, I could say that Israel has its governmental buildings in Jerusalem and "Palestine" -- whatever you want to call it -- does not. I could say that Israel has control over the city and "Palestine" -- whatever you want to call it -- does not. Even if you just want to talk about clearly legal control, I could say Israel has long had legal control over the western half of the city, while "Palestine" -- whatever you want to call it -- has never had legal control over so much as a square meter of the city. Please don't taunt me with "opinion" when you choose to ignore obvious differences to support this tired position. -- tariqabjotu 11:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        • • I'm aware of what the article says since I wrote most of it myself. You can be selective in your interpretation if you want to of course. It doesn't change the fact that Palestine is recognized as country by more than half the world.
          • In any case, none of this has much to do with the issue under discussion. As Avi says, whether or not Palestine is a country is irrelevant. It has designated Jerusalem as its capital and that fact should be noted prominently in our introduction to the article on Jerusalem. Tiamut^talk 12:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
            • You ignored everything I said. First, I said several times that it didn't matter whether Palestine was a country or not; my entire comment was about how the comparison is still false even if you want to call Palestine a country (even though country involves land; state does not). Your point appears to be that because both Israel and Palestine call Jerusalem their capital, either Jerusalem is the capital of both -- with no qualifier -- or the "proclaimed" capital of both (with the qualifier). I explained why those are not the only two options, and you failed to rebut. This issue is already "explained prominently in our introduction"; in case you haven't noticed, there's an entire paragraph on the issue. -- tariqabjotu 12:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
              • • I'm intimately aware of what's in the intro and aware of what your argument is. I've stated elsewhere that descriptions of Jerusalem as the capital of both Israel and Palestine preface both with the word "claims". I've provided sources to support that that assertion. If you prefer to engage in OR argumentation over how one is an apple and one is an orange, that's fine. Your refusal to acknowledge the sources is noted. Tiamut^talk 12:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • You have provided no sources in this thread between your initial statement and my current comment. There are a host of other threads and sub-threads here and elsewhere across Wikipedia on which you have said things not addressed to me and I have not responded. If you want to hold one or more of those threads against me, fine. I'm not here to play games with you, especially when I have witnessed the inevitability of their futility. -- tariqabjotu 13:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
                    • Very well Tariq. Always a pleasure attempting to collaborate with you. Tiamut^talk 13:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• No There exists a territorial State of Israel which has Jerusalem as its capital; the physical locations of embassies is irrelevant. What makes the case different with the State of Palestine is as the article says: "The State of Palestine…is a political entity that enjoys limited recognition as a state, but has no control over any territory." If there is no control over territory, there is perforce no control over a territorial or terrestrial capital. It can be said that Palestine claims Jerusalem as its capital, as the claim can be made in anticipation of "control on the ground". Israel has control on the ground, and this article needs to reflect the reality of Israel's statements and her political and governmental seats of power. What this article should say is what it already does say, that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and that this is not recognized by many. -- Avi (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • But Avi, doesn't this article also need to reflect Palestine's statements and her people's presence on the ground? Doesn't it also have to reflect the will of the international community which has withheld recognition for both claims until negotiations between the two result in agreement? Tiamut^talk 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Tiamut, I believe it does by saying that it is claimed as the capital of the State of Palestine; which is true. It is claimed as the capital, and as soon as there is a terrestrial State of Palestine with a seat of government in the physical city of Jerusalem, the "claim" phrase may be removed. While it may be unfortunate in many people's eyes, I think it is accurate to say that there is no physical state of Palestine yet, and thus, in my understanding, cannot have an actual capital but may designate its capital. Perhaps that is a better way to say it, that "The State of Palestine has designated Jerusalem as its capital." -- Avi (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And Avi a question ... when you said "this version" which version. The one Okedem restored [25] or the one that was built today to address these issues? Tiamut^talk 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I was referring to the version that has "claim" by Palestine, no "claim" by Israel, and the explanation in footnote iii, but I think the "designate" wording (see above) is better than "claim". -- Avi (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • So basically the version Nableezy had restored [26] but with the sentence on Palestine reading as you proposed above? Good with me. Though I still think "proclaimed" should precede "capital" for Israel, given how the sources describe it. Tiamut^talk 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • See below for my response to Nableezy for a more expansive explanation of my opinions, for what they are worth. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• No, because it factually false - it is the capital, per definition. See above - claim is irrelevant, international opinion and embassies are irrelevant. Look up the meaning of the word "capital". The international community has no say in this, only the facts, whether some people like it or not. okedem (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, but neither of the suggestions in the RfC question. It should say "capital of Israel" but the footnote should be brought up immediately after that statement within the main text. It likewise should say capital of Palestine as that is the proclaimed capital of the state of Palestine. It should also note that the status as capital of Palestine has likewise not achieved recognition from other states. nableezy - 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's just another way of highlighting the disputed nature. Which I support. Imad marie (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too. By the way, Okedem just blanket reverted to what he claims is the stable consensus version of this article. I would note that this version has been kept this way by refusing to acknowledge the dissent to it, and claiming consensus must be achieved prior to any changes. Invariably leading to a lockdown of the article in this version or something close to it. Tiamut^talk 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, in the discussion above you've shown you care nothing for sources, facts, or basically anything that doesn't fit your view that international recognition has anything to do with status of capital. Here you continue that tradition with your despicable accusation against myself. I've reverted to the stable version. It's been that way for many months, because there's no consensus to change it, as your claims are never backed by the facts. okedem (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut brought sources, which you casually dismissed with an edit summary of "no such state exists" contrary to sources saying it does. nableezy - 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(Came to this via RfC) May I remind everyone that Palestine is indeed recognized as an independent state by various other countries in the world. That should basically settle the issue here. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But it has no control of any territory, so it is hard to have a capital when there is nowhere for it to be. This is why I prefer "designated", for which terrestrial control is irrelevant. -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Recognized, but doesn't actually exists. Even the PNA PM said it will be established in the future. But, again, that's beside the point here. A capital is a seat of government, as any dictionary will tell you. A capital isn't one because of claims or international opinion - those mean nothing in this regard. It's a capital because it's home to the nation government. That holds for Israel, but not for a "Palestinian State" . okedem (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Avi, do you have a problem with how it was worded prior to okedem's revert (besides perhaps changing "proclaimed" to "designated")? See here. nableezy - 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I need to preface with acknowledgment that I personally am biased, but I believe that is true of all of us. As a neutral statement of fact, I think all of us must agree that the government of the State of Palestine (which I believe is still the PLO?) has designated or proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital, so I think it is proper to make note of that. I prefer "designate" to "claim" or "proclaim", but that is because I think it is the most neutral of the three. The nicety in using "designate", in my opinion, is that it work regardless of the reader's opinions as to the nature of the state of Palestine. For those who believe that there is no legal basis for the State of Palestine, and it is all words, well, the designation is more words. I can designate myself as Supreme Generalissimo of the United States; it's not going to to do a lot of good. And for those who believe that the state is as real and actual as Jordan, well, Jordan has designated its capital as Amman, and so it is. For those who believe that the legal standing remains nebulous and pending clarification and diplomatic actions on the part of Palestinian and Israelis, the designation is the government of Palestine's statement of intent at this time as to where it will physically locate its seat. I think that it would be a breach of neutrality not to recognize the Palestinian designation, just as it would be to tacitly assign it control over territory it does not control now and which may likely be subject to future negotiations. I know it was an overly long response, Nableezy, but I wanted to explain why I think the article should mention it, but recognize that it is a designation and not an actuality, at this point. Hopefully, in the near future, all these issues will be resolved. -- Avi (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on your first sentence and much of what follows it. Designate is fine with me. What I'm more concerned with is how the first sentence of the article says two very strongly disputed things in Wikipedia's netural voice with no qualificatons. 1) that Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel (some say a large part of it is not in Israel) and 2) that it is Israel's capital. With no mention of the dispute over its status as such or the lack of international recognition, etc, etc. Perhaps we could use "designate" for Israel too? And then mention both claims are disputed? Tiamut^talk 22:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for answering #2 prior to #1, but I do not believe that is an issue. Israel's capital is Jerusalem; others do not like that. Others cannot make Jerusalem NOT Israel's capital any more than they can prevent the State of Palestine from designating Jerusalem as its capital. In the article, there is a note directly on that phrase which discusses how there are others who neither approve nor recognize Israel's decision. I'm sure there are those who do neither recognize nor approve that the State of Palestine has designated Jerusalem as its capital. That too is irrelevant. The reason I feel the wording should be different is that currently, there is no physical State of Palestine which has control over actual territory. When that situation changes, then this article should change as well. As for #1, a number of possible explanations justifying the current wording come to mind, but they may not be acceptable to all. Firstly, one can say the city now is in Israel; that may change in the future. Secondly, it is under Israeli control. Thirdly, even if we were to excise the portions that are disputed, I believe it remains the largest city in Israel. Thus, regardless of one's personal political beliefs, I think the sentence may be justified as it is. Thoughts, Tiamut? -- Avi (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a point of fact, Jerusalem's 2007 population minus the 2006 population of East Jerusalem (per the articles on each) would be 319,296, which is 18% smaller than the population of Tel Aviv. nableezy - 06:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Avi, I dont think it is irrelevant that that others neither approve nor recognize Israel's decision, but I agree that it doesn't make Jerusalem not Israel's capital. The dispute over the words "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" shouldn't be relegated to a footnote. What would be the problem with moving what the footnote says up in to the main text without adding "designated" or "claimed"? It would be clear that the seat of government of Israel is in Jerusalem and that much of the world disputes that they have the right to do so. No implications that Jerusalem really is not the capital of Israel, only making it clear that there is a dispute over its status. nableezy - 22:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For personal reasons I would not, just as I guess for personal reason you would . I unfortunately don't have the time now to give your question the attention it deserves, Nableezy. I hope to come back to it soon, though. -- Avi (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it, it boils down to the perception of how neutral it is. As Okedem, Tariq, and perhaps others point out, the dispute is prominently discussed multiple times in the article. To add it yet again, or to make it even more prominent is the question, and making it too prominent may well be an NPOV issue as well. Again, I freely admit I have my own point-of-view which I know is coloring my instinctual response, which is that it is adequately discussed in the article and that making it more prominent may be an issue given the current status of the State of Palestine. I think this point will have to be decided by a consensus of editors, and I would feel more comfortable without further expansion, just as I am sure you feel the opposite, and understandably so. Hopefully, we will get feedback from people with less emotional involvement than we have, and can arrive at an understanding. As an aside, I note that an IP added the country box to State of Palestine which may be a problem, as there is no Country of Palestine yet. -- Avi (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The dispute over the legality of the annexation of East Jerusalem is discussed, but as far as I can tell the only place where the views of others on the making of Jerusalem the capital is not discussed anywhere but the footnote. nableezy - 18:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes: NPOV dictates that its disputed status be mentioned. As such, the case is not unique. We write extensively about these disputes in the articles for Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, and others. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• No: Jerusalem was the capital of Israel since 1948. It remains the capital today. The fact that Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 war has as much to do with Jerusalem's status as capital as Israel's capture of the Golan Heights or the Sinai or the Gaza Strip. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite any injustices Israel may or may not have committed against Palestinians. Reference books that explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel include The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44), Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia (2003 ed., p. 628), and Britanica Online Encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GHcool (talk • contribs) 18:02, August 3, 2009
