Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Okedem (talk | contribs) at 10:16, 31 May 2008 (→Consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See also: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Community lounge

Talk Page Guidelines

Here are guidelines for this page. (These guidelines may be discussed below.)

• Please stay on topic. Our topic here is to discuss how to edit the WikiProject page and, concomitantly, the project's objectives and activities.
• For general discussion of Israeli-Palestinian issues and how to edit them, you might check out the more free-ranging discussion of our Community Lounge. Long comments and off-topic sections may be refactored there as needed. You can also make a brief statement (e.g., 3-5 lines) in the members section, below.

• Please observe WP expectations, including Talk guidelines. Let's try to be civil and avoid personal attacks as we figure out how to collaborate together! Do not use page as a soapbox.
• Archiving: Discussion sections should be marked Done, Resolved or otherwise closed by moderators. After a reasonably short time, such sections will be archived (the heading might be left in somewhat longer as FYI). Agreements and successes can be recorded under #Mild accomplishments.

• Our discussions are moderated. Personal attacks (and excessive incivility) will be deleted. Moderators can mark any off-topic conversation or soapboxing for deletion, or to move to Community Lounge. Progress can be marked as Done or Resolved, etc.

Archives

January - February 2008 February - March 2008

Background

This page comes out of suggestions made at an ArbCom workshop. The initial work is borrowed shamelessly from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Folks are welcome to edit this extensively (or to delete, if it does not become active). Thanks. HG | Talk 13:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Member statements

Here is a section to say something about yourself and your interest in working collaboratively in the I-P topic area. Examples may be seen from the Sri Lanka effort. Currently, there are no specific criteria and all are welcome to join. Perhaps certain criteria are implicit; for example, that members engage in deliberately civil conversation, follow Talk and editing etiquette, and only make big changes to this WikiProject after discussion here. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It might help if people articulated their role(s)/goals with the topic or WikiProject. For instance, you might say if you're available to mediate, or uninvolved admin to enforce policies, or an active editor w/an identifiable point-of-view. Ideally, the project could call upon some "good cop/bad cop" teams when heated disputes arise at an article. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, this project is a wonderful idea! Come to me for help with images (cropping, rotation, restoration) - I'd be glad to help prepare photographs for featured picture candidacy, particularly historic material. Also glad to help with dispute resolution. Regards, Durova 21:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• PalestineRemembered I sometimes regret wearing my apparent sympathies so openly, at other times it's been useful. Think of me a bit like Emily Hobhouse, having absolutely no dog in this race (as she had none in the Boer War), other than the interest we all share in "peace'n'justice". And the accuracy of the historical record - I have a particular objection to hate-sources. (More on that elsewhere) I have never concealed or attempted to conceal anything that might be "disreputable" to the Palestinian "cause", nor ever (that I'm aware of) used anything doubtful about Israel. This "I-P conflict" is well documented in good sources, so even when there is reasonable room for two different scripts, it should not be difficult to write both up properly/fairly. I look forwards to my first invitation to "write for the enemy", and the first acceptance of an invitation from me to do so. PR 12:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• As an introduction, I should say that I spent three months touring around Misplaced Pages before I dared show my face and self-graduate to newbie status; I should also say that my POV-powered vehicle is heavily loaded with a very long (literally geologic) sense of history and historical perspective; I believe that perspective, and others also, can be called truly encyclopedic. IPCOLL is the first wiki-anything I have joined. I too believe that the difficult issues should be tackled first; it is synonymous to the Oslo accords and leaving the ‘final status’ issues for later evolutionary work. ... Shalom, Salaam, Peace. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Hello! I'm a pretty uninvolved editor in I-P and other Middle East articles (until I discover something I just have to edit ;). I'm over at medcab, and that's my main role at the moment, and it's there I come across Israeli-Palestinian related discussion. I'm happy to see an Israeli-Palestinian Collaboration project, and am hopeful that it will help and do good things for the future :) I suppose there isn't much for me to say. Here's a nice quote I heard once, though: "seek context; flee abstraction". Words to live by, imo :) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• (These comments by Leifern would be a fine statement, if he joins!) On principle, I support any kind of initiative that leads to 1) better adherence to NPOV, 2) more informative articles, and 3) better written articles. I have no reason to doubt the intent of those who are initiating this Wikiproject and would encourage them to continue. But I think I'd be doing them and the other well-meaning editors a disservice if I didn't express my reservations candidly. My biggest fear is that this becomes an alibi, a safe haven, for POV-pushers. I can all too easily imagine a scenario where an editor comes running her with an edit dispute, finds other editors sympathetic to his/her point of view, and then uses their support as a basis for claiming "consensus." There are too many editors on this particular issue who claim to be absolutely neutral, but are anything but neutral, whether they realize this or not. (Moved w/permission. HG | Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hi, I'm an uninvolved admin who's here to help out as needed. I'm currently a member of the ArbCom-created Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars, and creator/moderator of the dispute board for Hungarian-Slovakian issues. I'm also currently updating various dispute resolution processes around Misplaced Pages, and am paying close attention to longrunning disputes to see how we can improve our procedures and/or enforcement. I've been a professional online community manager for over 15 years, long before I was involved with Misplaced Pages, and my own "style" tends to be a bit more on the enforcement side, but I also do a great deal of mediating and mentoring. If I can be of assistance, let me know!  :) --Elonka 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Trouble at Jewish lobby

