Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Step three: details of questions and drafts

Finally, here we are at step three. You're probably getting quite used to me apologising by now, but sorry for the length of time this has taken. 5-10 days was definitely not a good estimate. I'm a bit wary of making an estimate for step three now, so I think I'll just not bother, and instead just try my best to structure this in a way that will get things done as efficiently as possible.

First, let me outline what we have decided about the RfC structure as a part of step two:

The RfC will be in two parts, with the first part consisting of general questions and the second part consisting of drafts.
We will ask two general questions, the first about the first half of the current opening sentence, and the second about the whole of the current opening sentence.
We will include a statement summarizing the positions on the capital question expressed in reliable sources.
We will include probably between 5-7 drafts, with the final number being decided as we create them.
We won't have a set scope for drafts. The scope can be worked out on an individual basis.
Drafts can embody a range of points of view, but shouldn't violate any policies or guidelines.

Here's my plan for how to get this done:

For the drafts:

Have a brainstorm about all the possible drafts we could have. No discussion at this stage.
Each of the participants make a list of the drafts from the brainstorm they would like to include, along with their reasons.
We judge the consensus result from point two, and discuss how we might best tweak it to fit in the RfC.

For the questions:

We discuss the question text of the two general questions. I am guessing this won't be too controversial, so a simple discussion should be sufficient.

For the source summary:

Make individual statements about the positions we should include in the source summary, and include sample sources to back them up.
We discuss any differences in participants' list, and how they might be combined.
We combine the list and edit it wiki-style until we are satisfied with its content.

I've started sections below for the first point in the process for the drafts, questions, and source summary. You're also welcome to post in the general discussion section at the bottom. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Step three: drafts brainstorm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Below, I would like you to submit drafts that we could use in the RfC. These drafts can be as short or as long as you like, and they can express any position that you choose. They don't have to conform to policy, or be brilliant prose; we will weed out the bad drafts later. The drafts don't need to be cited either; we don't usually cite the leads of articles, so there is no need to do so here, and we can always remove drafts that don't have corresponding citations after the brainstorm has finished. For now, anything goes. The point of this exercise is to get our collective creative juices flowing, and to collaborate to create something that we might not be able to come up with as individuals. So please be creative, and think of as many drafts as you can. I'm looking forward to seeing what you can come up with!

Because the point of this brainstorm is collaboration, please don't sign your drafts. This will make it easier to judge drafts on their own merits, and help to overcome the idea that the drafts "belong" to anyone. However, please don't edit other drafts - if you want to include a draft that is based on another existing one, please submit a new draft instead, even if the differences are only very minor.

I've included a few drafts that have already been proposed in other steps to get us started. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine, though neither is internationally recognised.
Jerusalem 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.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though this is not internationally recognised as such.
Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel in Israeli law, but this is not internationally recognised. It is also the proclaimed capital of the Palestinian state, but Palestinians exercise no sovereignty or control of the city.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though this is not internationally recognised as such, and its future status remains one of the key issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel though this is not internationally recognised.
Jerusalem is the defacto and dejure capital of Israel, but its status is not recognised internationally and forms part of the core issues of the Israel-Palestine with Palestinians seeking Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.
Jerusalem is Israel's capital according to Israeli law, but it isn't recognized as such internationally.
Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, but it isn't recognized internationally as its capital.
Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their respective capital, but the city isn't recognized internationally as a capital.
Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital and seat of the Israeli government and the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though, the international community does not recognize eithers proclamation or ownership of the city.
Jerusalem, a city split by the green line and held under miltary occupation since 1949, is not internationally recognized to be under the ownership of any state, however, both Israel and Palestine claim the city as their capital.
Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it within its capital city. Palestine has designated Jerusalem its capital, though neither the Israeli or Palestinian claims have gained international recognition.
Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government. (no need to specify that it is not international recognized as capital since this wording does not say it is the capital).
Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam [...] Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but no country maintains an embassy in the city. It is also the proclaimed capital of the Palestinian state, but Palestinians exercise no sovereignty or control of the city.
Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, the namesake of the Caananite god of dusk, Shalim.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]
Although the Israeli government is based in the city, there exists considerable controversy around calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel. At the same time, Palestinians foresee Jerusalem as being the capital of an independent state of their own.
Jerusalem has long been a point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with both Israelis and Palestinians seeing it as capital of their respective states. Although the Israeli government operates out of the city and has called the city its capital for decades, most nations do not recognize this status.
Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli government, but its status as the capital of Israel has been unrecognized abroad. Instead, the international community considers the status of Jerusalem a matter to be resolved with Palestinians, who also see the city as the capital of a future independent state of their own.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Step three: general questions

Seeing as there has been no opposition to Dailycare's suggestions, and that they are in line with what we have discussed up to now, I am closing this in favour of using them exactly as expressed below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this section, I would like participants to decide the exact wording for the two general questions we will ask in the first part of the RfC. This does not include the introduction to the RfC itself, and it does not include the source summary that we will produce. However, it may include an introduction to the issues raised in the questions themselves, if that is desired. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wording of the first general question

In step two we decided that the first general question should ask whether it was compliant with the neutral point of view policy to state that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". What should the exact wording of this question be? Should we include some sort of introduction to the issues this question raises?

Responses, suggestions, and drafts

My suggestion would be "Is it compliant with WP:NPOV to state 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.' ?" --Dailycare (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wording of the second general question

In step two we decided that the second general question should ask whether the entirety of the first sentence of the Jerusalem article ("Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though this is not internationally recognised as such") is compliant with the neutral point of view policy. What should the exact wording of this question be? Should we include some sort of introduction to the issues this question raises as well?

Responses, suggestions, and drafts

My suggestion would be "Is it compliant with WP:NPOV to state 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.' ?" I think the issues will come up in the ensuing discussion, but I'm also open to suggestions on including a pointer to the likely main point here. A possible pointer would be to add to the end of the question '(...) or should the first part be attributed?' --Dailycare (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Step three: source summary statements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As mentioned above, for the source summary I would like you each to make a statement of the positions you think we should include, and a sample of sources that can be used to back those positions up. You can also include some limited commentary if you like, but please try and keep it short. I recommend using a format like this:

Position taken by a group of sources. (Your reason for including it.)
* 1st source that is an example of the position
* 2nd source that is an example of the position
* 3rd source that is an example of the position
* 4th source that is an example of the position

A different position taken by a group of sources. (Your reason for including it.)
* 1st source that is an example of the position
* 2nd source that is an example of the position
* 3rd source that is an example of the position
* 4th source that is an example of the position

... and so on, for the number of positions you would like to include.

I'm not setting any particular limit to the number of sources that you include, but it's best to include the most important ones, rather than every single source you can find. Wherever possible the sources you include should be meta-sources, as we discussed in step two question nine. The idea here is not to create an exhaustive list of sources, but rather to create a list of the main positions taken by sources.

For this part of the discussion, please only edit your own section, and please don't comment on the sections of other participants. We'll discuss the relative merits of the proposed positions and sources in the next stage of step three. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Source summary statements

Source summary statements by Dailycare

Few or no countries agree with Israel that Jerusalem is the Israeli capital. (Relevant to weight)

Reuters: While Israel calls Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital, few other states accept that status
LA Times: "Jerusalem is Israel's capital and will remain as such." That position is universally rejected by other countries
BBC: Mr Romney referred to Jerusalem as Israel's capital, something the current US administration and most of the international community do not do
NY Times: even the United States has not recognized the city as Israel's capital
"In Israel, most states (...) do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as claimed by Israel since 1950." (p. 87)
"no state recognizes Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem in neither its eastern nor western half" Source(p. 2, paragraph 2 and p. 17, paragraph 3)

--Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital is controversial (Relevant to NPOV)

--Dailycare (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Source summary statements by Tariqabjotu

Most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. (Relevant to weight, wording)

-- tariqabjotu 23:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital is controversial (Relevant to NPOV)

-- tariqabjotu 02:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Some reputable sources use "Tel Aviv" as a metonym, as shorthand for "Israel" (Demonstrates absurdity, unreliability of news sources, propensity for them to misinterpret fine political points)

No one disputes that Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli government, and yet some reliable sources use Tel Aviv instead as a metonym for the country. -- tariqabjotu 22:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Source summary statements by Nableezy

East Jerusalem, which this article treats as part of Jerusalem, is in the Palestinian territories and is occupied by Israel:

Malki, Riad, "The Physical Planning of Jerusalem", in Ma'oz, Moshe; Nusseibeh, Sari (eds.), Jerusalem: Points Beyond Friction-And Beyond, Kluwer Law International, p. 27, East Jerusalem constitutes only one percent of the total area of the Occupied Territories (OT)—the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including East Jerusalem— ...
Happold, Matther (2001), "The Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention", Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol. 4, Cambridge University Press, On 5 December 2001, a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the application of international humanitarian law in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, took place in Geneva.
The meeting of the Conference was the culmination of a long political process. Since the 1967 Six Day War, Israel has been in occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
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.

nableezy - 19:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Source summary statements by FormerIP

Some reputable sources refer to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel.

Some reputable sources use "Tel Aviv" as a metonym, as shorthand for "Israel".

- NOTE: I'm aware of a tension with the instructions for this exercise, in that neither of these are positions I "would like to include" in the lead. However, I think they are important to consider in order to arrive at neutral wording for the lead. Formerip (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  - Note to Tariq: Per the instructions, "please don't comment on the sections of other participants". Ta. Formerip (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    - I didn't. -- tariqabjotu 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
      - Now you're commenting in another particpant's section!
      - Anyhow, if you don't think duplicating what I wrote and adding comments constitutes commenting, then I suppose it doesn't matter that much, I just thought I'd note it. Formerip (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Source summary statements by ClaudeReigns

The status of Jerusalem is seriously disputed by news organizations and courts. The dispute over the status of Jerusalem arises in part from a legal question: which takes precedence, national or international law? The United Nations resolved that the law which proclaimed Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was null and void. The Basic Law which it refers to is not the original proclamation, but the first to claim the entire city as capital. The Knesset proclaimed that Jerusalem was "once again" the capital of Israel in 1950. All are primary sources at the heart of the dispute. UN Resolution 478. Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel "The British Guardian newspaper on Wednesday acknowledged it was wrong to call Tel Aviv Israel’s capital, but reiterated its stance that Jerusalem is not the capital either, since it is not recognized as such by the international community." This retraction was the result of a ruling by the Press Complaints Commission.

Times of Israel

Refers in turn to the Guardian Style Guide which states: "Jerusalem should not be referred to as the capital of Israel: it is not recognised as such by the international community. While the Knesset has designated the city as the country's capital, a UN resolution of 1980 declared this status "null and void". Jerusalem is the seat of government and Tel Aviv is the country's diplomatic and financial centre"

Both references refer to UN Resolution 478

"...the [International Court of Justice expressly includes East Jerusalem in territory under belligerent occupation... East Jerusalem is not considered by the [Supreme Court of Israel] to be under belligerent occupation" with specific reference to "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, which proclaims in its first Section that 'Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel'" because it is quoted by the ICJ in a 2004 Advisory Opinion requested by the United Nations. The Advisory Opinion in turn references UN Resolution 478. Secondary source notes specifically that the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that national law takes precedence over international law.

Domb, Fania, "The Separation Fence in the International Court of Justice and the High Court of Justice: Commonalities, Differences and Specifics." from "International Law and Armed Conflict, Exploring the Fault Line: Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein") ed. Schmitt, Michael N. and Pejic, Jelena. Martin Nijhoff Publishers 2007 pg 512

As a result of this, many sources consider it correct to list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when there is little room for nuance, but in prose, objective sources often use qualifiers which show that the status as capital was achieved unilaterally. "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv." CIA Factbook

Jerusalem-as-capital is the focus of Palestinian national aspirations.

"Jerusalem is the historic capital of Arab Palestine. The largest Arab city in the country, it is universally regarded by Palestinians everywhere as the focus of their national aspirations. A just and lasting peace in the Middle East is not possible, and there can never be Arab recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, without the city being equally recognized by Israel as the capital of Palestine. "Jerusalem became the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict when the Israelis declared the city its eternal capital...Both Arabs and Israelis alike believe they have a legitimate claim to the city. Since both sides consider Jerusalem their capital, it may seem that there is no room for compromise over its century-old disputes." Soubagle, Osman N. "JERUSALEM AND THE ARAB-ISRAELI PEACE PROCESS" Naval Postgraduate School pp. 29, 38

This thesis refers to foundational documents of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Basic Law, and UN 478.

Source summary statement by BritishWatcher

Some sources that define what a capital is:

“The city or town that is the official seat of government in a country, state, etc.: Tokyo is the capital of Japan.”
“Capital (also capital city or town) the city or town that functions as the seat of government and administrative centre of a country or region: Warsaw is the capital of Poland “
“A city that is the centre of government of a country or smaller political area:Australia's capital city is Canberra.”
From wikipedia's Capital City: “A capital city or capital town (or simply capital) is the municipality enjoying primary status in a state, country, province, or other region as its seat of government. A capital is typically a city that physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of its respective government and is normally fixed by its law or constitution.”

(Reason for posting – The definition of a capital by sources clearly show that a capital is where the seat of Government is. No sources exist stating that a “capital city” is determined only by international recognition of it or the existence of foreign embassies. It also highlights why it would be inaccurate to state Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine which does not control the city or have it as a seat of Government.) BritishWatcher(talk) 11:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Government of Israel has clearly made Jerusalem it's capital and seat of Government,

Source summary statement by Sepsis

No news agency with a guideline for neutral reporting allows Jerusalem to be reported as the capital of Israel. (Relevant to NPOV)

Reuters:

Jerusalem: "Israelis and Arabs dispute the status of the city. Israel regards Jerusalem as its "eternal and indivisible" capital but that is not recognised internationally. Palestinians want to have the capital of an eventual Palestinian state there. Do not use it as a synonym for Israel, as in the Jerusalem government." [1]
Tel Aviv: "Tel Aviv is not the capital of Israel and the status of Jerusalem is contentious. Do not use the name of either city as a synonym for Israel, as in the Jerusalem government, or refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." [2]

BBC:

Jerusalem: "The status of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive and complex issues of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its status is dependent on a final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Between 1949 and 1967, the city was divided into Israeli controlled West Jerusalem, and Jordanian controlled East Jerusalem. Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war. That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory. "[3]

Guardian:

Jerusalem: "should not be referred to as the capital of Israel: it is not recognised as such by the international community. While the Knesset has designated the city as the country's capital, a UN resolution of 1980 declared this status "null and void". Jerusalem is the seat of government and Tel Aviv is the country's diplomatic and financial centre" [4]

AP:

Their styleguide is not free, but several sources write there is but a single line in the AP styleguide on Jerusalem :"Jerusalem stands alone in datelines"[5]
"After initially referring to Jerusalem as “Israel’s capital,” The Associated Press on Friday issued a “correction” and called Jerusalem “Israel’s self-declared capital.”"[6]

Globe & Mail:

No guideline for Jerusalem, but under Israel there is a single line pertaining to Jerusalem, stating "The officially designated capital is Jerusalem, but most countries have their embassies in Tel Aviv." [7]

I have not cherrypicked the news agencies, I looked for many more but these were all I could find. If you have found others please message me and I will add it here. Sepsis II (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Source summary by Dlv999

Israeli view regarding sovereignty/capital status of West Jerusalem is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion. (Relevant to WP:NPOV "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.")

Lapidoth, Ruth. "Jerusalem – Some Legal Issues". The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. pp. 21–26. Retrieved 07/04/2013Reprinted from: Rüdiger Wolfrum (Ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, online 2008-, print 2011)
Quigley, John (2005). The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Duke University Press. p. 93. ISBN 0822335395.
Amirav, Moshe (2009). Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 26–27. ISBN 1845193482.

Israeli view regarding sovereignty/capital status of East Jerusalem is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion. (Relevant to WP:NPOV "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.")

Lapidoth, Ruth. "Jerusalem – Some Legal Issues". The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. pp. 21–26. Retrieved 07/04/2013Reprinted from: Rüdiger Wolfrum (Ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, online 2008-, print 2011)
Quigley, John (2005). The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Duke University Press. p. 173. ISBN 0822335395.

Israeli view regarding sovereignty/capital status of Jerusalem is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion. (Relevant to WP:NPOV "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.")

Lapidoth, Ruth. "Jerusalem – Some Legal Issues". The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. pp. 21–26. Retrieved 07/04/2013Reprinted from: Rüdiger Wolfrum (Ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, online 2008-, print 2011)
Amirav, Moshe (2009). Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 26–27. ISBN 1845193482.
Cattan, Henry (Spring 1981). "The Status of Jerusalem under International Law and United Nations Resolutions". Journal of Palestine Studies 10 (3): 3. doi:10.2307/2536456. Retrieved 7/04/2013.

Supporting quotes from sources can be viewed at User:Dlv999/Jerusalem. Dlv999 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Sean.hoyland

Sorry, I should have been paying more attention to this page. As I said above, I'd like you to avoid commenting on each others' sections for now, so I'm collapsing this section. We can certainly discuss these issues, but I'd like to deal with them as part of the next stage. This stage has been open for more than two weeks now, so that step will come soon - watch this space. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've been staying away from the RfC because, like almost everything in the universe, it seems to be working fine without me, but I have to object to BritishWatcher's use of original research via synthesis in the RfC by selecting definitions of the word capital to prove that Jerusalem is Israel's capital and prove that it is not Palestine's capital. Apart from being a fallacy, editors have been told many times that they are not allowed to do this because it is expressly prohibited by policy. But regardless of policy, there are exceptions to the oft repeated dictionary definitions (e.g. Amsterdam) in the very Wikipedia article, Capital city, BW cited, so it couldn't be clearer that the reasoning is invalid...but here we are again. This invalid approach is one of the things that has prevented progress on this issue for many years. It is concerning to see an argument that is both a fallacy and inconsistent with policy appear in the RfC discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an obvious comment on someone else's section, so I'm just going to dive in and comment on it further. Long story short: the suggestion that using a dictionary is original research is ridiculous. While you might want to argue that Jerusalem deserves some sort of special attention -- fine -- to act as if dictionary definitions are irrelevant (a 'fallacy', 'inconsistent with policy', 'original research') is pushing it. You can raise your counterpoint with Amsterdam, but it should be left to RfC participants to decide whether the definition of 'capital' is relevant to whether our Wikipedia article on Jerusalem refers to the city as such. (And there are problems with the Amsterdam comparison, mind you, so you may not want to use that as your example du jour). -- tariqabjotu 07:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Jerusalem doesn't deserve some sort of special attention. This isn't just about Jerusalem. It's far more important than that. It's about invalid methods and invalid conclusions producing invalid content. Editors who use a method based on attempting to prove that a statement about the real world is true and therefore qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia have a fundamental misconception about core policy, and that's before we even consider the particular method they use to establish the "truth", whether it be a via attribute matching between a real world instance of something and a dictionary entry, or personal experience, received knowledge etc. RfC participants don't have the freedom to decide whether a definition of the word 'capital' is relevant to whether our Wikipedia article on Jerusalem refers to the city as such anymore than they have the freedom to decide whether a definition of the words 'fat', 'thin', 'idiotic', 'clever', 'dishonest', 'honest' are relevant to whether a Wikipedia article about a 17th century artist includes that information because they think the attributes of the instance match the definitions and therefore the statement will be true. There is nothing special about Jerusalem in this respect. Information about a subject must come from reliable sources that describe the subject, not from an editor's mind. There's no wiggle room here, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors", so it doesn't matter what an editor believes about the degree to which a real world attribute of an individual instance matches the dictionary definition of a word. It is a textbook example of synthesis. I struggle to think of a more basic error than editors treating themselves as RS by being unable to distinguish between the conclusions they draw about the real world based on their personal decision procedures and the information published by reliable sources about the subject of an article. Not only is it prohibited by policy, it presents a serious risk to content and is the source of much disruption across a wide array of topics as I'm sure you are fully aware.Sean.hoyland - talk 10:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that even if a certain politician's policies are fascist, that I can't just compare their policies to the dictionary, or other source's definition of fascism to add the label, I actually have to find a source which labels them for me AND that I can not ignore sources which specifically say it is incorrect to call the politician's policies fascist? Whowouldathunkit. Sepsis II (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And that is despite the enormous efficiency gains to be had from generating encyclopedic content by attribute matching, as you can see in this example where an IP includes the terms "benevolent", "immoral", "biased", "deceitful" and "treacherous" based on their thoughtful analysis of the degree of correlation between a set of attributes of an instance of something in the real world and definitions of those words. It's unfortunate that we are not allowed to make stuff up based on what we think makes sense, but I'm sure there are other wikis that provide those creative opportunities. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The definitions of 'capital', or at least those provided by BritishWatcher, are entirely objective, based on criteria that can be applied (or not applied) beyond a shadow of a doubt. The comparisons to the adjectives you and Sepsis presented are not appropriate (although I should point out that Today's Featured Article, Carmen, is a minefield for subjective adjectives that almost certainly are not directly used by sources... but I digress). And this sentence from Sepsis is just as inappropriate:

I actually have to find a source which labels them for me AND that I can not ignore sources which specifically say it is incorrect to call the politician's policies fascist?