  • This encyclopedia on the UN says: "Jerusalem: Historic capital of Palestine [...] On 23 January 1950 Israel proclaimed Jerusalem the capital of Israel, but this was not recognized by the UN. In November 1999 the Israeli representative in the General Assembly reiterated that Jerusalem was the capital." Note that any mention of Jerusalem being Israel's capital is attributed to an Israeli speaker or preceded by the qualifier "proclaimed". Just like this CNN article which notes that, "By most estimates, the growth of the Palestinian population of Jerusalem outstrips that of the Israelis, and no Palestinian faction would ever advocate relinquishing the Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem. And even Israel's claim that Jerusalem is its capital is one most countries around the world don't recognize." Very few reliable sources say it is the capital without qualifications and if they do, its immediately followed by a discussion of its disputed status in the eyes of the international community. Our article fails on both counts. Tiamut^talk 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • A false analogy. The difference is that while the encyclopedia on the UN must detail Jerusalem's status from the UN's point of view, a general encyclopedia like the ones I gave above and like Wikipedia must give Jerusalem's status as an NPOV statement of the fact: that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. --GHcool (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Tiamut, I think it is fair to say that the UN is not without bias in this situation, and may not be the best source for an NPOV statement. -- Avi (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Avi, I think it's fair to say that NPOV does not require NPOV statements from every source, but rather that we reflect all significant POVs. The UN's POV is very significant.
      • Further, CNN, which has a pro-Israeli bias, also precedes any mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by the word "claim" and does the same for Palestinian claims. That's what I am proposing: i.e. being even-handed and reflecting the lack of recognition by the world of either claim. Tiamut^talk 08:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        • CNN is not pro-Israeli, but forget that now. You want to write it as if the two claims are equal. But they're not. Israel controls Jerusalem, and the city functions as the state's capital - home to all its governmental bodies. The Palestinian entity of questionable existence controls no territory at all, so obviously not Jerusalem, and has no governmental bodies in the city (or much of them anywhere). That's not remotely similar.
        • And again I say - the dispute and the Palestinian aspirations are discussed in an entire paragraph in the lead, and in the article body. That's more than enough. okedem (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
          • • The two claims are equal. That's why the world community has not recognized either one of them. That Israel controls Jerusalem is a function of its greater military power and its forcible shutting down of Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem like Orient House.
            • And while it is your opinion is that the dispute and Palestinian aspirations are discussed sufficiently, a significant number of editors and sources cited here disagree with you. Many have come to this talk page time and again to ask how it is that we present Jerusalem as Israel's capital without any qualifications. The article is not NPOV and will not be NPOV until these issues are addressed. Continually stonewalling people who bring up the critiques, or characterizing them as though they are beating a dead horse, won't help to improve the article, and it won't stop the critiques from coming. Tiamut^talk 11:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
              • The two claims are equal? That's absurd. Open a dictionary/encyclopedia, and read what a capital is. Perhaps you'd like to say that the moral claim is equal, or the legal basis is equal, or some such thing. But in reality - it's the capital of Israel, and only Israel.
              • This article, I remind you, is not about international opinion, the conflict, Palestinian claim, or any such thing. It is about the city itself, and while international opinion is of some interest, it cannot take up half the lead. There's more to Jerusalem than the conflict, you know. You can't turn every article into a flier against Israel and for Palestinian causes. An entire paragraph in the lead, plus text in the article body, in more than enough (and was also a compromise - I support much less text on this issue). okedem (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
                • As I said before, we don't write wiki articles by looking up the definition of words and engaging in OR to decide whether they apply to a given situation or not. Reliable sources indicate that Israel's claim to Jerusalem is disputed by the entire world. Same goes for Palestine. Our article begins with the sentence: "Jerusalem is the capital and largest city in Israel." Wrong on both counts: No government recognizes it as Israel's capital and if defined to include East Jerusalem (as it is in our article), its not all located in Israel. The attempts to force other editors into accepting this as some kind of reasonable consensus by refusing to concede what the reliable sources say is the reason this issue keeps coming up and the reason this article cannot maintain FA status. Its not NPOV and its not right. Tiamut^talk 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • As I've said before, and you fail to refute - international recognition doesn't determine or change the status of capitals. A country can withhold recognition as it pleases, to express its discontent with actions, or its belief that things should be changed. But it cannot change to most basic thing - Jerusalem answers the definition of capital for Israel, and not for any other country/state/entity. If the article would say: "Jerusalem is Israel's internationally recognized and celebrated capital", it would be wrong. But "capital" is merely statement of fact, and nothing more. Perhaps it should be the capital. Perhaps Israel doesn't have a right to it; perhaps it's illegal or whatever. But we're not discussing the legality of it - just what it is. Like or not (this goes for you, and basically for any of the planet countries) - Jerusalem is Israel's capital, because Israel's government sits there. No OR here. Just a simple dictionary definition, that doesn't have qualifiers, doesn't have complicated criteria or different viewpoint. The most basic thing - we're writing an encyclopedia here - when we don't know if a certain word is appropriate, we find its accurate meaning, and see if it fits. In this case - it does.
                  • As you've provided no source saying international recognition has anything to do with capital, that claim shall henceforth be designated (or, perhaps, proclaimed) a "red herring". okedem (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• No Fipplet (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• No - per Avi. What this article should say is what it already does say, that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and that this is not recognized by many. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that's not exactly what Avi said. He said we should mention that it is the designated capital of Palestine too in the introduction directly under the statement about it being Israel's capital. Where he and I disagree is only on the need to qualify the statement regarding it being the capital of Israel. I think it should be prefaced by "designated" or "proclaimed" or alternatively that the lack of international recognition be mentioned directly after an unqualified statement. Whereas he thinks its okay to leave that part as it is. But we both agree that Palestine's designation of Jerusalem as its capital should be mentioned. Which currrently it is not, due to Okedem reverting it out. Tiamut^talk 11:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The RfC says 'Should we highlight the disputed nature of Jerusalem when stating that it is the capital of Israel? like saying that "Jerusalem is the disputed capital of Israel" or "Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel"? - to which I answered no, as did Avi. I realize this whole rfC is merely a ploy by you to promote the notion that it is also the capital of the 'State of Palestine', but you will need to start an explicit RfC about that. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• No but I don't see anything wrong with stating somewhere in the body that the status is disputed. Having it prominent, or in the lede, is disingenuous. -shirulashem^(talk) 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• No per User:Avi and because sovereign states have the right to designate a capital city.Historicist (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes per nableezy. Yazan (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Let me remind everyone that the issue of the dispute regarding Jerusalem's status is not swept under the rug. In fact, an entire paragraph in the lead, one out of only three, is dedicated to it, stating it is a "core issue" of the conflict, that "Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem has been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations and related bodies". That "Arab Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state", and that the embassies were moved out after UNSC 478. No one can rightfully claim this issue doesn't get its due weight. Anything beyond this is simply overkill. This isn't an article about the conflict, but about the city. One in three paragraphs in the lead is more than enough. okedem (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• No Leave the dead horse alone. The capital issue is discussed several times already -- in a footnote when the capital of Israel is mentioned the first time, within the body of the lead as a whole paragraph, and then later on in excruciating detail under the Political status section. The point has been made, and does not need to been made for a second third fourth time. There currently is no Palestinian state so the idea of saying that Jersualem is the proclaimed capital of Israel (a country that has had its central government functions in the city since basically its existence) and the proclaimed capital of Palestine (a geographical region, not a country, with no governmental facilities in Jerusalem) is a non-starter. The way to deal with the Palestinian capital issue is the way it's already been handled in the third paragraph of the lead -- mention that the Palestinians, when they get a state (something they do not currently have), they would like to have their capital on at least the eastern half of the city. The idea that Jerusalem is the "proclaimed" capital of Israel is meaningless, because it's not just "proclaimed" as such; it is, and has always, functioned as such. In short, Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel. The fact that it is "disputed" is a point that can at the very least wait until the third paragraph, when it can be explained in a manner that is informative, rather than misleadingly pithy for the sake of advancing a point that has zero relavence to whether a city is a country's capital. -- tariqabjotu 09:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• No: Wikipedia should not be rewriting history and bending over backwards to accommodate the falsehoods that certain editors are trying to introduce through the back door, presumptuously claiming that they speak for "the world." --Gilabrand (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• No: Jerusalem is Israel's capital as a fact and according to Israel's law that is the only one relevant here. Other claims should be indicated also but not on the same level of importance. Benjil (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• No: Countries can self-declare Capital Cities, and indeed occassionally break-away seperate countries and Wikipedia has usually recognized their right to do so. See List_of_national_capitals where both Somaliland and Jerusalem are acknowledged. The article should note Jersulem as Capital City of Israel (as this is what Israel chooses to describe it as; similarly I could call myself Mr Wibble and I'd expect people to use that), however it would be appropriate to have a section on Disputed Status. --Truthmonkey (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• No per GHcool and Avi. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More sources:

