Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 12 April 2013

Archives

/Archive 1 - preliminaries and step one /Archive 2 - step two

This page hosts the moderated discussion, mandated by ArbCom, that will lead to an RfC about the lead section of the Jerusalem article. If you are interested in taking part, please ask Mr. Stradivarius.

Discussion overview

List of participants

Please leave your signature below, by using four tildes (~~~~)

1. Ravpapa (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Evanh2008  10:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Dailycare (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Formerip (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
6. The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
7. -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
8. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
9. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
10. Zero 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
11. Nableezy 15:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
12. Mor2 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
13. Sepsis II (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
14. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
15. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
16. PerDaniel (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
17. Dlv999 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
18. ZScarpia   18:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
19. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Schedule

This is a rough schedule for the moderated discussion. This is by no means a finalised version of what will happen, and the steps may be shortened, lengthened, swapped around, or changed completely as the need arises.

• Preliminaries: participants provide opening statements. Scheduled length: 6 days.
• Step one: decide RfC scope. Scheduled length: 5-10 days.
• Step two: decide general RfC structure. Scheduled length: 5-10 days.
• Step three: decide the details of questions and/or drafts. Scheduled length: n/a
• Step four: finalise implementation details. Scheduled length: TBA.
• Step five: RfC goes live. Scheduled length: 30 days.
• Step six: breakdown of RfC results. Scheduled length: TBA.

As you can see, the schedule moves from the general to the specific. It starts off with what exactly the focus of the RfC should be, moving on to the decision about the broad structure of the RfC (questions, drafts, or both? etc.). Only then will we get onto the details of what questions should be asked and/or what drafts should be written (plus whatever else we find appropriate to include). Then we will discuss the fine details of implementation, such as where to advertise the RfC, how to deal with potential problems such as votestacking, etc.

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. If you're aware of something that I have scheduled for, say, step four that might affect how we go about discussing steps one to three, then please do let me know. It will be a lot better to talk about this kind of thing now than to deal with the frustration that comes from having to back-track over issues that have already been discussed. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What participants can expect from this process

Seeing as some of the participants here are not familiar with RfCs, and as I assume fewer still are familiar with mediated/moderated discussions leading to RfCs, I think I should give a little background. Most importantly, no matter how much time we spend carefully crafting the RfC structure and wording, it is the discussion in the RfC itself that matters. For example, let's say we make a particular draft of the first sentence of the lead, but then we reject it for some reason. It is entirely possible that someone could propose that same draft in the RfC itself, and that it gets enough support from other editors that the closing editors decide that it should be used in the lead. If this were to happen, it wouldn't matter that we had rejected that draft in this discussion - the consensus formed in the RfC itself is what will decide the contents of the article.

Similarly, no matter how much work we put into setting up the RfC, the result may end up being "no consensus". We can't force RfC commenters to think in a certain way, and there are no guarantees of what the end result of this process will be. All we can really do is structure the RfC in such a way that it will be easy to find consensus, and leave the rest to the respondents and the closing editors. And also, it should go without saying, but the final result of the RfC may be a consensus for a version that you don't personally support. This discussion will be a thankless task in that respect - it might be that you pour your heart and soul into making this the best RfC possible, only for the end result to go against you. If you can't face the prospect of having a long debate over RfC structure only for the final decision to be one that you don't like, then you might want to waiting for the RfC itself and not taking part in the discussion here. It is the RfC itself that will matter, after all, and you might find it less stressful to just make your views known there. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC basics

For the benefit of editors unfamiliar with RfCs, I would just like to go through their basic principles. RfCs are essentially scaled-up versions of talk-page discussions. Editors will leave comments on the question(s) asked, and will discuss each others' comments, just as in talk page discussions. One of the main differences is that RfCs may be formally closed, which means an uninvolved editor will read the discussion and judge what consensus, if any, there is from the discussion. They will usually leave an archive template saying that the discussion is closed, and leave comments on how they arrived at their conclusion. In our case, we have three such closers, all administrators, who will all look at the discussion and decide between them what the consensus from the discussion is.

Another difference between normal talk page discussions and RfCs is that RfCs can be structured rather elaborately, usually in order to make the consensus as easy to judge as possible when a large number of editors are expected to comment. You can see some recent examples of elaborately structured RfCs in the Muhammad images RfC, the Verifiability RfC, and a slightly simpler one in the Beatles RfC.

RfCs are not a vote, so it is not the number of respondents that take a particular position that matters; rather, the closers will look at the arguments brought forth in the discussion and how well they relate to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. In cases where the majority of respondents voice an opinion that goes against Misplaced Pages policy, it may well be the case that the closing admins declare the minority opinion to have consensus.

At the end of the discussion, we will edit the article to reflect the judgement of consensus reached by the closing admins. This may consist of all or part of any proposals or drafts that we include in the RfC, or of other points that come up in the RfC discussion. If the closing admins decide that there is no consensus for any change, then the article will remain as it is, per the guidance at WP:NOCONSENSUS. Obviously we want to avoid a "no consensus" outcome, as the point of getting ArbCom involved and the point of having this RfC is precisely to find such a consensus. So I would like all the participants to keep this prospect in mind during these discussions, and hopefully we will be able to come up with an RfC structure that will have the best chance of leading to a lasting consensus. This brings me neatly to the next section, on what I as the moderator expect from the participants. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What I expect from the participants

As this is a discussion about setting up an RfC, and not a discussion that involves content directly, what I expect from you is a little different than normal. In a traditional mediation or a normal talk page discussion, we would talk about the editors' opinions about the content involved and how they related to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. However, this isn't the proper place to bring up your opinions about content; that is reserved for the RfC itself. In this discussion, I would like you all to be neutral regarding the dispute. Even if you have a strong opinion about the dispute, I would like you to act as though you don't. If we forget all our preconceptions about what the end result should be, it will make it a lot easier to find a lasting consensus.

Sometimes, I may be called upon to close subsections of this discussion and to judge the consensus in those sections. This may involve tricky decisions with no obvious consensus either way. I mentioned above that the whole point of this process is to find a lasting consensus on the issue of how to treat the start of the Jerusalem article. So, everything else being equal, I will give more weight to arguments that consider how the RfC can reach a long-lasting consensus, and less weight to personal opinions about what the RfC should contain. I would be very grateful if you could all consider how the RfC can reach consensus while you are commenting.

Now, to get the RfC set up, we will all have to work with each other, and to work with each other, it will of course help us to follow WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. I hope that we can take this one level further, however. I would like everyone to listen to each other with open minds, and for us to respect each others' opinions even if we disagree with them. If we can reach this level of open communication, then coming to agreement about the RfC structure should be easy. I will be here to help if people have problems, but the best solution is for us all to learn how to do this without a middleman. If you are looking for some inspiration, allow me to recommend this video on real-world mediation - and it might also help you understand where I'm coming from a little bit better.

If communication breaks down, then I do reserve the right to refactor, collapse, archive, or delete entirely posts that are not conducive to open communication. However, I don't like refactoring, collapsing, archiving, or deleting such posts. It is the lesser of two evils - the problem is that on the one hand you are removing comments that may derail discussion, but on the other hand you are often removing legitimate opinions that may be disguised by the inflammatory material. If you find that you are frustrated by someone else's post and feel like responding angrily, sarcastically, or in an otherwise less-than-optimal way, please send me an email with your post in instead. I can reformat your response and engage the other user in a way that will make the discussion more productive. It might take a little while if I am asleep or at work, but it is a lot better than derailing the discussion. (And by the way, if you send me an email, please use the {{ygm}} template on my talk page - you will probably get a quicker response that way.) — Mr. Stradivarius 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: A number of participants have asked me to clarify what would count as disruption of the discussion process. This is a tough thing to decide, as disruption is not a black and white thing; it is shades of grey. What counts as disruption to one person may seem harmless to another. Nevertheless, there are certain things that aren't helpful when working together and which I would like you to avoid. These include, but are not limited to:

• Comments that focus on other editors, rather than on the issues being discussed. Please remember to always comment on content, rather than on contributors.
• Comments that group editors by perceived position, e.g. "pro-Israel editors" or "anti-capital editors". Each individual has his or her own opinion, and this opinion may be slightly different than that of other editors. Grouping editors together like this may not accurately reflect the opinions of all the individuals concerned, and tends to make editors assume that compromise is less possible. Instead please consider commenting on facts, e.g. "six different editors opposed suggestion X", or keeping comments about the positions of individual editors.
• Comments that make assumptions about editors' motivations. It is hard to know what another editor's motivations are, especially through the text-only medium that is Misplaced Pages, and if we try we are quite likely to get it wrong. The best thing to do is to not talk about the motivation of other editors at all. Instead, talk about their positions, or use a direct quote, e.g. "X editor said 'I could never accept position b'".
• Comments that go off-topic. It is not really helpful to comment on matters that aren't directly under discussion at a given time. If a thread goes off topic, it makes the consensus of the thread harder to judge, and it can have the effect of wasting editors' time on conversations that won't make much difference in the long term.

Please be aware that I reserve the right to refactor, redact, collapse, archive, or delete, without prior notice, comments that do not adhere to these standards. I will not blindly enforce these standards in the same way for all such comments, however; I may use different approaches in different situations depending on what action I think is most prudent and will most help the discussion. If you have any questions about my enforcement of these standards, or if you are aware of a comment that I may have missed that you think needs my attention, please ask me on my talk page, or preferably, by email.

Finally, it has been suggested that comments not based in Misplaced Pages policy might be considered disruptive. While I don't think it would be tenable to base any RfC questions or drafts on things not permitted by policy, I do not think that comments could be considered disruptive just because they misinterpret policy. Such comments might be a genuine misunderstanding of policy, and participants should not be criticized for not having a 100% knowledge of all of Misplaced Pages's rules, which can be very complicated at times. A misinterpretation of policy is a reason for educating users, not for punishing them. However, if repeated patient explanations of policy are not successful in helping an editor understand policy, it may reach the point where it becomes a form of "I didn't hear that" disruption. If we all keep an open mind and assume good faith on the part of the other participants, avoiding problems like this should be easy enough. If you think that another editor might be exhibiting behavioural signs like this, again please contact me on my talk page, or preferably, by email. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous steps

• Preliminaries - the discussion introduction and the statements from the participants have been archived to Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive 1.
• Step one: RfC scope - the step one discussion has also been archived to Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive 1.
• Step two: general RfC structure - this step has been archived to Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive 2.

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:

1. Have a brainstorm about all the possible drafts we could have. No discussion at this stage.
2. Each of the participants make a list of the drafts from the brainstorm they would like to include, along with their reasons.
3. 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:

1. Make individual statements about the positions we should include in the source summary, and include sample sources to back them up.
2. We discuss any differences in participants' list, and how they might be combined.
3. 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 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 08:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine, though neither is internationally recognised.
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.
3. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though this is not internationally recognised as such.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel though this is not internationally recognised.
7. 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.
8. Jerusalem is Israel's capital according to Israeli law, but it isn't recognized as such internationally.
9. Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, but it isn't recognized internationally as its capital.
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.
12. 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.
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.
14. 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).
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.
16. 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.
17. Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, the namesake of the Caananite god of dusk, Shalim.
18. 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.
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.

Step three: statements on drafts

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 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 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement on drafts by InsertUsernameHere

Step three: general questions

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 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)

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 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)

• Mr Romney caused controversy when he described Jerusalem as the country's capital
• Daily News: "Statements made by (...) Mitt Romney (...) have caused controversy worldwide (...) In a speech on Sunday Romney referred to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
• CSM: "the ancient holy city is again embroiled in a controversy over Israeli and Palestinian claims to have Jerusalem as their capital"
• Times of Israel:"In 2008, Obama (...) saying that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” Controversy ensued"

--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)

• 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)

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

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

• The Telegraph: "BBC criticised after failing to identify capital on Olympic page"
• Times of Israel: "The British Guardian newspaper on Wednesday acknowledged it was wrong to call Tel Aviv Israel’s capital"
• BBC: "How to describe the city of Jerusalem has caused controversy"
• CSM: "By leaving support for Jerusalem as Israel's capital off its platform, the Democratic party sparked the latest fierce debate on the much-disputed city."

-- 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)

• Wall Street Journal: "None of this means there aren't real strains between Washington and Tel Aviv..."
• Le Figaro: "The Iranian bomb has caused a split between Washington and Tel Aviv"
• Financial Times: "Tel Aviv continues to press Britain for reform of its laws on universal jurisdiction"
• The New Statesman: "...the law passed by Congress that imposes sanctions on Syria and in effect threatens it with the same fate as Iraq unless it agrees to the demands of Tel Aviv"
• Sydney Morning Herald: "She said the matter had been raised directly with the Tel Aviv government"

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.

• CNN: "His opinion is echoed on the streets of Tel Aviv, Israel's capital city."
• London Evening Standard: "The body of Omar Sharif was found in the capital Tel Aviv..."
• Irish Independent: "A parade of global figures...arrived in the Israeli capital Tel Aviv last night..."
• El País: "At least one person has died and six have been injured after a car exploded in a town close to Tel Aviv, the capital of Israel."
• NBC News: "...air raid sirens sound in the Israeli capital Tel Aviv for the second day..."

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

• Wall Street Journal: "None of this means there aren't real strains between Washington and Tel Aviv..."
• Le Figaro: "The Iranian bomb has caused a split between Washington and Tel Aviv"
• Financial Times: "Tel Aviv continues to press Britain for reform of its laws on universal jurisdiction"
• The New Statesman: "...the law passed by Congress that imposes sanctions on Syria and in effect threatens it with the same fate as Iraq unless it agrees to the demands of Tel Aviv"
• Sydney Morning Herald: "She said the matter had been raised directly with the Tel Aviv government"

• • 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 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,

• Israeli Basic Law -Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel
• “Capital - name: Jerusalem (Note underneath - Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv)” - CIA World Factbook

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."
• 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."

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. "

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"

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"
• "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.”"

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."

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

Step three: discussion of source statements

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.

1. Few or no countries agree with Israel that Jerusalem is the Israeli capital.
2. Referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital is controversial.
3. Most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
4. Not referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital is controversial.
5. Some reputable sources use "Tel Aviv" as a metonym, as shorthand for "Israel".
6. East Jerusalem, which this article treats as part of Jerusalem, is in the Palestinian territories and is occupied by Israel.
7. Some reputable sources refer to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel.
8. The status of Jerusalem is seriously disputed by news organizations and courts.
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.
10. Jerusalem-as-capital is the focus of Palestinian national aspirations.
11. The government of Israel has made Jerusalem its capital and seat of government.
12. No news agency with a guideline for neutral reporting allows Jerusalem to be reported as the capital of Israel.
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.
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.
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.

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 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question one: Accuracy/reliability of source opinions

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 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 . 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)." -- 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)

• 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) 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. 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." 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. 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." 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."

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") 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." Dlv999 (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

{{gi|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 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))

• 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 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)

Question two: Ways to make a more concise list

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 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)

Question three: News sources

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Question four: Tel Aviv

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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)

Question five: Dictionaries

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 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."

1. 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.
2. 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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)

Question six: Court decisions

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

General discussion

If you have any questions or comments, you can ask them here. Alternatively, you are welcome to post at my talk page, or to send me an email. Don't hesitate to get in touch if there's anything you're unsure about. — Mr. Stradivarius 08:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 13:09, 31 March 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 19:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey of encyclopedic sources?

Since we effectively have something like this for news sources 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)

References

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