Well, we do have sources labeling Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And we have almost no sources that directly contradict such statements (as has been said several times over now). The only sources presented here that do that are those news sources that present Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. News sources that, as demonstrated here, say just about anything on this issue, despite their stylebooks requesting that they say nothing about it to avoid controversy. And this assertion (that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel) is unlikely to be something that you'd find in an academic source that discusses this issue in greater depth, and something so baseless and absurd that no one is actually willing to stand by the assertion that Tel Aviv might actually be the capital of Israel. The contention is used solely as a tool for discrediting the idea that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (when it should really be used as a tool to discredit the source's reporting on the topic). But, it's nevertheless relevant information, and not challenged as a "fallacy" and ought to presented to participants in some form or another. -- tariqabjotu 13:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, based on criteria that can be applied or not applied by RS, not by us. We are not RS. Editors who don't understand this will not be able to generate content that complies with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any point in arguing interpretations on this with you any further, especially as at every stage one who sees these points' relevance is essentially labeled as an ineffective editor or one who doesn't belong editing this article. We have two different interpretations of "synthesis" and "original research" that have been explained multiple times over at least the past several months, and we will never agree on this matter. I think these definitions are relevant. You think mentioning them violates policy. Yeah, okay, whatever. What else can I do with my time again? -- tariqabjotu 14:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It is hardly OR to use words according to their common meanings. If WP editors are allowed to use words any way they please, or as some supposedly "reliable source" pleases, the entire project would potentially be undermined and lose all credibility and respect.

Editors cannot substitute their beliefs for published information, but not all published information is equal. When it contains contradictions, such as with the basic, ordinary meanings of words, editors can use footnotes or other means—as currently done in the article—to clarify the apparent discrepancies.

Based on the mundane meaning of capital city—as enshrined in dictionaries—designation by the country involved, and status as functional seat of government, are everything. The designating country itself is then the only truly reliable source, along with evidence of seat of government functionality. What other parties (published sources, any manifestation of the "international community", etc.) may say is irrelevant. This calls for a "statement of fact" wording and rules out use of any modifying adjectives such as "proclaimed", "declared" or "disputed".

It must be left up to RFC respondents to consider this line of thought. It is our duty to present it to them. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, and yet all the world's governments and news agencies still can't grasp this simple fact, do they not own dictionaries? I hope Mr Stradivarius steps in soon and closes this as not only original research, but original research which goes directly against the vast majority of sources. Sepsis II (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again, refusing to say something is not the same as saying something is not true. -- tariqabjotu 13:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions are often imprecise and therefore often not helpful in resolving matters of contention. If we were permitted to find the dictionary definition that suits us and then use it as the basis for a syllogism, all kinds of nonsense would ensue. Taking a dictionary at random (OED), I see the definition of capital as "the chief town or city of country". This doesn't help to build the case regarding Jerusalem, but it does allow me to conclude that California must be a country, since it has a capital. I can also see that our entry on Wikipedia is wrong to describe it as an encylopedia, since it is not "a book or collection of books giving information on all branches of knowledge or of one subject". Maybe Wikipedia should have an article Argument from definition, then I could cite it as a reliable source. Formerip (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's is child's play to debunk the the WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH proposed by BW, and Hertz, supported by Tariqabjotu. For instance the source proposed by BW states "The city or town that is the official seat of government in a country". Whether Jerusalem and particularly EJ is in Israel is a major point of contention. That is the exact reason it is not recognized as Israel's capital by any country.[1] The only way this OR makes any sense at all is if you adopt all of the Israeli assumptions vis-a-vis the Jerusalem law and the Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem - positions which are in fact fringe minority positions from a global perspective. It's also possible to engage in alternative lines of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH using alternate sources. For instance if you look at the relevant academic literature on capitals, you will clearly see that "the centalization of political institutions in a capital is not a given"[2]

But this should not be necessary. WP:OR states that it "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The dictionary definitions cited by BW are not directly related to the topic of the article and do not directly support the claims he is making. the position being advanced by BW and others is not advanced by the sources. It is OR and should be struck from this page, only sources directly related to the topic of the article should be permitted. RS are competent to look at the characteristics of Jerusalem and decide whether it fits the definition of capital, editors are not permitted to use one source (the dictionary) and another source (describing the characteristics of Jerusalem) to synthesize a conclusion about Jerusalem that is not directly advanced by the sources themselves.

1. See e.g. the official E.U. position: "The EU policy on Jerusalem is based on the principles set out in UN Security Council resolution 242, notably the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force. In consequence, the EU has never recognized the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967 nor the subsequent 1980 Basic Law (Basic Law Jerusalem Capital of Israel) which made Jerusalem the “complete and united” capital of Israel. EU member states have therefore placed their accredited missions in Tel Aviv." For further discussion of Israel's failed attempts to gain recognition of its sovereignty over Jerusalem see [8].
2. Daum, Andreas (2006). Berlin - Washington, 1800–2000 Capital Cities, Cultural Representation, and National Identities. Cambridge University Press. p. 13. ISBN 9780521841177 Dlv999 (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And these are objections you are free to make. If you want to argue these definitions are slippery slopes to recognizing U.S. states as independent nations, ok, fine. If you want to argue that Jerusalem is not 'in' Israel, ok, fine. So, maybe that might make the definitions inapplicable. And if you were a participant in the RfC, you might use that as part of a basis for discounting those points and as part of a rationale for supporting one draft over another. But calling this synthesis and original research so egregious the information should not even be presented to participants is excessive.

And what about this "the centalization of political institutions in a capital is not a given" point? Let me guess: the source proceeds to list Amsterdam and the other examples where a country designates one city as its capital but has its governmental institutions elsewhere? That doesn't apply to Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 14:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not excessive, it is simply adhering to core policy of the encyclopedia. If we cannot adhere to core policy that requires that sources are "directly related to the topic of the article", and that requires that we don't advance positions not in the sources and we don't synthesis conclusions from a number of sources not made by those sources, then this RFC is a waste of time. The whole point of the RFC in my view is that we are trying to ensure the relevant material is consistent with the core policies of the encyclopedia. If it is going to descend into the farce of different editors arguing over who has the best WP:OR theory as you suggest you can count me out. Dlv999 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Step three: statements on drafts

Please see my closing comments below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you all for your work here in the brainstorm. There is a lot of good work here, and as I suspected, the hard part will likely prove to be choosing the best drafts to present to the RfC participants. As I said in the introduction to this section, stage two in choosing the drafts will be for all the participants to make statements about which drafts they would like to include in the RfC, and why. Here's my suggestion on how to structure it:

# Draft x: "Draft text goes here".
#: Reason you would like to include this draft.
# Draft x: "Draft text goes here".
#: Reason you would like to include this draft.
# Draft x: "Draft text goes here".
#: Reason you would like to include this draft.
# Draft x: "Draft text goes here".
#: Reason you would like to include this draft.
# Draft x: "Draft text goes here".
#: Reason you would like to include this draft.
# Draft x: "Draft text goes here".
#: Reason you would like to include this draft.

The "x" in "draft x" should be the number of the draft as it appears in the brainstorm above. I'm asking you to include both the draft number and the full text of the draft before your comments, as that should be the easiest way for people to compare who supports which draft with the least amount of scrolling back and forth from the brainstorm section. If you want to change any of the brainstorm drafts slightly, that's also fine - just be sure to note it in the reason for that draft.

Note that you don't have to structure it this way, if that would make it unduly hard to get your point across. It is just a suggestion. I do ask, however, that you keep comments fairly short, to aid easy comparison between different editors' sections.

As in the statements you made for the source summary, I would like you to stick to editing your own sections, and to not comment on other editors' sections. We will get round to discussing the differences between editors' choices later, when everyone that wants to has submitted a statement. I am worried that if editors begin to criticise others' choices before everyone has finished submitting statements, then editors might feel pressured to choose some drafts over others. This method of doing things is intended to allow all editors to choose their drafts freely.

Finally, please try and choose somewhere in the area of five to seven drafts, following the agreement we arrived at in step two. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement on drafts by Tariqabjotu

Choosing five to seven drafts is tough, and it's a balance between finding drafts that I think have a chance of succeeding (or perhaps should?) and giving participants options with different approaches. So, here are the ones I'm selecting:

Draft 3: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though [it] is not internationally recognized as such[, and one of the oldest cities in the world.]"
The current version should clearly be among the options.
Draft 4: "Jerusalem is the ~~proclaimed~~ capital of Israel in Israeli law, but this is not internationally recognized. It is also the proclaimed capital of the Palestinian state, but Palestinians exercise no ~~sovereignty or~~ control of the city."
This seems like a just step away from the current version. I have removed the word "proclaimed" from the first sentence because the statement is specifically attributed to Israeli law... so it's the capital of Israel in Israeli law, full stop. The redundancy could also be eliminated by removing "in Israeli law" instead, but I believe that introduces a parallelism in the first halves of the two sentences that is (confusingly) not followed in the second halves. (In other words, one would be left wondering, "is the Palestinian proclamation internationally recognized?") I also feel like the second sentence would sound better in active voice, but I'll leave it for now. I'd also be fine with removing "sovereignty" because it implies Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem or a significant portion it. There is room for so some disagreement on that point, as "sovereignty" implies the authority to have control; the word "control" gets the intended point across just fine.
Draft 10: "Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their respective capital[s], but the city isn't recognized internationally as a capital."
I detest the proposals that treat the current status of Jerusalem vis a vis Israel and Palestine as equal, but of those drafts that do that, this is the one I detest the least and the one that could be elaborated upon with explanatory details the easiest. In other words, I'm including this one not because I like it (I don't), but to provide participants a range of options.
Draft 11: "Jerusalem is ~~the~~ [Israel's] proclaimed capital and seat of ~~the Israeli~~ government [as well as] the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though the international community does not recognize either [state's] proclamation or [claim of sovereignty over] the city."
I believe this a good example of a brief "descriptive" option. However, I'm a bit worried about the grammar and the lack of parallelism. I tried to modify it to sound better.
Draft 13: "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it within its capital city. Palestine has designated Jerusalem its capital, though neither the Israeli or Palestinian claims have gained international recognition."
One way of making the descriptive approach that doesn't cast excessive aspersions on the Israeli claim to the city as capital. However, it may need to be clarified somewhere else in the lead the the city is the seat of the Israeli government.
Draft 15: "Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam [...] Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally."
This explicitly states the reasons and supports for the two claims. It also drops the desire to be pithy.
- Draft 19: "Jerusalem has long been a point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with both Israelis and Palestinians seeing it as capital of their respective states. Although the Israeli government operates out of the city and has called the city its capital for decades, most nations do not recognize this status."
  I like this option as a descriptive option because it introduces the capital point after noting the city's status as a point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is an arguably more important point that what Jerusalem is or is not the capital of.
  I'm going to drop Draft 19 from my list of drafts to get this down to just seven options (esp. since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will no doubt be mentioned somewhere else in the lead anyway). -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Draft 20: "Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli government, but its status as the capital of Israel has been unrecognized abroad. Instead, the international community considers the status of Jerusalem a matter to be resolved with Palestinians, who also [fore]see the city as the capital of a[n] ~~future~~ independent state of their own."
Also a good descriptive option that seems distinct in its approach and not unnecessarily concise.

A few issues:

I was tempted to include Draft 16 as an option in an effort to provide a diversity of options, but I realized there was no need to as it was functionally redundant to Draft 3... if we assume Draft 3 isn't saying the Palestinian claim should be omitted from the lead. And I presume we can assume that because Draft 3 is currently in the article and the lead does talk about the Palestinian claim. So, we again run into the issue of scope. With that in mind, that leaves Draft 3 deficient. The rest of the drafts I'm supporting for presentation include something about the Palestinian claims to the city. I could amend Draft 3 to include what the article currently says (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.), but that is notably different from the way all the other drafts address the Palestinian claim, poorly written, and potentially incomplete [given that they have simply proclaimed 'Jerusalem' as the capital of Palestine]. So, I don't want to present the current version exactly as written, when I believe it's poorly written.

In all of these cases, it's not clear where these sentences are supposed to go. Are we assuming that all are expected to be placed as the first sentence or paragraph? Because I believe that should be changed: the first thing most people think of when they think of Jerusalem is its religious and historical significance. That's probably followed by its role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the status as a political center as a (albeit close) third. That being said, the location of the information within the lead may not be a major point of contention; it is possible we (or someone) can have that discussion later on and achieve consensus for shifting the capital information to a different location without third-party help of this magnitude. I just don't know if we believe that should be addressed while we're here.

Yes, I know I selected eight drafts, but I just couldn't choose which one to drop. I'm inclined to drop Draft 10 because I dislike it so strongly, but perhaps it might be wiser to drop one of the descriptive options (13, 15, 19, and 20). However, I feel all of them address the issue in notably different ways and are not similar enough that they appear repetitive. I understand the set of drafts proposed may eventually be pared down to seven or fewer, but I'm going to keep this out there now and see how things progress. -- tariqabjotu 01:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of Tariqabjotu's general approach here. I can't really follow the reasoning behind each individual draft, but overall, this seems ok. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement on drafts by Dailycare

Draft 6: "Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel, though it is not internationally recognised as such.".
This format is used in several sources, is a clean minimal modification to the present text and solves the NPOV problem. Equivalent ones say e.g. declared. I Corrected a grammatical problem in this.
Draft 8: "Jerusalem is Israel's capital according to Israeli law, but it isn't recognized as such internationally.".
Similar to the one above.
Draft 9: "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, but it isn't recognized internationally as its capital.".
Similar to the ones above.
Draft 10: "Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their respective capital, but the city isn't recognized internationally as a capital.".
This includes the Palestinian viewpoint. Many sources say that "Palestinians see the city as their future capital", which would also be fine.
Draft 3: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though this is not internationally recognised as such".
The status quo.
Draft 15: "Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam [...] Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally".
This is wordy but ticks all the boxes, including style. Not sure about the order in which order Christianity, Islam and Judaism should be. --Dailycare (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement on drafts by Dlv999

My rationale for draft selection would be first to exclude all drafts that are inconsistent with core policy. (1), (3), (5) and (16) all say that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" while the status of Jerusalem is something over which there is considerable disagreement in RS. (7). States Jerusalem is the "dejure" capital, again this is an opinion so stating it as fact is inconsistent with core policy. (12) is excluded for similar reasons: That Jerusalem was occupied in 1948 certainly is a significant opinion, but it is not a unanimous one so can't be stated as fact. (I think the descriptive approach falls down because straight away in 1948 you have a divergence of significant opinions with most not accepting Israeli sovereignty and capital status - it is not as if you can give a clean factual description of what happened without explaining the various significant views, which would probably be too detailed for the first sentence of the lead).

My assessment of policy and the sources is that the remainder of the drafts are consistent with policy/source evidence, so the choice after that is personal preference and judgement on which are the most important details to highlight. My choices would be as follows, but I don't have a particularly strong opinion :-

(2) Jerusalem 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.

Offers the option of avoiding discussion of the conflict in the first line of the lead

(11) Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital and seat of the Israeli government and the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though, the international community does not recognize eithers proclamation or ownership of the city.

(6), (8), (9), (10), (11), and (14) all seem pretty similar to me (some mention the Palestinian view, others don't). My preference of the 6 would be (11) as it has the most detail.

(13) Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it within its capital city. Palestine has designated Jerusalem its capital, though neither the Israeli or Palestinian claims have gained international recognition.

As a descriptive option is not quite right from my reading of the sources because the issue begins in 1948, but very difficult to have a straight description of events without mentioning significant views. But on balance probably worth including as an alternative approach.

(14) Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam [...] Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.

Probably my preferred option. Consistent with WP:NPOV, has all the most relevant details, best written (IMO).

(19) Jerusalem has long been a point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with both Israelis and Palestinians seeing it as capital of their respective states. Although the Israeli government operates out of the city and has called the city its capital for decades, most nations do not recognize this status.

Probably worth including as an option as it offers something different, although "Jerusalem has long been a point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is too vague in my view (It begs the question how long has it been a point of contention, what is regarded as "long" time in the context of one of the oldest cities in the world?)

(20) Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli government, but its status as the capital of Israel has been unrecognized abroad. Instead, the international community considers the status of Jerusalem a matter to be resolved with Palestinians, who also see the city as the capital of a future independent state of their own.

Consistent with WP:NPOV, offers a different approach to other drafts. Dlv999 (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Draft summary close

I was surprised at the low participation in the draft statements section. This is the part that is going to end up in the actual article, after all, so I would have thought more people would comment here. As it is, though, the three statements align quite nicely to give us a selection of seven different drafts. That is because there were exactly seven drafts that managed to get two votes. No draft managed to get three votes, and there were six drafts that got one vote. The drafts that got two votes are: 3, 10, 11, 13, 15, 19, and 20.

3 - Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though this is not internationally recognised as such.
10 - Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their respective capital, but the city isn't recognized internationally as a capital.
11 - Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital and seat of the Israeli government and the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though, the international community does not recognize eithers proclamation or ownership of the city.
13 - Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it within its capital city. Palestine has designated Jerusalem its capital, though neither the Israeli or Palestinian claims have gained international recognition.
15 - Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam [...] Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.
19 - Jerusalem has long been a point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with both Israelis and Palestinians seeing it as capital of their respective states. Although the Israeli government operates out of the city and has called the city its capital for decades, most nations do not recognize this status.
20 - Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli government, but its status as the capital of Israel has been unrecognized abroad. Instead, the international community considers the status of Jerusalem a matter to be resolved with Palestinians, who also see the city as the capital of a future independent state of their own.

Of course, it would not be proper to just count the votes. We must look at the arguments involved as well.

First, I note that Dlv999 has excluded drafts 1, 3, 5, and 16, because they state as fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and Dlv regards this as a violation of policy. The question of whether or not this is actually a policy violation is contentious, however, and is part of what we are going to ask the community in the general discussion questions that we have decided upon. I think that rejecting these drafts at this stage would be anticipating the outcome our general discussion questions, so I have not let this affect my analysis.

Much more serious, in my opinion, is Tariqabjotu's point that it isn't clear what part of the lead some of these drafts are assumed to be in. We will need to decide this before the RfC goes live, as to put some of the drafts in the RfC as they are would give them an obvious handicap. For example, draft 10 is as follows: "Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their respective capital, but the city isn't recognized internationally as a capital". When participants see this alongside the other options, they will likely oppose it as violating WP:BEGIN - "if possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." We need to take steps to ensure that the drafts are considered on an equal footing.

On a related note, I am a little concerned that with the exception of draft #15, all of the proposed drafts begin with a description of Jerusalem's capital status. I think that in some cases this may be because the authors didn't intend their drafts to be the first sentence of the article, but it is hard to be sure. In any case, I think it is important that we give RfC commenters a wide variety of drafts to choose from. If we restrict the selection of drafts to those that start in a certain way, we might open ourselves up to procedural problems. (For example, an RfC participant may propose a new draft after the RfC has already open for some time, which would raise questions of sampling bias.) I'll ask a new discussion question about this.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Step three: discussion of source statements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for gathering your statements, and again, apologies for the length of time this is taking. And again, I am impressed by the effort that you have all put in here. Between you, you have uncovered some great sources, and made some very insightful observations. Now, we are tasked with assembling all of our diverging sources and analyses into a coherent statement. This was always going to be a tricky part of the proceedings, but I believe we can do it without too many problems if we focus on the commonalities of all of our statements, and discuss the differences in them with the understanding that we might not all be able to get the exact source statement that everyone wanted, but that we will probably end up with a source statement that most people will agree isn't too bad.

I'd like to proceed by noting the similarities and differences that I noticed in the source statements, and ask you a few questions about my observations. I'll also ask a few questions about the points that have already come up in discussion. Then after we have discussed these points I will see if there is a rough consensus among participants as to how the source summary should be constructed. If necessary, I may ask a few follow-up questions as well.

Here is a list of all of the various opinions that people noted among the sources, for quick reference. I have removed duplicates.

Few or no countries agree with Israel that Jerusalem is the Israeli capital.
Referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital is controversial.
Most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Not referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital is controversial.
Some reputable sources use "Tel Aviv" as a metonym, as shorthand for "Israel".
East Jerusalem, which this article treats as part of Jerusalem, is in the Palestinian territories and is occupied by Israel.
Some reputable sources refer to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel.
The status of Jerusalem is seriously disputed by news organizations and courts.
Many sources consider it correct to list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when there is little room for nuance, but in prose, objective sources often use qualifiers which show that the status as capital was achieved unilaterally.
Jerusalem-as-capital is the focus of Palestinian national aspirations.
The government of Israel has made Jerusalem its capital and seat of government.
No news agency with a guideline for neutral reporting allows Jerusalem to be reported as the capital of Israel.
Israeli view regarding sovereignty/capital status of West Jerusalem is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion.
Israeli view regarding sovereignty/capital status of East Jerusalem is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion.
Israeli view regarding sovereignty/capital status of Jerusalem is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion.

The first thing that I noticed is that none of these points seemed to obviously contradict one another. I was expecting at least some differences of opinion on what the sources say, but there seems a remarkable agreement on the facts. Or perhaps more accurate would be to say that most statements comment on a different aspect of the Jerusalem capital issue, and that different facts presented in sources are important to different editors. Because of this, our biggest problem might be working out how the statements can be condensed efficiently without losing any of the major points. The first two questions I will ask are designed to address this problem.

I did notice some minor discrepancies, however. One was that the sources that deal with Tel Aviv seem to be included for very different reasons. Another was that many of the sources were news sources. Still another was whether it is acceptable to use dictionary definitions of the word capital. Yet another was whether things like court decisions or UN resolutions should be used as sources. I will ask questions about each of these.

