Talk:Jerusalem

"Unverifiable"

It is false to say that the muslims believe that the prophet ascended from the heavens from Dome of the Rock. According to Islamic scholars and traditions, the prophet ascended from the heavens from Al - Aqsa Mosque (Bait al Muqaddas)

Irrelevant statement in leading sentence

The first sentence of the article states that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such." How is the bigoted opinion of a bunch of foreigners important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence? It is a bit of trivia that should be mentioned somewhere further down in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehuditeman (talk • contribs) 04:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yehuditeman - Uh? The following are UNSC resolutions based on the Law and UN Charter all of which existed before Israel was declared or became UN Member state. Israel obliged itself to adhere to the UN Charter and International Law, in their entirety. UNSC res 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 and 478 (1980) 20 August 1980, UNSC Resolution 1860 (2009) -- talknic (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At best, I'd say the contribution is soapboxing, at second best, trolling. With a few more contributions of that type, the user will be exiting the IP area with a boot so far up his arse he'll be smiling toecap.     ←   ZScarpia   22:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I too also wonder why Jerusalem's Wikipedia page says AT THE VERY TOP of the page in the VERY first sentence that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel when the White House of the United States does not recognize it as so? If the United States is Israel's closest ally and we do not recognize this to be true, why does this Wikipedia page say this? I donated $100 bucks to Wikipedia because I believed it to be neutral and unbiased towards any religion, political organization or bordered landmass. Yet here I see the very first thing is BLATANT pro-zionist propaganda. This is very disheartening and makes me question if this website has been operationally subverted by zionists.

Make no mistake I am neither pro-islamic, nor pro-jewish. I am neither pro Palestinian nor pro-Israeli. I hate both of these shitbags equally. What I do wonder is if Wikipedia is interested in truth and unbiased logic and rational discourse or if this website has been compromised and is no longer a reliable source of information. (75.181.132.184)

Sorry mate, but the USA does not decide what is or is not Israel's capital just as Israel does not decide what is or is not the USA's capital. Nor is the UN an impartial body, it is merely an amalgamation of the partialities of its members. Since each country decides itself what its capital should be, the current sentence - given its prominence within the article - comes across as rather petty/bitter and reflects badly on Wikipedia. By all means go on to mention that some people in the world do not like the fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital however that dislike does not change the fact it is the capital of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.14.8 (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The job of editors is to neutrally reflect what reliable sources say on a subject. The Israeli government's position is that countries get to choose their own capitals. The international community reject that in the case of Jerusalem, their position being that no body can unilaterally change the status of that city. If you can't bear not to push the Israeli government's position as anything other than the Israeli government's position, find yourself somewhere else to contribute.     ←   ZScarpia   11:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Image Clutter

This article simply has too many images that are either not relevant to the section in which they are placed, poorly captioned, not staggered, or redundant and add no more real encyclopedic value to the article. I plan to tidy it up per WP:MOSIMAGES here shortly. It also might be worthwhile to create a unified Jerusalem gallery in Commons that can be linked in this article. Any input is welcome. -asad (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think its a great idea to create a unified Jerusalem Gallery --SajjadF (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the changes. I hope this will enable to the article to read, flow and look better. -asad (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving some stuff around for readability and flow is one thing. Adding new pics with contentious captions like you did with the US consulate and the panorama from Gilo is quite another. I can't imagine you didn't think those would be objected to.

How about you do some smaller incremental edits so we can discuss the problematic bits as they arise? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope this are not deleting information for delet Israel also ! Thank you very much !. פארוק (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree some pictures (police hq etc) are unnecessary. On the other hand, a picture of the Orient House could be in there somewhere. --Dailycare (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Until now I can not understand why a capital city like Jerusalem can not have an importent pictures in the beginning of this article and why they are in small size in a small chapter, or maybe it stems from political considerations and before of that have been deleted here entire rows, some of them that I wrote. פארוק (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop in to remind everyone here of WP:AGF. For what it's worth, the image clutter is a legitimate issue. MOS:IMAGES says that we are to, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar." This is exactly what it being done in large portions of this article. While all pictorial contributions are valued, I would encourage everyone to consider whether there may be more appropriate places to put them. I'm only passing through, but those are my two cents. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, besides the reference to Gilo and the caption about the US Consulate, could you tell me what else you found to be contentious? -asad (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, a blanket revert over a single caption? Most of these useless images were added over the last weeks, so if somebody wants to invoke BRD it would be to remove all that clutter. But I guess we cant have some people from muslim countries are deleting information about israel. Otherwise they might delet Israel also. nableezy - 15:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, moving some stuff around in the article is fine. Removing pictures that were added recently is also fine. Replacing a bunch of stuff and adding obviously contentious captions with no discussion on an article like this is just looking for trouble. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't see your point. Is there something I added that shouldn't be there? Surely the "contentious" captions can be easily cited. I just don't see anything in your statements that justify a blanket revert as you did. -asad (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than the two captions I already mentioned, you also added a picture of the Orient House with a contentious caption (my suggested alternative: "The Orient House, where the PLO conducted diplomatic contacts in violation of the Oslo Accords"), you removed a picture of the Wailing Wall for some reason, and at least 2-3 others. It's hard to follow all the changes when you make a couple dozen over practically the whole article.

Make smaller edits and I won't have to revert the whole thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that really your suggested caption for a picture of the Orient House? nableezy - 18:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not much worse POV-wise than what he used. It can easily be cited, which apparently is all you need for a caption? See above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? It isnt? How about we try this with less antagonism, not more. You say what you think is wrong with the caption used and make a serious suggestion for how it could be improved. Going from one "POV" to the other isnt going to solve anything. nableezy - 19:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, as I said before, the first two captions can easily be cited by a gagillion reliable sources. As for the Orient House, can you please tell me where lies the contention in writing,

"The Orient House, served as the headquarters of the PLO until its forcible closure in 2001"

Where is the dispute there? As for your last point, yes, I did remove a photo of the Western Wall. I also removed a photo of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. I incorporated all three of them into this photo. Did you even notice that before your revert? -asad (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of things can "easily be cited by a gagillion reliable sources". Like the alternative caption I suggested for the Orient House. The citability of the caption is not the only thing we consider when deciding if it should be in the article or not.

Feel free to make smaller edits with edit summaries explaining your actions, or if you prefer we can continue to go around in circles here. Your call. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"The Orient House, served as the headquarters of the PLO until its forcible closure in 2001"

What's non-neutral about this? Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You still have not answered the questions. What is contentious about saying:

"Due to lack of recognition over the territorial sovereignty of Jerusalem, the United States Consulate General in Jerusalem, as most other diplomatic missions in Jerusalem, operates independently from the US Embassy in Tel Aviv"

and,

"The Orient House, served as the headquarters of the PLO until its forcible closure in 2001"

?? -asad (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How about "The Orient House, where evidence that the PLO was illegally detaining people in Jerusalem was found"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that provides any relevance to the article. See point 3 on criteria for a good caption WP:CAP. I don't think it is very productive to counter a question by asking question. This will make it the 5th time you have been asked to explain why you feel those captions are contentious. Could you please explain? -asad (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Saying they were illegally detaining people in Jerusalem certainly has more relevance to an article about Jerusalem than the fact it was closed.

The caption is contentious because it doesn't say why the place was "forcibly closed". It also doesn't mention that it operated as the PLO headquarters for less than a decade. On top of that, there are much more famous landmarks one could use to illustrate this article. HTH.

Perhaps you could try to create less politically motivated captions. Picking pictures based on how well they would illustrate the article rather than your political agenda (who cares what the US consulate looks like? Again, it's not exactly a landmark building) would also probably help. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Israeli claim that it was illegally detaining people in West Bank is not even mentioned in the article. The certain topic there is about government and national institutions, and this building served as a very well known home to the body which is known as the official representation of the Palestinian people in land that they claim as their capital. We don't need to interject the Israeli claim that it was shut down because of their operations in East Jerusalem just as much as we don't need to interject the Palestinian claim that it was shut down in an effort to rid the city of official Palestinian representation. Saying it was forcibly closed is NPOV and a representation of undisputed fact on both sides of the debate. Remember, this is a caption, if someone would like to read the conflicting claims they are welcome to click on the link. Also, I never claimed that the US Consulate was a "landmark" building. But please tell me how placing a picture of the American Consulate in a section talking about the political status of Jerusalem, near the sentence explaining the international mandate for world nations to specifically keep their official diplomatic representative buildings for Israel out of the city, illustrate a "political agenda". I am adding nothing of context that hasn't already existed in the article for years. -asad (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It was good of Evanh2008 to mention AGF but I understand why other editors would be cynical when MoS is invoked but still ignored. Both versions appear to have sandwiching (maybe it is my browser settings but I doubt it). Of course this is a contentious edit. You can hardly move a coma without people worrying about it on such an article. Quality aside, how the image works in he subsection and then how the caption should be worded are massive issues with an article that cannot be FA since people won't stop focusing on politics at every opportunity. Crete a cute table to organize the endless discussion that is about to happen: (image | subsection proposed | etc ). So time to start an RfC. You guys are good at that, right? Oh... Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

How about simply "The Orient House, which served as the headquarters of the PLO until 2001". --Dailycare (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That works for me, though, I would like to know what NMMNG has to say in the interest of consensus. -asad (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to talk about politics !

I really do not want to talk about politics. But someone here all the time delete entire rows from the article and replaced them with rows of a state that does not exist yet. and also delet pictures of israel and replace them with pictures of country that does not exist yet. פארוק (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem as capital of Palestine

Can somebody please tell me why exactly the fact that Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine should not be included in the lead of the article? I know of one discussion on the topic (here), but the major push back there is the thoroughly false claim that a state called Palestine does not exist. So, can somebody tell me why Israel's claim that Jerusalem is their capital should be included but Palestine's should not? ZScarpia's edit summary is spot-on in my view. A (large) number of users have objected to any clarification of Jerusalem's status as capital on the basis that states have a right to choos their own capital, regardless of whether or not that capital is even in the recognized territory of that state or held under belligerent occupation. Why exactly does that same argument not apply to Palestine? nableezy - 23:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems a ridiculous double-standard. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia's edit and edit summary were a POINTy attempt to edit into an article something he knows has no consensus. He's lucky someone reverted him or I'd take it to AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be very happy for YOU, No More Mr Nice Guy, to take it to AE, because it would give me an opportunity to discuss your behaviour in the current article before admins. The last two discussions on the wording of the Lead were run into the ground by editors using all kinds of tendentious reasoning. They were inconclusive therefore. Perhaps you would like to explain why you are claiming that there is a consensus?     ←   ZScarpia   18:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Do it again and I'll take you to AE without the courtesy of a warning, and you can have your opportunity to discuss whatever you like. I find your threat quite amusing considering your success rate at reporting me. Also, perhaps you should read my post carefully before you ask me to explain something I didn't say? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Save your posturing for someone who could give more than the steam off a poodle's piss for it. Who's it supposed to impress? Yourself maybe?

You left the comment "see multiple discussions in talk archive" when you reverted N_maram. On my user talkpage, you wrote: "You have participated in enough discussions on that page to know there's no consensus for your edit" and "I'll take that to mean you knew you didn't have consensus for your edit, but made it anyway." Here, you wrote: "ZScarpia's edit and edit summary were a POINTy attempt to edit into an article something he knows has no consensus." I can think of two ways to interpret that. The first interpretation is that you think that the edit was against consensus, in which case you should be able to explain where and how that consensus was established. The second interpretation is that you think that you and your wiki-chums have a right of veto over what goes in the Jerusalem article, in which case you need to sort out your ownership issues.

For those interested, No More Mr Nice Guy's comment about my success rate at reporting him refers to this AE case.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not posturing, it's a warning. A serious one, as I'm sure you understand.

Here's another way to interpret what I said - the first sentence of the lead is the result of consensus. Past discussions about adding the Palestinian claim did not result in consensus. Thus your edit did not have consensus. Or to put it another way, you were trying to force something you and your wiki-chums couldn't get in the article the proper way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought we had been through this enough times by now. I won't attempt to repeat the details here; they are all available in the archives. The wording of the lead, and its basis, have been discussed many times and at great length here, and the present wording and structure achieved by consensus. Proclamation is not enough. A capital must also be the functional seat of government, where the principal governmental institutions are. Recognition by others is not essential. Nableezy and ZScarpia are fighting the dictionary definition. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Which dictionary definition says that the capital must also be the functional seat of government? Because somebody really ought to let the Dutch know that. The wording of the lead has certainly been discussed many times and at great length, but I question whether its wording has ever had something resembling "consensus", by any definition of that word, be it Wikipedia's or a dictionary's.

