Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2003–2009

message: Jerusulem is not recognised by the UK government as the capital - see . Secretlondon 18:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The page you linked does not even mention the word "capital" - so it is irrelevant. Anyway I never claimed that Jerusulem is recognised by the UK government as the capital. All I said is that Jerusalem is the capital, which is still true regardless of what the UK government recognizes. -- uriber 19:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You never claimed that Jerusulem is recognized by the UK government as the capital, however, you also claimed there was "no real dispute about this fact [the "fact" that Jerusulem is the capital]." Anthony DiPierro 19:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: There is a big difference between not "officially recognizing" Jerusalem as capital (which is a matter of politics), and between saying that "Jerusalem is not the capital" (which is a matter of fact). Of course there's a political dispute about Jerusalem. I just said I don't think there is dispute about the facts. -- uriber 19:11, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's just the opposite.  Whether or not Jerusalem is officially recognized as the capital is a fact (at least, it can be, barring strange circumstances such as the United States where Congress passed a bill saying that Jerusalem is the capital but the President declared the bill Unconstitutional).  Whether or not it is the capital is an opinion. Anthony DiPierro 19:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK is irrelevant here. If Israel does not recognize London as the UK capital, would it cease to be one? Prove why such dependency is important. BTW, the UK was one of only two countries (another was Pakistan) which _recognized_ Jordan's illegal annexation of the West Bank and E-Jlem in 1949 until it was liberated in 1967. Did it make it any more legal? We don't want to talk about Britain's long story of colluding with the Arabs, mismanaging the Mandate and shutting down Jewish immigration in the 30s and 40s, do we? --Humus sapiens  Talk 19:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If Israel does not recognize London as the UK capital, then it would cease to be NPOV to call it one. Anthony DiPierro 19:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is your POV. I respectfully disagree and think it is irrelevant. None of dictionaries mention the "recognition" requirement. Being asked repeatedly, you were unable to prove it is important. At this point, we are arguing over POV, not facts. Should we strive for NPOV, though? --Humus sapiens  Talk 19:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I, on the other hand, think the dictionaries are irrelevant.  If the dictionaries call London the capital of the UK, but Israel disagrees, then it is POV to call London the UK capital, because that is in dispute.  Recognition is exactly what NPOV is all about.  If something is not universally recognized as being true, then it is POV to assert that it is without attribution, regardless of what some dictionary may say. Anthony DiPierro 20:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: According to what you say, the articles on London, Rome, Paris, etc., should all be fixed, because they are now claiming as a fact something that is merely a POV (that these cities are capitals) - whereas none of these articles even mention the facts - by which countries these capitals are "recognized". I think you have a lot of work to do in order to make these articles (and about 200 others) NPOV. Good luck. -- uriber 19:32, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Wikipedia:NPOV again.  I even quoted the relevant paragraph.  By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."  There is no serious dispute to the capital status of London, Rome, or Paris. Anthony DiPierro 19:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: And BTW, which president declaired that bill Unconstitutional? I'm curious. Anyway, as far as I know it's not in the president's authority to declare bills "unconstitutional". -- uriber 19:32, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The President was Bush.   And any President can declare anything whatever he wants. Anthony DiPierro 19:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Oh - you are confusing your acts here. Bush's statement (which does not mention the word "unconstitutional", BTW) is regarding several clauses in the 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The act in which congress recognized Jerusalem as capital of Israel was the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, of which no president ever said it was unconstitutional. -- uriber 19:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: He may not use the word "unconsitutional", but he says that the act "impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs."  As for the content of the act itself, it "obligates the US to identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in federally funded documents." 
Once again, the very fact that reasonable people are disputing this means that it is not NPOV to say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel."  Clearly, the situation is absolutely not analogous to the situation of Rome or Paris, where there is no basis to say that those cities are not the capital.  Jerusalem, on the other hand, is not recognized as a part of the State of Israel by many countries.  As I've said before, the only analogous example I can think of is East Berlin as the capital of the German Democratic Republic.  I think that it would be similarly problematic to say "East Berlin was the capital of the German Democratic Republic," since a) the East Germans themselves called "Berlin" their capital; and b) Berlin was officially under four power control, and thus not a part of either German state (at least until the 70s...)  What is needed here is to have some statement which says that Israel has its capital in Jerusalem without saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel."  This wouldn't be hard to do, I think, except that there's a lot of people here saying "We won't except anything except saying 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.'"  That makes this essentially intractable. john 20:11, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Previously I suggested we write "Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel".  I repeat that suggestion.  The word "official" introduces some intentional ambiguity, in the time-honored fashion of diplomatic documents.  Uriber didn't like this idea too much, but Wik was the one who reverted it.  This relative symmetry of dislike suggests that it is close to the mark. --Zero 22:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the word "official" is designed to confuse, it worked for me. Still, this is better than "Israel declared", as if they don't deserve it. In addition, we have agreed upon the NPOV disclaimer about Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem is recognized by few countries or international bodies. Other than accepting the Israel's right to exist, what's wrong with this phrase? --Humus sapiens  Talk 05:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's just a dialect thing, but "official" seems even worse.  It implies that not only is Israel the capital, but this is true by international law, or some other "official" acceptance.  Not sounding like they deserve it is the intent, because whether they deserve it is POV.  "Declared capital" is acceptable. Anthony DiPierro 11:21, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said on Zero0000's Talk page, my vote goes to "de facto". -- Dissident 20:51, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "official and de facto"? That would cover both aspects, and would be fine with me (much better than either of the adjectives by itself). -- uriber 21:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if we're going to start combining adjectives, then I'll add Anthony's one instead: "declared and de facto". -- Dissident 21:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Official is POV.  Adding other words doesn't resolve that. At least, unless those words modify official (declared to be official, for instance, which is obviously not the right words to use). Anthony DiPierro 22:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