Discussion of this request stopped about a month ago, so the thread has been archived. See the article or mediation/DR effforts for current status of the dispute. (Or restart new thread as needed.) Thanks. HG | Talk 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI Mediation which started March 14 is still going on and on with the article locked because of constant reverting and re-editing by two sides of issue (one side - mostly one editor and people who come in to support his reversions - wanting to stress antisemitic uses of term; other side of 5-7 independent editors who want to include more of NON-antisemitic uses to make article more accurate and NPOV -obviously sie I'm on). But it's just over and over the same ground with mediator sometimes helping and sometimes not. Fact that article locked makes it difficult to put in and keep edits we agree on. So I guess will have to bring that up. I just wish there was a way of really dealing with editors who are almost peofessionals at WP:Gaming the system. They teach others of us bad habits, too. Just frustrated. Carol Moore 03:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Recent links to antisemitism article inserted into Anti-Zionism

Yesterday User:Telaviv1 inserted a load of see also links into Anti-Zionism connecting to articles on antisemitism. I reversed one of them (not noticing at the time that he/she had added the others). User:Zeq has now reversed my reversion. My view is that inserting such links is POV through equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. What do other people think?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Equating antizionism to antisemitism is of course not acceptable.

But I am not sure that adding a see also : Anti-globalization and antisemitism at the top of the article has this meaning.

Personnally, I see this as meaning there is a link between both. No more, no less

...

Ceedjee (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes. I don't mind so much material in the see also section at the end of the article. It was the insertion of the antismitism see alsos in the antizionism sections that got me.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Ceedjee. They are linked topics, if only because antisemites have realized that fake "anti-Zionism" is a good way to softpedal their views (cf Stalin, David Duke, et al.) <eleland/talkedits> 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Peter,

In fact, I didn't realize immediately what you was referring to.

From my point of view (as you have seen in my last edits in the article) it is not acceptable to add at the top of each section, a link to "antisemitism". So, I try to "neutralize" this. I hope this will not produce difficult discussions.

@Eleland. I share your mind too. Ceedjee (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks again. I wanted to bring things here for more neutral comment rather than make a second revert at once and risk becoming a major antogonist on one side of an edit war. And yes the anti-Zionism as a cover and trigger of antisemitism is something I'm well aware of. The link has kept me away from from various activities of the Stop the War Coalition.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA emails brouhaha

In case anyone missed it, there was a brouhaha over CAMERA emails trying to secretly organize pro-Israel and anti-Palestine editing here and sanctions put on some editors, including at least one mentioned above. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Statement_re_Wikilobby_campaign for details. Now to figure out how to deal with certain aggressive partisan editors who manage to dance just within the rules while keeping article POV pro-Israel. Carol Moore 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

This is the right place to talk about it.  :) Please bring up any incidents that you notice. --Elonka 20:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent some idea and approach all around. it's great how you called attention to anyone who keeps an article "pro-Israel" while dancing within the rules.