@NMMNG, I dont necessarily agree with the edit, but I dispute your characterization of the edit summary. But would you care to comment on if you feel that the declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine should be in the lead, and, if not, why not? nableezy - 06:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

there is no such country like Palestine. becouse Palestine is the Roman name for Israel. and Palestine is an Arab lie that supported by the Christian states !. now you can go and check that in every history books in the world. פארוק (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority exists, and the State of Palestine is recognized by many of the governments of the world. One can debate whether or not it meets certain criteria thought to be defining of a sovereign state, but the fact that a significant portion of the world believes in it is enough to warrant a neutral presentation of the facts by Wikipedia. Determining whether or not a state exists is not the same as, for example, determining whether or not the Moon is made of green cheese.

In summary, I don't see why it (the status of Jerusalem as the proclaimed capital of Palestine) shouldn't be mentioned in the lede. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It is recognized by those who are pretending they love Israel and in their heart just waiting for Israel's destruction and demolished that is the true !. without renting here politicians ==>>>> Capital of Israel. פארוק (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. That's your opinion, and I have no comment on whether or not it is true. To me it looks like you're primarily on this talk page to wage a WP:Political dispute against those who disagree with you. You are a valuable contributor, Farouk, as has been seen by your great work elsewhere, so I wonder why you feel the need to get so contentious about things. If you have a concern about the article, you ought to state it rather than making accusations against those who are here to build an encyclopedia. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My dear friend. I love Wikipedia as much as you and i like everyone here i would not like to start a distort wrong facts and start writing depression lies to destroy the history by the name of politics. Wikipedia is no uniformity between all languages ​​and that is something creates Antagonism. You can check in the Arabic Wikipedia and see lies written there and almost the word "Israel" does not appear there in a lot of places. i know that is Perhaps not the right place, but it was important for me to mention it. פארוק (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the status as proclaimed Palestinian capital ought to be in there. There's a lot of less-relevant information in this long article already, including in the lead. For example, sources mention the Palestinian-capital issue more often than the zoo ;) --Dailycare (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

yes we know. פארוק (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the lead suppose to summarise the entire article anyway? So if there is content in the article about Palestine and Israel, then a brief summary mention in the lead should also be included. Wesley Mouse 08:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont object to this sentence which is in the article introduction and clearly summarises the situation. "According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 208,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, which is sought by the Palestinian Authority as a future capital of a future Palestinian state." Strongly oppose stating as fact that Jerusalem is the capital of a state that does not exist though. The current wording saying its sought to be the future capital is far more accurate and summarises the article enough. It would be factually inaccurate and hugely misleading to say its the capital of Israel and Palestine. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine exists as a state. And that state designated Jerusalem as its capital. The Palestinian National Authority is an interim organization tasked with governing a small portion of the oPt that was set up by the Oslo Accords. The PNA is not the State of Palestine, and its "seeking" Jerusalem of a "future state" isnt related to the fact that the current state, recognized as a state by over 100 other states, has declared Jerusalem its capital. Any argument based on the invalid premise that Palestine is a state that does not exist is invalid. Wikipedians do not determine whether or not a state exists, other states are the only entities with that authority. Palestine's recognition as a state by other states makes it a state. A state without control of its territory, that being because its territory is under Israeli occupation, but a state nonetheless. nableezy - 15:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As long there are not a Palestinian state (Arab lie supported by the West) then there is no point in talking about this issue !. because of all this such a talk is only increases the lies here and the hatred towards Jews and Israel also. and the Real Palestinians in the Bible are a " Greek nation " that came from the island of " Crete " and they did not was an Arabs. פארוק (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you think you are helping your side of the debate with comments like that? nableezy - 15:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't help anyone. But if it's a lie, then have we need to admit it was wrong. I did not say the arabs have no rights to live in Israel. but to say in the media press: "From the river to the sea" maybe you know what I mean. פארוק (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It isnt a "lie", a Palestinian state was declared in 1988 by the PLO. That declaration also stipulated that The National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem.

فإن المجلس الوطني يعلن، باسم الله وباسم الشعب العربي الفلسطيني قيام دولة فلسطين فوق أرضنا الفلسطينية وعاصمتها القدس الشريف

And no, I do not know what you mean, and Im guessing Im not the only one. nableezy - 16:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not ==>>> From the River to the sea and if i am wrong please tell me what is From the river to the sea ? thank you. פארוק (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably the same thing that Likudniks mean by "Greater Israel". I fail to see how that is in any way relevant to Palestine's designation of Jerusalem as its capital. nableezy - 17:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Greater Israel is very small against 21 Arab states. and we never want to occupie other countries. פארוק (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine is very notable information and should definitely be in the lead of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

+1. Jerusalem was proclamed the capital of Israel and East-Jerusalem was proclamed the capital of Palestine. Both proclamations generated controversies (Israeli proclamation is not recognazed as legitimate by any other state and Palestian proclamation refers to a city that is not administrated by them and for a state to come). Anyway, both are very notable and important information. This shoud be added without any doubt be in the article. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks as though the "consensus" for non-inclusion claimed by NMMNG and Hertz1888 isn't so clear anymore. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Is that how it looks? After a whole 10 hours? Awesome.

The issues is already addressed in the lead and the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you interpreted me as saying "oops the pendulum has swung! include Palestine! debate over!", which I did not intend at all. What I mean is that your initial "shh only dreams now, no need for further discussion" doesn't seem quite justified in light of the discussion thus far. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to write what Pluto stated, so agreed. There is also another problem with the lede, it states that " [Jerusalem] is Israel's largest city". As no nation but Israel believes Jerusalem, east or west to be in Israel, how can this be stated so? Any suggestions of a replacement phrase, something like "Jerusalem is larger than any other city in Palestine or Israel"? Canadian Spring (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)banned sock

I had the same feeling in reading the article. Jerusalem cannot be claimed to be Israel's largest city. Only West Jerusalem could whereas some countries consider even West Jerusalem status is controversial. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

@NNMNG: it's addressed in the lead already? Really? Where? Because I do not see any mention of Jerusalem having already been declared the capital of the current state called Palestine. nableezy - 17:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Too bad that people can't express there personal opinions. Where is the justice here if there is no uniformity between the English Wikipedia and the other languages. just look at some other Wikipedia and see Full of lies and hate to other nations. פארוק (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

@Hertz1888, 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC): "Recognition by others is not essential. Nableezy and ZScarpia are fighting the dictionary definition." Incorrect. Nableezy and ZScarpia would like the article to reflect what all the reliable sources say but, failing that, that consistent logic is applied. It is actually other editors, you included by the look of things, who have argued about dictionary definitions and the nature of what a capital is in order to include a statement that Jerusalem is, as an absolute fact, Israel's capital, overriding, contrary to Wikipedia's policies, all the reliable sources that state the contrary.     ←   ZScarpia   18:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, there is room for mediation. Pluto wisely noted that both sides proclaim Jerusalem as a capital. It (West Jerusalem) is functionally Israel's capital (there is no legal basis for assuming that East Jerusalem is part of Israel. It was not formally annexed.) Palestinian authorities proclaim (East) Jerusalem the capital of their future state. I'm sure a sensible compromise is possible. The problem exists, there are two POVs, and they must be balanced in wikipedia, since the Palestinian perspective at the moment is lacking.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that those who designed the borders of the Middle East today are English and French by their Christian interests. I see here that you can write articles ​​of a state that still not exists. But hurry to delete entries about Israel and Judaism. פארוק (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

See Oxford Dictionaries, Macmillan Dictionary, etc. Good luck squaring the circle. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That is provably false, see The Hague and Amsterdam. But either way, I didnt say that the article should say Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. I dont generally try to make disputed statements like that in the encyclopedia's voice. nableezy - 04:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

ok. But please forgive me if I tell you that Jerusalem is a Jewish capital over 3000 years and we never replace her If anyone understands what I mean. פארוק (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(a link to your user talkpage) And you still need to realise that it's the job of Wikipedia editors to neutrally present all the significant views given in reliable sources, not to argue tendentiously that one particular viewpoint is the factual one. Presumably, you're not going to deny that reliable sources do, for given reasons, albeit ones you don't like, dispute the status of Jerusalem? What is of importance is what reliable sources say, not what argument you can construct based on such things as dictionary definitions. Do you need a reminder of which particular policy bans the synthesis of facts in the way you're doing it? And do you need a reiteration of why your arguments, which ignore opposing viewpoints, are tendentious?     ←   ZScarpia   20:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We've been over this. You have yet to produce a source that "disputes the status of Jerusalem". You have yet to produce a source that says that non-recognition means a city is not the capital. What you're trying to do is give equal weight to reality and future aspirations. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No one here is trying to remove the fact that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital. We only believe Palestine's claim to East Jerusalem as its capital is equal to Israel's claims as the city is not recognized by most nations as being the capital or even within either or these nations. I suggest we simply ignore the one editor who is obviously not trying to be constructive as it derails the real discussion. Canadian Spring (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

This is how Wikipedia works: unless reliable sources agree about something, you cannot argue that that thing is a fact despite the disagreement. Reliable sources don't agree that Jerusalem is indisputably the capital of Israel and therefore you can't state as an absolute fact that it is. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear may like to read talkpage archives such as Archive 14 and Archive 15 to see which sources have been provided and what they say.     ←   ZScarpia   05:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looks like we have consensus for change. Below is my rough idea of how I would like to see the first paragraph of the lede, any fine tuning or comments would be appreciated.

"Jerusalem is a very old and holy city which straddles the 1967 border separating Israel and Palestine. Both nations claim the city as their capital though neither has significant international recognition on this matter. With a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km2 the city is larger than any other in Palestine or Israel. Jerusalem is a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam." Canadian Spring (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)banned sock

I don't like the wikilink on "very old", as I think a case could be made that that violates WP:ASTONISH. I also am unsure about "holy" being in the first sentence, particularly since you already have that status mentioned later in your draft of the paragraph. I don't think the demarcation line of '67 needs to be mentioned, either. What about something like:

Jerusalem ... is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii] as well as the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine. It is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, the city is larger than any other in Palestine or Israel, with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km2. Jerusalem is also a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Any thoughts? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My main thought is that if you claim there's consensus for a change after less than 2 days discussion (over a weekend to boot) regarding such a contentious sentence that has been discussed multiple times by probably dozens of editors, I'll have to seek admin intervention. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Whether or not that consensus has been established yet is not a major issue, as anyone who reads this page is fully capable of judging that, either way. Ask an admin and s/he will tell you the same. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment was directed mainly at Canadian Spring above, but is something everyone should keep in mind. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a dozen of us here now, please try to join the discussion rather than your continual threats and talks of old "consensus'". Canadian Spring (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Well the "very old" part was me trying to incorporate in items from the original, the holy part was just so that I did not have to say too simply "Jerusalem is a city". I added that it straddles the 1967 border so that people know its position relative to the states, something which your's does not accomplish. "If the area and population of East Jerusalem..." I don't get this, why would anyone ever think to exclude the population of East Jerusalem unless we are coming from the perspective of Jerusalem as an Israeli city. Why not cut out that part up to the comma? Canadian Spring (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Wait a second, you cant say things like Jerusalem straddles a border. It doesnt, the Green Line separates Israel proper from the occupied Palestinian territories, it does not separate the state of Israel from the state of Palestine. That border has yet to be drawn, and until a peace treaty establishes such a border we cant say that one exists. Israel has a border with Jordan and a border with Egypt, it does not yet have one with Palestine. There are a lot of technical issues here that cannot be glossed over. I think the solution is removing is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such, from the first sentence and moving it to a paragraph dedicated to the political status of the city. In my perfect world, that paragraph would include such things as Jerusalem straddling the Green Line, having been declared capital by Israel following the 1948 War, EJ being captured and occupied in 67, the 1980 Jerusalem Law and its rejection by the international community, and the 1988 declaration by Palestine, and finally something like the status of Jerusalem continues to be among the most disputed issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We dont need to, and shouldnt, dumb things down, and we dont need to lead the article on some 5000 years of history with a comparatively recent political dispute. nableezy - 04:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, I think Ive read everything in here that you have written, but I dont think Ive seen you actually comment on the actual issue here. You wrote above [t]he issues is already addressed in the lead and the article. I asked where. Is there a place where the designation of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine is mentioned in the lead? And if not, do you think that designation should not be mentioned? And if not, why not? nableezy - 04:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm not too up on the technicalities in the I/P conflict, I would accept a change from what I proposed above to "Jerusalem is an add adjective city which straddles the green line, demarking a boundary between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories." If you want to separate out the lede in a new way, show us a draft. I don't care too much for order, but I do believe that in the first line or two there should be information which states where the city is in regards to nations. Canadian Spring (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