message: I'm going to repeat a quote from Wikipedia:NPOV, because people seem to be missing it (and not reading it for themselves).
:We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the nonbias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves. By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By "opinion," on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There's bound to be meta:borderline cases where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express opinions. That God exists is an opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band is an opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opinion. 
:For determining whether something is fact or opinion in this sense, it does not matter what the actual truth of the matter is; there can at least in theory be "false facts" (things that everybody agrees upon, but which are, in fact, false), and there are very often "true opinions," though necessarily, it seems, there are more false ones.
I'm not even going to bold the part that applies ("it does not matter what the actual truth of the matter is").  Read this whole thing, or better yet, read Wikipedia:NPOV.  Anthony DiPierro 20:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:NPOV]]

message: *Je·ru·sa·lem    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (j-rs-lm, -z-) The capital of Israel... (Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
*Jerusalem \Je*ru"sa*lem\, n. [Gr. ?, fr. Heb. Y?r?sh[=a]laim.] The chief city of Palestine, intimately associated with the glory of the Jewish nation... (Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)
*Jerusalem n : capital and largest city of the modern state of Israel... (Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University)
*Main Entry: Je·ru·sa·lem Pronunciation: j&-'rü-s(&-)l&m, -'rü-z(&-)l&m Variant(s): or ancient Hi·ero·sol·y·ma  /"hI-(&-)rO-'sä-l&-m&/ Usage: geographical name; city central Palestine NW of Dead Sea; divided 1948-67 between Jordan (old city) & Israel (new city) capital of Israel since 1950 & formerly capital of ancient kingdoms of Israel & Judah; old city under Israeli control since 1967 population 544,200 (Source: Merriam-Webster online)
*Jerusalem Related: Israel Geography (jeroo´selem, -zelem) , Heb. Yerushalayim, Arab. Al Quds, city (1994 pop. 578,800), capital of Israel.... (Source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/J/Jerusale.asp, http://www.infoplease.com, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.  2001. - The same contents)
Pls. see www.dictionary.com for refs. --Humus sapiens |  Talk 22:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading this, I'm at a bit of a loss why this is even up for debate. Israel says its capital is Jerusalem. Its legislative functions are there. Its laws say that its capital of Jerusalem. Officially and functionally, it is the capital of Israel. Heck, the dictionary says that its the capital of Israel. Isn't this enough to define the place as the capital? And for those on the other side - if Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel, what is, and what evidence is there to support that? Ambivalenthysteria 10:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do other sources say? 

message: This is from the CIA World Factbook:
Jerusalem; note - Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like nearly all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv
Is that source comprehensive enough for you people? ugen64 23:44, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Nonetheless, dictionary.com does define capital city differently:
A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation
So obviously, a country can decide where its own capital city is, and therefore it's NPOV that Jerusalem is Israel's capital (because it's a fact). ugen64 23:47, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
:There are legitimate disputes to the statement.  Therefore it's not NPOV (because it's not a wikipedia:fact). anthony 23:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources

message: *Publisher agrees not to name Jerusalem as capital of Israel
*According to the official website of the ATHENS 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Israel doesn't have a capital city.
:I don't see what these links (posted here by Anthony) add to the discussion, except for proving the fact that some people don't like seeing the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" published anywhere - a fact which is already pretty obvious given that this discussion is even taking place. -- uriber 19:41, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: People suggested that there was no serious dispute to the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel."  While I agree it's obvious that there is a dispute, some people said that merely saying that it was obvious was not enough. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 23:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: : As according to Israeli law, Jerusalem is treated by Israel as its capital;
I think this is wrong. The Israeli laws don't say "Israel will treat Jerusalem as its capital". Rather, they say "Jerusalem is Israel's capital". So I think this phrasing is misleading.
:I don't think it's really misleading; it's just a weaker statement. -- Dissident 14:29, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the stronger statement is also true and NPOV, what benefit do we get from using the weaker statement? Martin 14:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess it all goes back to the question of what it means for a city to be some country's capital. -- Dissident 14:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

text: It's clearly an important distinction to you. To me, the two sentences are effectively identical. So this is a good compromise, I think, since it makes you happy and doesn't make me unhappy. :) Martin 18:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy you're not unhappy, and I'm not unhappy about your change of "according to" to "under" either. Now we just have to hope that Wik is happy, or else we will all be quite unhappy soon. -- uriber 18:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to Israeli law... 

message: The problem here is that nobody has defined capital. The page given is a circular definition (capital is the seat of government, seat of goverment is the capital). Define seat of government. Bensaccount 23:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote the article: "All the branches of Israeli government (Presidential, Legislative, Judicial, and Administrative) are seated in Jerusalem". Martin 23:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