I assume you feel you did not say anything offensive, since your comment was entirely within the bounds of the rules here. So how about if we in turn do our part to keep an eye out for "aggressive partisan editors who manage to dance just within the rules while keeping article POV anti-Israel." --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you.  :) --Elonka 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your positive response; however, as you can see though, I have changed my answer slightly. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Like anything else it's all a mater of degree. i.e., one editor who constantly pulls every trick in the book to keep out reliably sourced negative info about Israel by 10 editors is a lot worse than one editor who tries to put in a less than reliable negative allegation that no editor bothers to defend when others delete it. I've seen far more of the former than the latter. And there are many negative facts about Israel that should be reported, just like there are lots about the US and South African (then and now) and Zimbabwe. Defending people's favorite nation states from reliably sourced allegations is not wikipedia's job. Carol Moore 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol and Steve, I think we all agree that any off-Wiki canvassing — whether anti-Israel or pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian or pro-Palestinian — is inappropriate. Evidence recently came to light about an effort to create an "army" of pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian editors. The existence of another group of editors looking to "combat" anti-Palestinian and pro-Israel bias was also discovered.

The nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is such that it attracts editors with deeply-held views. If they don't share your POV, they're "aggressive partisan editors who manage to dance just within the rules while keeping article POV". If you agree with their POV, they're upholding Misplaced Pages's core principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR.

Instead of looking under every rock and behind every tree for "aggressive partisan editors", let's all try to avoid appearing to others — especially those with the "wrong" POV — as "aggressive partisan editors". — ] (] · ]) 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malik Shabazz. Not appearing to others as "agressive partisan editors" is a first good step in the process of developing these difficult articles in wikipedia where there are numerous contributors with different cultures, different sensitivities and different pov's. Ceedjee (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We must keep our wits about us - it's not just that this CAMERA business was a serious, blatant attempt to cheat. It came to light because one or more editors were coming to believe they were untouchable. No matter how blatantly they cheated in their editing (most infuriatingly for good editors, removing good information), it seemed that the project was incapable of dealing with them and wouldn't pull them up for anything. User:Zeq was being actively encouraged in this conduct, as many of us recognised. PR 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

An idea worth trying?

(Crossposting)

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good with the Israeli-Palesinian dispute on AE. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Misplaced Pages editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very open to the idea and find it very interesting. I congratulate the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedians for such a big step - though it took only a few steps. I am thinking of proposing it at Misplaced Pages:IPCOLL and Misplaced Pages:SLR as well. -- FayssalF - 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Massacres

moved to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/About the use of the word massacre per HG request.
Ceedjee (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources charges of antisemitism

Sometimes I clean up biographies of people critical of Israel, deleting obviously POV, unsourced or dubiously sourced statements per WP:BLP, of which there often are many. I now have a case where small time lefty publications -- and an article by an editor of the page -- are used to charge antisemitism against someone who does defend their reputation and probably has threatened law suits to get mainstream editorial access to defend his reputation. Thinking WP:BLP calls for caution in these cases, I brought these examples to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Where the offending editor defended them and another editor gave a reply inferring but not stating they might be deleted. I guess I'll finally bring it to the talk page, but would like a more expedient way of dealing with issue - besides just reverting away per WP:BLP rules. Anyway, I wonder if people in general have found it more of a problem to get such accusations removed as unreliable on antisemitism charges than on other charges. Thanks. Carol Moore 15:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Is this linked to the I-P conflict ?

Whatever, if there is a source, and if the statement is "according to *a precise name*, Mr X is antisemite because *arguments* ", then it should be ok for wikipedia.

Everything less cautious should be forbiden.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't want to export the discussion to this page too, I want to note that, although there are indeed allegations of antisemitism on the page in question, most of these are in sources which Carolmooredc does not propose to delete (including The Guardian and The Times), and none are in the "small time lefty publications" she mentions above. Unfortunately, misuse of the serious charge of antisemitism against opponents of Israeli policy has served to delegitimise and discredit the term even when it might be appropriately used. RolandR (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Firt, glad to see you are a reader of this page. :-)

Second, are you saying that if a reliable source says something negative and potentially libelous, then you can pile on less reliable sources - including your own writings? Actually I think a couple of them should be deleted on the grounds of piling on! WP:UNDUE and all that. For one thing, reliable sources usually cover their butts by publishing replies from the person attacked, as The Guardian did twice. But I guess it's just time to bring it to the talk page since definitive answers not coming up else wheres. Carol Moore 16:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

There is a related discussion here:

Talk:Little Green Footballs#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material --Timeshifter (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

The articles Israel and Jerusalem state in their leads that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". I don't believe it's factual to state this in the leads; the status of Jerusalem is highly debatable; most of the world countries (if not all) consider East Jerusalem to be occupied by Israel, whereas Israel announced that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel". IMO, the leads of the two article promote a minority view; the Israeli view. Imad marie (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The status of Jerusalem is indeed complex, and that complexity is conveyed in Positions on Jerusalem. However, can you find a reliable encyclopedia or atlas which states that the capital of Israel is not Jerusalem? -- Nudve (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My argument here is not claiming that "the capital of Israel is not Jerusalem", my argument is that the two articles (and any other article) must not tell the reader in their leads that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" as a fact, this is controversial, the articles must not assume and present facts judgments about that in the leads.