There's a line that says that East Jerusalem "is sought by the Palestinian Authority as a future capital of a future Palestinian state". That can certainly be tweaked, but to make things very clear, I think that a. that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (as per plenty of reliable sources and per the simple fact that it functions as Israel's capital, including the seat of government, where all diplomats go to submit their credentials and carry out their diplomatic missions vis a vis the MFA, etc) should be in the first sentence of the lead, like it is for every other capital in this encyclopedia, and b. that the Palestinian claim for territory they don't control and don't use as a capital does not deserve equal weight. Not to mention the fact that AFAIR they claim only East Jerusalem, which has its own article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the entirety of the comment directly above, with the possible exception of the East Jerusalem bit, which I am not sure about. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If one needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph, then I think the other does as well. In that case I dont see much wrong with Evanh's proposed edit. As far as EJ, the actual declaration just says القدس الشريف (al-quds al-sharif, Jerusalem) nableezy - 05:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify and state that I support including both states' claims in the lede (obviously, as per my suggested revision), but also agree with NMMNG that we need to be careful about WP:WEIGHT. Obviously, the key difference between the two claims is that one of the political entities has de facto sovereignty over the city; whether that sovereignty is de jure is not relevant to this particular discussion. We can and should present both claims with due weight and a keen eye for the facts of the case. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats fine, but I think the weight is covered by is the capital vs the proclaimed capital. nableezy - 06:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think both should be in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Until now i don't understand why it is allowed write articles ​​of a state that does not exist but on the other hand can't write articles like the "World Bible Center". I have a strong feeling that maybe everything here is a strong Christian antisemitism motif. פארוק (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably because the state exists. I have a strong belief, or hope at least, that we wont be dealing with such comments much longer. nableezy - 06:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just want to note that I take offense at the antisemitism accusation, particularly since good portions of my family are Jewish. No personal attacks, please. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

nableezy - I want to ask you a qustion pleas. Why the Palestinians in Israel are "destroy and demolished Jewish archaeological sites" at night when the police is not there ? ....... and why the Palestinian education system teaches the children that in Israel never have been here a Jews ? ....... Thank you. פארוק (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

... Or we could stay on topic. But hey, why do that when we can have much more fun waving our hands and distracting each other from the actual subject at hand? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My question is directed to - nableezy - if English Wikipedia prepared to recognize a country that does not exist. So I want to know why it is can't write on a important buildings that are not finished their construction. פארוק (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

But that has nothing to do with what we're discussing. If you want to be taken seriously, stay on topic and discuss the content of the article. This is not a forum, and if you treat it as such there may be consequences, regardless of how correct I or anyone else think you are. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is not a sovereign state, it has no capital city. Palestine is a proposed future state which wants Jerursalem as its capital. The article already clearly states that. This article should not be changed to mislead people into thinking that Jerusalem is the capital of a state that does not exist, let alone a non existent state that does not control any of the territory it claims as its capital. If a European country claimed Washington D.C as its capital.. would we put that on equal terms with the fact Its the American capital? Of course not. Yet there appears to be an attempt to grossly mislead people by stating something similar here. Shocking bias BritishWatcher (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The West Bank (Judea and Samaria) is a neutral area that belongs to no one !. Neither Israel nor the Arabs. the true Palestinians lived in Jordan, Because Jordan was the first country that occupied this area in 1948. פארוק (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, that Palestine doesn't really do the sorts of things that states do. Nonetheless, multiple foreign governments recognize Palestine as existent, whether any of us think that wise or not, and that ostensibly existent state claims Jerusalem as its capital. Again, we can state that without doing or saying anything misleading. Is there anything in my proposed wording that you find objectionable? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Another historical point you skipped it - During the Turkish Empire which ruled Israel for 400 years. a lot of Muslim immigrants arrived to Israel from distant lands !. You can check it out and add this to articles about the history of Israel. פארוק (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you mean your proposed wording " Jerusalem ... is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii] as well as the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine" , then i could not object and oppose such wording more strongly. Palestine is not a sovereign state, it does not have a capital city. the palestinians proclaim Jerusalem as the capital of their future palestinian state. The introduction already says that clearly. Your proposed wording is misleading, inaccurate, and gives undue weight. Like my example with the USA, if some european country claimed Washington D.C. as its capital despite not controlling its territory..... there is no way we would put that on such equal grounds as with the state that does control the capital. Also its clearly one sided. it says Israels capital is not internationally recognised as the capital, but does not bother to point out Palestinian claim to Jerusalem being the capital of a state that doesnt exist lacks international recognition too. Your proposal is one of the most controversial possible. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You should keep cool...

We all know that Palestine is not an existing state on the field but it has been proclaimed and is recognized by many countries in the world as well as the choice of [East-]Jerusalem as their capital.

On the other side, Israel is recognized but the choice of (West-)Jerusalem as her capital is not.

Nothing is one-sided. Both claims have their strengths and weaknesses and should be written side by side.

About your argumentation :

• Israel chose a capital partly (or totally) in a land that does not belong to her as well.
• It was widely claimed that people can chose their capital freely. That what Palestinian autorithy did.

I add that more countries in the world and more people recognized [East-]Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine than countries recognized (West-)Jerusalem as the one of Israel. Which claim is more legitimate than the other ? None. These are perfectly controversial and equivalent and it is not the purpose of wikipedia to decide which one is the better.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments like a state that doesnt exist betray a lack of understanding about the issue. Palestine does exist as a state. It exists because other states have recognized it as a state. It is not up to Wikipedians to determine whether or not a state exists, that right belongs solely to other states. And as over 100 other states have recognized the existence of Palestine as a state, Wikipedians cannot overrule that determination. nableezy - 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Palestinian claim should be given equal weight, and should be higher up in the lede. It is POV to leave it where it is. 78.40.152.129 (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, it makes far more sense to cover the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem being its capital after the paragraph focused on the dispute. IT would give a non state which does not control the territory in question undue weight by putting it on equal terms as it being ISraels capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What does equal weight mean on wikipedia? It means where there are 2 points of view (here there are three) the two parties must be allowed equal representation. To reformulate this in state vs.non-state terms is possible, if you think that a state must be given more weight than the people and the land it occupies as a belligerent power (the legally correct term admitted as such by the Israeli Supreme Court). But that is not written in our protocols, as far as I know.

The lead as written accords Israel its POV, and elides the claim of the other party. Statehood has nothing to do with it. Israel's claim to have unified Jerusalem is not accepted by other states (it will be, by the US, if Romney is elected, of course). Palestine, recognized as a state by over 120 nations, claims that part of Jerusalem (city) where it has a demographic majority, is their capital, and will be so in the future. The lead as written thus violates NPOV, because it privileges one claim, while suppressing in the same sentence the other party. Technically, that has to be addressed: it would need but the simplest of glosses to achieve this parity of claim, and makes wikipedia, on this, reliable. By relegating the POV of the Palestinians to some later section, you are endorsing an POV imbalance in favour of one party.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead states facts. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but that is not internationally recognised. in another paragraph of the introduction it clearly states the status of jerusalem is disputed and goes on to say the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of a future palestinian state. That is reasonable and due weight to the situation. Nowhere does it say a capital needs international recognition to be a capital.. so Jerusalem is the present capital of Israel (just not internationally recognised), that is far more important than a proclaimed future capital of a state that does not exist and a territory that it does not control.To try and act as the two status's are equal is blatantly giving undue weight and favouring the Palestinian POV. the introduction rightly explains the Palestinian claim and that the status of Jerusalem is disputed. Any change, especially along the lines proposed is hugely controversial and it is not needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that there exists a state called Palestine that has declared Jerusalem as its capital. You keep going on about a future Palestinian state. We are talking about the existing Palestinian state. That you personally dont think one exists is of little importance here. nableezy - 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, there has been very little progress since my last post, but I have thought more and would like to propose a better first three sentences.

"Jerusalem, the de facto capital of Israel and the proclaimed capital of Palestine, straddles the green line, demarking a boundary between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. The city, with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km2, is larger than any other in Palestine or Israel. Jerusalem is a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam."

Is this better or worse, comments? No More Mister Nice Guy, Nableezy, I'm looking at you two. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)banned sock of user:passionless

Better. Though you will get objections to de facto, and that is ambiguous. It is, under Israeli law, the de jure capital of Israel. nableezy - 16:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well i dont support it. the current wording is far better. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

65.95.22.16 I like your suggestion below better. To get anywhere here we have to tinker word for word unfortunately, since small minds weigh every dot and comma in the POV scales, rather than writing to the state of affairs, as given in RS.

The lead states facts. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but that is not internationally recognised.

The lead here states a factoid, because the 'fact' is one of two relevant 'facts', each with nuanced qualifications. You're happy with one 'fact', which is the official Israeli POV, and are opposed to the other POV, and in this those who oppose amending the text violate an obligation to edit according to WP:NPOV. Your 'fact' is not a fact stricto sensu in that Israel, according to Ian Lustick, has not annexed East Jerusalem. Since no other country has its capital city in another country, since East Jerusalem is not in Israel in Israeli law or international law, Jerusalem de facto refers to West Jerusalem, as it did in usage from 1948 to 1967 unambiguously. This refusal to honour the 'facts', and privilege an ideological POV is not unexpected, but we have a problem, and clear proposals to overcome it are required, not ostrich-vision.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The current proposals are blatantly biased in favour of palestinian point of view, giving totally undue weight to a non state that seeks Jerusalem to be the capital of their future state, and putting it on equal footing with the capital of a country that declares it the capital, controls the capital and treats its as though its the capital of the state. Yes it lacks international recognition, which is why that is clearly stated straight after the mention of it being Israel's capital. No change is needed, and certainly not these biased POV proposals. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Nishidani, I accidentally logged out somehow, I am Canadian Spring, now on another computer. I did not mean to push any POV, I am very open to tinkerings of what I wrote to make it more correct, if we need to clarify east vs west jerusalem just let me know how you would write it. To BW, if someone claimed that Israel was not a state would you think about listening to them in this discussion, of course not, so I don't see why anyone would take you seriously. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

BW, why exactly are you talking about a "non-state"? Nobody else is. We are discussing the existing state called Palestine. A state that has been recognized by over 100 other states as a state. Which, guess what, makes it a state. nableezy - 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is a state in the legal sense, but hardly in any practical sense. They do not control Jerusalem, and their proclamation is no more than a proclamation. That proclamation does not belong in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The existence of a state is a legal question. I do not know what a state in any practical sense means. There is a difference between a country and a state. nableezy - 18:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you do know what in any practical sense means. Even Palestinian leaders still talk about it in the future tense. Or as Evan (I think it was) said, it fails the duck test. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you know you are unable to read my mind. I also think you know that Evan said more than that. nableezy - 21:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Without resorting to reading your mind, which I neither confirm or deny having the ability to do, I still think you know what it means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I did say more than that. If you want my personal opinion (and I can't imagine why you would, but just in case), I should probably tell you that I don't think the State of Palestine exists, in any meaningful sense. For all practical purposes, the Palestinian Authority isn't a government any more than the Central Tibetan Administration is. The Taiwan analogy is particularly apt, I think. Despite my personal feelings on the matter, however, the state's existence is recognized by a majority of the nations of the world, and we need to include well-sourced information with due weight.