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

message: Do Palestinians really "aspire" that Jerusalem become their capital? Bensaccount 16:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that different approaches seems to have been taken in other controversial cases: Laayoune is described as the "unofficial capital" of Western Sahara, Jaffna as the "cultural capital" of Sri Lankan Tamils, Taipei as the "provisional capital" of Taiwan, and "The capital of Somaliland is Hargeisa".  Western Sahara strikes me as the nearest parallel, as Laayoune has been under Moroccan control and annexed by Morocco (under Moroccan law, at any rate) ever since Spain left.  But "unofficial capital" doesn't have the right ring to it, to my ears; if anything, it's more the official capital (as enshrined in PLO declarations, etc.) than the unofficial one.  Mustafaa 18:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Was it "titular capital"? That sounds familiar... - Mustafaa 19:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinians and Jerusalem as capital

message: Each side wants to justify its own aspirations. Israel wants sovereignty over ALL of Jerusalem. Various groups of Arabs want:
#sovereignty over PART of Jerusalem
#sovereignty over ALL of Jerusalem
One may suppose that to concede (or "recognize") Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem would hurt Arabs' chances of getting ahold of it themselves. Refusing to recognize Israel's claim to the city is part of a public relations campaign aimed at getting other countries to pressure Israel into ceding control of it. (I think this strategy used to be called "land for peace", although I haven't looked at that article for a while.) --Uncle Ed 18:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are only about 20 Arab countries out there - a drop in the bucket compared to the 200 or so that don't recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem. - Mustafaa 18:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Even Jerusalem, the city Israel claims as its capital, remains an area of dispute. Predominantly Jewish West Jerusalem has been part of Israel since independence in 1948; Israel captured mostly Arab East Jerusalem in 1967. Israel has since claimed the entire city as its capital. However, the United Nations does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. 
Nobody's posted a comment here in two millenia, er, weeks! Does that mean the "capital" issue has been settled to everyone's satisfaction? --Uncle Ed 19:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I've removed the sentence which people seem to be fighting over. The issue is discussed in more detail in the article. MP   (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem (capital or not) 

message: The article currently states: "The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem (Al-Quds) as the capital of a future Palestinian state. In 2000 the Palestinian Authority passed a law designating East Jerusalem as such, and in 2002 this law was ratified."
I am not sure as to the basis on which "East Jerusalem" rather than "Jerusalem" is cited here, and it doesn't seem to be borne out by either of the sources given. Certainly, the Palestinians have laid no claim to West Jerusalem and their negotiating position has entirely related to East Jerusalem, but all the legal references are to an unqualified "Jerusalem". Can anyone offer any thoughts/clarifications? Palmiro | Talk 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian claims/aspirations 

message: I have reverted or altered most of the entries that occurred over the past few days regarding the Palestinian position:
*"which has been administered by Israel since 1967 and has large Jewish and Arab populations". This is misrepresentative, as there was a purging of indigenous Palestinian Jews and Arabs from eastern and western Jerusalem by Jordan and Israel respectively. In 1967, there were no Jews in most of East Jerusalem, and those that have since moved there are considered settlers by the international community. Rather than go into all this in the intro, better to just leave it out.
*This talk about the 'official' Palestinian position being that the Palestinian capital should be in the Jerusalem 'urban areas' is mere opinion by a few and not an official position, and I have modified it to be more accurate and NPOV. There is no official (or even unofficial) Palestinian position that excludes the relevant parts of the Old City.
*"reflecting a general aspiration among Palestinians to establish their capital there" is redundant language as it is already mentioned in the sentence before it. 
*The paragraph beginning with "Since the late 1990s, a consensus has been developing in Israeli and Palestinian public opinion...." is inaccurate. There is no such consensus that leaves out the Old City at all. This is partly why the Camp David summit on 2000 failed. It is absolutely incorrect to refer to, among other things, the construction of the separation wall within Palestinian areas as reflecting some sort of 'consensus' between the two sides as opposed to a unilateral act by Israel. Nobody disputes that!  I have modified this paragraph, deleting a large part of it.
Ramallite (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits regarding the Palestinian position

message: The intro of this article has been turned into a terrible mess.  I am not necessarily blaming any particular person or any particular "side" (partly because I do not feel like delving into all the different versions and figuring out who made the edits that brought us to this point.)  I do not see why it cannot be something much more simple, such as this version [] or this version. []  Both of them were compromises.  Either would be much preferable to the current fiasco.  I hesitate to just do the edit myself because I know it will just be reverted or otherwise edited by one of the many POV-mongers on this issue.  6SJ7 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone, further to 6SJ7's points and the discussion with Ramalite I have made some changes in the intro and in virtually all chapters of this article. We still need many more texts for the article to be about Jerusalem and not about the Jerusalem question. I have dumped these texts temporarily in the article positions on Jerusalem. I am sure that many more discussions on a better name and structure will follow. This is just the beginning. gidonb 09:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not climb on the wall by the deep movements of texts out of the article, I would like to move some texts back, also on the status of Jerusalem (religious, capital, territorial) and the history of Jerusalem. For the history chapter I have not moved anything in or out, as the history article is a mess. Perhaps I will find some better texts for the current status over there. gidonb 10:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have added some more neutral content to the intro. Please do not revert, but continue editing where I stopped. I worked already many hours by now. Further tomorrow. gidonb 10:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro and other new texts