Please take a look at Jerusalem definition in britannica and encarta, both articles present the controversy before presenting any facts judgments, and I think this is fair. Imad marie (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. Both articles have an endnote next to the statement, explaining the legal issue. -- Nudve (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be promoting minority views in the leading paragraphs and then explain the full context in endnotes where no one reads them. I think we must explain the full context in the lead, before we make any judgments. Imad marie (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On controversial topics, in particular, Wiki likely should not make that type of mental gymnastics necessary. If it is controversial, both/all sides should be in the lede with a 'see below' come-on. That would be, imo, nearer NPOV. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

While countries have chosen to locate their embassies elsewhere, and not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, that cannot change the basic fact of it being a capital. By the very definition of capital - "seat of government", Jerusalem is the de-facto capital - containing the parliament, government offices, supreme court, president's quarters, PM's quarters, etc; And by Israeli law it is the de-jure capital. It serves the function of capital in Israel, and is under Israel's control. Whether or not it should be is a different matter, and that is the subject of the dispute. International recognition is not, and has never been, a requirement for a capital. okedem (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okedem is right. The de-facto status should come first. I guess the editors didn't want the lead section to become a legal debate instead of a description of the city. Perhaps some rewording is possible, though. And we shouldn't assume nobody reads endnotes. -- Nudve (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Okedem, long time, no see. You are both correct from your pov, which must be addressed in the lede, as must others. In this particular case, the key words we Wikipedians must grapple with are the ones upon which RSs are based; those must include 'claimed', 'recognized', 'de facto' and 'de jure', I believe, as well as any non-fringe others. If anyone tries to hang too-tough, it is harder to have a collaborative effort. Is that about right? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting: First, Britannica's article on Israel states in the lead paragraph "Jerusalem is the capital and the seat of government". No ifs, buts, or any mention of controversy. Second, Talk:Jerusalem/capital. This issue has been discussed so many times, including via RfCs, every time with the conclusion being "no consensus" or "Jerusalem is the capital". I can't see this discussion concluding any differently. Rami R 14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has the potential to, at moments, be far better than Encylopedia Britannica. One of the strengths here is the representation of underrepresented facts. Why not just re-phrase okedem:

"By Israeli law, Jerusalem is the de-jure capital of Israel, de-facto containing the parliament, government offices, Supreme Court, President's quarters, and Prime Ministers's quarters. However Jerusalem has not been recognized internationally as the capital of Israel, and many countries that see Jerusalem as equally the capital of the future Palestinian state, or view the city as a shared international heritage site that should be governed by a range of stakeholders locally and worldwide, have chosen to locate their embassies in Tel Aviv."LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, they ought to say "declared capital" in the lede rather than "capital." I recall getting into a fairly ridiculous war over this on Template:Asian capitals, and being scolded about how Jerusalem is a FEATURED ARTICAL!!1 and thus this has previously been discussed and we have CONSANSUS!!1 and arguing about it is DESRUPTIVE!!1; if I recall, the featured article review (and this is a broken process in itself) actually contained no discussion of the "capital" issue. What I'm saying is that if you intend to make this change, be prepared for false claims of consensus, personal invective and probable claims of antisemitism, openly hypocritical double standards, copypasta from CAMERA-like websites, blizzards of citations, laughably fallacious arguments... basically your standard day's work on an Israel-related article :P <eleland/talkedits> 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see you're maintaining a positive, friendly attitude.

Jerusalem answers the definition of the word "capital", and so it is the capital. Both de-jure, and de-facto. International recognition has no bearing on the concept of capital. okedem (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (de-facto), and consensus has been reached about that (de-facto) !!