Also, if anyone would like to see other discussion questions for everyone, you can make a request on my talk page and I'll consider adding a question number seven. (Or you can start a new thread in the general discussion section if you would prefer.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question one: Accuracy/reliability of source opinions

Please see my closing comments below question two. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does anyone contest the accuracy or reliability of any of the source opinion summaries? This could be because you believe that the statement doesn't accurately summarize the sources presented, because you don't believe that the sources chosen are a good cross-section of sources in general, or because you believe the sources are otherwise unreliable.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd query point 12, although I'm happy to go with it if no-one else objects to it. Sepsis II seems to have tried and failed to find a style manual that allows Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This certainly tells us something. But he doesn't claim to have exhausted all avenues. Formerip (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I object to it and to the idea that Sepsis' failure to find something that contradicts his argument "tells us something" relevant to this RfC.
I also object to 1. That someone doesn't officially recognize it is not necessarily an indication of them disagreeing. One could argue that they tacitly agree it's the capital by going about their diplomatic business vis-a-vis their Israeli counterparts there rather than refusing to do so.
I also object to 7. Very few sources indeed refer to Tel Aviv as the capital, and we have at least as many sources that used to and then had to post corrections.
I also object to 8. Most news source do not "seriously dispute" the status of Jerusalem. In fact, most of them are very careful not to take a position either way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, I did search all the major Israeli, American, Canadian, British, and Australian papers, I tried La Monde and other foreign language papers but, well, I only speak English fluently. I doubt any middle eastern papers would be more pro-Israeli than western papers. The Economist has a guide, but it's only for grammar. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage and The Times Style and Usage Guide are both behind paywalls, if someone had access that would be great, but I don't think the NYT guide will go against the trend as it had issued a correction earlier this year after refering to Jerusalem as an Israeli city [9]. Still, the fact that all these news agencies explicitly refuse to refer to J as the C of I is extremely relevant. Sepsis II (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I also don't care for your insults, do not imply that I have an argument as I only present sources relevant to this RFC, and do not blame me, the only one to add sources for point 12 that its potential shortcoming is my fault when all editors were invited to add any sources they found. Sepsis II (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I find NMMNG's objection to 1. to be meritless. He claims "That someone doesn't officially recognize it is not necessarily an indication of them disagreeing." I find this statement to be nonsensical. In any case If you look at DC's citations for the statement they are not all couched in the language of official non-recognition. Two of the sources refer to official non-recognition of Israeli claims of sovereignty/capital status over Jerusalem. One source states that the Israeli statement of Jerusalem as capital is "universally rejected by other countries". Another source says that "few other states accept" the Israeli view of Jerusalem as its capital. The last source states that while Romney referred to Jerusalem as Israel's capital the US and most of the international community do not. In toto, the citations support the statement that "few or no countries agree with Israel that Jerusalem is the Israeli capital." Dlv999 (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I object to #1 as well. None of the sources presented by Dailycare state the conclusion that he makes.

"While Israel calls Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital, few other states accept that status" -- The word "accept" is used here, and it is quite apparent that the focus here is on the "eternal and indivisible" part, not the current status. This doesn't support the statement.
""Jerusalem is Israel's capital and will remain as such." That position is universally rejected by other countries. -- As quoted here, it's not clear what exactly is being rejected by other countries (that it will remain as such?). If you read the article though, it is exceedingly clear that the rejection is in regards to Israel's take on East Jerusalem. The full sentence regarding other countries' positions is "That position is universally rejected by other countries, which regard Jewish neighborhoods in the city's annexed parts and the West Bank settlements as illegal and an impediment to peace."
"Mr Romney referred to Jerusalem as Israel's capital, something the current US administration and most of the international community do not do" -- Right. Most of the international community doesn't call Jerusalem the capital of Israel. As stated elsewhere, refusing to say something is not the same as saying something isn't true, so this doesn't support the statement either.

The sixth source has nothing to do with this statement at all, and I have no idea what it was included. The remaining two sources restate that Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel. The meaning of "recognition" has never been ascertained for certain, so it's unfair to state that that means they don't agree. Therefore, I believe #3 is a more accurate portrayal of what sources say (although even the first three sources provided by Dailycare/me aren't the best supporting sources). -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I object to #12. The absolute use of "no" is very difficult to substantiate. And then, beyond that, it seems like an odd comparison to make. Had that been a survey of encyclopedic sources, I would have been more forgiving of its relevance. That was done at least once before, in an RfC from August 2009, and it was demonstrated that the approach to this issue is substantially less uniform among encyclopedic sources. And this makes perfect sense when you consider, as I've mentioned before, one of the pitfalls with comparing our approach to those of news sources: news sources rarely if ever need to address the capital point to get their story across. They could omit that Jerusalem (or any city) is a capital city without the message being compromised. Encyclopedias can't do they. Academic sources can't do that. So, I'm not sure why it really matters what news source stylebooks say. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I object to #13. Alongside #14 and #15, it sounds like the status of West Jerusalem is as contested as that of East Jerusalem, which is very clearly not true. Even the sources Dlv999 provides realize that:

"Despite this non-recognition of Israeli sovereignty, most States have nevertheless accepted the de facto applicability of Israeli law, and none has so far demanded that the laws of occupation, including the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, be applied." -- That does not sound seriously contested, especially when the basis of what the source cautiously terms "non-recognition" are a series of inactions in the 1950s. The world has changed since then, and it is a very common knowledge that only the most radical of pro-Palestinian activists and politicians of the region expect West Jerusalem to end up outside Israeli hands.

The other two sources for #13 essentially mirror the same 1950s inactions as evidence of the international community approached the subject... in the past. On the contrary, Hirsch, Housen-Couriel, & Lapidoth (1995) state that "it should be pointed out that the cardinal dispute revolves around the rights of the State of Israel in East Jerusalem, whereas broader agreement exists regarding West Jerusalem, at least with respect to the future control of Israel in this part of the city (though not with regard to sovereignty)."^[5] -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In general, I don't know what #15 is about, in part because it would seem like #13 and #14 would have covered this already (and I already stated my objections to #13). The last two sources primarily focus on East Jerusalem, making them redundant to #14. The other two seem to be making a distinct point, but this is more nuanced and less grand than the concluding summary suggests. Both of the first two sources seem to be effectively stating "even though few in the international community are gunning toward making Jerusalem a corpus separatum, that was the last legal stance on the city so, no matter how long ago that was, that is technically what it should be until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved". Obviously, this should be expressed in a better way, but this is more informative than the imprecise summary presented by #15 now. And, if you're committed to mentioning a dispute over West Jerusalem, it should also be presented in a more nuanced fashion. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the objections to clause 1, the meaning of collective non-recognition is defined in Boczec, "International Law a Dictionary" as "an internationally wrongful act cannot generate a legal right" (p. 92). Vera Gowlland-Debbas states "Collective non-recognition therefore serves to deny legal title" (p. 277). Therefore, the point of the collective non-recognition is to deny Israel the right (title) to have Jerusalem as the capital, and this provides a consistent understanding of all the sources cited. This also means statements 1 and 3 have very similar meanings, with the difference that 1 may be easier to understand. As to Sepsis' phrase, changing the wording to "It appears no news agency (...)" would sidestep the objections raised. Concerning 13-15, these don't say that the statuses of the two halves are the same, they only say that in the Eastern and Western halves there the Israeli view is, separately, contested. The last source listed under statement 1 is relevant also to 13-15. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, and that's fine. But the question here is not about whether Jerusalem is rightfully the capital of Israel -- for which there is obvious consensus among the international community that it is not. I would have no objection to your summary for #1 if it said "...Jerusalem is rightfully the Israeli capital" -- and if it used more relevant sources. -- tariqabjotu 19:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well the sources say that the function of non-recognition is to deny the title and preserve the nullity. If the title of "capital" is denied and the "capitalness" is considered a nullity, then the city isn't seen as a capital and the wording of the statement "Few or no countries agree with Israel that Jerusalem is the Israeli capital" would seem to accurately reflect the position. --Dailycare (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"Deny legal title", "Preserve the nullity" (nullity = legal invalidity). These are issues of legality, which is not the point up for discussion. -- tariqabjotu 21:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If I gather your argument rightly, your proposal would be to modify the wording to "(...) Jerusalem is legally the Israeli capital" (you argue that rather than "rightfully"). The difference between the current text and this proposal would be that the proposal allows for an understanding where other countries could somehow consider Jerusalem the capital, just not "legally" so. This seems however excluded by the other sources, which say e.g. that "(...) "Jerusalem is Israel's capital and will remain as such." That position is universally rejected by other countries". I realize you had some quibbles about this too, but it seems to me that arguing for your proposal requires a very specific reading of the cited sources, with the plain meaning being captured in the present version. The point is that one can't get a valid benefit (such as calling Jerusalem their capital) by doing an illegal act. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Arguing for my proposal requires a very specific reading of the cited sources? Really? As opposed to yours?

First, my proposal is actually the summary under #3, which states matter-of-factly, based on the sources you actually provided, that most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I'm sure that's a statement you agree is correct and supported by those sources. So why can't we stop there? Instead, you want a summary based on your particular interpretation. It doesn't matter how "very specific" you consider my reading (and I don't think it is that specific); there are other interpretations that render your statement unsubstantiated. So it should not be used, plain and simple. This is the same issue that we had below with (11), which resulted in general agreement to change it.

And your concern about inserting the word "rightfully" or, if you prefer, "legally" is reaching. Doing so would not state my interpretation on the matter. At best, it, as you said, "allows for an understanding where other countries could somehow consider Jerusalem the capital, just not 'legally' so". Okay... and what exactly is wrong with that? You don't believe that's possible, but participants should be left to decide whether that is the case. Your source only excludes the understanding you so fear if one continues to make the same assumptions you have, namely that rejection is akin to making something not true. The way I see it, rejected means "to dismiss as inappropriate, inadequate, or not to one's taste". To say you reject a position means to say that position is inappropriate, not that that position is now false.

Just as we have sparred on the general concept of recognition, us two will never see eye-to-eye on what the word "reject" means. However, we should not let either of our interpretations of the word guide how the RfC is constructed. And that it why I rejected your suggestion of #1 as written. I'm not even asking you to modify it to say "legally the capital". Rather, I am requesting that we use the statement under #3, a more matter-of-fact summary of the sources. -- tariqabjotu 22:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be opposed to using (3) instead of (1). (1) is much more accurate reflection of the 5 cited sources for the statement, (3) refers only to non-recognition, but if you look at the 5 sources only two of them use the language of official non-recognition. Dlv999 (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a more accurate reflection if one takes "accept", "reject", and "recognize" to mean as you've interpreted. But I have already presented ways in which these terms ("recognize" in particular) are ambiguous and don't necessarily lead to the conclusion Dailycare drew in Statement #1. I don't understand the opposition to using a summary (#3) that we all agree is substantiated in favor of one (#1) for which there is disagreement. The meaning of "recognition" is one of the core issues in this conflict and we should not take as absolute that it means what you think it means. Recall that Dailycare was not successful at using his source to prove "recognition" means what he takes it to mean. -- tariqabjotu 08:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your proposal requires a very specific reading of the sources, such as assuming that "universally rejected" refers only to "will remain as such" in "Jerusalem is Israel's capital and will remain as such", as well as insisting that "rejecting" a position might mean something different from "not agreeing with" the position. I'm not sure where you feel I wouldn't have proven something I've set out to prove. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It does not require "universally rejected" to refer only to "will remain as such". If you take Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but that position is universally rejected by other countries as Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but that position is universally dismissed as inappropriate by other countries -- which is entirely standard since, you know, that's what rejected means -- there is no problem. Again. Because they may just reject the position or dismiss it as inappropriate because it is not legal, not acceptable, not proper, not in line with other countries' wishes, not considerate to Palestinians, not in accordance with a UN resolution, not fair, not most likely to lead to peace... not a whole bunch of things.

But you want to interpret it as inappropriate because it's not true. That's your interpretation. And that's fine for you take that interpretation. But it is not fine to shove your interpretation down the throat of each and every participant of RfC, just as you have attempted to do with me.

This is the heart of the conflict: what the rejections and lack of recognitions mean. Those who support the current wording, while unwilling to pipe up in a subthread where you have been so stubborn, have repeatedly stated over the years that they have interpreted them in a fashion far closer to the way I have. To deny that your interpretation is anything but that, to deny that your interpretation is not canonical fact, is to deny that your opponents have any position worth considering and deny that this RfC has any merit beyond codifying a consensus you've already achieved in your mind. And while we already know this is how you truly feel, I'd appreciate it if you could restrain yourself for the remaining weeks of this RfC discussion, and save your preaching for the RfC itself. -- tariqabjotu 21:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The source doesn't say "dismissed as inappropriate", the source says "that position is universally rejected by other countries". The source summary statement says that other countries don't agree with Israel on this point. If they "universally reject" Israel's position per the source, then saying they "don't agree" with Israel's position is entirely appropriate. So as you can see, this is rather simple, really, and doesn't at all involve investigating what is objectively "true". Let's recap the sources. Israel says J is the capital. Other countries "universally reject" this. Other countries don't refer to J as the capital. Few states accept that status. Other countries have chosen to undertake a rather complex and explicit exercise of collective diplomatic non-recognition to deny Israel the title to have J as the capital, and to preserve the legal situation that precedes Israel's declaration of J as the capital. No state recognizes Israeli sovereignty over any part of J. So, yes, other countries "don't agree" with Israel on the point of J being I's capital. Capitalness is just a political proclamation, after all, that doesn't have any content outside the politico-legal sphere since it's not the same thing as a seat of government. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, no, a thousand times no. Your interpretation of "reject" as meaning "do not agree with" is just an interpretation. "Dismiss as inappropriate" is a primary definition of the word "reject", so I am not pulling that out of thin air. Other dictionaries opt for "refuse to accept" or something similar. "Not agreeing with" is one definition in some sources, but it is far from the only possible meaning or "reject" -- to say nothing of the other words used to describe how other countries feel about the situation.

Your summary of the various facts as amounting to "not agreeing" with a statement, which is generally equated to "not believing as true", is your interpretation. I read every point your brought up, and I see nothing that amounts to most countries believing that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is invalid or false.

Capitalness is just a political proclamation, after all, that doesn't have any content outside the politico-legal sphere since it's not the same thing as a seat of government.

What are you even doing here if you're going to state that here as if it's gospel? This point is one of the major sticking points in the dispute. Your interpretation is not universally held, or else this issue would have been resolved years ago.

Your refusal to accept a summary that says most countries don't recognize the capital status -- a statement we both agree is substantiated -- speaks volumes. You want an additional statement that biases participants toward your interpretation, plain and simple. And as that is obviously your motivation, it doesn't matter what I say here. This is the kind of duplicitous behavior that led me to request that we never interact with each other outside this RfC. As I see you're going to continue doing that here, I will refuse to recognize any more of your remarks in this RfC discussion and I request you refrain from responding further to me or otherwise giving the impression that I care what you say. -- tariqabjotu 20:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Q1 arbitrary break 1

T, we all agree that the statement that most countries don't recognize the capital status is accurate. The problem here is that it does not fully cover the 5 sources that DC has used for the statement. It really only accurately represents two of the five, the ones that talk about the official non-recognition. The other sources do not use the official language of non-recognition so your statement is inadequate to represent those five sources. I see no problem including your summary statement as an accurate summary of the two sources but DC's sources say something more. I think DC's summary is an accurate reflection of the five. You have not offered an alternative of what would be an accurate reflection of all the sources you only say you do not accept DC's text and you would like to replace it with your statement that only represents two of the sources.

Substituting from the Meriam Webster dictionary you cited above, in your opinion is there any substantive difference between:-

Few or no countries agree with Israel that Jerusalem is the Israeli capital.
Most or all countries refuse to accept the Israel position that Jerusalem is the Israeli capital. Dlv999 (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

hmmm. how about this phrasing? I'm not saying it is such a big difference, just suggesting this. thanks.

Most or all countries do not accept the Israeli position that Jerusalem is the Israeli capital. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It is just as ridiculous to say that my statement for (3) doesn't reflect all of the sources because some of them don't use the precise word "recognize" as it is to say that your second suggestion doesn't reflect any of the sources because none of them use the precise word "accept". Most or all countries refuse to accept the Israeli position that Jerusalem is the Israeli capital. is better, and is virtually equivalent to the summary for (3) anyway. -- tariqabjotu 16:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

hmmm, I am a bit confused. Tariqabjotu, no one said that your statement for (3) is all that bad. my impression is that they are simply suggesting an alternative (unless I'm mistaken in my reading of that). --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I really do not see why we are still fighting over this. Dlv999, you've admitted that Tariqabjotu's text is in line with some sources. I do not see what we are still disputing over this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

T has suggested rejecting DC's statment (1) and using his own(3) as an alternative. I don't think there is anything inconsistent in my position that I do not have a problem with T's statement, as far as it goes (representing two of DC's sources) while also maintaining that it is not a good reflection of a broad cross section of the sources presented by DC and not an appropriate option as a basis for excluding (1). If we were to choose one of the two statements I would support (1) as a more accurate reflection of all the cited sources. Dlv999 (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are confused. P.S. Stop excessively indenting; you only need to indent one tab farther for a reply. -- tariqabjotu 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not refusing to accept a summary that says other countries don't recognize J as C. Since not everyone knows what recognition means, it makes sense to open it up. Speaking of dictionaries now, this one says "reject" means "to refuse to have, take, recognize" or "to refuse to accept, acknowledge, use, believe, etc". On the other hand "agree" means simply "have the same opinion about something; concur", or "to have the same views, emotions, etc.". Clearly, since the international community does not "accept", "acknowledge" or "believe" Israel's position, it doesn't "have the same views" as Israel does on this subject. The definition you provided leads to the same result, since "dismissing as inapprioriate" also amounts to not having the same views. Ditto for refusing diplomatic recognition. These word-games are rather boring, by the way, which is why I appreciate your edit summary which indicates your last reply was final. I don't quite follow your argument under which a view which you feel isn't "universally held" is irrelevant. This can be my final entry on this subject, too. Kind regards, --Dailycare (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

well, i'm not sure who said they were closing discussion here. however, I'm fine with ending discussion, if that's what people wish to do. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Q1 arbitrary break 2

Sorry if this is overlong, it is hard to address the points raised by Tariqabjotu without significant reference to the source material. He cites Hirsch et al (1995)^[5] as evidence against statement (13). In fact the source supports the statement. From the Tariqabjotu's quote: "whereas broader agreement exists regarding West Jerusalem, at least with respect to the future control of Israel in this part of the city (though not with regard to sovereignty)." Statement 13 is about views on the current sovereignty/capital status of WJ (directly related to the central point of this RfC). Agreements about future control are not relevant to the statement. The pertinent point here is that the source states there is not an agreement over sovereignty, which supports statement 13. Quoting further from Tariqabjotu's source:

Elucidating the “main positions” on the status of Jerusalem, with respect to West Jerusalem, the source cites the following opinions: Henry Cattan: "Israeli control in west Jerusalem since 1948 was illegal and most states have not recognized its sovereignty there.[76] International law does not recognize the acquisition of a sovereign right by use of force, and Israel's status in the New City is only that of an occupying power.[77]" Citing Jordan's Crown Prince Hassan Bin Talal: "Israel's seizure of the western part of the city in 1948 did not grant it sovereignty because according to international law self-defense is not a method of acquiring title to territory; Israel's status in the city is that of a military occupant.[79] Nor do resolutions passed by the UN after the 1967 War attest that the organization has recognized implicitly Israel's sovereignty in West Jerusalem, and most states have refused to recognize any such claim.[80]" Citing G.I.A.D. Draper; "Israel did not acquire sovereignty in west Jerusalem in 1948 (nor did Jordan in east Jerusalem), because the international community had intended to establish in the city an international regime under UN administration. Both then and now, sovereignty has remained suspended and Israel's status in the city is that of a military occupant.[81]"^[5]

This is not contrary to the evidence that I have adduced, it reinforces it and supports statement (13) that Israeli views on the sovereignty/capital status of Jerusalem are not uncontested fact. T adds some personal commentary about evidence from the 1950s stating that "The world has changed since then". I have two points to add. All the serious academic sources I have consulted (both Israeli scholars and non-Israeli and T's own source) cite the historical developments and precedents in the 40s, 50s, 60s ect as relevant to an understanding of what the current status of Jerusalem is. Secondly I agree, a lot has changed, on the issue of Jerusalem the Israeli position has become less and less accepted over time especially following 1967, and 1980. So one of the sources T dismisses (an academic discussion of Israel's attempts to "attain international legitimacy for Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, as capital city"^[6]) states that in the 1950's while the US and the main European countries "refused to recognize Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, let alone consider the city the capital of Israel" some 24 countries did recognize west Jerusalem and locate their embassies there. However the source goes on to describe how, from the Israeli perspective, this situation deteriorated following later developments:

"The Basic Law: Jerusalem, initiated by MK (Member of Knesset) Geula Cohen with the support of the Prim minister Manechem Begin, did not contribute anything to the strengthening of Jerusalem. Just the opposite: Twenty-two of the twenty-four countries that had previously recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel moved their embassies out of the city. Only two embassies stayed put: those of Costa Rica and El Salvador. In the summer of 2006, these two countries announced the adoption of a new policy whereby they would not recognize Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem, and transferred their embassies out of the city. Even the United States, Israel's closest ally, made it clear that until there is an agreed-upon arrangement with the Palestinians, meaning a division of the city, it will not recognize Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or move its embassy there. Forty years of diplomatic efforts on this front have brought Israel nothing but disappointment and failure.[3]"^[6] Dlv999 (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 13 is about views on the current sovereignty/capital status of WJ (directly related to the central point of this RfC). Agreements about future control are not relevant to the statement.

I'm not so sure about that. Given part of this whole mess [currently] is what Jerusalem should be (in terms of capital status and in terms of sovereignty), what it should be in the future is entirely relevant. And I don't believe it is accurate at all to suggest the objections to Israel's control of West Jerusalem are as strong as those to the country's control of East Jerusalem. This is clearly demonstrated, not only by the source I presented, but also by the strong reaction the international community took after Israel's annexation of the eastern half of the city and its declaration that the whole of the city is theirs. -- tariqabjotu 09:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (Striking in accordance with simultaneous comment below. -- tariqabjotu 09:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)) (Reopening comment. -- tariqabjotu 01:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC))

I see there are no statements that address the future. If you feel it is important, perhaps we could include a sourced statement explaining the different views on what the future control of WJ/EJ/Jerusalem should be according to various parties (I would guess even on the future status of WJ there will not be unanimous agreement, some will probably advocate a corpus separantum arrangement, but I would have to survey the sources to confirm that). On the second point, no one has suggested that "the objections to Israel's control of West Jerusalem are as strong as those to the country's control of East Jerusalem". All the statements say that in each case the Israeli view of status/capital is not an uncontested fact. Dlv999 (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You used the exact same words in (13)-(15) to describe the controversy over East Jerusalem, West Jerusalem, and the whole of Jerusalem. So any reasonable person, seeing that side-by-side, would infer that the degree to which they're contested is very similar. -- tariqabjotu 21:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Statements 13-15 do not "describe the controversy" they simply state that in each situation the Israeli view is not an uncontested fact. In each case that statement is supported by a good cross section of sources. From the statements, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the exact nature of the disagreement in each case, only that disagreement exists. Anyone drawing the such conclusions is making irrational assumptions not supported by the meaning of the statements. I would strongly contest that reasonable people will draw irrational assumptions not supported by the meaning of the statements. Dlv999 (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This is pointless. You apply the same exact description to West Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, and Jerusalem as a whole. Side-by-side, absent any qualification or scale on how significant the divergence of opinion is on each issue, the statements can (and will) be interpreted as suggesting all three statuses are very similar. There's nothing irrational about this; this is a standard interpretation. I probably wouldn't need to say this if we weren't talking about Jerusalem. But, unfortunately, we are, so you will pretend I'm making irrational interpretations that -- once again -- you feel should be ignored in deference to your particular literal reading of the sentences. So, as I said, pointless, like every one of my comments here seems to be. -- tariqabjotu 08:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but the conclusion you have drawn from the statements is not supported by the statements. I do not accept that the standard interpretation is one that draws conclusions not supported by the statements. An irrational argument is one where the conclusion is not supported by the premise. The premise here is that there is not agreement on the Israeli position with regards to the Status of EJ,WJ and Jerusalem as a whole. The conclusion you draw is that the weight of arguments is identical in each case. Conclusion is not supported by premise, by definition an irrational argument. Dlv999 (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought we're not supposed to litigate this question here, but rather to leave it for the Rfc. alternately, if either one of you DO want to resolve this issue or any such issue here, then one of you should be providing a compromise position by now. either we should treat this discussion as a dispute, and pursue some resolution, or else simply leave the whole thing for the Rfc to address. it really has to be one of those options or the other, in my opinion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Dlv999, I have better things to do than explain to you how people think outside the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We could not write Hong Kong has many high-rises over 35 meters. Manila has many high-rises over 35 meters., as no reasonable person would read that and guess that Hong Kong has ten times as many. We could not write Some countries had embassies in Jerusalem before 1980. Some countries had embassies in Tel Aviv before 1980., as no reasonable person would read that and guess that there were several times as many in Tel Aviv. These sentences don't explicitly state how many high-rises and embassies are/were in each city, but a reasonable person -- based on the parallel construction -- would draw the conclusion that they're similar. So, no, your sentences do not explicitly state that there is the same amount of divergence of opinion about West Jerusalem as there is about East Jerusalem. However, a reasonable person would draw the conclusion that there is. There is no doubt that at the back (or the front) of your mind you know this, and you are using a misleading summary to your advantage: arguing that it doesn't technically say X, but hoping and expecting people to assume X.

Sm8900, so long as Dlv999 continues to label this thought process as "irrational" and play these word games, I don't expect him to cede anything. But a more precise and concise way to describe (13)-(15) is with the sentence, The Israeli view regarding the sovereignty and capital status of Jerusalem (especially East Jerusalem) is not uncontested, and there is a significant divergence of opinion over the status of the city (especially East Jerusalem). And even this is potentially problematic, for some of the same reasons I raised with Dailycare in the subsection above. Nevertheless, I won't be holding my breath for Dlv999 to accept that rewrite. -- tariqabjotu 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The sky scraper analogy does not say anything to me. Whether that scenario would be appropriate is dependent on context. The context here is not a Wikipedia article, it is a source summary statement for an RfC. Further context is that the current contested wording describes the status of Jerusalem as a fact. We have a core policy tells us to "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." In that context I think it is appropriate to provide to the RfC participants the information that in no part of Jerusalem is the Israeli view of the status an uncontested fact. That was the sole point of adding the statements. I have no underhand motives, I would simply like to see the lead of this article conform to our core policy and the source evidence.

When formulating the statements I considered addressing the issue of weight of arguments in each case, but my feeling was that it would be controversial and the statements would be rejected. It is a lot easier to prove that there are different opinions on an issue than prove the exact weight of each opinion. In my view it is only necessary to show there are different views to address the core policy violation in the lead. I was hoping the statements with the supporting evidence would be irrefutable, but it appears you have found a novel objection: that people will draw conclusions not supported by the statements. If you want me to give a suggestion which gives an account of the weight of arguments my honest assessment would be: "There is very little support for the Israeli view regarding the Sovereignty and capital status of Jerusalem (especially East Jerusalem)". You seem to want an accurate reflection of the weight of arguments in each case, but your suggestion does not give any feeling for the general consensus rejecting Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem and rejection of its claims of Jerusalem as a "united capital". Dlv999 (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion was an attempt to stay faithful to your original. But if you want to completely change it up to say what you you just proposed in italics, I'd be perfectly fine with that. -- tariqabjotu 12:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with that as well. good idea. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If the goal is to distinguish cities with high-rises from cities without, then those statements would allow HK and Manila to be placed in the high-rise category and not in the non-high-rise category. The source cited in my own source summary statement says: "no state recognizes Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem in neither its eastern nor western half". As we have 1) a source which uses identical language, 2) the source summary statements don't say the extent of contesting is identical, and 3) it makes no difference to our purpose if the extent of contesting is or isn't identical, I don't see what the fuss is about. --Dailycare (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

sounds fine to me. can we please incorporate this idea into a draft, move it into consensus, and then get the RFC set up? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Q1 arbitrary break 3

I would contest (11). Firstly one of the sources is a primary source, the Jerusalem Basic Law which proclaims that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel". We shouldn't be interpreting primary sources, we use secondary sources for that. Regarding the basic law Hirsch et al^[5] state that "The law did not change the city's legal status; its importance lies in its declarative effect."

The second (CIA fact book source) does list Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but states that "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv". The sources would be enough to support a statement that Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem its capital. Although not in the sources I think the fact that Israel has moved its governmental buildings to Jerusalem is uncontested. What is at issue is what effects the proclamation and the movement of governmental buildings has on the actual sovereign/capital status of Jerusalem. From the sources I have consulted the issue rests on whether a sovereign state in the modern nation state system has the ability to put its capital outside of its recognized sovereign territory. Obviously Israel controls the territory. It has moved its seat of government there (fact), it has proclaimed that it is its capital (fact), what are the implications of these actions on the actual sovereign/capital status of Jerusalem? Well that is not something that can be expressed as a fact, it is hotly contested and the sources adduced for (11) are nowhere near representative of the significant views on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It has moved its seat of government there (fact), it has proclaimed that it is its capital (fact)...

So... why do you contest #11? Isn't that what it says? -- tariqabjotu 09:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I would happily support "Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital and seat of the Israeli government". The contentious point is what implications these actions (proclamation and movement of government buildings) have had on the actual sovereign/capital status of Jerusalem. (11) which states that "Israel has made Jerusalem its capital", adopts assumptions about the effects the Israeli actions have had on the status. However these assumptions are not fact, they are hotly contested and on which there are numerous significant views. The two cited sources don't go anywhere near representing the different views on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an exceedingly high degree of precision, and it makes it very difficult to take you seriously with the vagueness you put forth in your summaries of the sources under #13-15. So, I won't do so. -- tariqabjotu 09:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

dlv - you are getting closer. i would agree to: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, as proclaimed by the Knesset and seat of the Israeli government. Soosim (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

My statements 13-15 are supported by the sources I have cited. The sources themselves are a good cross section of the academic discussion on the issue of capital/soverighn status of Jerusalem (including both Israeli and non-Israeli scholarship). In contrast BW statement is based on two sources, one of them primary. As discussed above, the statement is not a good reflection of the sources, being based on an interpretation of a primary source. Nor are the two sources a good cross section of what relevant sources have said on the issue. In my view this is not about precision, it is about not presenting contentious claims as fact, which is what (11) does by adopting the assumption that Israeli actions of proclamation of capital and movement of government buildings has resulted in a specific outcome on the capital/sovereignty status of Jerusalem. A good cross section of the sources indicates that the effect of these Israeli actions on capital/soverighn status is disputed. (Dlv999 (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that stating that "Israel has made J its C" is equivalent to "J is the C of I" and that the sources do not support anything more than Israel's claiming of J as its C. Sepsis II (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is eye-opening. I thought one issue throughout the years of this debate is that those who supported saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" generally thought those two statements were equivalent whereas those opposed to it thought they were distinct -- and that there was no disagreement that the first statement is true. But, apparently there is agreement that the two statements are equivalent, but disagreement over whether the first statement is true? Mind-boggling.

"The government of Israel has made Jerusalem its capital and seat of government" attributes the action entirely to the Israeli government. It has declared Jerusalem as its capital. It has placed its seat of government there. Ergo, the Israeli government has made Jerusalem its capital and seat of government. (Likewise, it seems perfectly adequate to say "The government of Palestine has made Jerusalem its capital", assuming you can keep 'seat of government' and 'capital' divorced in your mind.) Those opposed to saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" have argued those two points are not sufficient to state "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Okay, fine. But that is not the same as stating the government of Israel has made Jerusalem its capital and seat of government, a basic statement that directly follows from those two points.

Frankly, I think this is unnecessary nitpicking aimed at chipping away at an undesirable statement. However, if the word make sounds a little too close to is for you (cue eye-rolling) then find a synonym that conveys the same point about what the Israeli government has done, rather than reduce it do a choppy point that just states word-for-word what the two supporting sources say or a statement that includes words like "proclaimed" that cast unnecessary aspersions. It was quite obvious that BritishWatcher was just attempting to make a plain, incontestable statement focusing on what the Israeli government has done (in order to suggest that its actions satisfy the dictionary definitions he presented); if you don't like the plain way he said it, you need to find another similarly straightforward way to say it. -- tariqabjotu 15:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"The government of Israel has made Jerusalem its capital and seat of government." is not backed by the sources, a statement like "The government of Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital and has made it its seat of government." is what the sources back. Sepsis II (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You didn't even acknowledge my statement. I know you want to be more precise, I got that. But the original statement is not backed by sources only if you take the least forgiving interpretation of made. I have not done that. And it seems BritishWatcher did not intend to do that. And given the sources provided, and the very existence of this RfC, I'm struggling to believe any participant without a similar predisposition would make the same error. So please cut out the curt attitude that implies malicious intent. -- tariqabjotu 18:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"you need to find another similarly straightforward way to say it." I did infact respond to your post. I'm not going to take your bait, I will only focus on the actual content of comments. Sepsis II (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest "Jerusalem is the proclaimed/declared capital and seat of the Israeli government" as consistent with the sources: The CIA fact book states "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital..." the secondary source discussing the Jerusalem Basic law cited above states "The law did not change the city's legal status; its importance lies in its declarative effect." The problem with "made" as discussed above is that it indicates the Israeli actions of proclamation of capital and relocation of government buildings has resulted in a specific outcome on the capital/sovereignty status of Jerusalem, while a good cross section of sources would indicate that the effect the Israeli actions have had on capital/sovereignty status is disputed. As an aside I don't believe "proclaimed" carries any negative connotations as "claim" would, but I would be happy to settle for declared. Dlv999 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too particular on the wording of claim/proclaim/declared/etc, as long as it is a synonym. 'Made' of course is something completely different and is in this case equivalent to is, the same as If I made my bed into a pillow fortress then my bed is a pillow fortress. Sepsis II (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, from context, it is exceedingly obvious that that is not the meaning of "made" that was intended. BritishWatcher was just trying to state what the Israeli government has done. The use of the pithy "proclaimed capital", however, introduces doubt and completely changes the meaning of what BritishWatcher said. Something along the lines of "The Israeli government made Jerusalem its seat of government and declared it its capital." is much more matter-of-fact. -- tariqabjotu 19:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

First, what is this other meaning of made that you keep going on about? Second, how is one's alleged intent a defense for a misleading source summary? Third, considering that BW's source summary was misleading, changing the meaning of what BW said is exactly what needs to be done. Fourth, your last sentence has an identical meaning to what I already proposed above (directly above your post accusing me of malicious intent), besides swapping claim for declared, which I stated above is a non-issue for me. Sepsis II (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been focused on the meaning of BW's statement, whether it accurately reflects the two sources he cited and whether the two sources are a good cross section of sources. The intention of other editors is largely unknowable and apart from assuming good faith I don't think it is useful to speculate. I wouldn't agree with your comments about "proclaimed" it is a word actually used by one of the two sources supporting the statement. Having said that, I would accept your latest proposal for this statement. Dlv999 (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dlv999. I also would accept the aforementioned latest proposal for this statement. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question two: Ways to make a more concise list

Please see my closing comments below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could you see any way that the statements above could be combined into a more concise list? Or do you think that some of the statements could be omitted because they are of relatively minor importance compared to the other points?

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think these modifications could be made:

3 isn't needed if 1 is already there (see the meaning of non-recognition, above)
5 and 7 could be combined (relating to Tel Aviv)
13-15 could be combined (relating to East/West and all of Jerusalem)--Dailycare (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I do believe some combining is possible:

I believe 3 should be used instead of 1.
2 and 4 can be combined.
I do not believe 5 and 7 should be combined, in light of #Source_summaries: direct relevance of Tel_Aviv.
13-15 should be combined, for sure. Those can also be combined with 8.

-- tariqabjotu 20:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that #2 (Referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital is controversial) and #4 (Not referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital is controversial) can probably be combined, although I wonder if it might perhaps be better say "Israel or Palestines capital" in light the controversy of the BBC Olympics coverage described here and in the sources originally cited by Tariq in connection to #4 above among others related controversies. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

while the controversy can/should be mentioned, equating palestine with israel doesn't make sense since palestine is not on the country list (yet). so an adjective like 'future' for palestine would make more sense. Soosim (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. These are source opinion summaries and this section is just about whether it is possible to discard or combine any to reduce the number of statements without compromising the information gathered. I'm only proposing that a combined source summary statement about what is controversial also mentions the State of Palestine. I don't think it is controversial to describe Palestinian aspirations regarding Jerusalem. It's controversial to say that Jerusalem is already the capital of Palestine, as the BBC did, before they changed it. Basically it seems to be controversial to present (or not present) what Israel and Palestine regard as their current capitals as fact. Having said that, I should add for completeness that I have absolutely no evidence based reason whatsoever to believe that the "Not referring to Jerusalem as Palestine's capital is controversial" implication that would be generated by changing "Israel's capital" to "Israel or Palestines capital" in a combined 2+4 statement has any basis in fact. I'm just being lazy with the combining. Someone can probably come up with a suitable combination. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Close of questions 1-2

I have organised this close by individual drafts to make things easier to follow. It is now obvious to me that I should have done this for the actual discussion as well - sorry if things were hard to follow. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 1

"Few or no countries agree with Israel that Jerusalem is the Israeli capital."

There was a rough agreement that this statement was redundant with statement three. However, despite the two statements being very similar, there was considerable disagreement about which one should be used. I note that some of the fine distinctions between them consist of points of legality and of the semantics of Israel's declaration, but I suspect that this distinction would be lost on most commenters unless it is specifically pointed out to them. So in the absence of a consensus on which one to use, I am going to create a half-and-half version: "Few or no countries recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 2

"Referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital is controversial."

There was agreement that this could be combined with statement four. I have made an attempt at this on the RfC draft page. There was also a suggestion that we include Palestine in the statement. I have added it for now, although it can of course be removed if there is opposition to the idea. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 3

"Most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."

See #Statement 1 above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 4

"Not referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital is controversial."

See #Statement 2 above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 5

"Some reputable sources use "Tel Aviv" as a metonym, as shorthand for 'Israel'."

There seems to be a rough consensus to include this, given the result of question four. It was also suggested that it be merged with statement seven. I am aware that there was resistance to the idea of merging the two, but given the actual mechanics of how I have constructed the source statements, it seemed like the most natural thing to do. Personally, If others object to this, then I don't mind splitting the two. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 6

"East Jerusalem, which this article treats as part of Jerusalem, is in the Palestinian territories and is occupied by Israel."

There weren't any objections to this one, so I'm including it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 7

"Some reputable sources refer to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel."

See #Statement 5 above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 8

"The status of Jerusalem is seriously disputed by news organizations and courts."

See #Statement 13 below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 9

"Many sources consider it correct to list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when there is little room for nuance, but in prose, objective sources often use qualifiers which show that the status as capital was achieved unilaterally."

I didn't see any objections to this, so I am including it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 10

"Jerusalem-as-capital is the focus of Palestinian national aspirations."

I didn't see any objections to this one, either, so I am including it. I have an urge to switch the sentence round to make Palestine the subject, though: "Palestine aspires to make Jerusalem its capital." If anyone objects to that, though, we can go with the suggested version or with another tweak. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 11

"The government of Israel has made Jerusalem its capital and seat of government."

There was a great deal of debate about this statement, and no real consensus about what to do. The primary dispute focused on whether it was better to say that Israel "made" Jerusalem its capital, or whether to say it "claims" Jerusalem as its capital. It is not surprising that participants would disagree about this, as this is the same basic question that the whole RfC is about. As such, I think we should sidestep the issue if at all possible, to avoid clouding the judgement of participants at the RfC.

In the lead of the Jerusalem article we might not have the space necessary to sidestep the issue well, but in the source summary we can take up quite a lot of space if it is necessary. I think the best idea would be to make the statement slightly longer, and go back to the basic facts of the matter. So how about this:

"In 1949, the Israeli Prime Minister announced that Jerusalem was an 'organic and inseparable part of the State of Israel', and after that Israel began moving all branches of its government to the city. In 1980, the Knesset passed a law that said 'Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.' As of 2013, the only part of the Israeli government that is not located in Jerusalem is the Ministry of Defence."

We can tweak this some more if there are problems with it. Also, we will need to choose some good sources to back it up, as the existing ones don't cover my proposed text. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 12

"No news agency with a guideline for neutral reporting allows Jerusalem to be reported as the capital of Israel."

There was agreement that it is hard to justify the absolute use of "no", and no alternative wordings were produced. Because of this, I'm not including this statement, but with no prejudice against including a more softly worded version later if there is consensus for that. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 13

"Israeli view regarding sovereignty/capital status of West Jerusalem is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion."

Statements 13-15 provoked much debate, but the main disputing parties agreed on the text, "There is very little support for the Israeli view regarding the Sovereignty and capital status of Jerusalem (especially East Jerusalem)". So that is what we'll use. It was also suggested that we merge statement number eight into this one. There wasn't much discussion about the merge of #8, but it seems reasonable to me, so I will go ahead and do it unless there are any objections. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 14

"Israeli view regarding sovereignty/capital status of East Jerusalem is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion."

See #Statement 13 above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement 15

"Israeli view regarding sovereignty/capital status of Jerusalem is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion."

See #Statement 13 above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question three: News sources

I see disagreement about whether the topic area counts as "academic" or not, and no real consensus on what to do with news sources. Given that the normal state of affairs on Wikipedia is to allow news sources, I don't think a "no consensus" result from this question is enough to justify excluding news sources from the source summary. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Many of the sources presented are news sources, but WP:NEWSORG says that academic sources may be preferred for academic content. Is this a topic area where academic sources might be preferred, or are news sources fine to use for this purpose? Is it acceptable to use both news sources and academic sources as examples of opinions in sources?

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG is for mainspace content. It doesn't say anything about how sources should be used in the presentation of an RFC.
Except in the general sense that anything is potentially an academic topic, the status of Jerusalem is not one. It's a matter of political controversy about which no academic qualification makes someone more entitled to offer an opinion. No academic discipline has made it its business to try to answer the question or form a consensus on it. Even in the field of international law, such a consensus would only be valid from the perspective of international law.
Academic sources are suitable for academic questions. Many aspects of this debate are not to do with anything academic, but to do with Wikipedia policies. For example, it is not reasonable to expect that the question "what do sources say?" should be answered by anything other than reference to whatever sources are acceptable according to normal Wikipedia standards. On specific academic points, news sources and other sources may be unsuitable. But that is not true when considering the question in the round.

Formerip (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is such a bad response, you were better off not responding at all. -- tariqabjotu 19:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's really too early to be such a pissy loser. Formerip (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh. Excuse me? What exactly do you think I stand to "lose"? Let me be more precise in my critique of your comment:

WP:NEWSORG is for mainspace content. It doesn't say anything about how sources should be used in the presentation of an RFC.

It's nearly impossible to even come up with a response to that. We are discussing content that is ultimately going to makes its way into a mainspace article. This is a weak argument, and I can't imagine that you didn't realize that when you typed it.

No academic discipline has made it its business to try to answer the question or form a consensus on it. Even in the field of international law, such a consensus would only be valid from the perspective of international law.

I'm not sure it's true that no academic source has explored this in depth. But, even if they haven't, they sure as hell have gone farther to do some research about this topic than news sources.

For example, it is not reasonable to expect that the question "what do sources say?" should be answered by anything other than reference to whatever sources are acceptable according to normal Wikipedia standards.

And yet you started your comment by saying that WP:NEWSORG doesn't matter because it's addressing mainspace content and not sources presented during the course of an RfC.

As I said, this was a poor response to the question at hand. -- tariqabjotu 19:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Formerip (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

News sources are professional in reporting political positions, such as what is the view of government X with regard to Jerusalem or how widely is a certain view held internationally, which makes them ideal for use here. This is especially the case when they're used as meta-sources on the relative prevalence of views which we can use for weight and fringe purposes. Overall we use (higher-end) journalism in Wikipedia all the time. If this was about cosmology, the case could be different but this isn't, so it isn't. --Dailycare (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

To actually answer the question, yes, academic sources are better. I see news sources as "let's see how other sources deal with this issue". That being said, I believe that would be more useful with encyclopedic sources than news sources, since Wikipedia is the former not the latter and they are more likely to have aims closer to ours here. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question four: Tel Aviv

Though this question was contentious, it doesn't seem that any of the participants involved are against including the source summary statements in question. Arguments about whether the mentions of Tel Aviv as a metonym are mistakes or not properly belong in the RfC itself, and don't really have any bearing on the decision to make here. So the result is that we will include the statements about Tel Aviv, and that we need not worry about participants' motivations for including them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Both Formerip and Tariqabjotu included mentions of Tel Aviv in news sources used as a metonym for Israel. It appears that Formerip included this with the intent to illustrate a legitimate but minority view. Tariqabjotu, on the other hand, included this to demonstrate the propensity of news sources to "misinterpret fine political points". Does this discrepancy matter when constructing the source statement, or may we safely include this view despite the different motivations behind it?

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Really, the only relevant point I see coming from the Tel Aviv as capital discussion is that it shows that there is controversy over what is the capital of Israel. If it were completely non-controversial to state that J is the C of I then no news agency would have ever reported that Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel. So all this Tel Aviv business does it show that it is controversial to state that J is the C of I. If I am right about this, then I think we should just add it as one more case of the media avoiding calling J the C of I and forget about how they actually avoided it because I don't think anyone here is actually arguing for the inclusion of information about Tel Aviv in the opening of the Jerusalem article or that Tel Aviv is the C of I. Sepsis II (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly fair. And that would be the end of it if our business here were limited to dealing in common sense. But we also have to deal in Wikipedia argument. Which means people demanding sources. Some of those people will demand sources that say that the C of I is something other than J. Here are those sources. And we can't, as Tariqabjotu would have us do, respond by saying that we have excluded that POV from consideration because we felt that the writers in question must be a bit dim-witted. Formerip (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If the business here were limited to dealing in common sense there would be no need for this RfC since we all know Jerusalem is the capital of Israel although it's not recognized as such.

Saying the usage of a metonym means anything without a reliable source making that argument is OR and goes against wikipedia policy. The RfC moderator should not allow it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

And we can't, as Tariqabjotu would have us do, respond by saying that we have excluded that POV from consideration

This has never happened. If you did nothing else, did you read the part of Mr. Stradivarius's summary where it says "Tariqabjotu, on the other hand, included this"? -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You indicated that you wanted to include these sources with a rationale about the imputed intelligence of the authors. But, since no-one has proposed that a key question for us to put to the community should be about journalistic standards, I assumed this to be just you making a noise.

If you want to include these sources and add a circular commentary to the effect that they are wrong because they are silly because they are wrong, then I don't think we should. In respect of all the sources, I think we should be silent on the question of whether they are silly and wrong.

If you want to include the sources with no particular commentary, but you own reasons for wanting them there are different to mine, then OK. Formerip (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you ask Mr. S. if you're unsure of the aims of this question and the earlier request for source statements. They seemed abundantly clear to me, but your if-then conditionals suggest they weren't. -- tariqabjotu 09:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

and many RS use jerusalem as a metonym for israel. both metonyms can be listed in a section of the article, but no need to discuss it in the lede. Soosim (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I largely agree with Sepsis II's assessment of this. The Tel Aviv thing seems a bit of a red herring at first glance but perhaps a useful one in that it gives people some sense of how confusing and contradictory RS handling of this capital issue can be i.e. this is apparently not as straightforward as many people might think had they never looked at any RS. I think the "as a metonym for Israel" issue is less significant than #7 "Some reputable sources refer to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel." This is a fact and inconvenient contradictory evidence. I don't really agree with Tariq's assessment that things like this "Demonstrates absurdity, unreliability of news sources, propensity for them to misinterpret fine political points". To draw that conclusion, you already need to have something in your mind that you think is correct, like the word capital should always refer to where the government is located, or "it's Jerusalem stupid" etc. But sources can and do use the word capital without explaining exactly what they mean. It's not unusual for sources to refer to El Aaiún as the capital of Western Sahara for example. It's not at all obvious what they mean or why they use that word given Western Sahara's status as a non-decolonized territory among other things. It could be because it's the largest city, or it was a former capital or perhaps it's because it's the proclaimed capital of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or a regional capital according to Morocco (although that last one doesn't make sense spatially). You often can't tell from the sources (and it's a good example of dictionaries not helping). The Tel Aviv issue may be similar in the sense that some sources use the word capital for Tel Aviv in ways that perhaps conflict with preconceived notions. It doesn't necessarily indicate that there is a problem with the source or news sources in general. Some sources referring to Tel Aviv as the capital could just as well be an inevitable statistical outcome caused by the ambiguity of language. It's impossible to tell when the sources don't explain what they mean. But it is the case that some reputable sources really do somewhat puzzlingly refer to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really agree with Tariq's assessment that things like this "Demonstrates absurdity, unreliability of news sources, propensity for them to misinterpret fine political points". To draw that conclusion, you already need to have something in your mind that you think is correct, like the word capital should always refer to where the government is located, or "it's Jerusalem stupid" etc.

No, you don't need to have those predispositions. You're mixing up two points that have been made regarding sources and Tel Aviv. One point supported by some sources is that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. I don't think there is any basis for that, but those sources say what those sources say and I have not used their references to Tel Aviv as capital of Israel as evidence of their unreliability. The second point supported by some sources is that Tel Aviv is an appropriate metonym for Israel.

That second point is the one I find bewildering. Generally, cities are used as metonyms for concepts based in or close to them. When referring to national governments, those are generally seats of power (which usually are capital cities anyway). It is indisputable that the seat of Israeli power, the seat of the Israeli government, is Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv, so it makes no sense for a source to refer to a "Tel Aviv government" or talk about "relations between Tel Aviv and Washington" when there is no [national] government in Tel Aviv. Now, FormerIP believes that those sources are not implying that Tel Aviv is the seat of government, instead arguing that capital cities -- not seats of power -- are used as metonyms for their respective governments. But this is hard to believe when metonyms with Jerusalem are far easier to find in news sources (including in the news sources FormerIP presented as evidence) than specific references to Jerusalem as capital of Israel. That also seems to be corroborated by the relative ease of finding sources using the Hague (rather than Amsterdam) as a metonym for the Netherlands. The sources that have used "Tel Aviv government" as a metonym for Israel have obviously just made a mistake, and the fact that such a phrase could be printed and still have no correction years later demonstrates the low level of editorial rigor applied by news sources to complex topics like this one. -- tariqabjotu 17:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an absurd conclusion to reach. We're not talking about pieces written by interns. We have the Washington bureau chief for WSJ, the chief defence correspondent for Le Figaro and an award-winning FT correspondent based in Jerusalem (can he really have just been absent-minded about where the Israeli government is based?). And I reckon two times UK Journalist of the Year John Pilger may have an opinion regarding the status of Jerusalem. It may be this that has guided his decision to write the words "Tel Aviv", rather than his geographical ignorance. Formerip (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I said they made mistakes, not that they had no idea what they were talking about. They could have misunderstood what a metonym makes more sense in reference to seat of government than a perceived alternate capital. Perhaps they interpreted they conflated their stylebook's stance on Jerusalem as capital with using Jerusalem as a metonym. Or maybe it was an editor along the way that made the change for whatever reason. Or maybe it was just a mistake. It doesn't matter the reason: it could have been an editor, it could have been an award-winning correspondent. People make mistakes, and it is not unreasonable that one would be made in this area, where they are not intensely reviewing this relatively minor point in their articles and where there are deadlines to be met. -- tariqabjotu 00:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ill say, in my view, that even if one does not consider Jerusalem to be Israel's capital, Tel Aviv is unequivocally not Israel's capital, and any source that says it is the capital of Israel is just wrong. I think the style guidelines from BBC or AP are fine as sources for this as they demonstrate an editorial policy, but random news sources that just say Tel Aviv is the capital should be thrown out. For being low-quality (what the capital of Israel is isn't exactly news, that thing that news sources are best suited for, just like a prior instance where several news sources wrongly called Katzrin the largest town in the Golan) and for being objectively wrong. nableezy - 17:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources that say Tel Aviv are doing so on the basis of a flawed reading of international law. But the same argument could be made about sources that say Jerusalem. In neither case can we disregard a POV from consideration because we don't like it. We can eventually conclude (or allow the community to conclude) that it is wrong, but that's another matter. Formerip (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, the Times style guide which is cited below (my comment timestamped 10:35) explicitly says that the reason they don't use Jerusalem as a metonym for Israel is that Jerusalem's status as capital isn't recognized. Based on that, I'd say that using Tel Aviv is a result of wanting to use a metonym but not wanting to use Jerusalem, rather than a mistake. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tariq, I don't really understand why you think sources need to make sense to us but nevermind that. Yes, I consciously mixed the points because they seem essentially the same to me, sources using words in ways that conflict with preconceptions. I'd rather avoid drawing conclusions about sources based on my preconceptions (and I'm sure I have many) about how to use language or what makes sense to me. As you say, sources say what they say. The key point I was trying to make, probably badly, was simply that the volume of material makes it inevitable that some sources will say things that don't seem to make sense to some people or use language in unusual, unexpected ways. The content presumably made perfect sense to the people who wrote it. Sources like this may or may not matter, it's hard to tell without other information. I don't think we can draw any reliable conclusions about why they said what they said, whether they were right or wrong or what it means unless we have something like The Times style guide to explain it. If I wandered into an RfC and saw #5 'Some reputable sources use "Tel Aviv" as a metonym, as shorthand for "Israel"' my reaction would probably be "And...". Without an explanation from a source that does this, it doesn't tell me anything. #7 'Some reputable sources refer to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel' I would ascribe to randomness without a more plausible explanation from a source. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question five: Dictionaries

See my closing comments below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is clear from the discussion that I collapsed on 6 April that the use of dictionary definitions in source summaries is controversial. One view was that using dictionary definitions of "capital" in the current debate counts as original research. Opposing views were that dictionary definitions of capital are objective, and do not cause the problems that subjective definitions would, and that we are allowed to use words according to their common definitions. Luckily, I do not think we need to have this debate now - it sounds like something much better suited for the RfC itself. What we need to decide now is whether we should use dictionary definitions in the source summary. So, here is my question:

Should we use dictionary definitions of capital in the source summary? If so, how should we present them? Should we include any caveats that some participants in this discussion consider the use of dictionary definitions to be original research?

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As I previously argued, using a dictionary to translate what sources say into something else is inappropriate. I have personally wanted to label a poltical party as far-right but I did not because although I think that party's policies match the definition of far-right, that would have been original research and I would have needed to find notable sources which stated the party as being far-right, especially in the face of pre-existing sources which called the party merely right-wing. I do not think that we should present this original research argument in this RFC. Sepsis II (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Per my comments above, dictionaries are not reliable for precise definitions. It is easy to think of scenarios where following a dictionary definition rather than looking at usage in reliable sources would lead to absurd content. Formerip (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"dictionaries are not reliable for precise definitions". Seriously? What is a reliable source for precise definitions then? What are dictionaries for? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR says that it "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Citations of dictionary definitions that do not directly discuss the topic of the article contradicts core policy that requires sources to be directly related to the topic.
Citation of such sources predisposes discussion towards original research such that: Here is a dictionary definition of capital(source A), here is a fact about Jerusalem (source B), therefore Jerusalem is/is not the capital of Israel (synthesis position not in ether of the sources). Dlv999 (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I need to say much more than what I already said above. I believe those arguing that this is synthesis/original research are taking those policies beyond their original intent, and that how various dictionaries define the capital point are relevant enough that they should be presented in some way -- maybe not in the same way, if some are so inclined -- to RfC participants. -- tariqabjotu 19:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Using a dictionary to understand what a source says isn't a problem, if we don't draw any new conclusions. However, if the end result is a new conclusion not drawn in the source, that is OR. This is a perfect example, since sources (e.g. BBC) go out of their way to say e.g. that Jerusalem is a "seat of government" to avoid saying it's Israel's "capital". Now using a dictionary to convert "seat of government" to "capital" in fact reverses the conscious effort put into writing the source to avoid saying "capital" in the first place. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I was very curious how you'd respond to this question given you had no problem using definitions of terms (i.e. "non-recognition") to explain your position to me above. The way you have made such a use here invalid seems a classic distinction without a difference. Either way, your interpretation of the sources as making an inappropriate conversion should be one participants should be left to make (or not make). (With that in mind, removing BritishWatcher's editorialization of the definitions might be nice.) -- tariqabjotu 19:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No, we should not allow the use of dictionary definitions of the word capital in the source summary or in the RfC. Dictionary definitions of the word capital tell us nothing about Jerusalem. Even far more detailed sources that discuss capitals like "Planning Twentieth-century Capital Cities", Routledge, 2006, ISBN 978-0415280617, chapter 2, "Seven Types of Capital Cities" by Peter Hall, Professor of Planning and Regeneration, UCL, tell us nothing about Jerusalem. It's not possible to use information from sources like these that do not contain statements about Jerusalem to construct or evaluate statements about Jerusalem without violating policy via synthesis. It's way beyond mildly disruptive to advocate the view that a dictionary definition of the word capital combined with the physical locations of certain kinds of buildings in West Jerusalem provides information that can be used to evaluate the policy compliance of statements about whether Jerusalem, a city that spans the green line and includes occupied East Jerusalem as described by our article, the subject of this RfC, is the capital of Israel or anywhere else. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you think gives you the right to disqualify sources and arguments from being made in this RfC. We should present a well worded question, with perhaps a few alternatives for the text, and let (hopefully uninvolved) editors make their decisions, as is normally done here. The fact you want to control it so tightly is quite revealing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

At 22:47, 10 April 2013, you wrote, in response to what you said was original research, that making a specific argument without a reliable source making that argument is OR and goes against wikipedia policy. The RfC moderator should not allow it. Was that as revealing a comment as this? nableezy - 14:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The two are not the same, so the answer would be no. But your game playing is revealing and as boring as it has always been. Do feel free to get the last word in as I won't be responding to you further. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(original comment replaced) Im sorry, but I dont understand how you can both say that X argument is original research and then further say that the RfC moderator should not allow it but then question another user making the exact same claim about a different argument and asking for the same action by the moderator. If OR should be restricted by the RFC moderator then all OR should, not only the OR that you object to. nableezy - 21:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not permit users to engage in original research, so we can't present material to the community whose only purpose is to invite it to engage in original research. Formerip (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Invit[ing] [the community] to engage in original research" was obviously not the purpose of BritishWatcher's mentioning of those definitions. If he considered using dictionary definitions to be original research, he wouldn't have brought them up in the first place. -- tariqabjotu 09:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

NMMNG, I have the right to point out what I believe to be the advocacy of decision making both here and in the RfC that is inconsistent with policy, such as original research via synthesis. OR usually involves sources or else it just looks odd, so the sources are relevant too. It reveals that I have identified what I believe to be a proposal to use original research via synthesis and explains why I believe that. That's all. It may be the case that editors don't believe that they are advocating OR. Whether in good faith or bad faith, a policy violation is a policy violation. What I don't understand is why editors would advocate OR using dictionaries for years on end when there are literally thousands of reliable sources that specially address the issue of Jerusalem as a capital city, but that doesn't really matter. Preventing OR is what matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You say it's OR. I say it isn't. The wider community should decide, not you and I and a bunch of other involved editors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The community has decided. Look at the last paragraph of WP:SYN. It is synthesis to form an opinion on the basis of a definition in a book which does not include a reference to the thing you want to make a conclusion about. It could hardly be clearer. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The community has not discussed this particular issue and has not decided. We are all involved and shouldn't be deciding this. Anyway, you guys are trying to turn this into something it's not. Unlike your assertion that a metonym always refers to a capital, which has no basis in RS whatsoever, the dictionary here is not used to make a claim, it's just one more source supporting something other RS already say. A thesaurus would do the same. Are editors allowed to use a thesaurus to decide what synonyms they might want to use in an article? Is that SYN? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As FormerIP says, the wider community has already decided what constitutes OR and that's why WP:OR is a policy. It isn't difficult to understand compared to other policies that deal with more fuzzy issues like reliability, notability and neutrality, and it is a key policy, part of the five pillars. This case very clearly and unambiguously constitutes OR as I have tried to explain (several times). Several people have provided clear and rational arguments based on policy, whereas you have not. The importance of enforcing compliance with this policy goes far beyond this parochial issue of Jerusalem. Any attempt to undermine the enforcement of a key policy like this that is essential to Wikipedia in an RfC in ARBPIA of all places is a very serious matter as far as I'm concerned, orders of magnitude more important than changing some words in an article about a city in the Middle East that almost no one will notice. Also, I object to being referred to as "involved". I'm about as uninvolved as is humanly possible when it comes to Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A. You're involved up to your eyeballs. You've been participating in this discussion for years.

B. You say it's OR. I say it isn't. The wider community should decide, not you or me. Even if you think this is a "very serious matter" or "beyond mildly disruptive" or whatever. If you're so sure it's so obviously OR, why are you afraid of letting more editors have a look? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say because its not acceptable to offer the community an opportunity to vote in a way that is inconsistent with core policy. Formerip (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Who decided it's inconsistent with core policy? Please don't supply your personal interpretation. Where is the consensus about this specific issue? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Why were you afraid of letting more editors have a look to see if [s]aying the usage of a metonym means that Tel Aviv is the capital? nableezy - 22:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

no need for OR. the RS are indeed clear: israel says its capital is jerusalem, most others disagree. Soosim (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless a dictionary says that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel it is original research to say that the dictionary defines capital as X and that Jerusalem meets X so that Jerusalem is the capital. That is about a textbook example of OR by SYNTH as I have seen. It is exactly A+B=C when the source doesnt flat out say C. A dictionary definition would be fine to use in the article capital city. Here, if it makes no mention of Jerusalem, it is SYNTH. nableezy - 19:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The structure of the RfC already agreed upon is that it "will include a statement summarizing the positions on the capital question expressed in reliable sources." The dictionary definitions proposed by BW are not "positions on the capital question expressed in reliable sources". The statement that BW has used the sources for "Some sources that define what a capital is", is not a statement on the capital question. As such the sources and statement do not meet the requirements already agreed for inclusion in "a statement summarizing positions on the capital question expressed in reliable sources". I note that Stradivarius did not include the statement in his summary list of source statements 1-15. Dlv999 (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

is it my imagination, or are we just going round and round the same points? perhaps I am not getting it regarding the whole process. just a thought. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out (but then again it might not) that there is a certain internal contradiction - dare I say duplicity - in the argument for dictionaries as a source for defining the meaning of "capital". Most dictionaries define capital as synonymous with "seat of government." Yet those supporting the use of the dictionary definition have vociferously opposed replacing the word "capital" with the phrase "seat of government" - suggesting that, for them as well, the dictionary definition does not capture the richness of the word "capital". --Ravpapa (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not sure that most dictionaries define capital as synonymous with "seat of government", although I have not done a survey. The OED doesn't define it that way, for example. Before we even get to a the question of whether to use a dictionary, we have the question of which dictionary. Formerip (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

'Be careful what you wish for' probably applies too. Advocates of the 'using dictionaries in this way isn't synthesis' theory may benefit from looking up the "objective" dictionary "common definition" for a words like colonialism ("the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically"[10]) and considering the potential consequences to hundreds of articles in ARBPIA by opening Pandora's box of policy violations. We already have enough policy violating edits and editors starting fires in ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why this discussion is even happening. If it were so blatantly obvious that this was original research and synthesis and against Wikipedia policy, this shouldn't be a question. I would hope our moderator would not have even posed the question and simply stated, "No, this is a clear violation of policy, so we can't do that". But he didn't. And he gave this question to us, as if this is a matter of debate.

And we already know there is no agreement among us that these sources are a violation of policy. So, why is this still proceeding? It seems quite straightforward that if this is a matter for debate, that debate should occur during the RfC itself. Participants should be permitted to consider the information and decide for themselves whether they believe policy renders it irrelevant. If those opposed to these definitions are so confident that they're inadmissible, they should be confident participants will throw them out. These definitions are not, I should point out, too different from the primary sources queried in question six below (which are also open to interpretation and invite original research, as the years of discussion have shown)... and yet there is less furor over them. As stated below, those sources, despite being discouraged from being used in articles, are relevant to the matter at hand here and should be made available to participants. -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems quite straightforward that if this is a matter for debate, that debate should occur during the RfC itself. Participants should be permitted to consider the information and decide for themselves whether they believe policy renders it irrelevant. If those opposed to these definitions are so confident that they're inadmissible, they should be confident participants will throw them out.

exactly. it is already clear that this process on this page is not headed for any workable consensus which would be useful to the proposed RFC anyway. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The already agreed upon structure of the RfC is that it "will include a statement summarizing the positions on the capital question expressed in reliable sources." In putting together the source summary statement BW has proposed sources that do not cover positions on the Jerusalem capital question to support a statement that is not a summary statement of positions on the Jerusalem capital question. As such the sources and the statement do not fit the requirements for inclusion in the source summary statement on positions on the capital question. Even leaving aside the matter of OR the sources and statement don't fit what we have already agreed should be included. On the point of OR, if you are going to waive the clear and objective WP:OR requirement that sources must be directly related to the topic of the article it is difficult to see how you can objectively draw the line on what sources to exclude and include. For instance I would find it very hard to countenance using online general dictionaries on what a capital is but not allowing us to consult the academic scholarship on the topic, but without a stipulation that sources must be related to the article topic a survey of the academic literature is pretty much open ended.

The point about primary sources is a red herring. The primary sources are directly related to the topic so their is no analogy in the two situations. As far as I am aware there is no prohibition on the use of primary sources, only that articles should be based on secondary sources, and that we should be careful with using primary sources and do not make our own interpretations of them. If someone makes a strong policy based case why we should exclude those sources then we should excluded them. Dlv999 (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain how taking two sources and combining them to make a statement that neither of them means to say in the least is not synthesis? Currently you are the only one - against eight others - in favour of allowing OR/SYNTH into this RFC, so maybe you could refute our simple explanations rather than your claims of no consensus and a red herring. Sepsis II (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's happening because it needs to happen. What participants do, the way they think, the sources they use to make their decisions (which could be dictionaries, the Bible, bloke down the pub, anything), are out of our hands and we know nothing about the participants, including whether their decisions will have any validity compared to policy. I have precisely zero confidence in participants making valid decisions because I don't know anything about them. It's out of our control. What is in our control is what we do here and what we present to participants, which shouldn't violate any policies via SYNTH or by providing unreliable sources or giving undue weight to things (like Tel Aviv) etc.

I think it's important to get this right because it's the only bit we can get right. The argument that has been presented is that a dictionary proves that a capital is where the seat of Government is located, Israel's government is in Jerusalem and therefore Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, so we can say that. A dictionary also proves that Jerusalem is not the capital of Palestine because Palestine's government is not in Jerusalem, so we cannot say that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. Notice that this is method is about proving something about the real world using the definition of a word (one definition of a word with a variety of meanings that doesn't work everytime but nevermind that) using sources that don't discuss Jerusalem combined with sources that do discuss Jerusalem, rather than a method that reflects what RS say about Jerusalem based on Wikipedia's content policies. All this while ignoring the historic dispute over the city's status, the problem that East Jerusalem isn't in Israel, the fact that the authors of RS have access to dictionaries and of course know the common definitions of words and the countless sources that apparently do not think it is okay to state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite having access to dictionaries. In my time as an editor, this argument that has caused trouble for years, remains the clearest example of synthesis in the form of "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" that I have ever seen. A dictionary is used to prove that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because the "Government of Israel has clearly made Jerusalem it's capital and seat of Government" (cite Jerusalem law) and the dictionary says that the seat of Government is the capital (cite some dictionaries). The claims that it is okay to do this are very weak, "I say it's not OR" or it's a "specific issue" that no one has ruled is OR etc. They don't address the points that have been made by several people, have no basis in fact or policy and are directly contradicted by what WP:SYN actually says constitutes synthesis and the example provided that uses the Harvard Writing with Sources manual.

I don't agree with Mr S' assessment that we don't "need to have this debate now - it sounds like something much better suited for the RfC itself". Someone lit a fire and it needs to be put out. How can we do that ? One way would be to use the existing resources, take it to the appropriate place, Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, ask them whether the definition of the word capital combined with a source that says where Israel government is located is enough for a Wikipedia article to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and get it settled.

What we are doing here is the only part that we can ensure complies with policy and anything could happen in the RfC itself, including a lot of nonsense as per usual for ARBPIA, but that's for the admins to handle when they try to figure out the consensus and good luck to them. The outcome of the RfC doesn't concern or interest me as long as the process here conforms with policy. But if I think the process here is not conforming with policy and it is not possible to get it back on track, there is nothing more for me to do here and I can withdraw from the RfC. From my perspective it means that an RfC in ARBPIA is incorporating a policy violating process which invalidates the RfC as far as I'm concerned. That's okay, another blip in ARBPIA, but I would prefer not to be part of it. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Q5 arbitrary break 1

I don't agree with Mr S' assessment that we don't "need to have this debate now - it sounds like something much better suited for the RfC itself". Someone lit a fire and it needs to be put out. How can we do that ? One way would be to use the existing resources, take it to the appropriate place, Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, ask them whether the definition of the word capital combined with a source that says where Israel government is located is enough for a Wikipedia article to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and get it settled.

interesting. first you say you disagree with the person running this process. then you say your only goal is to uphold some partially-defined policy. if the moderator of this process holds a different view than you, then perhaps there is more than one way to view the question of how policy would apply here.

All this while ignoring the historic dispute over the city's status, the problem that East Jerusalem isn't in Israel, the fact that the authors of RS have access to dictionaries and of course know the common definitions of words and the countless sources that apparently do not think it is okay to state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite having access to dictionaries. In my time as an editor, this argument that has caused trouble for years, remains the clearest example of synthesis in the form of "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" that I have ever seen. A dictionary is used to prove that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because the "Government of Israel has clearly made Jerusalem it's capital and seat of Government" (cite Jerusalem law) and the dictionary says that the seat of Government is the capital (cite some dictionaries). The claims that it is okay to do this are very weak, "I say it's not OR" or it's a "specific issue" that no one has ruled is OR etc. They don't address the points that have been made by several people, have no basis in fact or policy and are directly contradicted by what WP:SYN actually says constitutes synthesis and the example provided that uses the Harvard Writing with Sources manual.

all of that is your opinion, on how to apply the policy. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's okay, another blip in ARBPIA, but I would prefer not to be part of it.

Then don't. What you consider to be so absolute may not be so for others, as has been shown here (and no, I am not interested in further obnoxious implications and straw-mans from anyone that that my position on this point is caused by how I feel about the bigger issue here). If you can't live with that, if it so painful to allow participants to decide this for themselves -- and, mind you, it's not as if someone (maybe BritishWatcher) can't introduce this to the RfC himself -- what is or is not relevant and with policy, and make their own decisions, then leave. But the RfC will continue with or without you. I don't particularly care about convincing you or anyone else that there is an acceptable, policy-compliant thought process that can come from these definitions, because that is not important. This stage is not about convincing people I am right, it is about what does or does not get presented to participants -- and it is obvious some people have lost sight of that. -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, you are right, we are all wrong, and you refuse to explain? I really wish you would state your argument at least one time, for how else are we to learn and see our mistakes? Sepsis II (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not say that. I clearly did not say that. I am not playing these games with you anymore. It's as if you see someone you disagree with on the wording of the sentence in the article (whether it be me or BritishWatcher or someone else) and then proceed to take the least likely but most argumentative interpretation of their words. Not interested. Bye. -- tariqabjotu 20:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"I don't particularly care about convincing you or anyone else that there is an acceptable, policy-compliant thought process that can come from these definitions, because that is not important. This stage is not about convincing people I am right," You have not once shown your "acceptable, policy-compliant thought process" to us. Until you do, all I or anyone can take from all your posts in this thread is an empty include !vote. Sepsis II (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I didn't make myself clear: you lost any chance of me giving your remarks on this matter a meaningful response when you chose to assume bad faith. I had already cautioned you about your suggestions of malicious intent when it was directed toward BritishWatcher, but I have zero tolerance when it is directed toward me. Once again, goodbye. I don't care what you believe in regards to me or my position on this matter. -- tariqabjotu 21:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

...or by providing unreliable sources or giving undue weight to things (like Tel Aviv) etc.

Yeah, okay, but what do you expect we can do about that? Tel Aviv is mentioned in the source summaries; it's not going away. It is very difficult to accurately gauge and state how many sources grant Tel Aviv capital status. The most one can do is state during the RfC that they believe those sources that call Tel Aviv Israel's capital (or use the city as a metonym) are in the minority.

With that in mind, one way this might be resolvable is by having some intro period before the RfC begins. Give everyone a tight and brief character limit, and allow them to make a statement. In that statement, you and others who would like to can bring up this OR point. Those who would like to can make some statement about the Tel Aviv issue. These brief statements might provide some points to consider. This introductory period could happen with the definitions provided alongside the sources or with them excluded (with the latter situation requiring those who care enough about the definitions to present them then). This would be particularly helpful if we choose to rigidly hold to the statement-supporting sources format, which this dictionary survey (and the stylebook survey) doesn't lend itself to.

But, either way, I don't believe this should be a behind-the-scenes discussion. It should be a matter for the community of participants to decide, with arguments from both sides public. And we're not going to reach any sort of agreement on whether these are or are not OR or SYNTH anyway. -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"And we're not going to reach any sort of agreement on whether these are or are not OR or SYNTH anyway." Well right now it stands at seven editors who have explained why this is OR/SYNTH vs two editors who disagree but refuse to give any explanation. So really this is just the same old ""I support the inclusion, and because I do there is no consensus to remove it, and because there is no consensus the inclusion remains, and no I do not need to explain my support for the inclusion, or counter the arguments for removal." Sepsis II (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to Tariqabjotu's last post it seems the question is not shall we include these sources as part of the source summary statement we have agree should be a structural component of the RfC, and rather shall we make some amendment to the agreed structure of the RfC so that we can include these specific pieces of source evidence that do not fit the requirements for inclusion in the source summary. Referring back to Stradivarius' opening remarks:

"This is designed to eliminate the need for back-tracking. The idea is that once we have decided to do something a certain way, it should stay decided, and not be influenced by further discussion. The steps are structured in such a way that the prior steps may influence how we approach the later steps, but that discussions we have during later steps shouldn't influence the decisions we have made during prior steps."

It seems to me that adapting the structure of the RfC so we can include specific evidence that does not meet the requirements for inclusion per the structure we have already agreed upon would go against these principles. Dlv999 (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

generally at wikipedia, any discussion this contentious is not necessary to be pursued. that is especially true if all we're trying to do is to set up an RFC, in my opinion. therefore, my suggestion is that we should go ahead and (to use your phrase, if I may) "adapt the structure of the RfC so that we can include specific evidence that does not meet the [previous] requirements here for inclusion per the [current] structure." thanks, just my own suggestion on this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but from my view at least it does not address any of the concerns raised in this discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So... do you actually have a problem with the idea? This is not back-tracking. It has never been brought up before and the question asks if there are alternate ways this could be presented. This is an alternate way this, and other similar issues, can be presented. -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would have a problem with that approach. If principles of how we are going to approach the RfC are laid out at the start I do not expect them to be discarded. If we have agreed upon a structure for the RfC I do not expect to see it thrown out the window because someone wants to introduce material that does not meet the requirements specified by the agreed upon structure. There is also a more fundamental challenge to inclusion of this material based on violation of core policy and I don't think anyone who has supported the inclusion of the material in this discussion has seriously addressed that. Dlv999 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't ask you whether you thought it had a procedural objection. You made that clear already. But do you have an objection to the suggestion itself? -- tariqabjotu 15:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would be advisable to provide a little protected space at the top of the RfC to enable editors to engage in WP:OR and not get immediately called out on it. Whatever can be said can be said in the context of the RfC itself. Dlv999 (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

well, I think that the essence of an RFC is to provide some flexibility in allowing people to provide new ideas, opinions, and approaches on a particular topic for discussion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well your idea is no, they should be completely excluded, period. I've tried to come up with several alternatives that meet halfway: providing an intro period to express concerns about the sources or to give a summary of the history of this dispute, removing BritishWatcher's editorialization, or putting them in a separate section alongside the other surveys that could be and have been done. All rejected. So, there's nothing else I can do here but wait for other people to chime in and for Mr. S. to close this question. -- tariqabjotu 17:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Question five close

This question also proved to be contentious, but despite the number of words written about it, the arguments presented were fairly simple. On the one hand, some participants pointed out that using a general dictionary definition and then applying it to a specific case to imply a new meaning appears to be original synthesis, which is of course forbidden in Wikipedia. On the other hand, the participants in favour of using the dictionary definitions were of the opinion that calling this use "synthesis" goes against the original intention of Wikipedia:No original research, and that it is fine to use words according to their common meaning.

The editors arguing that using dictionary definitions constituted original research have a strong argument. WP:SYN is quite specific:

'"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.'

For us to be able to use dictionary definitions, I think that there needs to be a convincing explanation of why it would not constitute a "therefore C". However, I don't see any arguments that address this directly. The argument that calling dictionary use "synthesis" goes against the original intention of the policy is quite vague about why this might be so, and I would expect a specific refutation. And the argument that we should be able to use words according to their common meaning similarly doesn't address the reason why this common meaning would not constitute a "therefore C". So I have to conclude that based on the strength of the arguments, the consensus is to not use dictionary definitions in the source summary.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question six: Court decisions

There seems to be a consensus that these are valid sources for us to present, particularly given that they are widely discussed in secondary sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ClaudeReigns' statement references court decisions and UN Resolution 478. These are undoubtedly of key importance to the Jerusalem capital debate, but they are not traditionally the kind of sources that Wikipedia bases its articles on. ("Traditional" sources in this case referring to academic books, peer-reviewed journals, and news articles, etc.) Is it ok to include things like court decisions and UN resolutions in the source summary?

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

These types of document are significant source of information that goes to the central question, so they should be permitted as part of the evidence. But they should not be presented as giving a definitive answer to the question. Formerip (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

These types of document are primary sources, which wikipedia policy tells us to avoid in most cases. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

They're all heavily discussed in secondary sources, so there would not be much point to excluding them as primary sources. Formerip (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns' citation (Domb, Fania 2007), which is an academic book, refers to UNSC 478, The ICJ Advisory Opinion, and to Israel's Basic Law. Any serious academic discussion of the status of Jerusalem cites these documents, so I wouldn't see a problem with including them along with the academic sources. On the other hand I don't think it would be a big issue if the documents themselves were excluded as long as we include sources that discuss them, of which there are many. Also I would note that BW included the Israeli Basic Law in his summary which is also a primary source. I would urge a consistent approach to all primary source documents. Dlv999 (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe it's okay to include such sources. It is relevant information that I believe participants should have available when commenting. -- tariqabjotu 19:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC draft

Well, I have finally closed the discussion that we started back on April 10, and I think I might have set some kind of record for slowness and for deadlines broken. Sorry to keep you all waiting. We are nearly ready to start step four, the implementation details of the RfC, but before that there are still a few things we need to settle, as you might have gathered from reading my closing comments for the various discussions above. However, we have now come far enough that I have been able to piece together an actual draft of the RfC. Behold!

Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/RfC draft

At last, we have something resembling an RfC page. This is not finalised at all, so please don't assume that I think we have to do things a certain way just because I've done it that way in the current draft. It could change a lot before it goes live, and there are still a lot of details missing that we will cover in the rest of step three and in step four. But at least it's something. So, without further ado, let's move on to the matters that still need discussion.

I recommend that you put the draft RfC page on your watchlist to see what improvements are made to it. It's probably best that you don't edit it for now, but I will make an exception for anyone who wants to convert the references for the source summary to use citation templates with quotes. If someone wants to do that it would be a big help. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Question seven: equal footing of drafts

The consensus seems to be that we should simply state that the RfC drafts are not necessarily intended for the first sentence of the lead section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some of the drafts that have made it past the screening process so far don't seem to be intended to go in the first sentence of the lead. This will give them an obvious disadvantage to drafts that would fit well at the very start of the article. How can we present the drafts so that commenters will view them on an equal footing? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We can just say that the drafts are not necessarily intended for the first sentence(s). -- tariqabjotu 17:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the above, the placement of the text is less of an issue than what the text says. --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems they are all intended or at least would be suitable for the first paragraph of the lede. Noting simply that each version would be in the first paragraph of the lede, though not necessarily the first sentence, would give them sufficiently equal footing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And then, having worked out the first paragraph, we have another RfC about the first sentence? -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit concerned when I noticed this (though I have been out of the loop for a while, so it's not as if I have a right to be upset about it). I guess the simplest thing to do is just to state that not all of the drafts necessarily need be included as the first sentence of the lead. Keep in mind that it isn't simply a head-count vote we'll be taking. Participants in the RfC will be able to discuss where the text should be and, if a draft unsuitable for the first sentence is chosen, just what the first sentence should be. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question eight: narrow sampling of drafts

See my closing comments below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With the exception of draft #15, all the drafts begin with a description of Jerusalem's capital status. Is this a result of the drafts not being intended to start at the first sentence of the lead, or is this just how they are? Also, I am worried that having a narrow selection of drafts could raise procedural problems, as it could lead RfC commenters to suggest their own drafts part-way through the discussion, leading to problems with sampling bias. Should we try to mitigate this risk? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Of course the drafts are going to begin with a description of Jerusalem's capital status. Isn't that the issue here? I don't think all of the drafts were intended to begin at the very top of the article; discussion over the past few months has suggested an increasing desire to shift that information out of the first sentence. The focus here, though, seemed to just be on the wording of the capital point. Maybe it might have been better to ask that people develop drafts that address a few points of contention (maybe the relationship to East Jerusalem), but this one point of contention is the most difficult and I don't see anything wrong with the route we've chosen thus far. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I've illustrated by point about possible procedural problems very clearly, so let me be more concrete. The scenario I am worried about goes as follows: an editor comes across the Jerusalem RfC after it has already been open for a couple of weeks. They scan down the list of drafts that we have compiled, and they don't like any of them, and say "I can do better than that!" They proceed to write a new draft and propose it in the general discussion section of the RfC.
Now, supposing this new draft gets half as many supports as the top-voted draft that was originally part of the RfC. This provides a dilemma for the RfC closers when the 30 days is up - although the two drafts have different numbers of absolute votes, they have the same number of votes per week. Which measure are the closers to give more weight to? Now of course, the closers will look at the arguments put forward instead of just counting votes, but there are problems with the late-added draft other than the numbers of votes.

In the scenario I have described, there will be quite a few editors who commented on the original drafts in the first two weeks of the discussion, but didn't leave any comments after that. What weight should the closers give the late-added draft, given that not all participants were given an opportunity to comment on it? There is no easy answer, and much will be left to the closers' discretion. And perhaps most dangerous of all, if care is not taken to ensure the playing field is level for all the options in an RfC, it provides ammunition to editors who don't agree with the close - they can simply say that it is "procedurally invalid".
The only real answer, I think, is prevention. In the verifiability RfC we did this by choosing drafts that covered a wide array of positions, by giving commenters a "support with revisions" option, and by fully protecting the drafts that we had created and getting editors to comment on a transcluded subpage. Making it clear that the drafts are only about resolving the capital question and nothing else would be one way of preventing new drafts. Including a wide range of drafts would be another. I think it would also help if we made it clear that commenters could support more than one draft, and that the drafts they support can overlap in content. Whatever we do, my point here is that the drafts that we choose can have implications for the procedural validity of the RfC, and that we should at least consider things from this point of view before we put the RfC up live. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

hmmm. sorry, but I disagree. isn't that the danger in any RFC? I feel that if we do this, we will be making things much too complex, by trying to anticipate too many possible events before they have actually happened. just my opinion on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

on the other hand, if that is what you think, then feel free to go ahead and to do this in whatever way you think best. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out a possible pitfall that editors might not have thought of before. If editors are aware of the pitfall but would like to go ahead with the current set of drafts anyway, then that's fine by me. I'm waiting to hear from a few more editors to make sure there aren't any problems with this, but responses have been slow so far. Maybe I should set a deadline for this question before we move on to step four - perhaps the end of Tuesday 7th? Then it will have been open for one week. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

hmmm, okay. I agree with your deadline for this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As there still haven't been any new responses to this, I think I'll send out a message to all the participants about the deadline. But as it's already Monday, I'll make the deadline the end of Wednesday. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius (may I call you Tony?), what you see as a risk I see as an opportunity. And what you see as a vote, I see as a process of consensus building.

Our objective, I think, is not to vote to pick the lead that the majority (or plurality) likes the best, but to build a consensus among the participating editors as to the best way to present Jerusalem's difficult status. The way that usually happens is that opposing sides present different versions and argue over them, until someone comes along with a new approach and everyone says, yeah, that solves the problem.

So, rather than fearing that someone might come up with a suggestion that isn't one of the proposed leads, you should be hoping for precisely that - you should be hoping that someone will come along and solve this plonter by offering a fresh approach that is acceptable to everyone. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

plonter indeed. Genuinely ingenious choice of term. Since it means 'tangle' I couldn't help but think of John Dover Wilson's use of 'tangles' for incoherent passages in Hamlet and in Richard 111.

There can be little doubt that occasionally Shakespeare, because his imagination raced ahead of his pen, because he grew tired, or simply, because, like the humblest author of us all, he was gravelled . .for the appropriate word or phrase, left passages behind him in the process of composition that needed strengthening out or pruning afterwards.' The Manuscript of Shakespeare's Hamlet and the Problems of its Transmission, Cambridge University Press, 1934 p.24. Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Tony" seems a bit strange, as that's not my actual name, but if that floats your boat, then sure. ;) I take your point about accepting outside advice, and I will take that into account in my close. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Assuming I understand the moderator's point correctly, its seems that many of the drafts seem more appropriate for Positions on Jerusalem than for the main article. If one of these drafts is adopted, the lead may end up excessively focused on the capital-or-not status, while it should focus more (or should it) on things like history, demographics, and so on. The status quo version has the advantage of spending only the first twelve words on the question; some of these drafts would spend several sentences. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the surviving drafts represent a very narrow array of statements, because so many are minor variations on the same theme and on each other and share similar flaws. Drafts 11, 15 and 19 use "claimed", "proclaimed" or "called", along with where the "seat of government" is or "primary governmental institutions" are, or where the government "operates out of". Within these drafts, or accompanying them, I believe it needs to be pointed out—prominently—that proclamation together with seat of government (or the equivalent wording) means Jerusalem IS the capital, by the very definition of a capital. These drafts use misleading and reader-confusing circumlocutions to avoid a statement of fact, but actually argue in favor of one.

Drafts 10, 11 and 15 imply or promote an equivalence that is spurious or at best questionable. Drafts 11, 19 and 20 refer to an "international community" that is undefined, with nothing said about why such a community would have a say in a country’s choice of capital. I cannot recall anyone being able to show such a connection in all the years of discussion. That leaves drafts 3 and 13. Draft 13, in addition to its other possible shortcomings, is a mass of obfuscation and opaque language guaranteed to confuse the reader. That leaves draft 3, the existing statement, which has withstood the test of time—somewhat. Though it implies a relationship between the two juxtaposed parts, and though there is room for improvement, it is serviceable. Some additional background information could follow it in the lead, or in a footnote, to anticipate objections that might persist. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Israeli government is based in Jerusalem. It has proclaimed Jerusalem its capital. Along with Israel's failure to gain any recognition for it's claim of sovereignty or declaration of capital and the Palestinians claims of sovereignty and their aspirations as a future capital they are the important points covered by RS in relation to the capital/sovereignty debate. They are the points covered in our own sourced summary statements. I don't think it is any surprise that they are mentioned in some manner in numerous drafts. I would expect to see them covered in some way in most, if not all of the drafts. I don't think there is a strong case for only including one draft that covers these points. Is there any draft suggestion(s) you have that you would like to see included that are not currently on the list? Dlv999 (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite the similarities, I did not propose eliminating any of the remaining drafts. My purpose here has been to point out some logical flaws in them, leading to a need for clarifying language to be presented. In the next step I may be able to propose specific wording for the accompanying or embedded clarifications. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be opposed to the idea of presenting the drafts with accompanying editorial commentary, which in any case is likely to be highly controversial and unlikely that we will reach any agreement on. These are points to be made in the RfC itself and the validity of the arguments you have made is to be decided in the RfC. For instance would you be happy if I embed any draft that claims "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" with a footnote pointing out that the claim is inconsistent with our core WP:NPOV policy?

You are fully entitled to your opinions, but I don't think it is appropriate for yours (or mine or anyone's) opinions on the drafts to be presented with the drafts themselves as part of the structure of the RfC. These are arguments that should be made and decided upon in the RfC. Trying to litigate the case here in the preliminary discussion would be a mistake, in my view. Dlv999 (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

To add to what Dlv999 said, the argument that "proclamation together with seat of government (or the equivalent wording) means Jerusalem IS the capital" is at the core of this dispute, and one of the main aims of this RfC is to find a definitive answer as to whether or not the argument is valid. I don't think we could reasonably claim to be providing a neutral description of the dispute if we stated that the argument was true in any accompanying text. We can have drafts that assume that the argument is valid, and drafts that assume that it isn't - that's absolutely fine - but we need to present them as options, rather than assert that they are true. We've passed the deadline for step three now, but there is still a very slight amount of time before I write up the results tomorrow. Are there any other drafts that you think should be included, and do you think any of the current drafts should be dropped? If so, leave a note stating your reasons, and I'll take it into account in the close. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

To add to what Dlv999 said, the argument that "proclamation together with seat of government (or the equivalent wording) means Jerusalem IS the capital" is at the core of this dispute, and one of the main aims of this RfC is to find a definitive answer as to whether or not the argument is valid.

No, it's not. That has already been settled as invalid, per your closure of Question 5. In response to that question, I stated the same thing multiple times -- that the acceptability of this conclusion was a matter to be decided during the RfC. I stated multiple times that the arguments that the connection constituted SYNTH and OR were those to be made during the RfC, and that if others were so confident the connection was a blatant violation of those policies, they would have no trouble convincing participants during the RfC of that. However, you said:

For us to be able to use dictionary definitions, I think that there needs to be a convincing explanation of why it would not constitute a "therefore C". However, I don't see any arguments that address this directly.

And so you excluded them. You decided that this wasn't a matter to be decided during the RfC, but a matter to be decided now. And the "consensus" was that proclamation + seat of government = capital is already wrong and unacceptable. As a result, the rest of your comment here collapses quite naturally. You tell Hertz that we can't reasonably claim to be providing a neutral description if we stated that the argument was true (a statement I agree with), but you've already declared it as false. We have some drafts (one draft?) that assume that the argument is valid, but you've already declared that avenue of logic to be inadmissible. Although there are other ways one might be able to support them (or it?), they're notably less straightforward and unlikely to be parsed correctly [as was they case when they've been presented before].

As it stands, particularly if the results of these questions are passed on to the deciding admins, I see very little chance of the current wording standing, even if only because one of the major reasons for supporting it has been struck down by you as inadmissible. This conclusion was likely before this RfC discussion started (if only because of the persistent drumbeat from opponents of the wording after every false compromise), and now nearly certain. And that's why, finally addressing NMMNG's question on my talk page, I still participate, and why I do more than just facilitate the inclusion of a phrase (Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) that I consider perfectly accurate: because in the near-certain chance that the current wording falls out of the article, I don't want a group of editors that have failed in every other effort to effect change to radically shift the scales without any balancing force. I want to have a say in the new wording, and I also don't want others to see a success here as vindication for past baseless attacks on those who supported the current wording. Hertz, I suggest you take note and consider how your participation here may still be beneficial to getting what you believe should be in the lead to be in the lead, even if you're unlikely to get your ideal. -- tariqabjotu 17:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And where were you? That step was open for more than a month, and you (and most others) didn't seem interested in writing and selecting drafts. And I apparently need to say to you what I've said to several others here. Whether other countries' non-recognition of Jerusalem's capital affects the validity of the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a central point in this dispute. Therefore, we should not be designing the RfC around either perspective -- that it has no effect (your perspective and mine) or that is does have an effect. So, it is unacceptable to dismiss drafts simply because they don't agree with your perspective. In fact, you should be/should have been open to writing and selecting drafts that didn't agree with your exact perspective because it is in your best interest to find alternative drafts that you might be comfortable with, even if you don't deem them perfect. -- tariqabjotu 16:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether the validity of the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is affected by the fact that part of the city is not in Israel is a central point in this dispute. Non-recognition cuts both ways.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So? And Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar System. Are there any other statements that were never raised or refuted by me that you would like to bring up for the sake of starting an argument? -- tariqabjotu 17:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, since you are familiar with the geography of outer space, presumably you are even more familiar with sublunary topology. You ask for a statement I'd like to bring up which you never refuted. When you keep repeating the objectivity of "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" , many will wonder, for Tariqabjotu, when he asserts with consummate certainty that it is a neutral fact, does he take this to mean - "East Jerusalem is part of the state of Israel?" - (The logic of entailment). Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I wasn't clear enough. This comment and your previous one have nothing to do with what I said, this thread, or the question here. It is immaterial what my answer to that query (and a million others) is, and, while I could give you an answer or point out the error in your logic (as if that hasn't been done before), I do not want to dignify your baiting. And so I won't. -- tariqabjotu 21:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You were all too clear. You made a statement in this section about 'a central point' that needed underlining. All I did, unaggressively, was to rephrase the 'central point' to remind readers that there are 2 sides implicit in a statement, not one, as your emphasis suggested. With the spatial analogy you went "ballistic" and attacked my bona fides. And you do it again. I was not baiting anyone. I simply reminded you of something you appear incapable of understanding. It's a reading problem, failing to read what the meaning of the 'point' you highlight as 'central' implies, while teasing out an hypothesis about the motives of someone who put in a reminder of what it does mean. Clear?. We can drop this here, but it will crop up, as it has in the past. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You did not "remind me of something I appear incapable of understanding"; you brought up a completely irrelevant point that I definitely haven't raised in this question, almost certainly haven't raised during this RfC discussion, and probably haven't ever raised. I feel quite confident in all of that, because, despite your "logic" of entailment, I do not nor have I ever felt that the capital status of Jerusalem was predicated on the legality of East Jerusalem. There's just no reason for me to even bring it up, and no reason for me to discuss what I feel about the legality of the eastern half of the city. You disagree, I know, but your disagreement does not entitle you to put words in my mouth through your "logic".

I don't know what one side/two side thing you're talking about, but if you were actually paying attention to this thread rather than just fishing for an opportunity to lash out at an adversary (your sudden resurfacing now speaks for itself), you'd see that what I said was similar to statements said by Dlv999 and Mr. S. You, of course, singled me out for your "unaggressive" "rephrase" because you are, to borrow your words here, incapable of understanding that I could say something that you don't need to contest. And, while it is true that there are many points, among them the one you mentioned, that we should not be designing the RfC around, I did not raise them because, unlike you, I'm aiming to keep this discussion pertinent to points discussed here. Those points, until your interjection, did not include the idea of designing the RfC under the assumption that the status of East Jerusalem does or does not affect the capital of Jerusalem.

Don't ask me to "drop" anything, because I have nothing to drop; you created an argument where there was none before. I am tired of this game (all too familiar on Israel-Palestine topics) where you insert pithy remarks intended to do nothing more than stir the pot, then play innocent, insult others' intelligence, and ask that others cool down when someone points out your irrelevance and hostility. -- tariqabjotu 14:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(A)the argument that "proclamation together with seat of government (or the equivalent wording) means Jerusalem IS the capital" is at the core of this dispute, and one of the main aims of this RfC is to find a definitive answer as to whether or not the argument is valid.Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(B)Whether other countries' non-recognition of Jerusalem's capital affects the validity of the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a central point in this dispute. Therefore, we should not be designing the RfC around either perspective.'tariqabjotu 16:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(C)'Whether the validity of the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is affected by the fact that part of the city is not in Israel is a central point in this dispute. Non-recognition cuts both ways.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I.e. Stradivarius made a statement, you commented on it, and I commented on both, pithily. You response was you never 'raised or refuted' the statement I made. Perhaps true, but it misses the point. (ii) that I was baiting you personally, (iii) that I was 'fishing for an opportunity to lash out at an adversary'(iv) and that I 'stir the pot, then play innocent, insult others' intelligence, and ask that others cool down when someone points out your irrelevance and hostility.' Your option was to ignore the statement, which simply mirrors however exactly a key statement in this section, as irrelevant. I thought my exercise was usefully heuristically, though I may be wrong. I think you underread the implications in the key statement whose NPOV factual accuracy you wish to defend, but, conversely, you overread between the lines what an interlocutor like myself says apropos. It is certainly not an option to violate WP:AGF and summon up spectres of enemies, hostility, and hypotheses of adversarial game playing. On a final nicety of phrasing. I did not, as you imagine, ask you to drop this (which would be condescending) but suggested 'we' can drop it, which is an amicable suggestion among peers.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I get the point, and will try to cobble something together today. If I misunderstood the orientation of the discussion, I have been set straight now by multiple parties. As to where I was, health-related and other personal issues intervened, and I was unable to keep up with reading the voluminous postings on this page in recent months. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Guys, the source summary statements are the clarifying comments we'll have in the RFC, and they are the comments we should have since they're based on sources which we've gone through in a very, very, long and detailed process. Tariq is right in that we've already closed the "dictionary point" and there is no need to re-open it. What we do need to open is the RFC! Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dailycare on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The debates of recent years were marked (or marred) by certain editors attempting to delegitimize lines of thought with which they disagreed. This RfC was, I thought, intended to take a more evenhanded approach. I offer the following in the spirit of seeing a fair and open variety of options presented to the RfC respondents: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,[footnote: Jerusalem has been designated by Israel as its capital (easy to source) and serves as its seat of government (easy to source). In common usage of the term "capital", these criteria are what constitute a capital city (cite dictionary source)] and one of the oldest cities in the world. Other countries and international bodies have generally withheld recognition of Jerusalem's status as capital.(very easy to source)" I was invited to submit a proposed draft, despite the late date, and hope this one will be seriously considered. Let's make this "narrow sampling" a bit broader. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless Mr. S reconsiders his closure for Question 5, I see no chance of this making the cut. And even if he did reconsider his decision, the chances of this draft's inclusion are dim. It's different, for sure, but I'm not sure in a good way, honestly. It's not clear if you mean for that footnote to replace the current, lengthier one, for example. In general, though, the proposal seems to run counter to the general progression of the statement over the years. To some extent, I could understand why you'd want that to be an option... but only to some extent. -- tariqabjotu 22:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and, I suppose, realistic appraisal. I intended the footnote as an additional one, to be integrated with those existing, but how could you read my mind? As for the general progression, I would say it has been victim of a strong propensity to avoid applying ordinary rules of English usage, and ordinary standards, on account of certain biases. But let's not go down that path here. Will this draft be accepted and included? I think all we can do at this point is wait and see. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Question eight close

Apologies (again) for the delay in writing up this close. And also, please accept my apologies for cutting off the conversation part-way through. We are now well past my deadline of Wednesday 8th May, and I wanted to close this within a reasonably sane timeframe, as we have had complaints about taking too long over this process. Also, sadly, the discussion had started to become heated again, and I would rather shut the discussion down than give out warnings or topic bans.

Now, to the close. Although there was one viable suggestion from Hertz1888 for the wording of a new draft, it was submitted late in the proceedings, and received one comment (Tariqabjotu's) that wasn't in full support. I am interpreting this as a lack of consensus to include this in the RfC, so we will be going with the selection of drafts that we chose earlier in step three. However, there does seem to be a fairly strong consensus that we should leave the RfC as open as possible to outside input on possible wordings for the lead. My idea that we should try and cater for most of the major preferences that voters might have in order to avoid procedural problems with the RfC close has been pretty roundly rejected. So, rather than treat the drafts portion of the RfC as a strict vote, we should provide some kind of mechanism for commenters to include their own drafts, as well as to comment on the drafts that we have made. We will work out exactly how this mechanism should work as a part of step four, but I think it is safe to say that Hertz's draft can be included as a part of it, so they do not have to worry about their draft not being included in the RfC at all.

Tariqabjotu also made a comment to me which deserves to be answered here. Really I should have answered this before the close, but I think it is better answered now than not at all. In the comment, Tariqabjotu says that my close of question five saying that use of general dictionary definitions constituted original research meant that I was saying that "proclamation + seat of government = capital is already wrong and unacceptable". To clarify, previously I had been thinking about these as two separate issues. The first was whether using dictionary definitions of capital to make claims about Jerusalem was original research. The second was whether the lack of international recognition of Jerusalem's capital status counts as an opposing view to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel.

I can see that there needs to be some frame of reference to judge whether the lack of international recognition counts as an opposing view. Previously I assumed each editor made this decision themselves based on a careful consideration of all the issues involved, and I didn't consider that it would be based purely on dictionary definitions. Perhaps this is another misreading of the discussion on my part, and if so, I apologise. In any case, my closure of question five wasn't meant to preclude discussion on this issue from occurring in the RfC, and it wasn't meant to mean an outlawing of drafts that assume a particular stance on the issue. It was only meant to relate to the particular statements and sources that were suggested for the source summary. Furthermore, just because I made a particular judgement about how the original research policy relates to this issue in my closure of question five, that doesn't mean that my judgement should affect the discussion in the RfC. It would be perfectly valid for RfC commenters to debate this same issue in the RfC itself, and the closers may come to a different conclusion about the debate than I did. I hope this explains my reasoning here, but feel free to ask for clarification in the general discussion section if anything is still unclear. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question nine: source summary statement #11

This question wasn't really necessary, due to my mis-reading of the discussion. Now that my mistake has been pointed out to me, I see that we can just use the version that was agreed upon, "The Israeli government made Jerusalem its seat of government and declared it its capital." — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In my close of source summary statement 11 above, I suggested that we go back to the facts of the matter and sidestep the question of whether to use "made" or "declared" when talking about Israel's making/declaring Jerusalem its capital. I also suggested the following text: "In 1949, the Israeli Prime Minister announced that Jerusalem was an 'organic and inseparable part of the State of Israel', and after that Israel began moving all branches of its government to the city. In 1980, the Knesset passed a law that said 'Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.' As of 2013, the only part of the Israeli government that is not located in Jerusalem is the Ministry of Defence." Is this a reasonable solution to the issues that came up in the discussion about statement #11? And if so, what would the appropriate citations be? As it is, the citations that we were using previously don't back up the statement. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This issue was blown out of proportion. It was exceedingly obvious that BritishWatcher was saying that Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital (which we should all agree has taken place) and established Jerusalem as its seat of government (which we should all agree has taken place), and then using those points to argue that (based on dictionary definitions, for example) Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel. It was obvious that [the first two points, not his conclusion] was intended to be a basic, uncontroversial statement. Maybe his use of made left the sentence open to misinterpretation, and so another word should be used instead, but the assignment of malicious intent -- making a controversial point sound uncontroversial -- was unwarranted, and a sloppy rewording like the one you suggested unnecessary.

Furthermore, I thought we agreed on a rewording: The Israeli government made Jerusalem its seat of government and declared it its capital. What was wrong with that? -- tariqabjotu 17:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Let's put that down to mediator error. I must have skimmed over the part where Dlv999 said "Having said that, I would accept your latest proposal for this statement". I can now see that you are quite right. I'll go and put the version you agreed on in the RfC draft. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly oppose to the use of the statement that «Israel have made Jerusalem their capital».--Ezzex (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question ten: general feedback

See my closing comments below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are there any other aspects of my closes of the latest round of discussions that you think should be addressed before we move on to step four? This could be anything to do with the draft summary statements, questions 1-6, or with the draft RfC page that I have created. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

question 9, status of questions

hmm, not really. I think that question 9 above could simply lead to a further round of prolonged discussion and debate. just my own thoughts on this. I appreciate all of your efforts. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't understand why the wording of Statement 11 is unresolved; it seemed resolved to me. I also object to the way the discussion under Question 5 was characterized, and it seems an odd conclusion alongside Question 6. But I won't lose sleep over it, especially because the drafts are the most important part of this process and, based on those drafts being put forth in the RfC, the dictionary issue probably won't make a huge difference. Also, someone will just bring it up during the RfC anyway. -- tariqabjotu 17:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, you and Sm8900 were both right about question nine, and I have closed it. As for question five, I'll be happy to clarify my close for you, and I am also willing to reconsider the close itself if I've missed something important. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks! :-)

Like --Sm8900 (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

source summary discussion

A couple of comments of the source summary - apologies for not having made these earlier and if they are contentious and not worth the delay of further discussion, then sobeit. Firstly, I'm surprised that we don't say anywhere that J is the capital of I under Israeli law. That may seem too obvious a fact, or maybe it is considered implicit in "and declared it its capital", but I think some participants may need this information. Secondly, we say: "There is very little support for the Israeli view regarding the Sovereignty and capital status of Jerusalem (especially East Jerusalem)". Surely this statement needs narrowing - there may be a lot of support for the Israeli view, just not at the level of governmental recognition or international law (?). Formerip (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to me to include another statement saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law". We can source this to the Basic Law source that was already used for the "declared it its capital" statement. Does anyone think this isn't necessary, or perhaps would like to see a different wording? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As for your second point, I'm not sure how much support there is for the Israeli view among sources. I would imagine that many Israeli sources do support the Israeli government's position, but I haven't made any effort to check this, so for now it is just conjecture. If there are a significant number of sources that support the Israeli government's position, then perhaps we could change it to something like "There is very little support for the Israeli view regarding the Sovereignty and capital status of Jerusalem (especially East Jerusalem) among the governments of other countries and in international law." If the sources that support the Israeli position are relatively few in number, though, it is probably best to leave the statement as it is. If other participants agree to this change, then I have no objection to making it, but if there are many objections to it then I think it would be best to stick to the version we already have. So what does everyone think about the proposed change? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FormerIP's points on this, and I agree with the proposed change. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

My original wording of statements 13-15: "Israeli view regarding sovereignty/capital status of WJ/EJ/J is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion." - was an attempt to sidestep the issue of the exact weight of arguments in each case which I thought would be contentious. Personally I wouldn't have any problem going back to the original wording (my view here is that the important point is to show that there is a significant divergence of opinion on the issue i.e it is not a fact in wiki terms), but the current wording is the result of a long and arduous discussion that eventually resulted in an agreement. Dlv999 (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The source (ref name=6.01) currently cited for the "Palestine aspires to make Jerusalem its capital" source summary statement at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/RfC draft probably needs replacing. It's a master's and per WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Sean.hoyland - talk 04:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Good point, and I agree. Do you have any suggestions of sources that could be used instead? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
We can probably re-cycle one of the high quality sources already cited but I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment. How about John Quigley (2005). The Case For Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Duke University Press. ISBN 9780822335399. (p. 225) perhaps quote=...no single territorial sector is more contested than Jerusalem, which both sides claim as their capital. (...) When the Palestine National Council issued its call for independence in 1988, it declared "the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital in Jerusalem." The claim for sovereignty in Jerusalem is part of the more general Palestinian claim to territory in Palestine, based on centuries-long occupation.