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

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

message: Really unhappy about the POV that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel it the introduction. I don't think this represents a world wide opinion as only a few countries recognise this (Israel, El Salvador, Costa Rica and US being the only ones I can think of). I therefore believe the strength of the sentence should be reduced to something like Jerusalem is considered to be the capital of Israel or Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city (as worded by the UK foreign office:
[UK FCO page on Isreal]) --Ptclark 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of the definition of Capital does Jerusalem fail to meet? Jon513 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being actually in the country, but my point is that most of the world does not recognise Jerusalem as the capital and therefore this is an opinion (I'm not saying that it isn't the capital nor am I saying that it is - I am saying that is is an opinion that Jerusalem is that capital) --Ptclark 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been debated to death. Pls. see archives. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Except for those that say Israel has no right to exist, does anyone claim that west Jerusalem is not part of Israel (that is west Jerusalem has been part of Israel since 48)? Jon513 11:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is irrelavent, if you read the link I put up above (as an example) you will see that the UK doesn't recognise Jerusalem as the capital and therefore it is a POV that Jerusalem is the capital. As Humus says though, been debated to death and we will never reach a consensus. --Ptclark 11:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerusalem, or at least its western part, is definitely the de facto capital of Israel. Jerusalem is the venue of all nationwide political and administrative activities. Foreign embassadors and delegates have to drive all the way from Tel Aviv (where their embassies are located) to Jerusalem in order to deal with the Israeli government. I think the only exception to that is the Minisry of Defense which is located in Tel Aviv. This reality is not recognized by the international community, which is why the foreign embassies are based in Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan and Mevaseret Tzion. This is the reality and this is how it should be described in this article. It is a bit like the status of Northern Cyprus - no country but Turkey recognizes it officially, but no one can deny that there is a functioning state there. drork 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed - but worldwide opinion should be notedJebus1 07:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Setting aside for a moment the utter illegality, flagrant immorality, and blatant antisemitism of denying Israel its right to designate its own capital, it is certainly accurate to write that it is Israel's capital, then follow it up with mention of the controversy. The implication of doing otherwise would be to imply that Israel has no capital, which may be the intent of some people, but not the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Leifern 00:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the offical new intro template for capitals - I changed Tehran too. Iran does not maintain diplomatic relations with either the United States or Israel and has disputes with several more countries, therefore soverignity is disputed. Amoruso 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital and largest city 