CIA factbook 2008: "Jerusalem (capital, proclaimed): Israel, West Bank"

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "In 1980 The Basic Law of Israel declared Jerusalem a 'complete and united capital' of the Israeli state, but most of the international community had recognized a UN resolution that declares such an act 'null and void' [...] Palestinians of Jerusalem [...] declined the opportunity to acquire Israeli citizenship [...] The political point in refusing Israeli citizenship was also apparent: maintaining the right to be citizens in the state of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital." Tiamut^talk 13:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• • We understand, thank you. There are neutral, reliable sources that say 'proclaimed' before 'capital of Israel' and there are neutral, reliable sources that don't say 'proclaimed' or 'disputed' before 'capital of Israel'. This is well-established. The question is in which bucket are we going to put Wikipedia: the former or the latter? Longstanding consensus, and the one that seems to still exist here, is that we're going to put it in the latter -- the one that leaves out "proclaimed" or "disputed". Perfectly good reasons have been provided for why those words should be omitted, and there are neutral, reliable sources suggesting it's perfectly fine to come down with that conclusion. So, you can stop providing sources now; there are probably hundreds of sources that deal with the matter in either way. Point understood. -- tariqabjotu 13:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• No I am getting a sense of déjà vu here. I recall participating in this discussion last year, and it was not the first one. or second. No serious new evidence has been produced, so I don't see a reason to change the current compromise. -- Nudve (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue continually keeps arising because the "current compromise" is not much of one. Tiamut^talk 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some people have a problem accepting what seems to be a pretty wide consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some have trouble understanding what WP:CONSENSUS means. It doesn't mean majority rule, it means reaching a near unanimous agreement. Of which there is none here.Tiamut^talk 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• No—this has been discussed dozens of times on Wikipedia, and the answer is still the same. Everything I could say about this has already been said, and also repeated here. Basically if a country has control over a territory that it declares its capital, and this becomes the country's seat of government, other countries' opinions do not change this status. The international dispute should be duly represented where there is space to do so (and where it is relevant), but in places like infoboxes and lead section, such space does not exist, and it's not relevant. The compromise, which seems fair to me, is to make do with a footnote. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• No—How can one even answer the original question exactly as posed; it is a loaded question. In asking "Should we highlight the disputed nature of Jerusalem when stating that it is the capital of Israel?" the question presupposes something unproven. Like it or not, Jerusalem is the chosen capital of Israel, functions as the capital and is the capital by definition of what a capital is (seat of government, etc.); that much is beyond dispute, or should be. International recognition plays no part in determining its status, nor is it a matter of opinion. The nature of Jerusalem as capital needs no modifying adjective, though to some it is clearly unpalatable. I predict that this discussion will go nowhere if it focuses on such red herring issues as international opinion, embassies, and "representing points of view". These discussions are indeed getting repetitious, and "the answer is still the same". I would be in favor of adding a line to endnote iii clarifying that countries choose their own capitals, with no requirement for either embassies or international approval. Other than that, let's keep the status quo. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• No Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The disputes surrounding that are significant and require discussion in the article, but no additional language needs to be added to that very clear sentence, which is a statement of current fact. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• No - per numerous comments, above. Jerusalem is the Capital, per that word's definition, and the dispute surrounding the recognition is already described in detail in the article (to the point of WP:UNDUE, in my opinion) Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Related discussion

Comment for Tiamut. I believe that part of the issue is the difference in focus as to what makes a capital. What I mean is that you refer to the non-recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital by multiple countries. That is absolutely true. However, that does not affect Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital - it affects the ACCEPTANCE of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by other countries. And that point is clearly stated in the article. Jerusalem is not accepted as the Palestinian capital by other countries for similar reasons. I maintain that the operative difference between the State of Palestine and Israel is that the latter is a physical country with territory while the former remains a non-physical entity at this time. Countries have capitals, ideas, no matter how good they may be, do not have capitals. As soon as the State of Palestine becomes sovereign over territory, it can consider some of that territory its capital, and then there is no longer any distinction. So, while your comments about the recognition of Jerusalem by other entities is correct, I continue to respectfully maintain that it is not the relevant point for this discussion. As I see it, both Israel and the State of Palestine have designated Jerusalem as their respective capitals, and neither designation is accepted by many countries. The difference is that Israel's "capital designate" is its "capital real", as Israel controls, and is at least de facto, if not de jure, soverign, over the territory it claims as its capital, whereas the State of Palestine is not, at this time. -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Avi, but I have to respectfully disagree. When Jerusalem is defined as including East Jerusalem (and other parts of the West Bank) as it is here, to say that it is Israel's "capital real" is incorrect. I'm sure you are aware that all government offices are in West Jerusalem and that East Jerusalem (which contains the Old City) is predominantly Arab and Palestinian. Very few Israelis even enter Arab East Jerusalem (except for the 0.9 km2 that make up the Old City of course) and there is a separate system for health, emergency services, etc. Orient House functioned as the headquarters of the PLO for two decades (the PLO representing Palestine at the UN means that it essentially served as a Palestinian seat of government there). True, the building was seized and forcibly closed by Israel in 2001, but that does not change the fact that Arab East Jerusalem is not functionally a part of Israel's "capital real".

Our first sentence is the most problematic, because it presents Jerusalem as including East Jerusalem and on that basis defines it as Israel's largest city, even though most of the territory being described lies well within the West Bank and was illegally occupied in 1967. The idea that this is all made better by appending a footnote that explains that the international ommunity doesn't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital is do indulge in an illusion. So many IPs come here and after reading the article ask why it says its ISrael's capital without any qualifications. Meaning, that most of them do not see the information you are saying is so prominently displayed.

I could go on, but I will stop for now. Tiamut^talk 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, at least one government office that I know of is - the Ministry of Justice (located, no less, in Salah ed Din street). As Orient House is no longer operational, it's a meaningless point, that we should waste more text on. okedem (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More disinformation is being disseminated on this talk page: There is no "separate" system for health care in East Jerusalem. Arabs living in East Jerusalem can go to any hospital in the city, and receive services from Tipat Halav mother & child clinics and Kupat Holim HMOs. They are free to choose any facility they want, in West or East Jerusalem - and they do, unimpeded. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's important. Both parts of the city are served by the same emergency services (Magen David Adom), the same bus company (Egged), etc. As East Jerusalem tells us, 41% of EJ's population are Jews (181,000 or so). okedem (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, when users draw upon their personal knowledge and experience to characterize what others say as disinformation, its interesting, but irrelevant to establishing the facts. I already posted a source attesting to this situation above. Here it is again: "The main business section in West Jerusalem is almost entirely Jewish. The Old City, in East Jerusalem, is almost entirely Arab. Welfare policies in the two sections are handled differently. Each side maintains its own fire departments, hospitals, and medical emergency crews. Schools are entirely separate. Two different bus systems travel the city, often following the same routes. Jews try to avoid using Muslim-controlled electric companies, and Arabs try to avoid using Israeli-owned banks. New roads make it possible for Israeli in Jerusalem's suburbs to travel back and forth almost without seeing an Arab." (Daily Life in ancient and modern Jerusalem) Notice the chapter heading, "A Divided City"? Our article is trying to pretend there is one Jerusalem that includes east Jerusalem. This the Israeli desire yes, but it is not reality. Tiamut^talk 08:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that some obscure book says something does not make it true. Living in Jerusalem I know a little better than whoever Diane Slavik and Ray Webb may be. There is no separate health system, and as someone said almost half of "East-Jerusalem" population is Jewish. Furthermore, all is is totally irrelevant to the question. Please stop trying to divert the subject. This is a very transparent strategy. Benjil (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer books to your opinion. That's in line with WP:V. Tiamut^talk 09:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not my opinion. This is a fact. All the controversy comes from the fact you don't seem able to understand the difference between facts and opinions. I think we already discussed that to the death. And the vote is quite clear. So may we put an end to this argument ? Benjil (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should let the discussion continue. There is no clear outcome here and this will remain an issue until it is addressed. We can address it now, or later, but it will have to be dealth with at some point. Tiamut^talk 10:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This will remain an issue until it is addressed ... It will have to be dealt with at some point.