Replacement ref would be ^[7]

Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that if we include that phrase, it needs to refer to the "Palestinian Authority," rather than Palestine. That issue will almost surely come up later, in my opinion, if we don't address it here. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that ? The Palestinian Authority is now officially called the State of Palestine.[11][12][13][14] Sean.hoyland - talk 14:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor wording issues

A few of the statements could use a bit of copy-editing. The phrase "though this is not internationally recognised as such" in 3 and the phrase "the city isn't recognized internationally as a capital" in 10 are confusing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
We can certainly tweak these before we move on to step four if there is a consensus for that. Do you have any suggestions for an alternative wording? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Question ten close

Here are my conclusions about the various matters brought up under this question:

There was no opposition to including the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law", so I will include it, sourced to the Basic Law as I suggested.
There doesn't seem to be a wide enough participation in the current discussion to provide a consensus to change the statement "There is very little support for the Israeli view regarding the Sovereignty and capital status of Jerusalem (especially East Jerusalem)", given the amount of previous discussion about it.
Sean.hoyland raises a good point about Master's theses not being acceptable as sources, so I have changed the source for the statement "Palestine aspires to make Jerusalem its capital" per his suggestion. The debate about whether to use "Palestine" or "Palestinian Authority" can be had in the RfC itself.
I see that draft 3 has already been reworded per the suggestion of The Devil's Advocate. This seems logical to me, as the draft is now in line with the wording currently in the lead of the Jerusalem article. There weren't any alternative suggestions for the wording of draft number 10, so that can stay as it is. If participants would like to see an alternative wording it can be submitted in the RfC itself, using whatever mechanism we devise as part of step four. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General discussion

question

hi there. one question. you said "don't sign your drafts." not sure I understand the reasoning for this. sorry, just want to ask. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The idea is that if we sign the drafts, it might lead people to judge drafts by the person who submitted them, rather than how good the drafts are in themselves. Theoretically, not signing drafts removes this potential source of bias. Of course, it's always possible to look back through the contribution history to see who wrote what, but it does make it a bit less obvious. Does that answer your question? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

hmmm, it does, and I appreciate your reply. however, sorry, but I don't agree. thanks though. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I think not signing the drafts is an excellent idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Impact of the different drafts

I have a question regarding the potential impact of the different drafts, i would like to check if that needs to be handled in this stage or in the next. For example draft 1 is certainly likely to be amongst the drafts included in the RFC, yet that option has a fundamental impact on the entire article which is presented in a way (including the infobox etc) that does not treat the Palestinian claim with equal weight. Will we be able to add like an impact assessment after each draft saying basically what the proposal would involve for the article (no change, minor alterations, fundamental rewrite etc?), is best to do that as each draft is gone through or in the next stage or should that be added to the list now? Also i am sorry for not yet adding sources to the sources section, i will be able to add some to the list over the next 48 hours, hopefully as others except 1 are still to add theirs that will not be too late. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say we could have some kind of impact assessment about each of the drafts, yes, although we would need to discuss it among the participants here to make sure there is a consensus for this approach (or at least, that there are no objections). As for the timing, I think it would be best to discuss this after the drafts brainstorm has finished, but still as a part of step three. No worries about the lack of sources added so far - I am planning on leaving enough time for everyone to contribute sources, so that no-one feels disenfranchised. The speed with which we can move on to the next point of discussion about the source summary statements depends on everyone's participation. By the way, if anyone intends to not leave a statement at all, it would be helpful if you could let me know here so that I have a better idea of when to move on to the next discussion point. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't plan to add a statement. thanks for your note. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE and drafts

My understanding is that material likely to be challenged should contain an inline citation per WP:V whether in the lead or not - the guideline does not overrule the policy and says so explicitly. I have not submitted any draft since the instruction for the draft step seems to contradict this. Any draft I submit will contain inline citations based on my experience with other controversial articles and the impact of citations upon resilience. I am not asking for a requirement that other editors submit inline citations in their drafts. I am unsure that there is any consensus for such a requirement. Will drafts with an inline citation be considered or not? ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Also exceedingly nitpicky. None of the drafts have wikilinks in them either, but it's not as if they'd go in the article like that. The point at this stage is the statement, the content, of the drafts. That seems easy enough to infer. -- tariqabjotu 23:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You may feel that way, but I don't wish to imply consent by submitting drafts without inline citations that I approve a draft without inline citations. This is my prerogative and will avail myself of it regardless of your personal judgment. A number of editors will start with an opinion, it was ruefully supposed, and then draft and source to match it. That is not how I operate. And it is not the way a number of editors outside the topic look at writing. I can see where some people will want to submit a draft without explicit citations on a long disputed article lead statement. I just happen to disagree with those people for myself based on policy and experience. If you have any other derogatory adjectives to throw my way, feel free to post them to my talk page. I consider them a badge of honor, far more valuable than any barnstar. ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I said that the drafts don't need to be cited at this stage, but that wasn't intended as an order to not cite them. If you feel strongly about it, then I can't see any harm in you including cited drafts as part of the brainstorm. (And there is a big drawback to you not submitting drafts in the brainstorm, i.e. they might not get considered at all.) We will go through the submitted drafts with a critical eye later on - the important thing for this stage is that you get your ideas out there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point here. I think that every single editor in this controversy will pick their opinions first, and then find sources which match it. that is how we have gotten to this point. that is why the sources themselves are not the main issue here, in my opinion. obviously, all information on Wikipedia needs to be sourced, and that is as it should be. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG and source summaries

Let's return to this after everyone has finished submitting their source summary statements. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Per WP:NEWSORG a particular source may be considered unreliable for a particular statement whether that news organization is considered generally reliable for other purposes or not. The Reuters and LA Times sources conflict. Either all nations universally do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel or there are a few who do recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It's not both. Which is correct? ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems exceedingly nitpicky. -- tariqabjotu 23:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? Both statements cannot be true. If there is a nation which recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and a source has made claim that none exists, it is obviously unreliable for our purposes. If there is no nation which recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel but a source hedges this when there is no exception, it is just as unreliable. The fact that we're settling on newsorg sources when we should be drawing from the most authoritative ones means that the bar here has been set low. It has a definite bearing on the sort of statement which should be drawn up. I have asked for a clarification for accuracy's sake. That should not be too much to ask. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a useful avenue of discussion, but could it wait until everyone has submitted their source summary statements? Right now I'd like everyone to be free to submit sources without worrying about them being criticised. We will have plenty of time to weed out the bad sources after everyone has made their statement - there's no need to do it just yet. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Although in no reliable sources, I have read there are two states that recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, one time I read "Guatemala and El Salvador" another time "Costa Rica and El Salvador". Trying to research the actual facts on this I have found nothing which is quite indicitive of these two NOT recognizing J as I's capital as if it were true I'm sure the fact would be repeated numerous times by Israeli sources, there would be a wikipedia article on it, and the third sentence of the wikipedia article "Positions on Jerusalem" would not be "No country in the world has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital.". Sepsis II (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that was derived from the fact that Costa Rica and El Salvador were the last countries to have embassies in Jerusalem; they were both removed from the city in 2006. Whether that action constitutes official non-recognition is potentially a matter of debate, though, as I don't believe either country -- or most countries, for that matter -- care enough about this minutiae of Middle East politics to officially declare what they do and do not recognize regarding Israel's capital. There are some problems with equating the location of an embassy with the city that country recognizes as capital, but I can still imagine why some sources would equate location of embassy with recognition, and thus say no countries now recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I can also, of course, see why some would be hesitant about making that connection, and simply state the vague few countries recognize the capital status. This is why I don't think this line of thinking is important; we run into the same problems we face(d) regarding what lack of recognition means to the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". There are many ways to address this issue without being so precise (e.g. the current wording which just says the status is "not internationally recognized"), so this part of the sentence(s) seems to be something not worth arguing over to this depth. -- tariqabjotu 18:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

After checking, the reference that Costa Rica and San Salvador moved their embassies to Tel Aviv in 2006 is Mosheh Amirav "The Jerusalem Syndrome" and it is cited in the article. I have not read the source, so I don't know what the conclusions of the work are, but it's clear that it has elaborated the point on which the newsorg sources disagree. I am inclined to discern from this that no other nation besides Israel recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

~~Which article has that reference? The Jerusalem article uses it, but not when discussing the Costa Rican and El Salvadorean embassies. The Positions on Jerusalem article doesn't use it at all.~~ Yeah, I see it. -- tariqabjotu 02:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC) I can go look at the original source itself ~~(if you can point me to the reference with a page number)~~, but I would be shocked if they actually polled all 192 other member UN states and asked them what they recognize to be the capital of Israel. And, to be clear, an absence of a formal recognition is not sufficient, as capitals are generally not recognized formally anyway. Most likely, it says exactly what any other source that states that zero countries recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel says -- that that is so because there are no embassies in the city. But, as I stated earlier, the direct correlation is a conclusion without basis (the whole "recognizing a capital" is a mess to begin with, but we won't go back there). No one would argue that Argentina recognizes Herzilya as the capital of Israel because its embassy is there, so it's unclear why placement of an embassy in Jerusalem constitutes recognition of its capital status, and removal constitutes non-recognition (with no recognition afforded to the city it's moved to). When Costa Rica and El Salvador removed their embassies from the city, they appeared to evade the question about whether they were withdrawing recognition of Jerusalem as the capital. Paraguay also still maintains its embassy in Mevaseret Zion, a close suburb of Jerusalem, and it's unclear what that means as well. So it's better to be similarly imprecise about this matter, as other sources are, or just say something overtly verifiable -- e.g. that no embassies are in Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 02:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the quote directly provided, it is quite clear the lack of recognition is in regards to the point of Israeli sovereignty of Jerusalem, a point which, despite efforts by some to suggest otherwise, is not necessary to assert that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But I can go look at the source further, if it helps. -- tariqabjotu 02:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Scope of drafts

While I don't think this should be taken as a strong objection (in the interest of having this process proceed a bit quicker), I believe there's a problem with the way we were asked to present the drafts. Most importantly, it was unclear what the scope of each draft was supposed to be. It seems all address the Israeli capital point. But only some deal with the issue of the Palestinian claim to capital status. Only some deal with the occupation of East Jerusalem. Only some deal with the historic and religious significance of the city. I'm quite confident most of those editors suggesting drafts omitting those secondary points still believe those issues should be addressed in some way in the lead. It just wasn't made clear where we were supposed to stop when making our proposals. -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, there wasn't a clear consensus from the scope question in part two, so I left the instructions quite vague. I can see how it could be confusing if you are submitting drafts. For now, I would say just submit drafts that you personally feel should be in the RfC, and later we can discuss whether/how they should be altered to give each draft an equal standing in the eyes of RfC commenters. Also, it is totally fine to submit longer drafts - they have all been quite short so far, but there's nothing wrong with submitting drafts of a paragraph or more. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

well, nothing is getting done, and no consensus has emerged. also, no one here has emerged as the voice of compromise, moderation, or conciliation. that's one sure sign that we are not on the road to compromise here. so I would suggest that we simply present a few alternate phrasings to the Wikipedia community for their comment. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Source summaries: direct relevance of Tel Aviv

It has been demonstrated that "Tel Aviv" is used as a metonym for Israel. It is not clear to me if there is a source which will clarify what is meant when we use such a metonym. It is also not clear whether or not those neworg sources are seen as accurate academically. One could argue that these mean that the Israeli diplomatic community who engage embassies in Tel Aviv is the specific reference here. One could also argue that the sources are both inaccurate and irrelevant. A source which comments on the usage of "Tel Aviv" as a metonym for Israel might be informative. Can anyone establish a direct relevance (contrast) to Jerusalem in this way? ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Tel Aviv is where the Israeli Ministry of Defense is located, so for some of those sources (the ones discussing Iran for example) Tel Aviv is likely a metonym for the Ministry of Defense. Otherwise they're just wrong. nableezy - 18:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Metonymy is an example of figurative language, so it's a mistake to try to make literal sense of it. If I act as a witness for the crown in a court case, it doesn't mean that an actual crown came round to my house and asked me if I would be willing to give evidence. There's a journalistic convention where the names of capital cities are used as metonyms to stand in for the names of countries or governments, so the sources above are "wrong" if you don't accept Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. So they will be "wrong" to a lot of people. But, for our immediate purposes, what's right and wrong is not important. We are only adducing examples of what is done by sources. Formerip (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. It's a journalistic convention -- not even "journalistic", just a convention -- whereby seats of power are used to refer to that government. It makes zero sense to use "Tel Aviv" as a metonym for something that is not in the city or a close suburb of it -- i.e. something that has nothing to do with the city at all. It's just patently wrong. And were this not about Israel and Jerusalem, I wouldn't need to explain this.

And with this complication brought about by the Tel Aviv metonym, we get at the heart of the issues presented by the sourcing expedition (centered around news sources) above. News sources are not academic sources, where people are researching fine points about complex political entanglements like ones related to this city. What is or is not the capital of Israel is usually tangential, if not wholly irrelevant, to the news stories at hand, and when a definitive reference to Jerusalem or (seriously?) Tel Aviv as Israel's capital city does slip in, it's usually because some stylebook allows it. Note that most of the sources above (save for those surrounding the Romney and Democratic Party controversies) could easily do without mentioning what is or is not the capital of Israel. And those articles related to the Romney and DNC controversies exist just to mention that there is controversy -- without explicitly saying whether Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel or not.

And, why would they? Governments of the most powerful countries in the world are hesitant to answer a question as simple as "What is the capital of Israel?" (as if it has any bearing on how they go about business), so why should a newspaper feel compelled to do so when it adds nothing to the story? As a word of caution to others, the BBC, the Guardian, and the Associated Press have all had to clumsily issue retractions or rewordings when they "inadvertently" referred to either Jerusalem or (again, ugh) Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel, and others have received scorn from some corner of the blogosphere even if their editorial boards haven't forced such back-stepping. So, what we get is what we see here: cherry-picking allowing us to find sources that say almost anything about this issue.

And I seem to recall someone (maybe one of you three?) using that as reason to be evasive here. In other words, if this issue is too hot for governments and reliable news sources to touch, we shouldn't either. But, I don't believe we run into the same problem here. The capital status of Jerusalem is not just tangential in an encyclopedic article about the city. And we have the ability (or we should have the ability and willingness) to consider academic sources. So I'm not convinced that is reason enough to be evasive, or at least so evasive. -- tariqabjotu 22:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A convention whereby seats of power are used to refer to that government. That's an interesting assertion. I guess, since that is almost always synonymous with "capital city" it will be hard to work out which of us is right. And, since there's no governing body involved, I suppose it will be up to individual journalists to exercise their own discretion.

So, it could be that a journalist and sub-editor at the Wall Street Journal or wherever are under the misapprehension that the Israeli government is based in Tel Aviv. Or, it could be that they are going with the capital-as-metonym hypothesis. I'm saying the latter is more likely. Formerip (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, the AP (via The Sydney Morning Herald), and The New Statesman all also use "Jerusalem" as a metonym for Israel, you're either going have to (a) concede that these sources alternately consider Jerusalem the capital of Israel or (b) drop the absurd idea that a city can be used as a metonym for something not even in it, and concede the fallibility of news sources. Feel free to choose whichever works best for you. -- tariqabjotu 00:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty obviously (a), isn't it? Formerip (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me. Both options demonstrate the problem with news sources. -- tariqabjotu 01:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I dont know what youre talking about with and I seem to recall someone (maybe one of you three?), but, on the actual point, I agree, news sources should be avoided. Especially if it is not a story centered on what is the capital of Israel. nableezy - 05:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. In general, I do think that news sources are a fine source to use. I do see the problems though with using them in this specific manner. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

refering to jerusalem in a news source does not mean israel (they would've said israel if they wanted) but means 'the seat of gov't' or something similar. the inference is that jerusalem is the capital since it is the seat of government. Soosim (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If youre going to make that argument then you have accept the converse, which is what FormerIP is making, that when a news source refers to Tel Aviv for the government it is calling Tel Aviv the capital. nableezy - 18:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason Tel Aviv is used as a metonym is because using Jerusalem is seen as unacceptable due to the non-recognition of "capitalhood" and even Israeli sovereignty in that city. It doesn't necessarily imply that Tel Aviv is seen as a capital. Arab states occasionally refer to the "Tel Aviv government" when they mean "Israel", although they clearly don't see Tel Aviv as a capital city (since they don't even consider Israel to exist). Concerning "fallibility" of sources, all types of sources are fallible including academic ones. We don't have an infallibility policy, we have a reliability policy and reputable news sources are something that we work with all the time. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

dailycare: i think the reason tel aviv is used as a metonym is because the gov't was located there before it moved to jerusalem. i don't think i would rush to attribute any political significance to it. but, to answer the question, yes, there is nothing wrong with saying (as i have been saying all along) that jerusalem is the capital of israel but that others don't agree and have embassies located in tel aviv, etc. (for that is a fact) Soosim (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The Times style guide provides the reason they tend to not use Jerusalem as a metonym: "Jerusalem must not be used as a metonym or variant for Israel. It is not internationally recognised as the Israeli capital, and its status is one of the central controversies in the Middle East." source. Meta-sources like this are very useful since they state the actual editorial policy of the publication. --Dailycare (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Limited internet access

Just to let everyone know - I will have limited internet access for the next few days. I will keep track of the discussion when I can, but I might not be very quick to respond to queries. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey of encyclopedic sources?

Since we effectively have something like this for news sources [with the stylebooks] and for primary sources (e.g. court cases), might it be useful to/can we put together a survey of encyclopedic sources with respect to how they address the this issue in their leads? This might complement source summaries #8, #9, and #12, and dilute some of the issues present with news sources, as it would be interesting to see how other encyclopedias deal with this since we're in a similar situation. (I'll note that at least one of the past RfCs also included attempts at surveys of encyclopedias in this fashion.) -- tariqabjotu 18:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment on general process

We seem to go back and forth on different drafts and different possible statements, without any discernible progress towards real resolution. isn't this how we got to this point? seems like we are replicating the same problems. just a thought. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

guys this seems a bit pointless. we shouldn't be arguing here about the validity of sources. isn't that the point of an RFC? I thought the goal here is to simply come up with a few options for the RFC to present. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

there are only a few ways to say this

there are only a few ways to say this. let's just come up with a few alternate wordings, and present them as an RFC. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a section at #Step three: statements on drafts for just that, but no one but me seems interested. -- tariqabjotu 04:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sm8900, in response to your comment here and two above: For better or for worse we have decided on a structure for the RfC which is to include a source summary statement, which leaves us with the task of hammering out exactly what is to be included/excluded in the statement. Unless we totally disregard the RfC structure we have already agreed upon through consensus I don't really see any way to get around that. Dlv999 (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

hi. thanks for your reply. I do appreciate you writing back to me. hmmm, well, this whole process seems way too complicated to me. sorry. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suggest we simply discard any previous understandings as to this process, and simply present a few alternate phrasings to the Wikipedia community for their comment. sorry, that's my suggestion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions about the beginning

I think that this article should begin like this: "Jerusalem is an old city in the geographic region Palestine and the self-proclaimed capital of Israel (though not internationally recognized as such). It is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. It's one of the oldest cities in the world." Starting the article with "... is the capital of Israel" is POV (I think most people would agree on that).--Ezzex (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

hmm.I understand your question. however, if most people would agree that that is POV, then why is that precisely how the article currently starts? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

note on process

hey, all, glad that we were able to at least try to work towards some consensus in some of these areas here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

by the way, one option might be for us to declare that we were unable to reach a consensus on this. I'm just offering that as one option. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

some suggestions, from sm8900

hi. one suggestion; would it be possible to please modify the sections for questions 7-10 so that they become subsections for the section for "RFC draft"? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks! sorry, one more suggestion. I suggest that you move the section "RFC Draft" (and its sub-sections) up one level; in other words, it should be section 4, not section 3.3. I hope that sounds okay. thanks for your help on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I've done it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

hmm. I can picture some further conflict over these questions, . if I may, i would like to make one suggestion; my suggestion would be that we simply defer to the moderator on most or all of these questions.

I would say that even if you are inviting answers from us, you should still have some picture of your own of what might constitute a reasonable arrangement on these questions. If you do not, then we might not be the best people to ask. perhaps you could simply consult with other admins or with members of Arbcomm, and let us know what the current proposed solution is. anyone who still objects could then comment if they wish to. just my suggestion. thanks.--Sm8900 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If the other participants are fine with leaving it to me, then I'm sure I can hobble something together. :) Let's see how the others react to your suggestion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care about Questions 7 and 8. Question 9 seems unnecessary. Question 10 is just feedback. At this point, I can't see myself objecting to anything anyone else says in response to any of those questions. And I'll be damned if some of the other major participants in this RfC discussion start disagreeing amongst themselves. So, I don't share Sm8900's concerns. But if people want to shift the responsibility of addressing them to some other party, go ahead. -- tariqabjotu 17:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Update on close of step three

This is just to let everyone know that I'm not going to have the time tonight to be able to do justice to the close of step three. I'll close the discussion tomorrow, barring extraordinary circumstances. (And yes, I know that delayed closes have become somewhat normal around here - sorry about that.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

References

^ Cite error: The named reference vanderp755 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ N. Na'aman, Canaanite Jerusalem and its central hill country neighbours in the second millennium B.C.E., Ugarit-Forschungen Vol. 24 (1992), pp275-291.
^ L. Grabbe, Ethnic groups in Jerusalem, in Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (Clark International, 2003) pp145-163.
^ John Day, Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan, Sheffield Academic Press 2002, p180
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Moshe Hirsch, Deborah Housen-Couriel, Ruth Lapidoth. Whither Jerusalem?: proposals and positions concerning the future of Jerusalem, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995. pg. 15. ISBN 90-411-0077-6 Cite error: The named reference "WJ" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Amirav, Moshe (2009). Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 26–27. ISBN 1845193482.
^ John Quigley (2005). The Case For Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Duke University Press. p. 225. ISBN 9780822335399. (...) no single territorial sector is more contested than Jerusalem, which both sides claim as their capital. (...) When the Palestine National Council issued its call for independence in 1988, it declared "the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital in Jerusalem.

[vanderp755-1] Cite error: The named reference vanderp755 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] N. Na'aman, Canaanite Jerusalem and its central hill country neighbours in the second millennium B.C.E., Ugarit-Forschungen Vol. 24 (1992), pp275-291.

[3] L. Grabbe, Ethnic groups in Jerusalem, in Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (Clark International, 2003) pp145-163.

[4] John Day, Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan, Sheffield Academic Press 2002, p180

[WJ-5] Moshe Hirsch, Deborah Housen-Couriel, Ruth Lapidoth. Whither Jerusalem?: proposals and positions concerning the future of Jerusalem, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995. pg. 15. ISBN 90-411-0077-6 Cite error: The named reference "WJ" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[MA2009-6] Amirav, Moshe (2009). Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 26–27. ISBN 1845193482.

[6.01-7] John Quigley (2005). The Case For Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Duke University Press. p. 225. ISBN 9780822335399. (...) no single territorial sector is more contested than Jerusalem, which both sides claim as their capital. (...) When the Palestine National Council issued its call for independence in 1988, it declared "the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital in Jerusalem.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]