message: It is depressing to see that after such exhausting amounts of debate we have ended up with such a POV introduction. There is a very simple rule that should guide us here: Nothing should be stated as a fact or implied to be a fact unless it is near-universally accepted to be true. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" (WP:NPOV). Much has been said on this page about the definition of "capital"; this is not relevant. For Wikipedia to define for the World what a  "capital" is would be original research. What is relevant is the definition of "fact". Because it is far from universally accepted that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, we should not state it as a fact. Period.
The present introduction states "Jerusalem... is Israel's capital [implying that it is a universally accepted fact that it is the capital] and largest city [implying that it is a universally accepted fact that Jerusalem in its entirety is an Israeli city], and uses the phrase The status of the united Jerusalem, which implies that a united Jerusalem exists as a matter of accepted fact, with merely its status subject to debate.    It goes on to say that Jerusalem's status... as Israel's capital is not widely recognised by the international community, which is a blatantly misleading understatement, since not a single nation has recognized such a status. Stating that Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is particularly controversial is also an understatement: "widely condemned" would be closer.
For some fresh air, it may be helpful to step back and look at how others – fellow Wikipedians writing in other languages – have attempted to deal with the same issue. Here are a few leads from some languages that I can attempt to translate:
French:
:Jerusalem... is a middle-eastern city which has a dominant place in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions, and in Israeli and Palestinian national sentiment. The state of Israel has declared unified Jerusalem as its "eternal capital". This designation is not accepted by the international community. East Jerusalem is also claimed as capital of a potential future Palestinian state.
Swedish:
:Jerusalem... is since 1949 the de facto capital of Israel, a status that has met weak international recognition. Most countries keep their embassies in Tel Aviv.
German:
:Jerusalem... is the capital of the state of Israel. The presidency and... are located there.
:East Jerusalem was conquered during the six-day war and annexed in 1980 by a constitutinal amendment. The annexation is condemned as illegal by the international community and is therefore not recognized. There are thus international reservations about the extensions of Israeli rights to the eastern parts of the city and the expansion of the city boundary (and thereby the status as capital) to the east. The Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city as capital of a future Palestinian state.
Italian:
:Jerusalem... is located...enormous historical and geopolitical importance... symbolic place for... Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
:The international governance originally called for by the UN for the city of Jerusalem (corpus separatum) was never realized. Actually, the international community considers East Jerusalem to be occupied territory, in the sense of the IV Geneva Convention, while the state of Israel considers East Jerusalem an integral part of its own territory, although it does not recognize citizenship rights of its inhabitants. The state of Israel has declared Jerusalem as its capital since 1950 and introduced legislation to this effect in 1980, but no other UN member state recognizes this, and most countries maintain their diplomatic missions in Tel-Aviv, the economic and financial center of the country.
None of these leads are perfect either, but I hope it is clear by contrast how biased the present English Wikipedia article comes across. For example, note that three of those four leads chose to avoid stating that Jerusalem "is" the capital.
I would think that anybody who actually wants a NPOV article should be able to agree on a policy of simply not stating as a fact anything that is at all debated. We don't need to state that Jerusalem "is" the capital, we can stick to universally agreed facts, such as what the Israli, Palestinian, and UN positions are. We don't need to imply that all of Jerusalem belongs to Israel; we can easily formulate any population information etc. without falling into this trap.
To be NPOV, we must also mention in the lead Palestinian as well as Isreali claims to Jerusalem. And we cannot gloss over the international condemnation of the annexation (nor should we affirm that condemnation, we should merely report it fairly). --mglg(talk) 20:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Wikipedia does define what a capital city is -- not for the "World", but just for Wikipedia.  I have never read it before just now, and the first sentence needs some rewriting, but the upshot of the "Capital" article is that a capital is the seat of a country's government.  And so Jerusalem is, indisputably -- all three branches of the Israeli government are headquartered in Israel, and Israel says that Jerusalem is its capital.  Nothing more is required.  What is disputed is whether Jerusalem should be the capital, but that is a different issue.  By the way, the "Capital" article lists Jerusalem under "Unorthodox (ha ha) capital city arrangements", which seems pretty fair.  As for what this article should say, I have in the past written two different compromises for the first paragraph, both of which consisted of a separate sentence (at the end of the paragaph) stating that Israel is the capital but recognizing the dispute.  Unfortunately, the former consensus to keep it that way apparently vanished a month or two ago, and I got tired of changing it, so I stopped.  The result is the current unqualified statement about Israel being the capital.  I do feel strongly that Israel should be identified as the capital in the first paragraph, because it is.  6SJ7 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what you wish to change here - the version is exactly the same as the German version and others. It says it's the capital and still in the intro it says "The status of the united Jerusalem as Israel's capital is not widely recognised by the international community (see Positions on Jerusalem), and Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is particularly controversial.". Nothing more clear than this. Amoruso 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, they are exactly the same? So you wouldn't mind if I substituted one of the others? mglg(talk) 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, ours is still better. Amoruso 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you like to dismiss opinions of entire continents, you may wish to reconsider whether you ought to participate in international efforts like Wikipedia. English-language Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia that should reflect a global perspective. --mglg(talk) 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll take that into account. Wikipedia doesn't have to be biased like the U.N which is a political forum and this on the other hand is an encyclopedia. We deal with facts, not with anti Israel opinions advocated by political groups. Amoruso 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN is indeed a political forum. A forum where almost all states in the world are represented.  Even Israel. Expression of opinion that disagrees with Israeli opinion is not anti-Israeli and nor is it inherently biased. Jebus1 10:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having one Jewish state in the U.N while having 22 Arab states and giving 1 vote each is a bias to begin with. You can read the article on criticizm of U.N, this system is obviously flawed. Amoruso 00:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One state (of small population) with a very powerful ally as a permanent member of the security council vetoing any decision contrary to its interests. Jebus1 08:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously that ally didn't vetoe enough S.C res. since half of them address Israel more or less. Israel is the only country not invinted to be a part of this S.C at one point or another. Amoruso 08:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point. This is not a political debate. This is a debate about facts and how they should be presented. Once you use the term "capital city" you commit yourself to a certain definition, you cannot avoid that. Let us take an example which is less politically charged. Here is the definition of Amsterdam in the intorduction to the article: "Amsterdam, the official capital of the Netherlands". The fact is that none of the government institutes of The Kingdom of the Netherlands is located in Amsterdam, and yet the article still defines it as an "official capital". The Hague on the other hand is defined as the third largest city in the Netherlands and "the seat of government". Jerusalem is in fact both the declared capital of Israel and the seat of the Israeli government. There is a UN resolution which rejects that, and all foreign embassies are located outside Jerusalem, and yet all foreign delegates and officials come to Jerusalem to meet with Israeli officials and to attend official ceremonies. The facts on the ground do suggest that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It should be pointed out in the introduction, though, that this status is internationally contested and that there are Palestinian claims to this city. drork 21:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant question is not whether it is true that Jerusalem "is" the capital, or a wholly Israeli city at all, but whether these things are universally accepted, which they very obviously are not. 210.255.218.52 11:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the goal of Wikipedia is to present facts rather than beliefs or aspirations. Therefore I find your remark rather peculiar. drork 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read the beginning of this section. Yes, the goal of Wikipedia is indeed to present "facts". And this, again, is how Wikipedia defines a "fact": "By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute' (WP:NPOV). If there is any disagreement about something, it is a particular POV and should not be presented as a fact on Wikipedia. Even things that the author can prove to be true (!) cannot be presented as facts unless there is  near-universal agreement about them. If this policy is unclear to you, please read WP:NOR which explains it clearly. Since there very obviously is no global agreement that Jerusalem in its entirety belongs to Israel, we must not state directly or indirectly that it is. Period. Therefore we cannot state that it is "the capital and largest city of the State of Israel", because saying so implies that it belongs, in its entirety, to the State of Israel. And there is no reason to make any such statement: we can convey the actual situation with similar brevity and and much higher precision by explaining that Israel claims it as its capital. --mglg(talk) 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Since there has  been no improvement in a month, I will go ahead and make the edit myself. Please respond to the above reasoning before reverting. --mglg(talk) 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though some people may not like it, Jerusalem is under Israel's control, and is the largest city in Israel. Also, it displays all the features of a capital, and serves as such de facto, and is designated as such by Israeli law (de jure). Thus, it is the capital of Israel. This has nothing to do with what's "right", or "acceptable", it only deals with the facts of the situation. okedem 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Facts are facts, and they're properly sourced. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome, jayjg. With your long Wikipedia experience, you surely understand the WP:NPOV policy that the only things that can be stated as facts are those "about which there is no serious dispute"? --mglg(talk) 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction fairly characterizes the position of those who dispute Jerusalem's status; that satisfies WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I removed three more sources – the ones that were other encyclopedias. They are, for the most part, doing the same thing we are (compiling information) so, although they are correct, it would be better to use other sources, if possible. Three sources still exist so I thought removing the encyclopedia sources was fine; others could also easily be found if there is a dire need for more. In regards to the footnote I added, I simply copied what was stated in the footnote in the Israel article; I assumed that wording got consensus there at some point. Either way, in my opinion, it summarizes the situation well while not dodging the word capital which seems to be a non-negotiable. -- tariqabjotu 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't remove sources; in contentious articles more sources are always required, never fewer. Contrary to the suspicions of the IP editor above, extra sources are always needed for this kind of thing because otherwise people start removing simple facts from articles because they contradict their own political biases. I've allowed a couple of sources to be deleted, but that's the limit. Jayjg (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Tertiary sources can be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. Articles signed by experts should be regarded as more reliable than unsigned articles. Unsigned articles should not be used to support any controversial or complex points. Secondary sources should be given priority over tertiary ones. So, essentially we're using three tertiary sources to help support a controversial point, even though there are more than enough secondary sources available. If you want six sources, get six good sources; resorting to three encyclopedias suggests we were having trouble finding enough sources to back our point. Please also respond to my comment about the footnote that you removed. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that wording was changed, and not by consensus, less that two weeks ago. Before then it never said anything about unsigned articles not being "used to support any controversial or complex points", and specifically mentioned Encylopedia Brittanica as a reliable source. I've restored the original wording. If you want to add the other footnote, please feel free to, but please don't combine it with a complex edit removing other footnotes. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to say I didn't mean to remove that part, just say that. Don't make it sound as if there was some ulterior motive in making more than one change at a time. And don't make it sound as if it's a federal crime to revert only part of an edit. Sheesh. -- tariqabjotu 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources (January 2007)