As I said before, the key difference is that only one entity currently has de facto sovereignty over the city. And because of that de facto sovereignty (once more irrespective of whether or not that sovereignty is de jure), I strongly support the current wording in the lede which states that "Jerusalem ... is the capital of Israel". That was the previous consensus after extensive discussion on this page (and doubtless others as well), and I see no good reason to overturn that consensus at present. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

When i say state, i mean sovereign state. Palestine is not a sovereign state.It is a proposed sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is a state unable to exercise sovereignty over its territory due to it being occupied by Israel. That does not mean it is not a state. nableezy - 19:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Which means it is not a sovereign state. When i talk about a state that is what i mean. The fact palestine is not a sovereign state unlike Israel (even though it is not fully recognised by every country), just goes to show there is a serious difference in terms of status when discussing the issue of its capital, which is why i believe the current introduction is reasonable. Israel is a sovereign state, it declares in law and is seen as/treats Jerusalem as its capital, but this is not internationally recognised. (the article intro clearly states that). There is a paragraph on the dispute over Jerusalems status, and then it clearly states palestinians claim jerusalem as the capital of their future state. that is reasonable, and accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anybody has said that the existing State of Palestine exercises sovereignty over its territory, so besides raising a straw man that is easier to know down than my actual argument, I do not see the point in arguing over that. Palestine, the state, exists, and its existence is not up for debate among Wikipedians. nableezy - 21:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

An occupied state cannot exercise its sovereignty? So no state occupied in WW2 was a sovereign state. Do you ever consider what your opinions imply? Yet this is irrelevant to the point. There are at least two contending interests in Jerusalem, and there is absolutely no way wikipedia allows that one of the POVs may exercise a narrative hegemony or sovreignty, as the present article does, esp. in the lead. Israel's exercise of sovreign powers is in fact the exercise of the powers, by its own court rulings, of a belligerent occupying power, which is all the more reason why, in delicate areas, wikipedia's fundamental insistance on neutrality obliges editors to ignore, as you refuse to, the perspective of the occupied in this regard. Jerusalem as defined by Israel is one POV. Jerusalem in international law, and in the Palestinian POV which requires parity of regard, is not as it is defined in the opening para. I repeat, this is a gross NPOV violation, and no distracting offhand opinions about states alters the lay of the legal facts. Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

i agree with nishidani, the current wording is POV, and should not remain.19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't require us to give equal weight to competing claims. Also, this is not a court so handwaving in the general direction of "legal facts" (whatever they may be) is irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Evan's suggestion does not give equal weight to competing claims. nableezy - 21:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It does, by putting a proclamation of an entity that never has, doesn't, and can't currently exercise sovereignty over Jerusalem or use it as a capital right after an entity that has, does, and will continue to until some sort of agreement is reached.

It's like putting the claims of Taiwan over mainland China in the first sentence of the lead of the article about the PRC (putting aside the fact the ROC did in fact once control those areas). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on now, one is given as a fact and the other is presented only as a proclamation. It is not saying "Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital, as has Palestine". nableezy - 02:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain to me why this proclamation belongs in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Because that is apparently where the political status of the city belongs. nableezy - 06:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How does a proclamation by a state that doesn't control the city or use it as their capital change the political status of the city? Do I need to give the Taiwan and China example again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the proclaimed capital of Taiwan is Taipei, not Beijing. If Taiwain claimed Beijing as its capital then that example might hold water, but it doesnt, so it doesnt. How does it change the political status of the city? Really? A state recognized by over 100 other states and whose territory, held under occupation, includes a portion of this city has proclaimed it its capital. I think that is as pertinent as the fact that a state has proclaimed its capital to include territory outside of its sovereign territory. nableezy - 17:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(Reply to Nishidani): This is again where the distinction between legal sovereignty and actual sovereignty comes in. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the adjective "sovereign" as "possessing supreme or ultimate power ... (of a nation or its affairs) acting or done independently and without outside interference". By this definition, the answer to your question regarding the nations occupied by Nazi Germany is no, they were not sovereign states in point of fact. Though they may have been sovereign according to international law, they were not sovereign because they did not possess "supreme or ultimate power" within their own borders, and their governments, where extant, did not act "independently and without outside interference". Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for lead

Here is my proposal for a new lead for this article. It addresses all the concerns raised on this page about the "capital or no capital" status, the issue of Palestinian capitalness, in addition to all the concerns that have been raised over the years. The proposal is from a year-old archive - not surprising since none of the arguments raised on this page so far differ by the slightest jot or tittle from those raised in the past. For that reason, too, this proposal will be seen as unacceptable in the eyes of almost everyone:

--Ravpapa (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree.... its totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ravpapa. I think that is a good starting point, though I am unsure of claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians as their exclusive capital (emphasis added). The Palestinian declaration doesnt do anything like the Jerusalem Law (complete and undivided ...). nableezy - 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It has one great advantage, i.e., that it simply steps out of the, is it, centuries of editwarriorship on the page and looks at the facts most would accept and attempts to synthesize them in a completely fresh rewriting

It is too ambitiously objective (except for the use of 'exclusive' (which I don't think is true of Palestinian claims), unfortunately, RP, so it will be RIP'ed, ahimé. I find commendable the elision of the most obnoxiously tendentious sentence in the lead however, which runs

If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest city in both population and area,[2][3] with a population of 801,000 residents[4] over an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi).[

Everything hangs on that if, which is an hypothetical and counterfactual, since East Jerusalem is neither annexed to Israel, nor in Israel except in hasbara discourse. If statements of this kind have no place in a lead. If my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt, etc. Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've bolded is, the second of which should be changed without challenge to would be, as per the grammar of if clauses. Unless I get sound grammatical objections, I'll do that in the next day or two.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, annexed should be changed to effectively annexed, and things like after the annexation should be changed to following the 1980 Jerusalem Law. nableezy - 16:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Exclusive": While it is true that the Palestinians have nothing as obsessive as Israel's "complete and undivided", Palestinians (like just about everyone else) do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, which makes their claim exclusive. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess, but I dont see a claim of exclusivity to the city, as a city or a capital, in the Palestinian declaration, even factoring in the rejection of the status as Israeli capital (for now). nableezy - 16:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

When the day comes that the Palestinians reach agreement with the Israelis on where the other guy's capital will be, we can always change it.

As for your argument with "annexed" - I am surprised at you. You have fallen for Israel's cheap propaganda ploy. It is true that the Jerusalem Law and the Foreign ministry assiduously avoid the word "annexed" because of the extremely negative connotation of the word; but they have extended Israeli law, and, consequently, sovereignty, to the area, which is exactly what annexation means. And that is what everyone else calls it. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it's a lot more complicated than that (see Ian S. Lustick's paper for example). Sean.hoyland - talk 17:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been citing that ever since John tipped me off with a link years ago, but it has no impact on articles or public usage. Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as the propaganda ploy, my suggested language is based off of Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. 84 (1). American Society of International Law: 60. Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.. Though Roberts also says, on page 59, was formally annexed on July 30, 1980. nableezy - 18:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Lustick wrote his analysis after Roberts. The key point is

'According to general international law, annexation can only take place by conclusion of a peace treaty which provides for the cession of an occupied territory to the occupying State, or as a result of debellatio, i.e. the disintegration of an enemy State.'Fania Domb,'The Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ,' in Michael N. Schmitt, Jelena Pejic, (eds.) International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines : Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007 p.517.

Jordan hasn't disintegrated, and in the meantime conferred its rights re East Jerusalem on the PLO in 1988.Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable to me too, for the same reasons I gave last time you suggested it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, no one has given any reasons yet as to why one would flatly object to it. My concern is the part "The western sector of the city is indisputably part of Israel;" - does any state recognize West Jerusalem as being in Israel? I don't believe they do, maybe stating that WJ is located on the Israeli side of the green line would be better? I also see no reason for the inclusion of the very last sentence. Canadian Spring (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Since you are not answering on your talk page, I'll ask you here - have you used any other accounts to edit wikipedia? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well for a start "There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious, starting with the most basic facts: what country is it in, and how many people live there. " sounds more like it belongs on a FAQ section of the talk page, rather than an article about a city. Secondly it gives equal status to the fact Jerusalem is claimed as the capital of Jerusalem and the proclaimed capital of a future Palestinian sovereign state. That gives undue weight to the palestinian claim, ignoring the fact that Jerusalem is controlled by Israel, is in law its capital (although not internationally recognised as such, but theres nothing in the rule book saying a capital needs international recognition to be one), and in practice serves as its capital with its government almost entirely being located there. Clearly the two sides cannot be given equal status at present in terms of how Jerusalem is described, which is why the current introduction has a paragraph on the situation and a sentence clearly saying the Palestinians claim the capital for their future state. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention it's full of OR, like "it has been for the last 2,000 years, the focus of conflict" or "There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious". Seriously, does anyone here actually support it for its content rather as a vehicle to get rid of a certain sentence in the lead? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We also have "Yet that, too, is misleading". That's the kind of stuff you'll find in any serious encyclopedia, I'm sure. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I too oppose this proposal, more for unencyclopaedic tone than anything else. Without mentioning a handful of grammatical editors and unnecessary contractions that make conscientious copyeditors like myself blush, there is also the issue that, "There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious, starting with the most basic facts", is not high-quality writing of the sort expected on Wikipedia. I'll be adding an alternative proposal below shortly. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 1

What follows is my counter-proposal for a revision to the first paragraph of the lead, for which several people have expressed support. I believe it addresses the issue of weight in respect to the status of capital for either state, while also upholding the previous consensus that states can declare their own capitals. The remainder of the lead should remain unchanged, with the probable exception of the fifth paragraph, which should probably be removed in favor of the updated first sentence. I've titled this section "Alternative proposal 1" to allow for other proposals that may be made later down the road.

~ Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I don't think putting the Palestinian claim in the first sentence of the lead gives it correct weight, just like putting Taiwan's claim over mainland China in the first sentence of the lead in the PRC article wouldn't be giving it the correct weight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well i certainly think that is a better proposal than some of the others so far, although i believe the current wording in the article still is more reasonable. The concern i have with the proposed main sentence is it basically has this structure ... Israel's capital > Not recognised internationally > proclaimed capital of the state of Palestine. Unlike for the Israel's capital bit, there is no qualification of Palestines proclaimed capital not having full international recognition and also the fact that a sovereign state of Palestine does not exist and has no control over the city, unlike Israel which treats it as its capital. I think it is too much to include in one sentence in that way. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that the claim of Palestinians on Jerusalem must be given total equal weight to the choice of Jerusalem as capital of Israel. One concerns a state to come 'but' has the support of the numerous countries around the world. The choice of Jerusalem is not recognized by any country in the world due to the status of Jerusalem.

It is not to wikipedia to decide what claim/choice is legitimate. That is a purely wp:npov issue.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I would keep controversies for the end of the lede. It is more important to know that this is one of the oldest city of the world and it is sanctified in 3 religions than to know its international status is controversial. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

That is certainly an improved proposal, Evanh2008. The first sentence complies perfectly with WP:NPOV, and the objection that one cannot have parity because of WP:Undue is fallacious because it assumes, that of two parties and POV, Palestinians are owed, mysteriously, less representation than Israel.

If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, the city is larger in both population and area than any other in Palestine or Israel, with a population of 801,000 residents

The emendment to the second sentence also achieves balance, though I don't think it that important, compared to the role it plays for the three monotheistic religions. To overcome the hypothetical if clause, which would require would be (as I noted above) one could simplify to:

If one includes East Jerusalem, it forms the largest city in Israel/Palestine, with a population of 801,000.

By putting 'Israel/Palestine', the sense of Mandatory Palestine is retained, while not being prejudicial to either party's claims, realistic or ultramontane as they variously are. Thanks for the work.