Okedem, about your repeated argument that the seat of government is in Jerusalem, and that's why it is the capital by definition. Please note that the seat of government is in West Jerusalem, and that makes a big difference; East Jerusalem is occupied, and no logic can define it as the capital of Israel. Imad marie (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Imad, the capital of a country is chosen by that country only, and other countries, as Okedem said, have absolutely no say in it. Israeli law does not differentiate 'west' Jerusalem from 'east' Jerusalem. Instead, the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem are well-defined and represent the Israeli capital. The international dispute, as has been stated above, is well-documented on Misplaced Pages, in many footnotes and refs, as well as its very own article - Positions on Jerusalem. -- Ynhockey 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no city called "West Jerusalem"; no such an entity. Israeli law holds for both sides of the city, and there's no difference between them in that respect. The entire city functions as the capital. The last international plan for Jerusalem called for a corpus seperatum, international control of the entire city, for 10 years. Afterwards the residents would decide its fate, via a referendum. (By the way, as Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 19th century, we can guess the results of such a referendum). In 1948, as the Arabs rejected the partition plan and were moving to capture the city, so did the Jews. Jordan's control over East Jerusalem was no more "legal" than Israel's control of it now. East Jerusalem is not claimed by any country other than Israel (Jordan dropped its claims a long way back), and so the only sovereign of East Jerusalem is the de-facto one, Israel. The whole dispute is of whether this should be so, what should be done. But the current facts cannot be changed. Whatever happens with Jerusalem in the future, cannot change its current function as capital. okedem (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just want to add, in reply to those who affirm okedem that the de facto status should come first (I agree with his point) that I added the info about the ambassies, SEcond, and it was instantly deleted. So even when someone does not argue with the de facto status, it seems that people are unwilling to see the other points of view represented in conjunction - the approach seems to marginalize the controversey in a way which is misleading.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the edit history it was instantly deleted because there was a prior consensus on the current structure of the lead sentence, see Talk:Jerusalem/capital. Although consensus can change it requires discussion on the talk page to determine whether consensus has changed and how. Apart from that, your edit was imprecise and unsourced, it's not asked to much to spend at least a bit of effort when editing a featured article (or any article, for that matter). Novidmarana (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem has been the center of dispute for a very long time, and the center of deadly wars and long peace negotiations. Both britannica and encarta don't define Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied by the international community. Jerusalem is not recognized by the world countries as Israel's capital. Are we going to ignore all that and just say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" just because Israel has de-facto control of it? Maybe we need WP:POLL here to see if we really have consensus that the leads should state that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Imad marie (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Both britannica and encarta don't define Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." - clearly you have not read my comment above about Britannica's article on Israel. Rami R 12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Consensus as the relevant guideline - WP:POLL has been rejected by the community. And yes, we should ignore all this and state Jerusalem is the capital plus a footnote with additional explanations. We should deal with facts, and fact is that Jerusalem as the seat of the government is the de-facto capital, and with the Jerusalem law it is also the offical capital. As there is no concept of a capital and hence international recognition of a capital saying something like the international community does not accept Jerusalem as Israels capital is imprecise and misleading. What the international community does not accept is that East Jerusalem is part of Israel, what is not the same. So in abscence of a legal definition capital we should go with the dictionary, and according to the dictionary definition Jerusalem is the capital. Novidmarana (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(Hi. I'm wondering if this conversation would be more suitable to the Jerusalem or Positions article Talk page. Alternatively, since this is an issue that does cut across various articles and template(s), perhaps it would be fruitful to focus less on the debate itself right now, and think about how/where the question can be tackled. How can IPCOLL contribute to this question? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Well I suggest that one benefit of IP COLL might be that some of the discussions here can occur on some of the same topics as those at regaular talk pages, but that they would theoretically be pursued by different people; ie, those who have joined IP COLL, or those who have some commitment or interest in making a project like this succeed. so i would tentatively suggest that discussions like this can proceed forward here, but only with certain considerations in mind; for instance, that the goal here is to find common ground between two viewpoints and/or communities. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's one problem, this discussion pops up everywhere (at the moment at Israel, Jerusalem). Another problem is that this is discussed again and again. Whenever it seem settled, and consensus has been achieved, it is almost guaranteed that a few weeks/months later the discussion starts again. While consensus can change, I don't see why this has to be discussed anew on an almost monthly basis. Novidmarana (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way novidmarana and okedem are right. jerusalem is the capital. what the article can say is that various nations refuse to recognize it as such. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... this again. Does Israel consider Jerusalem its capital? Yes. Is its executive branch headed there? Yes. Judicial branch? Yes. Legislative branch? Yes. Most governmental services? Yes. I don't know guys, but that sounds like a capital to me. It doesn't matter how many countries don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and claim it should be Tel Aviv or New York or Abu Dhabi. The fact is that Jerusalem is considered by Israel as its capital and functions as such. This is not one country's "point-of-view"; it's clear fact. Look up the word capital in any dictionary and you will find that recognition from a quorum of countries is not necessary for a city to be one. Jeez. People, on and (more importantly) off Misplaced Pages, need to quit harping on trivial issues like this one, get over this decades-long conflict, and move on with their lives already. -- tariqabjotu 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How's this, as a way to keep topics from reoccuring? We could create archive files, with the topic in the title. such as: /Discussion archive/Jerusalem as capital, /Discussion archive. We could then list such archive pages, so that everyone could look up the consensus arrived at there. this might also be a good way to record various article compromises. does that sound good? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is done already, sort of on the Jerusalem talk page, the link above the main body and below the wikiproject boxes. Apparently this is ignored by most, as discussion start on this topic start again and again, whenever a new editor arrives who thinks that his personal POV is not well represented. Novidmarana (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but I think it might be useful for WP:IPCOLL to have its own archives as well, to relfect the fact that, as you mentioned, discussions seems to keep restarting and stopping. i have copied the discussion here so far at /Discussion archive/Jerusalem as capital. At some point, we could remove the discussion from this talk page, once it has reached a conclusion and/or some sort of consensus. please feel free to leave any comments on this procedure. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As a resource for editors, I think it would be useful for IPCOLL to set up a list of key disputed terms (etc) and where they have been discussed. On Jerusalem, for instance, we could mention Template talk:Asian capitals. The disputed terms could be listed on the main project page, with a link to a subpage(s) that contains all the discussion links. My 2 cents. Be well, HG | Talk 06:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From the exchanges above I understand that only stating that 'Jerusalem is the capital' in unbalanced. We could comply to Misplaced Pages:NPOV by adding 'competing views' wherever 'Jerusalem is the capital' is mentioned. For example either we state competing facts in lead or we state none (optionnaly to be replaced by 'West Jerusalem is the biggest city' or something avoiding the 'capital' word). Winetype (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "unbalanced". It's a fact, and it's indisputable. Whether it should be capital is in debate, but cannot change the reality. This is not a question of 'competing views', but of fact. okedem (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

These arguments over semantics are so wearying. Why make a principle out of a word? If people dislike the word capital, why not use something else? "Jerusalem is the seat of government" - doesn't sound that bad, and means the same thing. Remember, all these these nuances - this means that, that means the other - they are all beyond the typical reader. The typical reader will never notice that the article says "seat of government" and not "capital". --Ravpapa (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Not only are these not the same, this would be succumbing to political pressure, telling us what words we can use, despite having absolutely no factual backing to those claims. It's the capital, by the very definition of the word - and thus, we should say it is, even if some people don't like it. This is the sort of thing that determines our credibility. Do we surrender in face of political opposition, or do we state the facts. okedem (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at how other encyclopedias define Jerusalem and Israel:

The only article that states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is Britannica's definition of Israel, all other article say: "claim that ...". So looking at those articles makes me think that we are not neutral here. Imad marie (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The editorial decision of other encyclopedias are of no concern. Only the facts are. And whether we like it or not, whether or not we believe that Jerusalem should be the capital - it is. It fulfills the requirements of a capital city, namely - seat of governments, and is the declared capital. International recognition has no bearing on this. Thus - we say it is the capital. okedem (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide even one solid non-aligned source which specifically states that "international recognition has no bearing" on a state's right to declare occupied foreign territory as part of its capital? I don't care how many Dore Golds you can quote - I want you to prove this supposed objective, factual standard is generally accepted. Simply repeating "It's the WP:TRUTH!!" doesn't impress. <eleland/talkedits> 08:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who has to prove that the widely used definition of capital requires international recognition. I've already shown that no such requirement exists in the definition, as any simple dictionary will show. okedem (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you want a dictionary definition that says: "capital is ... under the condition it is not occupied"? Jerusalem is a unique case, East Jerusalem is occupied by definition and by international recognition, so it's kind of "wrong" to simply say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Imad marie (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Facts

Some people seem to be asserting that certain things are facts as if they are not subject to argument and unproblematic. Tautologies (such as "big things are large") and various mathematical and logical statements are uncomplicatedly facts. Various statements about the physical world ("the Earth is round") are facts unless one is getting philosophical. But when we come to social and political concepts, then the concept of "fact" is often contested. The status of Jerusalem is just such a contested fact, as are, say, those of Kosovo, Taiwan, Northern Cyprus etc. NPOV says that we do not take such alleged facts on face value. I notice that some people are claiming both these positions:

1. Jerusalem is one undivided place. In particular, there is no such thing as West Jerusalem. This place is part of Israel.
2. Israel has the right to decide which place is Israel is its capital and that becomes its capital by objective standards.

Given that Israel is just about the only country that considers that all of Jerusalem is in Israel, then using 1 and 2 to then imply that the undivided entity that is Jerusalem is the capital of Israel cannot be anything but POV. For Misplaced Pages to be NPOV, it has to avoid a position that implies 1+2. We could split off a separate West Jerusalem article and say that Israel's capital is there in the lead, and discuss some of the issues lower down. But if we treat Jerusalem as one entity, we must not imply that that single entity is uncomplicatedly part of Israel or its uncomplicated capital.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter, there's a difference between what we want, or think is right, and what is.

The very definition of capital is "seat of government", and one can add the de-jure aspect of being designated as capital by the country (which is why The Netherlands has, sort of, two capitals). Jerusalem answers both those criteria - by their very definitions. Regardless of some people's opinions or wishes to that effect, "capital" has nothing to do with international recognition, or with embassies.

To call Jerusalem anything but "capital" would be a disservice to the readers, who just want the facts. Now, the issue of whether this should be so, whether Israel has a right to set its capital there, etc, is a very different matter. What should be cannot change what is.

There's no real entity by the name of "West Jerusalem". No distinction "on the ground". I remind you that East Jerusalem was "illegally" captured by Jordan (against the UN plan), leading to Israel capturing the other part of the city ("West Jerusalem"). Legally speaking, Jordan, or the Palestinians, have no more right to Jerusalem that Israel does. It is disputed, sure, but currently it is the capital. What will happen in the future - no one knows. Till then... okedem (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

There are certain people talking about consensus as is it is unchanging and uncomplicated. Misplaced Pages is very clear that consensus can be challenged and can change. "We decided all this a year ago." is not acceptable under WP:Consensus. Saying "how dare someone new turn up and express their POV after we have discussed this before" is not acceptable under WP:Consensus. Can people be very clear about this. The consensus even on featured articles can change.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, currently we don't have consensus for saying: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" in the related articles' leads.Imad marie (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Imad, you have to face the very definition of the word. As you have failed to provide any source stating the need for international recognition on a country's capital, please accept that Jerusalem answers the definition. You have to separate your personal opinion of what should be, from what actually is. Only the latter should be written in the articles. okedem (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above, Jerusalem is a unique case, East Jerusalem is an occupied territory. I'm not sure if I can find a dictionary definition that says: "a capital must not be occupied", but that's common sense. Imad marie (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Common sense" - well, that's great, but when going against the facts and the definitions, you need sources.

Actually, even the claim of "occupied" is bogus - occupied from who? No country has a legal right to it. Jordan captured it despite to UN plan, and no longer lays any claim to it. The Palestinians aren't a state, and even if they were to accept the UN partition plan in 1947, Jerusalem wouldn't have been under their control. In fact, the "corpus separatum" plan called for the residents of Jerusalem to vote, after 10 years, on their desired alignment. Jerusalem has had a consistent Jewish majority since the 19th century, and throughout the 20th century, and the outcome of such a vote may very well have been the annexation of Jerusalem to Israel. But that's speculation. The point is, Jerusalem is, at most, disputed. Not occupied. okedem (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, RSs?

I stumbled upon these, while looking for something and then spent more time trying to improve my general knowledge of that time period. I thought I'd make them available for your perusal. I couldn't find the source on a Wiki search, as having been used/found, but I don't know how to search Wiki too well. They look pretty RS to me. ,, ,,, and, . I found them enlightening and interesting, but didn't look at all of them completely. I tend to feel that they can be helpful for many articles within our sphere. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)