message: Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands repeatedly.  In recent times, the annexation of the eastern part of the city by Israel has been a major source of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  Palestinians, along with the United Nations, do not recognize the annexation and see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state.
*Neutral. I'll take anything people agree to (as long as it's not very anti-Israel).  nadav 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1

message: Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands many times. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the city was divided into two parts, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem was designated Israel's capital in 1949. After the 1967 conflict, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and declared the unified city to be its capital. However, East Jerusalem has a majority Palestinian population, and Palestinans as well as the United Nations do not recognize the annexation. The annexation has been a major source of conflict, as Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state.
* Oppose This places too much emphasis on recent events, which, in the grand scheme of things, are insignificant. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 2

message: Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is Israel's seat of government, capital,[iii] and largest city both in population and area, with a population of approximately 724,000 (as of 2006) in an area totaling 126 square kilometers (49 sq mi). Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes as far back as the 4th millennium BCE. Since then, its inhabitants have included Jebusites, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, and Israelis. Today the city is governed by Israel but remains meaningful to Palestinians, who see it as the capital for a future Palestinian state.
* Support -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 3

message: Canadian Monkey keeps removing any qualification on the claim that Jerusalem is Israel's capital despite the fact that no other country in the world recognizes Jerusalem and there is also a lengthy footnote that explains this. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral so it's wrong for this article to assert that Jerusalem is Israel's capital without any sort of qualification such as "disputed" or "not internationally recognized". Claiming that this is "original research" is just laughable- it's a well established fact and I really think Canadian Monkey must know this. Strongbrow (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From that article on Israel, in Britannica: "Jerusalem is the capital and the seat of government." Beam 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And from its sidebar "Capital (proclaimed): Jerusalem; international recognition of its capital status has largely been withheld". Strongbrow (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah their sidebar and our infobox are different. Heck, as I state on my talk page, Wikipedia (thankfully) is not a normal encyclopedia. It's a Wikipedia! Beam 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That argument is invalid as its based on Special pleading. Strongbrow (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see a consensus here for your preferred version. Also, the global consensus is against you. Strongbrow (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Believe the dispute is at very least noteworthy. You may know, in Guatemala the maps show Belize as a part of Guatemala, but the country's Wiki page does not reflect that. Yes, different situations but the point is a country's territorial and political claims must be considered not only vis-a-vis Wikipedia editors' consensus but also within the international political consensus. RomaC (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Why not? It's factual even if you don't like it. Strongbrow (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And please go read this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Jerusalem_as_the_capital_of_Israel where this whole situation was talked about in vast detail. I hope you guys read what I asked you to regarding my stance on this article. I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm some sort of jerk. Beam 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Support adding "proclaimed." RomaC (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you all not see Beam refer you to the ongoing discussion in the WikiProject? You can't just reduce this to a straw poll. However, let me correct you, Bless: you talk about two "competed claims" -- one saying that Jerusalem is the capital and one saying it's not. That second claim doesn't really exist, except as denialism. It is true that most countries, and the United Nations, do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but saying "I don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is not the same as saying "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". No matter how many countries disagree with Israel's choice or the manner in which Israel has occupied East Jerusalem or anywhere else, it is impossible to change the fact that Jerusalem is, in fact, currently the capital of Israel. Israel calls it such and treats it as such, locating their executive, legislative, and judicial heads there. Adding "proclaimed" or "disputed" or whatever suggests Israel's capital is somewhere else, when it's not. Most countries want Israel's capital to be located somewhere else, but as for now, it's not. A footnote describing some details on the status of Jerusalem is already included. -- tariqabjotu 07:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it true that countries have left their embassies in Tel-Aviv, instead of moving them to Jerusalem? In that case wouldn't Tel-Aviv be the capital in the sense of foreign relations and diplomatic missions?Bless sins (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are embassies in Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, Herzeliya, Mevaseret Zion, etc. But the location of embassies has nothing to do with the status of capital, so that's just irrelevant. okedem (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Are people still going on about this? Countries decide on their own capitals, it's not up for a vote, nor does it depend on the locations of embassies. Israel, like every other country in the world, has decided on its own capital. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital City 