Agree with Pluto on controversies to the end of the lead. Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My main problem with this proposed lead is that it does not inform the reader where the city is located relative to states. It is quite important to note that the green line runs through the city. Canadian Spring (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

This is not about whos claim to Jerusalem is more legitimate or not, it is about who controls Jerusalem, and which is the sovereign state that actually treats it as its capital. Palestinians do not have a sovereign state, do not control the territory, and they do not treat it as their capital. That is why it is undue weight to act as though its the capital of Israel and proclaimed capital of Palestine in equal terms in the same sentence. There is a clear difference between the two and that has to be reflected. The introduction needs to make clear that Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, but it already does that in the more appropriate part of the lead after a paragraph explaining the status of Jerusalem is controversial etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Repetition is not an argument. You have yet to show you understand what WP:NPOV means. It is no fault of ours, as wikipedians, that the legal and lingustic complexities here exist, and that editors must walk over a minefield to avoid (as they haven't in the text we have) giving undue weight to one side, or failing to be neutral. When Ben-Gurion moved the capital of Israel to West Jerusalem, and subsequently Israeli sources said 'Jerusalem' was the capital of Israel, they were not asserting that the Jordanian East Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. They were asserting that for them, West Jerusalem was their capital, though using the word 'Jerusalem'. Editors here care about nuance. Our article deals with an undisputed West Jerusalem (Israeli) and a disputed East Jerusalem (under belligerent occupation, but 'Palestinian'). It is totally immaterial that Israel controls East Jerusalem: it does not have legal sovereignty, and its statehood does not extend there. Whatever Israel declares about a 'united Jerusalem' is its POV, but immaterial to an objective, neutral description of the city as inhabited by two majoritarian groups in their respective areas. We deal with complexity here, we don't go for simplifications that blur essential distinctions. WP:NPOV is acutely attentive precisely to the need, in border-line conceptually blurred situations, to abstain from loading the language selectively to endorse a partisan POV.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but this proposal clearly gives undue weight to the palestinian side, by seeking to act as though the reality on the ground is equal when we all know it is not in terms of who controls it, which is the sovereign state, and who actually treats it as their capital. its one sided POV that is being proposed. The current wording is not, it accurately states Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but this is not internationally recognised. It goes on in a paragraph to explain the dispute and clearly states Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. That is reasonable, it mentions both sides situation fairly. A bias article in favour of Israel would be if this article simply said Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, without explaining the lack of international recognition (something mentioned twice in the lead currently) and without explaining Palestinians seek it as their capital. We have the moderate position which clearly explains both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is unacceptable per BritishWatcher. The only modification that may be done to the current lead is removing the "though not internationally recognized as such" clause, which is kind of TRIVIA, is UNDUE, and doesn't belong in the first sentence; the ^[ii] note sufficiently elaborates the issue. Noon (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

the only modification that may be done, means there is a veto, and that wikipedia's I/P area is off-limits to modifications of any article's textual status quo, where that status quo privileges Israel's POV? In any case, there is nothing wrong with editors insisting that a POV be represented, as you and Britishwatcher apparently do. What is formally incorrect is your dual failure to observe WP:NPOV, for you are proposing to elide the 'other' in the dispute as 'trivia'. It reminds me of the opinion of NoCal100 I posted on my page, i.e., there is only one narrative, and that is Israel's.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The current introduction is not bias in favour of Israel, as i mentioned above if we did not mention the lack of international recognition, the entire paragraph on Jerusalem's status and the palestinians wanting it as their capital then yes it would be bias in favour of Israel. The current wording is not. The first sentence of this article is balanced, these proposals totally shift that balance in favour of the Palestinian POV. This article states facts in a fair way. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Look. Several editors see a problem, and a handful deny there is one. It's not productive here to just sit down repeating you can't see the problem. It exists for several, and the issue is essentially to see how the various proposals, based on this assumption, can be refined to a point where we have a genuine NPOV alternative to the text as it stands. Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Genuine NPOV doesn't mean giving equal weight to the country that controls the city and uses it as its capital and to the state that does not control it or use it as its capital. Much like NPOV doesn't require us to give equal weight to the government of the PRC and Taiwan regarding who speaks for mainland China. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. But Taiwan's role is played here by Israel. There is not a single country in the world that agrees giving legitimity to the choice of capital of Israel, whatever the real legitimaty of this choice. The annexion of East-Jerusalem is rejected by the Assembly of the Nations (read : UNO). What is the due:weight of the choice of the representatives of 7,000,000 people when the representatives of 7,000,000,000 refuses to give legitimaty to this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Galilee was right against even more people and the History confirmed he was right. Today he is a hero.

But wikipedia is not there to tell the truth, just to report the majority's pov. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

this proposal is a big improvement over the current POV wording. Go for it.86.171.210.33 (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is fine. nableezy - 15:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this biased wording to be put in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

NMMGG. I don't think we have a distinction between genuine NPOV and inauthentic NPOV. Taibei is the capital of Taiwan as Beijing is the capital of the PRC. We are talking of capitals, and Taiwan is not occupied by China, nor China by Taiwan. East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel -it has no sovereign legitimacy there -, and equal weight means that must enter any definition of the city as a whole. Not to accept this is to espouse a nation-specific POV, that Jerusalem is one and unified (Israel's POV), and ignore what is staring most editors in the face, i.e. that in international law, Jerusalem is neither unified nor one, but two distinct political realities. Don't blame editors. It's what the facts on the ground, and the legal lay of the land say, and we must adapt our language to represent that complexity in respect of NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The intro clearly states that Israels view of it being the capital of Israel is not recognised by the international community. Im sorry but you cannnot give equal weight to 1 non soveriegn entity claiming the city as its capital, and a sovereign state that treats the city as its capital, and controls it. The two are clearly on differening levels. That is not to justify the current position on the ground, but the article must reflect the situation on the ground, not pretend that the two capitals are of equal status. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You're confused. Read WP:NPOV. As the article itself records, there are two major demographic and political realities in the city of Jerusalem, Israelis and Palestinians. To state that 'the international community does not recognize Israel's claim' cannot justify the elision or suppression of the Palestinian presence there. The 'international community' cannot stand as a substitute for the Palestinians of East Jerusalem, and when you have two dominant narratives, NPOV requires parity of treatment: third parties who neither live there, nor constitute part of its historic reality, but simply state their formal opposition to any attempt by Israel to apply its laws as though they were expressions of sovereignty there, are not a relevant party in the NPOV balancing act. Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It's you who's confused. NPOV does not require "parity of treatment". NPOV requires due weight. And a proclamation by someone who does not and has never controlled an area it doesn't and can't use as a capital is not on par with the de facto sovereign who does use it as a capital. The Palestinian proclamation does not belong in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Refresh yourself ad fontem (WP:NPOV) is broken in two key points.

(a)Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

(a1)In this case the view of Israel is shared by no other country in the world. Technically this means it would virtually run the risk of being classified as WP:fringe. Since Jerusalem as a united capital is uniquely Israel's POV, it cannot assume the absolute prominence. Indeed, the qualifying clause balances Israel's minority view with the almost unanimous counter-judgement of all other nations on earth, and abuses the 'parity' you complain about.

(b)Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. The assertion that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is 'seriously contested' but is asserted as a fact. 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (Israeli (fringe) POV), though not internationally recognized as such.

I don't think anyone wants to wreck the line. Several people are insisting that a statement of Israel's POV on a city of divided loyalties, distinct demographies and cultures, and politically riven, cannot feature the POV of one party. Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you can see the problem now.

(ec) re: "The intro clearly states that Israels view of it", so, is this something we can all agree on, that at the moment it is Israel's view of it being the capital of Israel that is being presented as a statement of fact in the first sentence (setting aside the rights or wrongs of that) ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, Israel's view is that Jerusalem is its capital, all other nations however have a different view, Canada for example lists Israel's capital as blank. Canadian Spring (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Alternative proposal 2

I think the proposal is an improvement. Might I suggest breaking the two POVs into two sentences and an addition?

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Template:Lang-ar al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,^[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.
Tiamut^talk 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thats fine by me too. nableezy - 19:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think this is very good. That is brief, facutal and without any controversy. The claim/reasonning of each side is given as well as the main reason why the other side challenges this. That fits NPoV because everybody agrees with what is written even if he could consider the other side's claim as unlegitimate. On the synthax point of view : the number of words is nearly the same ; sentence structure is the same. Excellent. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• That is far more reasonable. I wont oppose that. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed - seems like a good compromise. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm dropping my support for my version and going with this one. Great work! I was surprised to see that so many people looked at my suggestion as being somewhat pro-Palestinian in terms of presenting sovereignty claims, as that wasn't really my intention. I certainly thought that the difference between "capital" and "proclaimed capital" pre-empted any WP:WEIGHT issues. Regardless, it looks like I was wrong. I like this one a lot. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that there is a stray comma in there after "such". We will also need to change the "If... is" clause (regarding the population and area of East Jerusalem) to the subjunctive "If... would be", as Nishidani pointed out. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• If we're going this route, it should note that their seat of government is Ramallah. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ramallah is the administrative capital of the Palestinian Authority, not the State of Palestine. -asad (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So where does the government of the State of Palestine sit? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which country is Jerusalem territorially part of?     ←   ZScarpia   01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the seat of government of the State of Palestine? Do you know where it is? I think it's important to note where their seat of government is when they proclaim their capital (which most readers would correctly assume is related to the seat of government) to be in a different city. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer your first question: nothing. But it has a lot to do with the double standards and partisan reasoning being shown here.     ←   ZScarpia   04:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, could you please open a new section for whining rather than interrupt a discussion that seems to be going pretty well here? I'll come play with you there if you ask nicely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This article talks about Jerusalem, not Ramallah. If we add the stuff about Ramallah, we should add that Jerusalem is not totally an Israeli city but is under military occupation after an illegal annexion. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I withheld my reply, waiting for Evanh2008, to whom we're much indebted for providing the basic formula, to give his view, and perhaps a further tweak. It's fine by me as well, once the comma's added. I agree with Pluto, also. This cannot be expanded to carry every nuance. Good work. Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think better after coffee. Two points however still need some work. The word 'control' worried me last night. As scholars readily allow, Israel has de facto withheld the kind of retricular control and administrative process normal for states on their territory, from significant parts of East Jerusalem. The electrical and water utilities are run by West Bank Palestinian corporations. The educational curricula is not Israeli, but modelled on that in Palestinian schools. Jerusalem's municipal council radically underfunds that sector, and more importantly, several autonomous institutions like the waqf and the Christian denominations, own and administer their areas. ((Mosheh ʻAmirav, Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City,Sussex University Press, 2009 p.111).

'From all the research on polarized cities, it appears that Jerusalem may present the most striking case of a muncipal conflict being a more extreme reflection of a national conflict. ..(comparing Belfast and Nicosia). Jerusalem can claim the dubious top honour of being the most polarized city in the world'. (pp.121, 122)

)

Operatively, therefore, Palestinians and other groups do exercise considerable local administrative autonomy there. This is how, with the comma adjusted, and the flow of balancing sentences slightly modified, I'd prefer it. I added 'their sector of the city'

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Template:Lang-ar al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians, while retaining some (administrative) autonomy, exercise no sovereignty over their sector of the city.

I'm not happy wholly with this either, of course, because it suggests there are two parties, excluding the strong Christian element in East Jerusalem. Still, a little more input and crafting is required to cover all angles, surely? Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"though Palestinians, while retaining some (administrative) autonomy" - Strongly oppose that being included sorry. This is giving too much undue weight to the palestinian side in the opening paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean it's not true? We have cut, as I showed above, a huge amount of slack to the fringe proposition that Jerusalem (all of it) is Israel's capital, against what WP:NPOV explicitly states. I don't think you realize that in this formulation, far more has been conceded by one side in this regard. The sentence I added adjusts precisely to balance that concession. Israel does not, see its budgets, run large parts of East Jerusalem. For goodness sake, it even built the 'West' Jerusalem stadium by siphoning off funds formally allocated for the Eastern sector's administration of essential services, more or less abandoning it to its own resources.Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How about, "though Palestinians, while retaining limited (administrative) autonomy within their communities, exercise no sovereignty over their sector of the city." I hate to suggest longer text, but I think this may accomplish Nishidani's point. -asad (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Pluto and Evans, in particular, are concerned about stylistic balance and neatness, which suggests, for an encyclopedic lead, concision above all (as 'over their sector of the city' could be adjusted to there, for example, which is better since contextually it would refer to 'Jerusalem' (whole and in part, and 'retaining' with its implication of a continuity some might deny, could be having). Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what exact "administrative autonomy" do the Palestinians retain in East Jerusalem again? That a private electric company supplies them with power? That's not administrative autonomy and even it was, has nothing to do with SoP. And how did the sentence jump from the State of Palestine and its proclamation to Palestinians in general? The SoP has no administrative autonomy or even official presence in Jerusalem. Also, if we're not going to explain that despite proclaiming it their capital their seat of government is elsewhere in the text, it should be in a footnote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is about nuances and precision. some defines administrative autonomy, and that is a fair description of the otherwise immensely complex conceptual mess of Jerusalem's administration. Akram specifically concludes:

‘Trying to identify which parts of East Jerusalem are fully under Israeli jurisdiction, or are as Israeli as the pre-1967 Israel parts are Israeli, is a complex, if not impossible, task.’ p.124

So it's in Akram, it's in Michael Dumper's, The Politics of Sacred Space:The Old City of Jerusalem in the Middle East Conflict, Lynne Rienner Publications 2002 p.163, or any number of sources on de facto administrative autonomy. Let's take Mosheh ʻAmirav's book. He ought to know since was actually a municipal planner high up in the echelons of power there over the last decades and has described all this well in his recent book, from Eshkol's granting of autonomy to waqf authorities, to Israel's entented with Jordan that the latter power look after the EJ Palestinjians, and Kollek and Olmert's administration. No more than 5% of Jerusalem municipal funds up from the historic 3% after occupation, goes into East Jerusalem p.117). In his view Israel has effectively abandoned the Palestinian sector to its own devices. There is no united Jerusalem because the Wall built splits the Arab city from 9 Arab neighbourhoods. Two key quotes:-

In the first years of the city's unification, Kollek was one of the people most responsible for extending administrative, economic and educational autonomy to the Arab population. Years later, he came to realize that his 'liberal and enlightened' policy was a key factor behind the segregation of the Arab minority from the Jewish majority. The Arabs chose the Jordanian option and preferred autonomy to equality'. (Mosheh ʻAmirav, Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City,Sussex University Press, 2009 p.111).

'From all the research on polarized cities, it appears that Jerusalem may present the most striking case of a muncipal conflict being a more extreme reflection of a national conflict. ..(comparing Belfast and Nicosia). Jerusalem can claim the dubious top honour of being the most polarized city in the world'. (pp.121, 122)

People who objected to Ravpapa's attempt to actually mention this profound and unique urban contentiousness would do well to see how close his suggestions mirrored those of one of Israel's best technical authorities on the city.

Golda Meir and Jordan's King Hussein had, even after 1967, a secret entente that in practical terms the Arabs of East Jerusalem would remain under Jordanian governance, which outspent Israeli gov. investment 10 times with some $100 million in East Jerusalem in the decade of the 1970s, and effectively Israel abandoned the area to itself, apart from retaining strict control over security and building permits. In the 1990s, East Jerusalemite Palestinians were given the right to vote in PNA elections. Jordan handed over its rights to the PLO in 1988, and the PNA carries on doing what the Jordanians did under the consent of Israel's occupying authorities earlier. None of this is in the article, of course, so just reading the article to inform oneself about the town won't be of much help in understanding the issue.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel pretty weird in here. I didn't agree with Tiamut's formulation, but swallowed my POV because so many editors were shaping a consensus, and I won't get in the way of that process, esp. when supported by people who are closer to the realities than a bookworm like myself is. I'm clueless as to why a formulation that showcases a fringe assertion at the outset, and meekly requests that the other side's reality be hinted at, now finds objections. The sensible thing is to accept a victory, and show grace in the conquest, as one bows to an uncontested reality on the ground.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were close to building a consensus in terms of the initial alternative proposal 2, I do not see the need for a change to this introduction, but i said i wouldnt oppose that change happening. But now instead of a reasonable brief sentence mentioning the palestinian position being moved to the top of the introduction, we are getting bogged down by issues around if they exercise some control of areas within the city in terms of local government. This is totally giving undue weight to this issue for the first paragraph of the introduction. The proposed initial wording was factually accurate. the "state of Palestine" has no sovereignty or control over the city of Jerusalem. Its brief and simple whilst making Palestinian claims to the city right at the top of the introduction despite many of us believing it is not necessary to be there. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus means that the majority underwrite a passage that then assumes a certain authority textually, thus it takes time, requires close study, so that those underwriting it are fully aware of the implications. It is not an overnight rush, and we do it quietly. Generally the process so far has been illuminatingly sensible and civil. As per my source, the 'most contention-fraught city in the world', which by the way, the lead should add, but doesn't, we simply cannot gloss over the Palestinian presence and its POV as a claim counterpoised to a fringe POV assertion by Israel that it is the capital. That is the POV problem the added suggestions attempt to solve. By the way have you read the details above, which were in response to NMMGG's query?Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)No only is it undue weight, it's mixing two unrelated issues. One is the capital of the SoP (still waiting to hear where their seat of government actually is, if anyone knows) and the other is whatever "limited autonomy" there is there, which is not exercised by the SoP, obviously. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The world does not recognize Israel's position on Jerusalem, by a majority of 193 to 1. The majority of states recognize The State of Palestine by a majority of 130 to 63. If you want a debate about WP:Undue, you'd lose on that score alone, since, as I noted, the current opening line gives undue weight to a fringe position. Still, we're here not to quarrel, but to find a sensible arrangement for an inadequate lead. I'm happy to withdraw my qualifiers if the current majority prefers the text as Evansh2008 and Tiamut tailored it, by the way. Since the SoP is a state occupied by Israel, arguments of the kind you are adducing do not apply. We do not underwrite power arrangements here, we simply state what the best sources agree is the case, which here, is that Jerusalem is not wholly in Israel, is occupied, and the occupied Palestinian part is more or less left to its own resources in managing the mess in its quarter. Since the article deals with all of the city, there's no way of equivocating over this, and trying to maintain NPOV while relegating the Palestinian fact to a footnote. Britishwatcher accepts the Evansh/Tiamut suggestion. You haven't expressed your specific view on it, and perhaps it's time for some positive input. Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If only you had a source that says that lack of recognition of a capital means something, or that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, maybe you'd have a point. I also notice that the "precision and nuance" you say it so important is a bit lacking when discussing the SoP, like the fact it doesn't have a functioning government, controls no territory, or in fact possesses any of the hallmarks of a state, except for recognition. But that's ok, we all know what the reality is and I think most of us understand that even if you were able to change wikipedia to fit your POV, it would not change the reality on the ground.

As for the current suggestion, I have expressed my specific view on it, but let me reiterate in case you missed it. I think that if the current suggestion is used, it should be noted (preferably in the text but I'll also accept a footnote) that the seat of government of the SoP is not in Jerusalem. Considering the fact some editors here wanted to change the text to say that Israel "proclaimed" Jerusalem as its capital and we all know that Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel, saying that the SoP proclaimed it as its capital may imply that their seat of government is there. It should be made clear that it isn't. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I like Nishidani's most recent revision. The only thing I would tweak is the parentheses around "administrative". Let's get rid of those, if no one objects.

Accusations of POV pushing aside, I agree somewhat with NMMNG regarding clarification in connection with the seat-of-government issue, but I would much rather see that in there as a footnote than in-text. One question I don't think anyone has yet raised -- if we're going to use the full-form "State of Palestine" shouldn't we also then use the full-form "State of Israel"? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine can mean Palestine, State of Palestine, or (sometimes) the Palestinian territories. Israel, for at least the last 60 years, does not suffer from such ambiguity. But I dont really care if State of precedes Israel, I just dont find it necessary. nableezy - 20:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it necessary either. I sill object to Nishidani's proposal for the reasons stated above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Id be fine with a footnote that addresses your concerns. That language would have to be worked out, obviously, but I dont have a problem with it. nableezy - 21:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So can we not have a footnote that deals with the Palestinian Authorities seat of government, along with the issue of the administrative autonomy mentioned. Rather than putting either of those things in the opening sentences. That initial Alternative proposal 2 is not inaccurate, despite these issues being raised. Those claims are too much for the second sentence of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If 'alternative 2' as proposed by Tiamut is adopted, I don't see any objection to footnote[s] that would be added to provide clarifications. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the "autonomy" stuff belongs in a footnote to the first sentence of the lead. It can be discussed in the section about the current status of the city, assuming somebody develops an appropriate section in the body of the article. I should note that the Waqf and churches managing their own affairs happens all over Israel and with others like the Baha'i and Druze as well, so it's not something unique to Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I try to argue from the most authoritative sources I can find, which in this case means Mosheh ʻAmirav who states

In the first years of the city's unification, Kollek was one of the people most responsible for extending administrative, economic and educational autonomy to the Arab population. Years later, he came to realize that his 'liberal and enlightened' policy was a key factor behind the segregation of the Arab minority from the Jewish majority. The Arabs chose the Jordanian option and preferred autonomy to equality'. (Mosheh ʻAmirav, Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City,Sussex University Press, 2009 p.111).

A de facto state of administrative autonomy was conceded to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem. That is admitted by someone who actually participated over that period in the administration of Jerusalem, who also documents Israel's systematic disengagement from what would be, were Jerusalem really unified, its responsibilities in that area. It even uses half of the taxes from the Palestinian quarter for Jewish developments. I.e. taxes the non-Israelis in order to get more resources for the Israelification of the rest of Jerusalem. Nishidani (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Amirav is not free of political bias, not to mention he was in charge of building roads and light rail. His view should be attributed if it is included in the article. Please explain why you think this belongs in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is free from political bias. This area is plagued by editors who have little but political bias. Moshe Amirav's statement comes from an experienced administrator of Jerusalem under Kollek and Olmert and I have no idea what his politics were, except that they ain't mine. And I don't care either. A specialist cited uncontroversibly in the area of his competence does not have to suffer attribution unless his view is fringe. It doesn't appear to be the case here. Otherwise everything cited from specialist academic sources would be under attribution.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Recap

• Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Template:Lang-ar al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,^[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.
  Tiamut^talk 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This has broad approval. My objection is to control. Israel's control is a matter of security and building permits alone by all sources I have looked at.

• Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Template:Lang-ar al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of the Palestine, though Palestinians, while exercising some administrative autonomy, lack sovereignty over their sector of the city.
  

My point is, if you mention the lack of Palestinian sovereignty, you cannot get away with the factual is clause in 'is the capital of Israel', unless you qualify the latter by a reference to the fact they do exercise some administrative autonomy. The reason is, by the unanimous agreement of all other nations in the human community, Israel does not have legal sovereignty over an important sector of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem. The text as it stands doesn't mention the sovereignty issue except to state that Palestinians lack it. Sure, but Israel also lacks it there. When I speak of 'nuance' and POV advantage, I mean things like this. I don't care how the phrasing is rehoned, but I think Tiamut's suggestion must be per NPOV reviewed with regard to 'control' and the unilateral emphasis on Palestinian lack of sovereignty, something true of that sector also of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel clearly has sovereignty and control over the city of Jerusalem, even if it was obtained by what is deemed an illegal occupation/annexation. Something the introduction already clearly goes into in further paragraphs. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends the exact meaning of the word 'sovereignty'. I think that Israel has the control but no 'sovereignty' on East Jerusalem. But whatever, instead of expanding the lede to nuance this, I would suggest to shorthen Tiamut's version... Pluto2012 (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel doesn't have sovereignty over Jerusalem. An encyclopedia article can't say that with a straight face. Israel says it has sovereignty over Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Where are we proposing to say in the wording that it does. The proposal is simply to say Palestinians do not to emphasise the lack of control they have over the city compared to Israel. The fact Israels control of the city is disputed is covered in detail further in the introduction where it says the international community view it as an illegal annexation. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply responding to your statement "Israel clearly has sovereignty ... over the city of Jerusalem... Something the introduction already clearly goes into..." because the statement is inaccurate on both counts. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel is a sovereign state, it treats Jerusalem as entirely within its own territory and exercises sovereignty and control over it. It may not be internationally recognised, or viewed as illegal or what ever else by others, but it clearly has control of the city. But like i said, we are not specifically stating Israel has sovereignty, this is just about explaining the fact a non existent sovereign state does not have sovereignty over the city or control it to ensure balance, seen as its already stated that Jerusalem isnt recognised internationally as the capital of Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look up what the word "sovereignty" means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the state exercises no control. We dont need to get into whether Palestinians exercise any control. nableezy - 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the points I've been trying to make. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is solved by using sovereignty, right? nableezy - 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Gah, too many threads here. I was talking about my proposed change for the Palestinian control. On the issue of Israeli sovereignty, that is a bit more complicated. I dont think anybody actually disputes that Israel controls all of Jerusalem and that the treat the entire area as their sovereign territory. It isn't though, EJ is occupied Palestinian territory, not sovereign Israeli territory. West Jerusalem's status varies a bit more depending on who you ask. I dont think the article can state that Jerusalem is Israeli sovereign territory, or that it has sovereignty over the city. The occupier is not the sovereign power, it is the occupying power. Without using the term de facto, the article should not assert any sovereignty over the city to Israel as that is a legal issue in which Israel's position is very much in the minority. nableezy - 18:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

NNMNG, re: 'what the word "sovereignty" means', please, as you surely know, there is a difference between fact and opinion and we are required to distinguish between them. If we are going to talk about who has sovereignity (and I'm not suggesting that we do) then Ruth Lapidoth provides an overview of the diversity of views on the sovereignty issue for both west and east on pages 71-77 in "Jerusalem: A City and Its Future" ISBN 978-0815629139. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There is indeed a difference between fact and opinion. For some reason you prefer opinion. I still recommend you look up what "sovereignty" means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, no, I prefer facts. Opinions are pretty worthless in my world, including opinions about meaning. Still, RS and editors seem to like them. If I could delete them all with a press of a button, I would. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Template:Lang-ar al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such^[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State ofPalestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.

I see this favours control over sovereignty. Another variation might be:

is both the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such^[ii], and the proclaimed capital of the Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no sovereignty over their sector.(

(ref: ‘Jerusalem is a unique municipality whose importance is such that it is jointly and simultaneously claimed as the capital city of Israel and the proposed Palestinian state.’ Sanford R. Silverburg, 'Palestine and the World of Law: A Structural Analysis,’ in Sanford R. Silverburg (ed.),Palestine and International Law: Essays on Politics and Economics, McFarland, 2009 pp.160-172 p.163 Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"is both the capital of.... "" That is blatant gross POV in favour of the Palestinian view point giving totally undue weight. If there is not going to be a reasonable proposal accepted then there should be no change at all. If this grossly biased wording or anything like that is added to the introduction, it should be reverted. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have the impression you are not reading the sources on which I am making several suggestions. Please focus and do not be disruptive by using phrases like 'blatant gross POV'. 'Both' in my text comes specifically from Silverburg's reference to dual claims. What I am suggesting comes from scholars like Sanford R. Silverburg or scholar-technocrats in Israel like Mosheh ʻAmirav, and they are not 'grossly biased'. If you can't evaluate proposals and sources with equanimity, I suggest you withhold your vote until other editors have tried to work out consensually an agreed upon version to replace the present NPOV-defective one. It won't be what any one editor wants. It must be what the realities on the ground as described in RS require. Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not support your proposed wording. I view it as blatant gross POV and do not think it belongs in the article because it clearly gives undue weight to the palestinian position. I do not think there will be consensus for such wording. I did not think there was a need for the change at all, but i was prepared to back the initial compromise above which was reasonable. But not this. It has been explained in the previous sections talking about this why it is inappropriate to talk about it being both the capital of Israel and Palestine in a single sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your diffidence is registered, several times, in the same words. There is no need to keep on repeating yourself. Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Both" can be misunderstood as "both the capital of Israel and Palestine" when it is here just "Both this... and that" ; this and that being two different things... What about fusing both sentences and going deeper in the lede to talk about this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Jerusalem's political status is complex: the city is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such^[ii] [and] the proclaimed capital of the State ofPalestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.
  

Forget control, and just say though Palestine exercises no sovereignty over the city. nableezy - 15:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy re 'control'. Sovereignty is more comprehensive, while control is inadequate. I've provided Pluto's tweak with two notes, used earlier, to source in RS the introductory adjunct he added, which is illuminating (it is also the gist of what Ravpapa's version argued). Could all editors read the whole of Dumper's close analysis, which I've linked in that footnote, as regards how absolutely bewilderingly complex the various demarcations and powers active in both parts of the city are? For easy access see Michael Dumper, ‘Constructive Ambiguities? Jerusalem, international law, and the peace process,’ in Susan Akram, Michael Dumper, Michael Lynk, Ian Scobbie, (eds.) International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Rights-Based approach to Middle East Peace, pp.123-124 Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read it. Particularly where it says "It's important not to overstate this argument", which is exactly the opposite of what you're doing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's followed by "but", and is 'rhetorical'. If you are familiar with the stylistic conventions of prose rhetoric, it means quite the opposite to how you take it.

Pretty easy to read several pages just to find one phrase that might suit a predetermined objection. Try to be constructive. Anyone can sit round, and keep kibitzing negatively. We have a problem. As a child I used to watch fettler teams, and always noted how many of any crew would idle by, smoking, and plying 'expert advice', and how many actually rolled up their sleeves, worked up a sweat jemmying rails and fixing the transit. Know what I mean? Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't you ever get tired of the "I edit articles while all you guys do is comment"? 1. Nobody cares. 2. Someone needs to keep people like you honest. 3. If you think that because you edit more articles that gives you some kind of higher status, you are very much mistaken, as anyone here will tell you.

As to your source, the sentence is not rhetorical. I know you'd like to think it is, but really it isn't. He notes some pretty minor stuff like who supplies East Jerusalem with water and electricity, or the fact they were allowed to use a non-Israeli school curriculum. Moreover, the only place he uses the term "autonomy" is in relation to religious institutions, which as I noted above have the same autonomy in other areas of Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm blushing at your elective vocation to keep me honest. It's very flattering to have such an attentive, if immodest proposal thrown my way, only I'm not a woman. Still, thanks.

No. In textual analysis, particularly as it developed in classical philology, any clash in interpretation is often resolved by looking at all available examples of similar thematic phrasing in an author, and by that criterion alone, you are patently wrong and being, if I may be permitted, tendentious.

If you wish to know why my reading correctly takes Dumper's single concessive clause as a rhetorical form which concedes in order to emphasize the opposite, all you need do is compare his phrasing here with what he says at 'ALREADY EXISTING PALESTINIAN AUTONOMY' regarding 'the extensive autonomy that Palestinians already have in many aspects of life in Jerusalem', adding

East Jerusalem has been exempted from a raft of Israeli laws, ranging from health and safety regulations to labor laws. The Oslo accords themselves permitted Palestinian Jerusalemites to participate in Palestinian Legislative Council elections as any other Palestinian living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. From the Palestinian perspective, therefore, Israeli "concessions" on Jerusalem were illusions, drawing on a rhetoric of full Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem when that sovereignty does not exist in reality.' Michael Dumper, The Politics of Sacred Space:The Old City of Jerusalem in the Middle East Conflict, Lynne Rienner Publications 2002 p.163.

Israel after 1967 tried to subordinate the autonomous bodies, religious and otherwise of East Jerusalem to the Israeli state but

'The administrative framework established by the Jordanian government remained in operation and provided a relatively advanced degree of autonomy.' p.25.

Regarding Israel attempts to get the PLO to underwrite Israeli sovereignty there in 2004, its offers to devolve administrative autonomy were rejected because the PNA already had what was being offered. I.e.

'Since 1967, when Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the neglect of the Palestinian residential areas by both the Israeli Jerusalem Muncipality (of) and the central government led to the virtual absence of basic services, infrastructure development, and welfare programs. Palestinian and foreign charitable associations, religious organizations, the PLO, and the Jordanian government attempted to fill the vacuum left by the Israeli state. In these areas, the only element of the Israeli state that is visible is the restrictive planbning laws and the security forces.'p.163

You have, in short, read a few pages and seized on the rhetorical wording of one clause in only one of three of Dumper's texts, and used it to challenge what both he, and Moshe Amariv clearly state, about de facto administrative autonomy exercised by East Jerusalemites in many spheres of their public life with the consent of the occupying power. Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is piddling, and we should not be distracted by such trivial challenges to what texts clearly state.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not piddling. You are deliberately trying to confuse the reader by extrapolating the fact that some Palestinian communities manage some of their affairs that the state could (or should) be taking care of into an "autonomy" and putting it next to a statement about the State of Palestine, as if that state is the one picking up the slack. This stuff does not belong in the first paragraph of the lead, not to mention the first sentence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(a) 'Someone needs to keep people like you honest.' (b) 'You are deliberately trying to confuse the reader'. Um,WP:AGF. Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

An argument on whether Palestinians exercise any control over any services or part of Jerusalem isnt necessary, as NMMNG is right on the point that it doesnt matter for the second sentence of the article. This started as a discussion about including Palestine's claim to Jerusalem as capital in the lead. Palestine, the state, doesnt control any part of Jerusalem, I dont think that can be argued. The sentence is about the state, so make it about the state. Palestine exercises no sovereignty, not Palestinians do not control. nableezy - 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be prepared to support the original proposal simply with the removal of "control" if that is such a big problem for some. But i strongly oppose watering down the introduction and the attempt to undermine the fact Jerusalem is Israels capital, with this additional wording now proposed before the statement of fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital though it is not internationally recognised as such. This is totally giving undue weight to the Palestinian POV and focusing on the opinions of academics whilst ignoring the reality on the ground. The current introduction is reasonable, and we should perhaps just stick with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You're repeating what we have been informed of several times. Be assured that note has been taken.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A new proposal was put, so i gave my views on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record and to let people know, i have posted on both the Palestine and Israel wikiprojects encouraging people to take part in this debate. Thanks. [1] [2] BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this proposal. I think we can say just "control" without "sovereignty", this is the lead after all. --Dailycare (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Oy!

This lead suggestion is going from bad to worse: :Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Template:Lang-ar al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] It's this. No, it isn't! It's something else. No it isn't that either!

Nobody cares about the poor reader? Can't we just say something, anything about Jerusalem without degrading the lead into a debating society? --Ravpapa (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the poor reader one worries about is the one who happens upon the article, and comes away disinformed. Only madmen read through the motherlodes of bullshit on the edit-discussion talk page, surely. I think there's a fair provisory consensus for a modification of Tiamut's edit, and I'll support it, even though I disagree, and gladly retire from further discussion. Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If we had stuck with going for the original compromise proposal which people were saying they would support, then this could have been resolved. Its just a shame that additional and totally unreasonable addons are now proposed which undermine the sentences. The closest thing to consensus reached so far is the original proposal by Tiamut, possibly with a footnote to go into greater detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no 'shame' here, and impatience on either side is unwarranted. One must take due care to see, in key articles with two POVs, that all angles are covered, and that those who express a willingness to underwrite a fresh consensual reformulation of a lead passage know exactly what is meant and implied. Since I owe my wiki life to Ravpapa, I defer to his judgement, as to several other editors with an exemplary record, and on seeing his exasperation, expressed my view above. A week is remarkably short span for an issue like this historically in the I/P area. Please note that it was also (immensely :))productive. Most would do away 'control' and just use 'sovereignty'. I hope Evansh2008 has not been put off, and if so I must apologize. He has shown himself to be a careful stylist with a flair for accommodating various views.Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ive said id be prepared to support removal of control too, from the original proposal in this section. But i dont support the proposals that unjustly dilutes this introduction for blatant political reasons to undermine the fact Jerusalem is israel's capital. No evidence has been produced showing a country needs international recognition for its capital, but we go out of our way to mention that it lacks it in the first sentence. The idea we start the introduction with "Jerusalem's political status is complex:". is offensive, if that was put here i guess we better go and add that to 100s of other articles on wikipedia which could equally be described as such. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

Trial 1

I have read once more the discussions. The proposal of Tiamut brought a wide consensus. Some nuances were asked or suggested as well as some alternatives. Trying to fuse both sentences didn't get consensus as well as stating that the case was complex. On the other way, the removal of the notion of 'control' got agreement. There I suggest both following versions (A) and (B) and suggest that everybody gives his mind about the best between 3 choices :

• A for version A
• B for version B
• N for none of these (in underlying the issues of whether A or B).

---

version A : Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Template:Lang-ar al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though Palestinians, while exercising some administrative autonomy, lack sovereignty over their sector of the city.

---

version B : Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Template:Lang-ar al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though Palestinians lack sovereignty over their sector of the city.

---

• B > A - clear and short. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• N. I strongly oppose version A. I also don't like version B. What does "their sector of the city" mean? How did we jump from Palestine to Palestinians again? Why are we piping State of Palestine? I thought we agreed that was needed to disambiguate it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

N. Sorry but i cant support either of those versions.. My objection is also the "Their sector of the city". Very problematic which makes it sound like more the split of Berlin than Jerusalem. Id support the original proposal with the "control" removed. So..

"Jerusalem ( /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎‎ Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no sovereignty over the city.".

Accepting that version compared to the current introduction is a big compromise for those of us who feel the introduction does not need changing. Saying State of Palestine, rather than just Palestine is also important. I wont support any add ons to this paragraph that blatantly favour Palestinian POV or seek to undermine the fact despite lacking international recognition, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd go for B, and simply rewrite, for 'their sector of the city', 'there' (though Palestinians lack sovereignty there). I preferred 'sector of the city' because it refers clearly to the East Jerusalem where they predominate, whereas 'there' refers to the whole city. So B, yes, but if further compromise is necessary, perhaps replace the contested phrase with 'there'. I've edited Pluto's two versions to remove a slight grammatical error.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ABORTED. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Trial 2

Given reactions here above that I had not guessed from the initial reading, I suggest the following options : Option A - Tiamut's version and Option B : one that takes into account some comments made here above.

---

Version A : :Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Template:Lang-ar al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,^[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.

---

Version B : Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Template:Lang-ar al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of State of Palestine, though Palestinians lack sovereignty there.

---

• A = B > N. These are both the same. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Support A This makes the most sense, i fail to see the problem with control. it is factually true that the Palestinians have no control or sovereignty over the city of Jerusalem, no matter what examples of local decision making mentioned in the previous discussion. Id back B if it was "over the city" rather than "there.". But A is what i favour, if not A or B with the modest alteration then i favour the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Modifying A and calling it Version C. Also very similar to B. Punctuation cleanup and a wording tweak give us:

Version C: Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Template:Lang-ar al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians have no sovereignty over the city.

This is a minimalist change from the status quo. I believe it is the most that is needed, and would support no change at all rather than anything more elaborate. I do not understand what "A = B > N" means, in any mathematical or other sense. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Version C - i believe that is a reasonable compromise. It is a major change to the introduction and addresses the main concern people claimed existed. It should be version C or no change. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Version C (although the differences between the versions are minor and all represent improvements). As a minor point, I think the correct phrase is to "exercise sovereignty", rather than "have sovereignty". A second minor point is that I prefer "control" to "sovereignty", since also Israel lacks sovereignty over the city but as said these are minor points. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

N again - I still think the jump from State of Palestine to Palestinians is confusing. It would be like saying "the Republic of Ireland proclaims <something about Northern Ireland> though the Irish people have no sovereignty over that part of the island". Also, I'm thinking the no sovereignty issue, while clear to people who participated in this discussion, might not be clear to a casual reader. And I still think it should note they have no government institutions there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record I think it's ghastly. This is the city that David built, where Jesus walked and where Mohammed flew; where the ground is soaked in the blood of thousands fighting for their belief, or their country, or their nation; the city that has become the symbol throughout the Judeao-Christian-Muslim world for peace, love, redemption, hate, apocalypse. And the best first sentence we can come up with is, "It's the capital of Israel (sort of), and maybe also (but maybe not) the capital of someplace else (Palestine? is there really a Palestine? Is there really an Israel?)" This is neither a vote for nor against, just a heartfelt protest against the sacrifice of clarity and energy on the altar of Wikipedese. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right that should not be the first sentence. Jerusalem is much more than a topic of controversy in the I-P conflict and per WP:UNDUE this information should not start the article. Where to put it is to be discussed just after. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa. Pythagoras, like many Greek thinkers, drew on the sand. This place is a sandpit where kids throw sand in each others' eyes. The last thing one thinks of is clear, gracious and accurate writing. Shackled as we are by POV-obsessed rule-orchestratiom rather than collaborative composition, we are left rattling our chains to make the right noises, while dreaming of the freedom of Bix Beiderbecke's trumpet to phrase around the lead. You're dead-right and wrote the right score, but we play trash here, and the word 'fiddle' is the operative word for what we can do, rather than what we would like to do.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Support Version C Pluto2012 (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries about driving me away! I was offline for a while, but I'm back now.

The reason I've been supportive of having "control" rather than "sovereignty" in there is because I somehow imagined that "sovereignty" is a controversial term that denotes legal, rather than actual, authority over a location (which is in dispute), whereas "control" is a more generic, less controversial, term that refers to the actual physical reality on the ground (which is not in dispute). Maybe I was wrong, and if the majority of others agree that "sovereignty" is better, then I see no reason to oppose that wording.

Regarding the new concern over what the first sentence should be, I think it would be somewhat disingenuous of us to deviate from the long-held standard of beginning articles on capital cities by noting their status as capitals. For others it's simple; for Jerusalem it isn't very simple, but I think we've come up with some good compromises that are reasonably succinct and address most concerns that have been raised. Anyway, I'll stop right here and note that I:

Support Version C. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Control, not sovereign. "Sovereign" is the wrong word here. Because the PA does consider itself sovereign in East Jerusalem. The fact that East Jerusalem is occupied (in the eyes of the Palestinians) by a foreign power, which by force of arms does not allow the Palestinians any control over the territory, does not alter the fact that they consider it an integral part of sovereign Palestine. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa is right. Wikipedia shouldn't say "though Palestinians have no sovereignty over the city" because it isn't a fact, it's one of several opinions. This is discussed on pages 72-74 of Ruth Lapidoth's "Jerusalem: A City and Its Future" ISBN 978-0815629139 Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa, as usual, is right, and Evanh2008's instincts are sound. I'd support C if, as per several editors we simply change sovereignty to control. I.e. The key is in 'C minor', sorry 'minus'.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. To my mind, "sovereignty" represents an abstract legal concept, whereas "control", as I said, is a more concretely definable physical thing. Good call, Nishidani! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well ill support the no control over the city" rather than sovereignty. If this change is implemented i hope that neutrality template will be removed at the same time. If that is going to stay there, then i wont support any change at all because this will clearly be about a political agenda rather than making reasonable improvements to the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the neutrality tag should be associated with an active neutrality discussion, if there is no neutrality discussion going on we can remove the tag. --Dailycare (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree regarding the neutrality tag. If there are no unresolved problems, it doesn't belong there. Are we approaching something close to a consensus, then? The discussion seems to be winding down but I haven't seen much opposition to the revised wording (soverignty --> control) for C so far. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Version "C for Control" per Ravpapa et al. As reasonable a compromise wording achievable for such a contentious topic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't support any of the proposed versions. If the international recognition of J as I's capital is mentioned, then so too should the international attitudes towards J as the sole capital of the State of Palestine. Ankh.Morpork 18:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite get your point. -asad (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus to go with "C" with the exception of changing "sovereignty" to "control"?-asad (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Zugzwang

Those editors who believe that we are nearing consensus on the lead are, as they know, sorely mistaken. The moment anyone tries to make an actual edit to the article page, the pro-Israeli opponents of change will swoop down with arb-barbed talons to restore the woeful status quo.

The status quo, sanctified by hundreds of thousands of archived talk-page words, is, alas, the best that this committee can come up with. The pro-Israel campers have deified "capital" into a mountain range, and the anti-Israeli campers have added a rider and an exegetical footnote that points out the absurdity of that word. Fortunately, I doubt that any reader has ever read that footnote, and most readers, stymied by that Henry Jamesian first sentence, probably scurry to the online Britannica to read about the world's most contentious city.

In the classical meaning of zugzwang, any move a player makes results in a loss. But in this game, it is not the players that lose: whatever either side does, it is the reader who loses. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think actually, chess-wise, it's only the Palestinians there who are in zugzwang, only in the sense that they are required to move, but won't move (away). This leaves us with the descriptive page. The opening definition is moulded on the capitals' template which defines a class of cities, capitals, in terms of the countries ab initio (London, Moscow, Paris, Berlin). In all these cases, we have internationally-recognized sovereignty, and a concordance between the state which affirms its capital, and other states recognizing that city as the capital. In Jerusalem we do not have that condition, therefore claims by Hertz1800 about dictionary usage look plausible, but are spurious because the linguistic sleight-of-hand camouflages the anomaly there. And NMMGG's insistance that this unsatisfactory compromise cannot be challenged is contrary to wiki practice. On wikipedia, we only have a positional result in a warring game, in which Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but part of it, East Jerusalem, is not the capital of Israel, which as you say, is conceptually nonsense. The conceptual nonsense is preferred by 'pro-Israeli' editors because a half-affirmation is better than none, and the definition excludes Palestinian claims. Since Palestine is a partial state (with majority recognition, but lacking the full monty of endorsement by all states, according to the relevant protocols of international law), with an irrenunciable claim to the eastern part of the city, NPOV simply cannot allow the unilateral lead affirmation, however subject to parenthetical modifiers, to stand alone.

Despite my pessimism as an editor here, I am surprised that this time round several good suggestions have been made by relative newcomers. I don't think the shut-door no-dialogue policy adopted by Hertz1800 and NMMGG adequate to what we are required to do as editors here.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not "insist that this unsatisfactory compromise cannot be challenged". Don't lie about what I said. The current wording is the result of a consensus and needs a new consensus to be changed. That's what's what I said and is EXACTLY what "wiki practice" demands. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The issues is already addressed in the lead and the article.. . We've been over this. Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And that in your mind amounts to "insisting that this unsatisfactory compromise cannot be challenged"? Really? You know what, scratch that. I don't have the patience to read a paragraph or two of your thinly veiled childish attempts at insults. The record shows what the record shows. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So you don't have any argument except it was like this before ? Pluto2012 (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa - After they finished to write the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Arabic Wikipedia) they come to here ! maybe after than they go to the Hebrew Wikipedia also ..... if you understand what i mean. פארוק (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take offense at this, but I would be surprised if anyone understands what you mean. The majority of your posts are total non sequiturs with absolutely no relation to anything we're talking about. Please take note -- I am normally an obnoxious Zionist when it comes to issues like this, and even I think you've contributed nothing but baseless accusations and personal insults to this discussion. I am honestly trying to give you a piece of friendly advice: Shape up, or you're probably going to be forcibly removed from this page by administrators. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Evanh2008 - I don't want to Shout that someone here can hear me. only i want to say that is If Wikipedia wants to get the most precise level of the truth and the reality, So why it is not a uniform across of all languages​​ ?....... an article about: Jerusalem it is very different in Arabic than English and Hebrew. i am talking about articles that showing in other versions. פארוק (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

All I am looking for is the inclusion of Palestine's declaration of Jerusalem as capital of the currently existing State of Palestine. I am not looking to actually change the statement on Jerusalem as Israel's capital, as I dont see much of a point in that discussion. But its status is incomplete right now as it only says that the Palestinians want it as a capital of some future state, disregarding that it has already been declared capital of the existing state. nableezy - 05:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

a hopeless case if --- listen: there's a hell

of a good universe next door; let's go

But it is a world of made. Thanks for that nonetheless. nableezy - 06:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"All I am looking for is the inclusion of Palestine's declaration of Jerusalem as capital of the currently existing State of Palestine. " - We clearly state in the introduction that the palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital of a future Palestinian state. That covers the issue is a reasonable and balanced way. No change is needed or justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is recognized as the capital of Palestine by more states in the world than [West-]Jerusalem is recognized the capital of Israel.

Jerusalem was chosen to be the capital of Israel of Israeli government.

[East-]Jerusalem was chosen to be the capital of Palestine (a non existing state on the field) by Palestinian autorithy.

Both claims have their strengths and weaknesses. Both require to be written exactly with the same weight and the same place in the lede.

...Pluto2012 (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not the PNA that designated Jerusalem, it was the PLO. nableezy - 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You can check the all history of the world - a Capital for 2 states always ends with a war.. פארוק (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Farouk: I thought your words needed a little extra ummpph to convey the depth of your emotions, so I added some color. Hope you like it! (Sorry I couldn't make it flash and dance around on the screen - don't know how to do that!) --Ravpapa (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And for what ?.... פארוק (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

... Ha! I thought you would take me seriously! --Ravpapa (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you lived in Jerusalem probably it's not funny at all. פארוק (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you know I don't live in Jerusalem? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

this is from the East Jerusalem article. I think it would reflect a commitment to NPOV to include it here. East Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the proposed Palestine although Ramallah serves as the administrative capital.90.211.19.178 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)banned sock

Edit request on 5 September 2012

"The article should begin with "Jerusalem is a disputed city, claimed as a capital by both the current Israel state, and the Palestinian people (whose formal statehood has not yet been established.)" This is really the only way to maitain NPOV. It begins the article, from the very beginning with a fair tone. The current article simply says that " Jerusalem *is* the Israeli capitol, though is not internationally recognized as such..." , and is obviously not a neutral position. Instead, the article is presenting, as fact, one position on a hotly contested issue. In the interest of fairness, please change this. 85.181.102.137 (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Such wording would be totally bias and will not get consensus. There has been some discussions above about potential changes to the introduction you could join in with. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)