This is the problem. You will only consider this matter closed, "addressed", and "dealt with" when what you want gets put in the article. That's not how it works. We have had this conversation literally dozens of times over a period of years and nothing has changed. Realize that consensus can change, but it does not have to. Once again, we have, in this RfC alone (to say nothing of past conversations), a general consensus for keeping the status quo by a ratio of about three to one. You have been defeated again and again; now drop it. The matter has, in fact, been dealt with. -- tariqabjotu 10:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a WP:BATTLE Tariq. There is no "defeated" side here. WP:CONSENSUS relies on achieving near unanimity between editors acting in good-faith. If 1/3 of the editors participating in a discussion on a given issue continue to be dissatisfied with the text, then there is no consensus. And the issue will continue to be raised. That's only natural and in fact welcome since we are encouraged to continue discussing until consensus can be achieved. Sorry you don't like having to deal with this over and over again, but perhaps when you learn to respect the opinions of those who differ from your own, we will make more progress. Tiamut^talk 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, consensus is not unanimity. You might also want to keep in mind that filibustering is considered gaming the system. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I am familiar with WP:BATTLE, which concerns civility, not the idea that's one's efforts can be defeated (as they can). And WP:CONSENSUS does not dictate that the same group of people should repeatedly bring up the same debate with nothing new to bring to the table; that, rather, is called being tendentious and, echoing No More Mr Nice Guy, gaming the system. There is nothing here to suggest I don't respect your opinion; disagreeing is not the same as not respecting your opinion. Respect, rather, is gracefully conceding when you're outnumbered; that's something the persistent supporters of this "disputed" wording have not done. So, let me put it this way: based on the discussion here, with three to one in favor of the status quo, your proposed changes are not going to be implemented anywhere in the forseeable future. So, there's really no reason for me to argue with you about this, especially when I know there's no possibility of changing your mind. -- tariqabjotu 13:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, too bad you signed the above comment. We might have mistaken it for a Hamas press release. That you have no clue about the reality of life in Jerusalem is crystal clear. Two bus systems following the same routes??? Arabs and Jews "trying to avoid" each other's banks?? Muslim controlled electric companies??? Where do you dig up this stuff?.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That you resort to characterizing a book and its contents as a Hamas press release only shows how little respect you have for WP:V and WP:NPOV. Tiamut^talk 09:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this bunch of nonsense you have cited comes from a children's book, which states it is geared for kids aged 9-13. Not everything you dig up on Google is a scholarly source that I have some obligation to respect. --Gilabrand (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I started with a children's book thinking it might be easier for you to understand. However, the same is said in scholarly sources. See Menachem Klein, for example. Tiamut^talk 10:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And please note, There are four Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem, with 546 beds, that provide essential secondary services. These also service Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, when they are able to get permits to enter East Jerusalem. I'm not surprised that you don't know much about East Jerusalem, given that most Israelis never go there (outside of the Old City of course). Tiamut^talk 10:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are two bus systems. In the last years there has been a new private Arab bus system. It was an initiative of the City Hall. It does not follow the same routes at all and deserves only Arab neighborhoods. Benjil (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How very considerate of you, my dear Tiamut. Except that you don't seem to understand what Mr. Klein is saying. He says everyone rides Egged buses (unless they need to go somewhere that is not served by Egged buses). So Arabs and Jews are free to use the same bus system, shop in the same malls, receive treatment at the same hospitals and clinics, hold accounts in the same banks, study at the same universities and enjoy outings to the same parks. Yes, there are separate school systems, but there are joint Jewish/Arab schools for anyone who is interested. No one ever said there are no Arab hospitals, buses, schools and banks. Certainly there are, but what you don't seem to understand is that Arab residents of Jerusalem have a choice, which they freely exercise. To say that no Israelis walk around on Salah e-Din is OR at best. When was the last time you were there, conducting street polls? Much remains to be done. Jerusalem is not conflict-free. But it is a far cry from the picture you are trying to paint, of "two cities," which is false, tendentious and misleading.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I do understand what Klein is saying and its not what you describe above. You are free to soapbox as to what you think the reality is in Jerusalem, though I'd prefer you provide sources tht could be useful to improving this article. Tiamut^talk 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Side point: Moving up info about Palestinian capital

Considering the original question in the RfC is about adding the word 'disputed' or 'proclaimed' in front of "capital of Israel", I'm adding a side section on a point that has been brought up: should the piece on Palestinian claims on the capital (currently in the third paragraph of the intro) be moved up [cut/paste], repeated closer to the top [copy/paste], or remain where it is [nothing]? Note that I'm ignoring the "proclaimed" vs. "designated" debate; that debate is so minor compared to the other issues. -- tariqabjotu 13:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm for Cut/Paste or Nothing. I would be okay with saying at the end of the first paragraph that Jerusalem is the proclaimed/designated capital of the Palestinian state provided most of the other info currently in the third paragraph is removed completely from the intro. That's because I believe bookending the intro with this point is simply excessive. Alternatively, I think the current location of this info -- in the third paragraph, where this can be discussed with a little more detail and clarity -- is fine and, in fact, probably better. -- tariqabjotu 13:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for moving the info up. My edit was trying to do that. And for using the terminology suggested by Avi for the Palestinian claim. I'm not for removing the information in the third paragraph however. That further downplays the POV of the international community, which was a primary reason people were motivated to file this RfC. Its weak wording and relegation of the important details to a footnote is simply not enough. Tiamut^talk 13:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the lead is unbalanced - but against Israel

Some users don't seem to realize that the current state of affairs isn't the "pro-Israeli" user's dream, but a compromise position. You see, in the lead we mention a fact (that could be seen as Israel's side) in a single sentence: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and its largest city...". Then we spend an entire paragraph talking about how disputed it is (also mentioning "disputed East Jerusalem" in that first sentence). We say it's a "core issue", talk about the condemnation of the annexation; embassies leaving; Palestinian aspirations. We never mention Israel's position here - I'm not talking about the simple fact of Jerusalem being the capital or its size; when we say the annexation has been condemned, we fail to present Israel's defense to that - Jerusalem was territory without a sovereign, captured in a defensive war. Its status in the partition plan isn't different from West Jerusalem - the city was to be internationalized, but the Arabs rejected the plan and captured half the city, etc. I don't want to start a discussion about the validity of those claims, but we don't even present them. We say Israel annexed EJ, and that many condemned that, but don't give Israel the right to defend its actions, leaving the reader with the clear conclusion that it's "wrong". Already the conflict gets undue weight in the lead, one out of three paragraphs. An entire section of the article is devoted to "Legal status".

Just as you might not like some things, not everything is perfect in my view. But I see the benefit of a compromise, and am willing to accept a non-optimal solution, to avoid a tug-of-war, and give due weight to the other viewpoints. okedem (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this before?

Am I going senile or something? This whole argument seems familiar. I'm sure I read it three or four times already. We should simply dig it out of the archive - such a waste of good effort to rewrite all those arguments again.

As I recall, last time we went through this, I suggested that instead of writing

... is the capital of Israel and its largest city

we write

... is the seat of Israel's government and its largest city

It is, after all, only the word "capital" that is in dispute, not the facts: we all know where the office of the registrar of deeds is. Thanks to the great authors of the English language, we have many ways of saying the same thing. Why are we being such lugheads? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's a link at the top of the page that goes to the sixty or so threads we've had about this issue already. And, from what I recall, the reason "capital" remained instead of "seat of government" is because we wouldn't say "Paris is the seat of government of France...". Saying "seat of government" is evasive, suggesting Israel's official capital is somewhere else (as in the case of The Hague) or not officially designated (as in the case of Tokyo). And, as was stated earlier, this evasion would serve to further the efforts of those he keep bringing up this issue by casting doubt on a factual statement. -- tariqabjotu 06:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that (huge) collection of threads seems to be missing some useful ones. I've added another, which seems particularly relevant to the present discussion from /Archive 7 here. --NSH001 (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion that "seat of government" suggests something else than capital is, in my educated guess, not so. I bet that if you ask 100 people to read the "seat of government" version of the lead, 99 of them will not even notice the difference - if they think about it at all, they will think we are being poetic. And the 100th person will be Tiamut, who will be satisfied by the indisputable accuracy of the statement. It will end, once and for all, this idiotic dispute. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

While perhaps not to you, the evasiveness is apparent to me. Playing with semantics to give an illusion of doubt is not okay. -- tariqabjotu 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to call your attention to this sentence, from a New York Times article from June 19, 1879: "... will be made transferring the seat of Government back to Paris." (search for "Paris seat of government" in Google). Ha! --Ravpapa (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... are you joking? If not, there are a couple problems with your example that do anything but support your point. -- tariqabjotu 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Later: Interesting. I have just been reading about Paris, France. It is not the capital of France. France has no official capital. Sticklers refer to Paris as the seat of government, not as the capital. But you, Tariq, never even noticed that. So much for the vaunted difference between "capital" and "seat of government". --Ravpapa (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation please? However, if I were to assume for the moment that you are correct that Paris is not the official capital of France, that does nothing to catapult my point. Jerusalem is both the capital of Israel both how its country denotes it and how its country treats it, which is more, according to you, than could be said about Paris. Please don't nitpick. -- tariqabjotu 09:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not easily offended, but your suggestion that I am nitpicking cuts to the quick. It is you, not I, who is nitpicking, finding minute distinctions where none exist. Except in a few very odd cases where the national government sits in a location other than the declared capital, the words "capital" and "seat of government" are used interchangeably. Merriam-Webster defines capital as "a city serving as a seat of government".

However, as your post and those of the other combatants shows, everyone is loath to change the word "capital", each for his or her own reasons. So it appears that the teams will continue batting at each other about this. Maybe they like it. Actually, I kind of like it, too. Perverse, no? But enough is enough. So this will be my last post on the topic.

Incidentally, I was reading about Paris at Capital (political). --Ravpapa (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your example shows why your suggestion isn't good. We use the word "capital" all over Wikipedia to describe capital cities. The only places we use "seat of government" is when the designated capital is different from the seat of government, as one can read in the article you just linked to. In our case, Jerusalem is both the officially designated capital, and the seat of government, meaning the word "capital" encompasses the full meaning without need for clarifications (like "official capital" for Porto-Novo). If we really did use "seat of government" interchangeably, fine - but we don't. So there's no justification for singling-out Jerusalem, just because some people don't like seeing the words "Israel's capital" attached to it. okedem (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes That city is special due to the on-going conflict. Noting that it is disputed (despite Palestine being a state or not) will make the reader aware of it. Likeminas (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Capital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No it doesn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 1

(outdent) Okedem, you said "So while the UN and other countries can object, they simply have no say in this". A question doesn't stop being a serious legal matter simply because you say so, or because there are political interests involved. The Security Council, General Assembly, and ICJ have decided that Israel's attempts to unilaterally alter the status of Jerusalem are a breach or flagrant violation of international law, and the UN Charter. They do have the final word on what violates the UN Charter. The Security Council and other countries can also prosecute Israeli officials for population transfers, house demolitions, and etc. States that recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach of a peremptory norm are guilty of committing a wrongful act. See Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 41 at the UN Treaty Organization. [27]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One source how exactly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heyo Nableezy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(outdent) President Abbas said that the State of Palestine was already in existence and that the current battle is to have the state's border recognized. Abbas: Palestinian state an existing fact, Ynet, November 11, 2009 [29] Fayyad's plan is for building the institutions of government. It mentions the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine four times. Recognition of States must be distinguished from recognition of governments, each form having its own theories and practices. See for example The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, §202 Recognition or Acceptance of States, and §203 Recognition or Acceptance of Governments.

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

Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More sources

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

Sources from GHcool

User:GHcool wrote above:

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

Oxford sources

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

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

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

Encyclopedias

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dictionaries

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

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

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(outdent) The Jewish Virtual Library maintains a collection of pages which explain that the US government has repeatedly refused to recognize West Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and at Israel's request, has provided written explanations. [30] harlan (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the real world issue of disputed Sovereignty?

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

The United States government advises its citizens to take note of the disputed status of East Jerusalem. It warns them not to buy property in East Jerusalem, because their title can be legally challenged by displaced Palestinians. It also says that there may be legal consequences as the result of the establishment of a Palestinian State there.[31] In many countries, including the US, aliens can pursue civil tort claims against new owners of their confiscated property whenever customary international law has been violated. Executive non-recognition of the Israeli regime in East Jerusalem precludes or impairs its access to the courts in those other countries. Israel only has locus standi as an occupying power, with no sovereign right to confiscate or destroy private property and apply its municipal laws in East Jerusalem. Its right to dispose of "abandoned property" of war victims in West Jerusalem or elsewhere has been the subject of legal challenges too.

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

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

The ownership of those lands has already been legally challenged. The UN Palestine Conciliation Commission was tasked with the identification of Arab property and its valuation as it stood on 29 November 1947 in order to preserve legitimate claims. The primary organs of the United Nations have adopted decisions that Israel's Basic Law Jerusalem is null and void. That applied to attempts to unilaterally alter the status of both the western and eastern parts of the city. You skipped over the part about the courts of other countries not recognizing the immunity of Israel's public property, which includes all of the so-called "state"-owned land in Jerusalem. They also do not recognize its sovereign authority to apply certain of its laws there. That would include the August 3, 2009 Israel Land Administration (ILA) Law that legalizes the privatization of land originally owned by Palestinians and attempts to retroactively legitimize the ILA’s sale of absentee property. That has already been brought to the attention of the UN Human Rights Commission by legal organizations including Adalah and Badil. Israel cannot convey a better title to the new owners than the one it held. [32]

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

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

During the hearings on Israel's membership in the UN, Mr. Eban said that statements saying that the New City of Jerusalem had been proclaimed as part of the State of Israel were false and malicious. He said that the most salient feature of the Government of Israel's attitude to the Jerusalem problem was its earnest desire to see the juridical status of the city satisfactorily determined by international consent, and that the Israeli Government would put its views before the General Assembly, where the actual decision on the matter would be taken. He noted in that connection, the fact of Jerusalem's integration into the neighboring States. [33] They had responsibility for administering Jerusalem under the terms of an armistice agreement.

In subsequent communications the Israeli officials became enraged by the use of the term Jerusalem, Palestine. The United States formally advised Israel that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. [34] What that means is that the legal status of Jerusalem is not a matter falling either solely or exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the State of Israel or with its Knesset. The question of recognition may determine access to the courts (locus standi), privileges and immunities, the legal status of individuals, the right to dispose of and recover State property in Jerusalem, and the judicial cognizance of Israel's legal acts. For example, when the Knesset adopted the Basic Law Jerusalem, the primary United Nations organs said the act was null and void and that Israel's attempt to unilaterally change the status of Jerusalem was a violation of international law. The UN invoked the principles of customary international law according to which no state can recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach of international law, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation. harlan (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The regulations annexed to the Hague Convention were declared to be customary law in the Nuremberg Charter. They govern armistice agreements and occupations. The United Nations has cited those regulations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the principles of international law that prohibit an individual from being arbitrarily deprived of their property. The Palestine Conciliation Commission established a schedule of Arab property owners and files of documents defining the location, area and other particulars of Arab property with the intent of protecting and administering Arab refugee property, assets and property rights in Israel. The Secretary was instructed to established a fund for the receipt of income derived from those properties, on behalf of the rightful owners. [35]

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

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

Issue for Moderation

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

Here are some examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article does not mention: (a) the policy statements of the US political branch that is vested with the exclusive constitutional power to recognize other regimes; (b) that many countries do not recognize the incorporation of Jerusalem into Israel; (c) that the majority believe Israel's legislative and administrative attempts to change the status of Jerusalem are illegal; or (d) the remarks made by Israeli officials, like Mr. Eban, which acknowledged Israel's status as an occupant under the Armistice agreements. The United States formally advised Israel that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. [36] The U.S. State Department has always said that the status of Jerusalem will be determined through peace negotiations between the parties directly concerned.[37]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll provide some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copying this from another editor's post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposing view points and avoiding POV forks

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

I haven't been discussing the infobox. I'm discussing the content of this article, and what it describes as the territory within the sovereign jurisdiction of Israel. This article discusses the "sovereign territory of Israel, excluding all territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War," as if there has been a final territorial settlement of the 1948 war. In 1963, the United States formally advised Israel that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty.[38]

President Truman proposed territorial compensation and cited a policy statement made by Dr Jessup which specifically stated that the boundaries of Israel should be determined by the parties, that Israel was entitled to the boundaries set forth in the resolution of November 29, 1947, that any modifications of these boundaries be made only if acceptable to Israel, but that if Israel desired additional territory, it must offer an appropriate exchange through negotiations; that the Palestinian refugees be permitted to return to their homes, with adequate compensation to those who chose not to return; that Jerusalem be accorded special treatment; and that the question of international responsibility for guaranteeing boundaries and maintenance of human rights required careful consideration. Jessup's statement is available in Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2, Page 1617 [39] Mr. Eban's remarks were made in direct response to the President's proposal regarding territorial compensation. Mr. Eban was discussing the final territorial settlement when he acknowledged that Israel was an occupant under the Armistice agreements. His comments are available in Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI, Pages 1148-49.[40]

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

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

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

You've got to be kidding. This article does not contain the slightest hint that the United Nations has decided that Israel's legislative and administrative attempts to alter the status of the city of Jerusalem are illegal. Many countries have a longstanding stated position regarding the specific status of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum in accordance with international law.[41] I think you need to brush up on WP:OR and WP:Synth, because I'm citing the analysis provided by the US Government, Quigley, McHugo, Sharkansky, and Benvenisti about the UN resolutions, the armistice lines, and armistice agreements. They are the ones who said those have legal consequences regarding the extent of Israel's sovereign territory, and the legal status of the city of Jerusalem as a seat of government of a sovereign state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That doesn't mention status of the territory beyond the original UN grant; that attempts to change the status of western Jerusalem are also viewed as null, void, and illegal; or that many countries do not think that Jerusalem is part of the territory of any sovereign state. I've given you the sources for all of that; the UN, Wright, Quigley, Whiteman, et. al. so there is really nothing to discuss. I'll go ahead an edit the other articles. If you don't want to update this one then the use of the {{sync}} tag [42] is appropriate to alert readers to the problem. harlan (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I wouldn't want to insert much beyond what Whiteman, Sharkansky, and the General Assembly said. BTW, Resolution 242 talked about withdrawal, but did not contain a territorial cession regarding Jerusalem. The United States was one of the 57 countries that voted in favor of a resolution which, among other things, reaffirmed the desirability of establishing an international regime for the city of Jerusalem in the aftermath of the Six Day War.[43] Wright, McHugo, et al discussed the status of the territory beyond the original UN grant. For example McHugo said "There is a confusion between the law of title to territory and the law of armed conflict. It is the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ in the preamble which recites the law on territorial sovereignty and imports it directly into the Resolution, not the Withdrawal Phrase. Resolution 242 does not ‘supersede the territorial formula in the Partition Resolution’. harlan (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Formatting of the Footnote Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heyo Daylicare,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heyo Daily care,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What "status" are you talking about? Most countries believe that Jerusalem is not part of any sovereignty. The UN Charter and customary international law do not authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially, or solely, within the domestic jurisdiction of Israel or require Israel to submit such matters to settlement under the Charter. Many countries do not believe Jerusalem is entitled to the status and legal immunities afforded to the lawfully established capital of a sovereign State. They are convinced the international community has a legal right to impose a final territorial settlement in the event that the parties concerned fail to conclude an agreement. That is not an empty political gesture. See for example Solana wants UN to establish 'Palestine' [44] That is a real world issue of disputed sovereignty over the capital that should be noted.

The footnote says "The United States later passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the sovereign state of Israel." The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act contained quite a few circumlocutions and it employed logical arguments with missing intermediaries, but it never recognized Jerusalem as the capital of any sovereign state. It said "Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital."; "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel."; and "the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem" [45] It did not actually say that Israel was a sovereign nation, or that Jerusalem would be legally recognized as a capital as a result of the embassy relocation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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