message: The capital city of Israel is Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. If Jerusalem was ever made capital city that would cause war as the three main religions would have trouble deciding on a chief of state.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.41.81 (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The capital is Jerusalem.  There is no reliable source that states the capital of Israel Tel Aviv.  Please post your source if you feel this is incorrect.  Otherwise, please stop trying to conform wikipedia to your biased point of view.  This article could becoming locked from vandalism if everyone cannot be neutral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully, international law doesn't control Israel.  The capital is Jerusalem whether you like it or not.  This is not a biased POV, it is clear by looking at any map that exists.  There is no need to acknowledge international law since Israel declared it as its capital when they became independent.  End of discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A capital city of a country is by definition, the city where the country's government is based, and the Israeli government is based in Jerusalem. However, the reason why the United Nations and most countries don't see Jerusalem as Israel's capital is because it is being ilegally occupied by Israel. Jerusalem should really belong to Palestine because Israel is breaking international law. So Tel Aviv should be the capital of Israel, but it isn't. Jprulestheworld (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: As this topic keeps coming up, probably a link to a summary of the main arguments should be left at the top of the talk page. Squash Racket (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic does not keep coming up, it is settled and then rehashed by talk members wishing to change the article's content.  Anyone who disagrees with the issue need only to look up the sources cited in the article.  Instead, they add opinion to lengthen the talk page and create controversy because of their emotions and feelings toward this country.  Ignore the arguments against Jerusalem, it is the capital of Israel no matter how many times they cover their ears or close their eyes...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh, there IS a link above already. OK, I was thinking about something like that. Squash Racket (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital city 

message: The fact that the United Nations and most countries in the world do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital should be stated within the article itself, and not in a footnote. This fact is obviously important on many levels, given the regional importance of Jerusalem and what it means to the current conflict. By not laying the dispute over Jerusalem and the international view of Jerusalem clearly on the table, things become unclear and ambiguous. Furthermore, the article becomes weakened and less of a reliable source for visitors of the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.128.51 (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Recognition is irrelevant the the city's role as capital. International recognition is not, and never was, a prerequisite for a capital city's status, and so is of little importance in this regard. okedem (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: West-Jerusalem is part of pre-1967 Israel borders. Benjil (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Capital is defined (open a dictionary) as a country's seat of government. Israel's parliament, government offices, PM office, president's quarters, supreme court, etc. are all located in Jerusalem, and Israel has designated it as the capital - thus, it is the capital. Recognition or international borders are beside the point. If the US had control of Ottawa, and placed its entire government there, then it would be its capital, even if Canada and every other country in the world protested it. okedem (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 

message: Could there be a footnote to the status of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. Israel seems to be the only nation that regards it as such. No nation has an embassy in jerusalem, but tel aviv, which is regarded by all other countries to be the capital. 
I dont want to be accused of being anti-semitic or anything, Im just finding that the whole of wikipedia where it concerns israel or even jews or judaism is plagued by opinionation and things regarded as completely false by the vast majority of the world. Many of these articles are protected in a status of extreme bias that seems to serve the purpose of anti-semitic people more than the general openess of discussion that seems applicable to almost all of the rest of wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.222.207 (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean ? There is a footnote. Besides, most countries officially consider that Israel has no capital city. To the best of my knowledge (but do correct me with sourced information if I'm wrong), only Switzerland officially regards Tel Aviv as the capital city of Israel. Oyp (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll repeat what I've said on multiple occasions. Foreign nations do not determine a country's capital, and their recognition or lack-thereof has no bearing on the issue. A capital is the city serving as the country's "seat of government". Factually, that is 100% correct in the case of Israel and Jerusalem, as Jerusalem is home to Israel Parliament, government offices, PM's office, Supreme Court, President's quarters, etc. Even if Israel control of Jerusalem is wrong, or illegal, or whatever, that does not change the facts. okedem (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital of Israel 

message: Considering the original question in the RfC is about adding the word 'disputed' or 'proclaimed' in front of "capital of Israel", I'm adding a side section on a point that has been brought up: should the piece on Palestinian claims on the capital (currently in the third paragraph of the intro) be moved up [cut/paste], repeated closer to the top [copy/paste], or remain where it is [nothing]? Note that I'm ignoring the "proclaimed" vs. "designated" debate; that debate is so minor compared to the other issues. -- tariqabjotu 13:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for moving the info up. My edit was trying to do that. And for using the terminology suggested by Avi for the Palestinian claim. I'm not for removing the information in the third paragraph however. That further downplays the POV of the international community, which was a primary reason people were motivated to file this RfC. Its weak wording and relegation of the important details to a footnote is simply not enough. Tiamuttalk 13:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Side point: Moving up info about Palestinian capital

message: Some users don't seem to realize that the current state of affairs isn't the "pro-Israeli" user's dream, but a compromise position. You see, in the lead we mention a fact (that could be seen as Israel's side) in a single sentence: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and its largest city...". Then we spend an entire paragraph talking about how disputed it is (also mentioning "disputed East Jerusalem" in that first sentence). We say it's a "core issue", talk about the condemnation of the annexation; embassies leaving; Palestinian aspirations. We never mention Israel's position here - I'm not talking about the simple fact of Jerusalem being the capital or its size; when we say the annexation has been condemned, we fail to present Israel's defense to that - Jerusalem was territory without a sovereign, captured in a defensive war. Its status in the partition plan isn't different from West Jerusalem - the city was to be internationalized, but the Arabs rejected the plan and captured half the city, etc. I don't want to start a discussion about the validity of those claims, but we don't even present them. We say Israel annexed EJ, and that many condemned that, but don't give Israel the right to defend its actions, leaving the reader with the clear conclusion that it's "wrong".
Already the conflict gets undue weight in the lead, one out of three paragraphs. An entire section of the article is devoted to "Legal status". 
Just as you might not like some things, not everything is perfect in my view. But I see the benefit of a compromise, and am willing to accept a non-optimal solution, to avoid a tug-of-war, and give due weight to the other viewpoints. okedem (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Actually, the lead is unbalanced - but against Israel

message: Am I going senile or something?  This whole argument seems familiar.  I'm sure I read it three or four times already.  We should simply dig it out of the archive - such a waste of good effort to rewrite all those arguments again.
As I recall, last time we went through this, I suggested that instead of writing 
... is the capital of Israel and its largest city
 
we write
... is the seat of Israel's government and its largest city
It is, after all, only the word "capital" that is in dispute, not the facts: we all know where the office of the registrar of deeds is.  Thanks to the great authors of the English language, we have many ways of saying the same thing.  Why are we being such lugheads? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's a link at the top of the page that goes to the sixty or so threads we've had about this issue already. And, from what I recall, the reason "capital" remained instead of "seat of government" is because we wouldn't say "Paris is the seat of government of France...". Saying "seat of government" is evasive, suggesting Israel's official capital is somewhere else (as in the case of The Hague) or not officially designated (as in the case of Tokyo). And, as was stated earlier, this evasion would serve to further the efforts of those he keep bringing up this issue by casting doubt on a factual statement. -- tariqabjotu 06:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that (huge) collection of threads seems to be missing some useful ones. I've added another, which seems particularly relevant to the present discussion from /Archive 7 here. --NSH001 (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion that "seat of government" suggests something else than capital is, in my educated guess, not so.  I bet that if you ask 100 people to read the "seat of government" version of the lead, 99 of them will not even notice the difference - if they think about it at all, they will think we are being poetic.  And the 100th person will be Tiamut, who will be satisfied by the indisputable accuracy of the statement. It will end, once and for all, this idiotic dispute.  --Ravpapa (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While perhaps not to you, the evasiveness is apparent to me. Playing with semantics to give an illusion of doubt is not okay. -- tariqabjotu 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, I would like to call your attention to this sentence, from a New York Times article from June 19, 1879: "... will be made transferring the seat of Government back to Paris." (search for "Paris seat of government" in Google). Ha! --Ravpapa (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... are you joking? If not, there are a couple problems with your example that do anything but support your point. -- tariqabjotu 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Later: Interesting.  I have just been reading about Paris, France.  It is not the capital of France.  France has no official capital.  Sticklers refer to Paris as the seat of government, not as the capital.  But you, Tariq, never even noticed that.  So much for the vaunted difference between "capital" and "seat of government". --Ravpapa (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation please? However, if I were to assume for the moment that you are correct that Paris is not the official capital of France, that does nothing to catapult my point. Jerusalem is both the capital of Israel both how its country denotes it and how its country treats it, which is more, according to you, than could be said about Paris. Please don't nitpick. -- tariqabjotu 09:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Your example shows why your suggestion isn't good. We use the word "capital" all over Wikipedia to describe capital cities. The only places we use "seat of government" is when the designated capital is different from the seat of government, as one can read in the article you just linked to. In our case, Jerusalem is both the officially designated capital, and the seat of government, meaning the word "capital" encompasses the full meaning without need for clarifications (like "official capital" for Porto-Novo). If we really did use "seat of government" interchangeably, fine - but we don't. So there's no justification for singling-out Jerusalem, just because some people don't like seeing the words "Israel's capital" attached to it. okedem (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Haven't we been through this before?

message: Note: I will be updating this list as I find more sources.
=====Sources from GHcool=====
User:GHcool wrote above:
:The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East is incredibly succinct on Jerusalem's status: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" (491).  This is the first sentence of the encyclopedia's entry under "Jerusalem." Other reference books that explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel include The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44), Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia (2003 ed., p. 628), and Britanica Online Encyclopedia.  Many of the above state that most countries' embassies are in Tel Aviv, but most of them simply identify the capital of Israel as Jerusalem just as they identify the capital of the United States as Washington, D.C.  --GHcool (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources

message: User:GHcool wrote above:
:The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East is incredibly succinct on Jerusalem's status: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" (491).  This is the first sentence of the encyclopedia's entry under "Jerusalem." Other reference books that explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel include The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44), Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia (2003 ed., p. 628), and Britanica Online Encyclopedia.  Many of the above state that most countries' embassies are in Tel Aviv, but most of them simply identify the capital of Israel as Jerusalem just as they identify the capital of the United States as Washington, D.C.  --GHcool (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources from GHcool

message: I'm not sure about the applicability of dictionaries here, but they do seem to provide an example for presenting information in a limited space, like in our infobox. I did not cherry-pick these; I searched for "Jerusalem" or "Israel" in the very useful OneLook, and clicked the sources that seemed serious. I did not omit any sources due to their treatment of the subject.
* In Merriam Webster's, Jerusalem is listed as "∗ of Israel since 1950" (asterisk is their symbol for capital); for Israel they succinctly state "∗ Jerusalem", no qualifications or explanations there. (Compare to Paris - "∗ of France", France - "∗ Paris").
* "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language", lists Jerusalem as "The capital of Israel", no qualification or mention of dispute. For Israel they say "Jerusalem is the capital", no dispute (they do mention EJ was captured in 67, and later annexed).
* "Webster's New World College Dictionary", same. For Israel, "cap. Jerusalem", no dispute.
* Random House Unabridged Dictionary, same. For Israel "Cap.: Jerusalem.", no dispute.
* The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English - under Israel says "Capital: Jerusalem", no qualifications. 
* I found only one example of any other phrasing, Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition, saying Israel's claim the whole city as the capital, but "this is disputed internationally". However, their entry for Israel states: "Capital: Jerusalem", no mention of dispute.
okedem (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionaries