Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive 1

Preliminaries
Hello everyone! I'm Mr. Stradivarius, and I'm delighted to have been chosen by ArbCom to moderate the discussion leading to the RfC on the lead of the Jerusalem article. As we might be working together for a while, let me introduce myself a little bit. I've been on Wikipedia for about two years now, and I mostly edit articles about second-language acquisition and language education. I have also been heavily involved in dispute resolution; I have made more than 600 edits to the dispute resolution noticeboard in my capacity as a volunteer there, and I have mediated for both MedCab and MedCom. I have a special interest in this discussion, as previously I have mediated discussions that are very similar to this one; I mediated the discussion leading up to Verifiability/2012 RfC and I have just finished mediating a discussion leading to a large RfC about our article on The Beatles. I hope that I can use my experiences at those discussions to make the process of formulating the present RfC as smooth as possible for everyone involved.

Moderation is basically going to be the same as mediation - I will be directing discussion, asking questions, making suggestions, and closing sub-threads where appropriate. The differences are that there is no special privilege for discussions made during moderation, and uninvolved administrators may sanction editors if they disrupt the process. Obviously that is a last-ditch solution, and I hope very much that it won't become necessary. If we all work together in good faith, and realise that we may all have to compromise to find a solution that everyone can live with, then hopefully the matter will never come up.

I see that you have already made progress on the proposed structure of the RfC. Thank you for all your work so far; reading the talk page here I think that it may be easier to find a consensus on the RfC structure than I had previously assumed. At the same time, I notice that we don't have agreement on many matters. So, I would like to start this moderation by taking a list of all participants, and taking statements from everyone involved - the traditional way we start proceedings at MedCom. If you could add a new section below with your statement, I would much appreciate it. Also, if you have any questions or comments about the process, do not hesitate to ask. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Update: A number of participants have asked me to clarify what would count as disruption of the discussion process. This is a tough thing to decide, as disruption is not a black and white thing; it is shades of grey. What counts as disruption to one person may seem harmless to another. Nevertheless, there are certain things that aren't helpful when working together and which I would like you to avoid. These include, but are not limited to:
 * Comments that focus on other editors, rather than on the issues being discussed. Please remember to always comment on content, rather than on contributors.
 * Comments that group editors by perceived position, e.g. "pro-Israel editors" or "anti-capital editors". Each individual has his or her own opinion, and this opinion may be slightly different than that of other editors. Grouping editors together like this may not accurately reflect the opinions of all the individuals concerned, and tends to make editors assume that compromise is less possible. Instead please consider commenting on facts, e.g. "six different editors opposed suggestion X", or keeping comments about the positions of individual editors.
 * Comments that make assumptions about editors' motivations. It is hard to know what another editor's motivations are, especially through the text-only medium that is Wikipedia, and if we try we are quite likely to get it wrong. The best thing to do is to not talk about the motivation of other editors at all. Instead, talk about their positions, or use a direct quote, e.g. "X editor said 'I could never accept position b'".
 * Comments that go off-topic. It is not really helpful to comment on matters that aren't directly under discussion at a given time. If a thread goes off topic, it makes the consensus of the thread harder to judge, and it can have the effect of wasting editors' time on conversations that won't make much difference in the long term.
 * Please be aware that I reserve the right to refactor, redact, collapse, archive, or delete, without prior notice, comments that do not adhere to these standards. I will not blindly enforce these standards in the same way for all such comments, however; I may use different approaches in different situations depending on what action I think is most prudent and will most help the discussion. If you have any questions about my enforcement of these standards, or if you are aware of a comment that I may have missed that you think needs my attention, please ask me on my talk page, or preferably, by email. Finally, it has been suggested that comments not based in Wikipedia policy might be considered disruptive. While I don't think it would be tenable to base any RfC questions or drafts on things not permitted by policy, I do not think that comments could be considered disruptive just because they misinterpret policy. Such comments might be a genuine misunderstanding of policy, and participants should not be criticized for not having a 100% knowledge of all of Wikipedia's rules, which can be very complicated at times. A misinterpretation of policy is a reason for educating users, not for punishing them. However, if repeated patient explanations of policy are not successful in helping an editor understand policy, it may reach the point where it becomes a form of "I didn't hear that" disruption. If we all keep an open mind and assume good faith on the part of the other participants, avoiding problems like this should be easy enough. If you think that another editor might be exhibiting behavioural signs like this, again please contact me on my talk page, or preferably, by email. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Statements
Please include a statement outlining your position on the dispute below. Try to keep it short; under 400 words is best. In your statement, please include the following: While making your statements, please remember to remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. Also, please do not comment in other editors' sections; we can discuss the statements later on. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How you first came across the Jerusalem article
 * Whether you have a conflict of interest
 * Update: A few people have asked what I would consider to be a conflict of interest. I think the definition at WP:COI is a good one: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 22:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To further clarify for BorisG: I wouldn't consider an editor to have a conflict of interest just because of their nationality, race, religion, or location. It would have to be something more concrete than that. Your examples of working for Jerusalem City Council or for a Palestinian government agency are along the lines of what I was thinking. To be clear, having a strong opinion is not the same as having a conflict if interest, and in this topic area it is almost inevitable that editors will have strong opinions. Neither having a conflict of interest nor having a strong opinion need necessarily be a problem; however, it is important that everyone participating here can put their personal opinions aside and do what is best for Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 07:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think has caused the current dispute?
 * What features would you like to see in the RfC? Would you like there to be drafts of the lead, general question(s), or both? Are there any other innovations you would like to see?
 * Update: I am going to wait another day for more statements, and I plan on moving to the next phase of this discussion hopefully at some time tomorrow (real life permitting), and definitely by the end of Thursday 17th. Thank you for your patience, and thank you to everyone who has submitted a statement so far. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dailycare
 1)  I've come across this article, years ago, due to a general interest in the Middle-East conflict as one of the unresolved problems of our time.  2)  I don't have any external relationship (even citizenship or ancestral) with Israel, the Palestinians or any Middle Eastern country, or the United States.  3)  IMO this dispute is one aspect of the presence of the Middle-East conflict in the Wikipedia project. The core of the dispute is very simple, namely whether it's neutral to say in the encyclopedia's voice that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" or whether that view should be attributed to Israel, e.g. "Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem to be it's capital". The dispute is probably caused by genuine patriotic sentiment. Another possible reason is that Israeli media may habitually present Jerusalem's capital status as a fact, inculcating people to that view.  4)  I think the RFC would be a success if it resolved whether the "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is OK or no. If it further can choose an alternative wording, should the sentence be found not OK, that would be even better. I support the two-step two-question model discussed above. For the sake of clarity and simplicity, I don't think we need to discuss other aspects of the lead, or drafts of the lear in the RFC. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Evanh2008
1. I've never edited the article itself much (twice or less, if my memory hasn't failed me). It is one of several thousand articles on my watchlist, and I seem to remember first commenting after reading through some then recent discussion on the talk page. This tool says that my first post was last January, though I honestly don't remember the particulars of it.

2. I am ± one-sixteenth Jewish; does that count?

3. Really, I think it's just a natural outgrowth of all the politics of the issue. No one in particular is to blame for it, and very few people have come into the discussion with the intent of beating down the other side and enforcing their view of it on everyone else. I realize that's something of a boring answer, but I think it's true. If the major world powers can't agree on Jerusalem's status, then it's going to be understandably difficult for Wikipedia editors to do the same.

4. Primarily, I believe the RfC should deal with the specific wording of the first sentence of the article, as that seems to be the main point of contention. Questions should address whether and how Jerusalem should be indicated as the capital of Israel, and similar (not identical, since the political situation is not identical) questions regarding its relationship to the State of Palestine/Palestinian territories. The goal is to form a long-lasting consensus regarding the specific wording of the first sentence of the article's lead section, and how best to describe its status with respect to the two states which claim it as their capital. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 13:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG

 * Don't remember. Maybe by watching the Arbitration request.
 * I don't think so. But it may be helpful if the Moderator could outline what he considers COI in the context of this dispute.
 * @Stradivarius: we know the definition, but it is extremely vague and too subjective for our purpose here. Suppose user A's view is that a number of wikipedia articles are slanted in a particular direction and need to be corrected to achieve a fair presentation of the subjects. It means A is interested in advancing what he percieves to be fair view of the subject, but also advancing Wikipedia to give such a fair view. How do you separate the two? Does, in your view, being Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Jewish, Moslem, Christian constitute at least potential COI? What do you expect to see in an answer to that question? How can this help? I came to think that talking about one's background, nationality, religion is not helpful, as it may facilitate prejudice. To even ask about national or religious affilliation is to imply that editors with certain affilliation should either stay away or would be treated differently from others. I think we should avoid such an approach. However if we fall back to the most common understanding of WP:COI, that is, organisational or professional affiliation, then it makes more sense. But I would assume it is quite unlikely that there are many editors here who work for, say, Jerusalem city council or a Palestinian government agency. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Stradivarius thanks for the clarification, this is very helpful. I see that some respondents have interpreted your original question too broadly; so this will indeed help. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this should be obvious. Jerusalem has been a contested city for many centuries and its current status is disputed, to put it mildly.
 * Largely agree with User:Evanh2008 - BorisG (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

 * I started editing I/P texts in 2006, and bookmarked several hundred. It took two years to get round to Jerusalem. My first edit to the page was to revert a Pro-Palestine POV pusher, though it meant restoring parts of a text I did not agree with. The word ‘Palestine’ had everywhere replaced ‘Israel’. I restored Israel. My main work so far has been to clean up the formerly POV-infected and incompetent section on the etymology of Jerusalem, both in the lead and the relevant subsection.
 * I’ve no connection to the area other than having worked in Israel for several months well over four decades ago.
 * The current dispute in my view reflects a (a) the natural conflict in RS between Israel’s POV and that of the international community in an unresolved geopolitical conflict and (b) when questions of national or ethnic identity and its symbols are at stake, emotions run high and WP:NPOV is ignored or pettifogged. There is a consistent failure to appreciate that there are three communities requiring equal representation in the article, politically and historically.
 * Ideally the scope of RfC should regard the revision of the whole lead in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:LEDE. Perhaps that is too ambitious and potentially a source for endless muddled argufying, so I’d happily settle for just ironing out the status issue over competing claims for the city per WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ravpapa
I first became involved in the Jerusalem article in 2009. Most of my work on Wikipedia has been in the field of music (Chamber music, String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn), String Quartet No. 14 (Schubert), to mention a few), and am therefore delighted that our moderator has a username at least sympathetic to my other interests.

Do I have a conflict of interest? Well, I live in Israel - I don't know if that counts as a conflict of interests. I don't live in Jerusalem, and, in fact, like many liberal, non-religious Jews in Israel, have a distinct love-hate relationship with Jerusalem.

I believe that the real issue with this article is not the wording of the lead, but one of overall approach to the subject. To the typical Wikipedia reader, all of the proposed versions of the lead say essentially the same thing, and most readers would be unable to detect the nuances between them. What we need to decide is whether this article will treat Jerusalem as a nexus of controversy, or will, like other Wikipedia articles on embattled cities, bury the controversy and treat the place like some halcyon tourist destination.

My own opinion is that the National Geographic approach to this article does not do the city justice. Jerusalem is, and has been for the last 2000 years, the focus of conflict; the place where Jesus was crucified, where Maccabees murdered and were murdered, the world capital of hatred, intolerance, and brotherly love. Even in the days when Jerusalem was an Ottoman backwater provincial, Greek and Russian Orthodox monks were killing each other over who would sweep the second step of the Holy Sepulchre. The signs of war are everywhere on Jerusalem's face, from the stone walls of the Old City to the concrete wall around Abu Dis.

To describe Jerusalem as a place of conflict would mean not only rewriting the lead, but also performing a major edit on the entire article. There is, for example, nothing in the article about the ethnic diversity of the city, and the tensions that govern the daily lives of Haredim, secular Jews, Arabic speakers of different ethnicities, Copts, Gypsies, and so on. The section on economy does not begin to deal with the complexity of at least three micro-economies operating one within the other with relative autonomy. The section on culture is written from an entirely Israeli-Jewish point of view; if an Ethiopian Orthodox were writing that section, I assure you that the important cultural institutions of the city would be others entirely from those described.

So, to sum up, the RFC must decide if we are to put conflict front and center in this article, or keep up the milquetoast approach to conflicted cities that is pervasive in Wikipedia. Once we decide that, all other matters will resolve.

Sorry for being so long-winded. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Formerip

 * 1) I probably first edited the Jerusalem article in 2005. In the years since then, I've been involved in periodical discussions about the "is the capital" wording at Talk:Jerusalem and Talk:Israel. Outside this specific issue, I'm a pretty minor contributor to the I/P topic area.
 * 2) I don't have a conflict of interest beyond having a view.
 * 3) The current dispute is mainly reflective of the fact that there are strongly held views about Jerusalem, on WP as in RL. There's also a systematic problem of WP sometimes finding it very difficult to move away from a status quo position which some editors strongly support. I'd say this case is a throwback to an era before WP had learned to walk upright, and I'd compare it to the issue of whether to call China "China", which was only resolved last year.
 * 4) I'd like there to be a question or questions which are very focused and designed to produce a clear answer. I don't want to see discussions about all aspects of the lead, because that would not stand the strongest chance of ending with clarity. There are undoubtedly many aspects of the lead that would benefit from discussion, but only one needs a binding RfC, IMO. Maybe a compromise is possible somewhere. I'd like to see an overall process which tries its hardest to a avoid a "no consensus" outcome and a close which is not a supervote and does not treat the RfC as a simple opinion poll. A tall order? Maybe.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
My first involvement with the article was after seeing a discussion at AE about material in the lede, though the matter was separate from this one. I am not associated with any organization that would leave me with a conflict of interest. The dispute seems to me to be a result of each side in a real-world dispute trying to limit or undermine the recognition of the other side's claims. Partisan bias on both sides has thus lead the dispute to a stalemate and compromise becomes difficult as both sides begin getting entrenched in their positions. I would definitely want general questions to try and see where there is common ground with various suggested drafts after that. That way, even if there is not a consensus for any specific suggestion, the general questions could indicate what format a suggestion could take. What would be important is identifying whether people want to mention Jerusalem's status as a capital at all in the first sentence of the lede, and, if so, whether they would want to note the capital's disputed status in the first sentence and how they would note it. Getting an idea for what framework a change to the lede might use would be important to developing an effective suggestion.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tariqabjotu
My first involvement in this article came about six years ago, when I decided to bring it up to featured status (selecting, as I usually do, an article off WP:VITAL that is on a topic of interest to me). I have no conflict of interest in regards to this matter.

When looking at the source of the issue this article faces, it is crucial to recognize that there are some people here, with varying opinions, who hold their positions and argue in good faith, with the objective of doing what they believe is the most appropriate for this article in terms of correctness and accuracy, in terms of reflecting what sources say, in terms of avoiding controversy, or in terms of some other goal that reflects Wikipedia's purpose. Some have hinted that part of the problem here is that there are some (or many) ideological people here who are using this article (to say nothing of other Israel-Palestine articles) as some sort of proxy information war with certain "sides". I have no doubt that there are people like that on Wikipedia, in this topic area, and maybe even here on this talk page. They may indeed be the source of the impasse here. But if we hope to achieve an agreement at least among those good-faith participants (assuming this hasn't been done already), we need to recognize that one of the most poisonous elements of these discussions has been the broad accusations of wrongdoing and ideological editing, some of which are repeated in this moderation section. This leaves the targets of the accusations unwilling to discuss with the accusing parties, who they see as hostile, and the accusing parties unwilling to discuss with the targets of their claims, who they have already declared incorrigible. Editors new to this dispute are by no means blameless, as I have seen several over the past few weeks come onto this talk page, see the discussion in disarray, and claim -- as if they know better than everyone else -- that this should have been resolved but for the fact that one or both "sides" (for a lack of a better term) wasn't so ideological. I would hope that the third-party observers will prevent such accusations from derailing this process.

I don't really care what form the RfC takes, so long as it isn't composed of a series of loaded or leading questions or options. Although this motion was passed, I don't think we should be operating under the assumption, nor should the closing admins be under the impression, that the current wording has (or ones similar to it have) already been discarded. Past RfCs, although perhaps flawed, have supported similar wordings, and I don't think the storied history of this issue automatically means change is in order. --  tariq abjotu  17:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
I first became involved in this article around three or four years ago. I have no conflict of interest with this topic.

I think the root problem here is a problem in many articles in controversial subjects. And I think it is a problem that an RFC will only exacerbate, not solve. Numbers count for more than reasons. There have been some astoundingly poor arguments brought, from either "side" though I would say disproportionately more from one than the other, but if two or three people rally around it they feel entitled to essentially block progress, reverting because there is "no consensus". The other problem is how "consensus" is abused, that material for which there is not and likely never was any consensus for can continually be restored for lack of consensus to change. There is an incentive for those who support the current wording to use the inability to gain some mythical consensus as the basis for maintaining the current wording. Looking through the history of this article, even just the recent history, I can find several examples of users reverting because there "is no consensus" and being unable to articulate, outside of there being no consensus, why they reverted an edit. Maybe its just me, but it strikes me as absurd that somebody can say "I support the current wording, and because I do there is no consensus to change it, and because there is no consensus the current wording remains."

The fundamental problem with much of this article, and many others in the topic area, is that it takes a certain view and presents it though it were established fact. It does this from the very first sentence of the article, to the infobox, and throughout the article. Ravpapa identified some of the problems, but the article is replete with such examples. Over and over, Jerusalem is presented as strictly Israeli. Little to no attention is given to any other significant view.

Ive never really had much faith in RFCs on complicated issues. But since an RFC is mandated, I think the issue should be presented as simply as possible. But I think it needs to address more than should the article say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in Wikipedia's narrative voice. I think it also needs to address its status as capital of Palestine and how that should be treated in the lead.  nableezy  - 00:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by PerDaniel

 * I came across the Jerusalem article by chance about a month ago.
 * I do not have any conflict of interest in this matter.
 * As I see it the current dispute is caused by a few editors who refuse to change the first part of the first sentence in the lead to something that is in line with WP:NPOV, and instead claim that the second part of the sentence gives balance. The first part of the sentence represents a small minority POV, perhaps even a fringe POV in a global perspective. The second part of the sentence does not give balance, it just makes the sentence selfcontradicting.
 * Being new to RfC I'm not sure what to expect, but I think that the solution given by User:Nishidani would be ideal. PerDaniel (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

 * Probably in the 2010 RFC about the capital status of Jerusalem in the lead and infobox of the Israel article rather than this article and I've followed it here ever since.
 * No conflict of interest on this issue or the ARBPIA topic in general.
 * I think the dispute is caused by many editors being unable or unwilling to make content decisions based solely on the data in the sources and policy.
 * I think the RFC should only address whether the unattributed statement of fact in voice of the encyclopedia that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" complies with policy. Ideally I think it should be done by a) compiling evidence in form of a large sample of sources to show how RS deal with this issue and b) asking respondents to state how many of the sampled sources support their position. This should help to ensure that people look at the evidence and give them an opportunity to review their statements in light of that evidence rather than answering the wrong question by providing personal opinions about whether Jerusalem actually is the capital of Israel based on their personal criteria for deciding the answer to that question.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ClaudeReigns

 * I admit to relishing provocative topics. I have some years editing religion and counter-cult topics on the main, but having branched out into politics and corporations, I decided to look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I engaged editors I found to be intelligent to learn from them, and after gleaning Pluto2012's list of weighty sources on the Nakba, and seeing their eloquent discussions on issues pertaining to the conflict, found the ArbComm notice on Nishidani's page in reference to this page. Since then, I have made a total of one edit here, and have participated in discussion to the extent that I thought it may be productive.
 * I do not have any conflict of interest in the matter.
 * The current dispute is, in my opinion, merely a reflection of the actual dispute, and I believe that community involvement is the answer.
 * I expect that the community will rule strongly on the disposition of Jerusalem-as-capital, but would even more like to see the lead section reflect the weight of sources demonstrating the view of the world community vis-a-vis Jerusalem's importance within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as its causes and global implications. To not do so is to ask, "Is that an elm?" amidst a forest fire. To avoid this as we have is nonsense. To this end, and based upon the precedent of the RfC, I have offered what I term the Danish Solution: "Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital. Due to the conflict and unclear situation concerning the city's status, foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv." Since the dispute here has lasted many years, and since the solution is to last for more years to come, whatever position Wikipedia takes on the status of Jerusalem-as-capital should be resilient, i.e. not based on positions commonly retracted, withdrawn, or requiring elaboration. More than this, I am in favor of any RfC question formulation which allows the community to easily choose a solution which will allow Wikipedia to speak clearly about the fray from above the fray. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Zero
I started editing this article longer ago than anyone else who is still around. I have no family, religious, cultural, ethnic, geographic, or culinary connection to the Middle East, and I don't belong to any political organizations. Ok, I take back culinary. Already in 2003 the edit war over the "capital issue" was in fill swing. My first proposal "Israel's official capital" in Feb 2004 was accepted by most of the pro-Israeli editors at that time. But of course it didn't stick for more than a few days. After a few years I got sick of it and stopped trying.

In my opinion, the basic reason for the dispute is that people think they are debating who owns Jerusalem. But sovereignty and capital-ness are not the same. Despite what many sources inaccurately say, the nations of the world do not dispute that Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli government; i.e., that it is the capital. What they dispute is that the sovereignty of Jerusalem is settled. The last time there was international agreement over Jerusalem was in 1947 when the UN decided to make it an international enclave. Nobody, except in a limited de-facto sense, recognised the annexation of West Jerusalem by Israel or of East Jerusalem by Jordan. The annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel after 1967 was even less accepted. The official position of almost the entire world is that the final status of Jerusalem is undecided. That's why nations won't site their embassies in Jerusalem; it isn't anything to do with whether it's the capital or not. So the correct statement of fact is "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but most nations do not recognise Israeli sovereignty over that city".

Zerotalk 15:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mor
I came across the article about a ~month ago, while following up on some tidbit mentioned in another article concerning a recent UN resolution. I am currently employed in the region and I have been editing(mostly reading) articles related to it, but I have no conflict of interest in regards to the topic.

I am tempted to say that the dispute is of political nature. Since it is my impression that vast majority of the arguments brought by the new proponents of changing the currently agreed upon version of the lead are focused on how to shove the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the underlying Palestinian statehood ambition to the top of this article as well, rather than introducing the city.

As for the RFC, I think it is obvious that first we are going to have to determine whether the first line of the lead present any POV issue and continue from there. However, it might be a good idea to discuss issues in the article it self, if we can fix those it might reduce/address some concerns/issues that people are having(as well as making the article more accurate and informative). --Mor2 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Frenchmalawi

 * My first involvement on this article is this post today.


 * No particular conflict of interest to declare.


 * Lede currently displays pro-Israeli Occupation bias.


 * Info box with the Israeli city flag currently shows even stronger pro-Israeli Occupation bias. Blatant bias.


 * Lede, info box & article should be neutral.


 * RfC should be asked to determine narrow, manageable questions, namely:
 * (i) to determine a neutral lede; and
 * (ii) to reflect the positions of the Governments of the Israeli and Palestinian States in the info-box (a balanced, neutral approach).

Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sepsis

 * I came here after noticing extreme bias on several articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to see how wide spread the bias was, and yes, it is wide spread.
 * I have no ethnic, religious, financial, nor national ties to the players in this conflict. Though I see this question as pointless as those who are paid to edit here or have been trained to edit here for ideological reasons relating to Israel -and there are such editors on wikipedia - are not going to admit so.
 * For the last two points I will just agree with the statements already made by Sean Hoyland and Zero. We need to look at neutral sources and cut out the personal opinion and that this discussion should not only be about Jerusalem as the capital of Israel but must also be about Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and the ownership/sovereignty of the city. I hope that the findings from this discussion will also be used on other articles which make declarations on the status of Jerusalem. Sepsis II (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hertz1888
My earliest edits to this article, 5-6 years ago, were routine updates of numerical information and other relatively minor touch-up. I soon noticed a high incidence of vandalism, resembling a tug-of-war, centered on the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel--obviously a vexing matter for many. The numerous discussions of that statement here over the years have amounted to a veritable torrent of words. An uneasy compromise was worked out in October 2010 as to the wording and structure of the lead, to the obvious frustration of certain participants, as the controversy re-erupted (as best as I can recall) only about 1-1/2 years later. I eventually took part in the ensuing discussions. Apart from the added tags, the lead currently continues to reflect the 2010 outcome.

I pride myself on striving for clear, objective, well-founded statements worthy of a serious, major encyclopedia. I have no conflict of interest, in the sense of editing to promote personal or outside interests. Not that it would seem to matter; one will be accused of bias regardless. I have observed—and experienced first hand—that anyone advocating a wording that happens to favor (or is perceived as favoring) Israel, will be accused of doing so because it favors Israel or represents "the Israeli point of view", and will be vilified by a subset of editors. The reaction sometimes extends to derision and harassment. I have seen that a polite conversation here, no matter how reasonable, often also attracts bullies and provocateurs. One of my hopes is that a moderated process will put a stop to the sniping and let everyone be heard open-mindedly.

It seems to me that the impasse is caused most of all by a) denial that the straightforward, ordinary definition of what makes a capital city a capital should, just possibly, be adhered to; some editors want to substitute their own definitions; b) endless introduction of extraneous issues, constantly moving the goalposts. Both a) and b) include insistence that recognition is a factor in a city's status as capital, despite the long-term inability of anyone to show that recognition by any outside party (the UN, the "international community" or the media) determines such status.

In going forward, I think it would be important not to foreclose the option that the existing wording (minus the tags) may be the best possible wording. It is essential not to offer spurious or tendentious options. Also, I believe the moderated discussion should focus on the core statement and not ramble too far afield. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by BritishWatcher
Having looked back in the archives, I made a single comment about the Jerusalem status dispute in 2008 on the Israel article, it was not until 2010 that I got properly involved in these discussions and I have contributed from time to time since when the issue has flared up. My opinion has remained the same on the overall approach Wikipedia should take with this matter.

I do not believe I have what could be considered a “conflict of interest”, just very strong views, which I believe, happen to be the middle ground. My position throughout from my original comment to when I helped propose a compromise at the peak of my involvement in this dispute, has always been that whilst the article should say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, it should make clear that this is not recognised by the international community to ensure balance and comply with NPOV. Prior to 2010 that was done with a note, which some people did not think was clear enough, so the compromise i supported was to include the international view in the introduction like the current wording does, which has remained there for a couple of years now.

I believe this dispute comes about because some people refuse to accept the reality on the ground does matter and that there are technical limitations in going down the path some seem to suggest, along with what seems to be a “step by step” approach to fundamentally change the article one little bit at a time. Whilst I am prepared to support some changes to wording (despite not thinking they are necessary), my primary concern is where certain changes proposed (saying its both capitals, or not saying its Israels capital or use of words like "proclaimed/claimed") will lead to other more radical changes.

I believe we should discuss and agree all aspects of the RFC, including wording and focus, and we should agree several summarised statements for each of the different views, to give people a better understanding of the situation and offer a range of options before people contribute. We must also take into account the consequences of change on the Jerusalem and other articles. If the opening sentence is no longer going to say Jerusalem is Israels capital, or it starts saying that it’s the capital of Israel and Palestine, then what happens to the infobox for example? It currently shows the Israeli flag and emblem for Jerusalem and their city mayor. All of these things and a lot more about the article would have to change if we pretend Jerusalem is not the defacto/dejure capital of Israel. This must be taken into account throughout the process as must the fact the status quo has existed for so long, making some changes even harder. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dlv999

 * 1) I originally watchlisted the article after working on some related articles that link to this page
 * 2) I don't have a conflict of interest
 * 3) Regarding the cause of the dispute, firstly, this is a vexed issue that professional editorial boards and national press complaints organisations have struggled over, so it is no surprise that a collaboration of anonymous, amateur contributors often with strongly held, opposing views would also have difficulties. In my view issues that have prevented a resolution include the abuse of "consensus" that Nableezy alluded to, where editors simply revert constructive attempts at moving the article forward claiming "no consensus" without giving evidence or policy based justifications. For example see this discussion: An editor gave a detailed proposal for a compromise solution aimed at addressing the concerns of all editors. Instead of discussing the merits of the proposal, whether it was supported by policy/evidence ect. a group of editors sidetracked the discussion to hold a vote (without any reference to justifications/policy/evidence) to indicate that they supported the current wording and that finding a consensus would be impossible. (Again here see Nableezy's comment on the absurdity of the position: "I support the current wording, and because I do there is no consensus to change it, and because there is no consensus the current wording remains.") My understanding of consensus is that it is based on the weight of reasoned arguments grounded in policy and evidence. A list of votes in support of the current wording and that finding a consensus is impossible (witout any reference to evidence/policy) is meaningless as far as consensus is concerned. All it does is disrupt editors who are seriously working towards a resolution of the dispute.
 * 4) I essentially agree with Sean. The RFC should address whether it is consistent with core Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV) to make the unattributed statement of fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Discussion should be focused on source evidence and policy not editor's personal opinions on the issues. Dlv999 (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Step one: RfC scope
Thank you for reading through all of the overview text! I'm sorry if I have been a bit tl;dr. Also, thank you all for your statements. They have been most useful in determining how to approach this first step. As you can see from the schedule above, the first issue I would like us to tackle is the scope of the RfC. To begin with, let me briefly summarise the various viewpoints on RfC scope that I found in your statements. I have simplified these quite a bit, so please accept my apologies if I haven't done your viewpoint justice.

Various editors thought that:
 * 1) The RfC should focus narrowly on the question of whether Wikipedia should state as fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
 * 2) The RfC should include suggestions for wording of the first sentence, in addition to the "capital of Israel" question.
 * 3) The RfC should consider how to treat Jerusalem's relation to Palestine in the lead, in addition to the "capital of Israel" question.
 * 4) The RfC should consider how to treat the infobox, in additional to the "capital of Israel" question.
 * 5) The RfC should consider the whole of the lead.
 * 6) The RfC should consider additional things in the article as well as the lead.

I have removed all the specific suggestions of what questions to ask, and how to structure the RfC, as I would like to keep step one focused only on the RfC scope. Let's keep the discussion limited to questions of scope as well - that way it will be easiest to find agreement between everyone. If anyone has questions or comments about the process itself, or about other things in the discussion that aren't about the RfC scope, then please ask me on my talk page - I'll be happy to answer you there. (Email will work as well.)

So, to start off with, I would like you to discuss the following questions:

'''Which of the views on the RfC scope summarised above are the most conducive to finding a long-term consensus? Or might a combination of some of these views be better?'''

Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The most productive scope would include looking at only three issues, Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and the ownership/sovereignty of the city as this is the reason the first two points are undecided. Once these three points are dealt with decisively and a specific wording for a sentence or two in the lead dealing with these three points is created and agreed upon, all surrounding issues, such as the infobox and the body of the article will be easy enough to solve outside of an RFC. Limiting it to only the question of whether stating "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is neutral or not, would fall short of creating a stable lead. Sepsis II (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My idea is if we can use a process of elimination, then we may be able to narrow down the scope more easily. So which RfC questions can we reject? The last proposition "The RfC should consider additional things in the article as well as the lead" seems least likely to close with a consensus. Similarly, considering "the whole of the lead", while being a broad approach I have suggested outside of the context of an RfC, seems not to have generated the consensus I had hoped for, and should probably be rejected as too broad to close with consensus as well. Failing to consider anything but the status of Jerusalem, as I have stated before, will not resolve anything in my view, and so I personally reject that question, though others may disagree. This leaves proposals 2,3 and 4, of which I support proposal 2 (entire first sentence) most strongly. My mind is not set and I could be persuaded. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I've missed this, but could you clarify your reasons for rejecting option 1? From your statement it looks like the reason might be because it wouldn't deal with Jerusalem's position in the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, or maybe because if we don't consider a specific wording then the result wouldn't be resilient. However, I'm not sure which of these applies (or if it's both, or neither), so I thought it would be best to ask you and make sure. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 01:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. S., I think the resilience of option 1 alone could be overestimated because people believe their side will win. When I attempt to ascertain the resilience value of "not internationally recognized as such" I hit a brick wall of circular sourcing. It originated with Wikipedia. Therefore it is of dubious resilience value - it can't be assessed outside of our own conversations.
 * Its flaws were exposed by a linguist who dropped by and noted the first part of the sentence is an identity statement. So when we say, "Mr. Stradivarius is a virtuoso, though not internationally recognized as such," it is to peacock you as undiscovered talent. It shouldn't matter if we attribute this to who has stated that you are a virtuoso. However we reformulate the identity statement, the tease is still present. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this is interesting. As suggested by my comment below, I was taking No. 1 as suggesting that the question should be just about the first half of the sentence, i.e. just "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". It was because the second half of the sentence was omitted that I rejected No. 1. However, it seems you took No. 1 as suggesting that the question should be about the entire sentence, and it was because the second half was included that you rejected the option. I'd appreciate it if Mr. S would clarify what was intended there, or provide two options -- one where the second half of the sentence is included and one where the second half is not included (as I know several people have expressed similar concerns that the second half of the sentence contradicts the first half).
 * Nevertheless, while you are entitled to believe the second half of the sentence is incompatible with the first half (as you probably know, I disagree), that stance is predicated on the idea that capital status is substantiated by a countries' peers (much as the term "virtuoso" is substantiated by one's peers). As you should know by now, this view is not universally held by editors here and by sources (hence, why we're here) and so that is a poor reason to take No. 1 out of consideration. You are discounting an RfC format based on your position on this issue, and that was what we were expressly asked not to do. --  tariq abjotu  08:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct - option one is only about whether Wikipedia should say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, as a plain statement of fact. (In other words, the same material that is in the first half of the first sentence of the lead.) It doesn't include anything about how we should treat the international view of Jerusalem's status. If you want to add new options to the list at the top, go right ahead - the list was intended to be a summing up of people's opinions, not a prescription of what possibilities are eligible for discussion. If you have a suggestion for the scope of the RfC that you think has a good chance of producing a lasting consensus, and that hasn't already been covered in the existing options, it would be better to add it. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerning option 1, don't think it makes much difference one way or another whether we include the second part of the sentence in the question, since the question will remain, whether we can state the first part in the project's neutral voice. So for my part I (mis)understood from the get-go that "option 1" may or may not contain the second part. The second part is a significant and amply sourced view in its own right, and doesn't modify the first part so I don't personally see much value in having it in the RFC, but I'm not strongly opposed either. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr. Stradivarius, I wanted to briefly point out that I've changed the bullets in your options to numbers, so we aren't compelled to quote the option in full whenever mentioning one of the options.
 * Anyway, I think a couple of those options are too broad or too narrow. #6 for example will lead to a protracted and distracting discussion. I'm not even sure other elements of the article have been the focus of recent threads; I think this only came up because some people (e.g. BritishWatcher) are concerned that certain changes to the lead would require vast overhauls of the structure of the article. Well, there are certainly changes to the lead that could result in such, but I think changes of that drastic a nature are unlikely. We shouldn't put the cart before the horse here; in the unlikely event the RfC yields a consensus for a major change in the lead, we can work on the ramifications for the rest of the article afterward.
 * No. 5 is feasible, although I think if we choose to take care of the whole lead in one go without breaking it down into elements, we'll get way too many options to consider. I think it would be much easier, especially from the perspective of new people to this issue, to be given several issues (e.g. the capital of Israel point, the capital of Palestine point, the population of East Jerusalem point) with several options. Considering an entire paragraph or lead all at once would create some of the problems we had in recent discussions, where some people would express disagreement with part of a proposal, allowing the positive parts to go unnoticed.
 * I don't know what the issues with the infobox are. This is news to me, so I'm going to tenatively say I disagree with #4.
 * No. 1 is too narrow, in part because editors have expressed other issues and in part because I don't understand the benefit of discussing half of a sentence, with the second half of it relates to the first half.
 * So, that leaves me with #2 and #3. I think there was also a concern about how/if to consider East Jerusalem in the total population of the city or when ranking the sizes of Israeli cities. I don't see that as an option, but perhaps that fits under #3. --  tariq abjotu  18:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How could we phrase proposal 5 as a consensus-closeable question? I have a hard time visualizing this. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe instead of "feasible", I should have said "not impossible". It could be done if respondents are asked to choose among several (or, more likely, many) options for the lead. --  tariq abjotu  19:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I understand more clearly. I would be more inclined to throw in with another user's text rather than attempting to present my own in that case, and the options might be smaller than you think, especially if we use a process of elimination in that regard as well. Is there a precedent for successfully closing a three option RfC on a large portion of content in a controversial topic? That might work. Many processes come to mind for arriving at three options to present. I'm not sure how we would ensure resilience in such a process but now that I understand where you're coming from, it does sound like a workable solution. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I think it really would be unclosable. For one thing we can't realistically force editors to cast unambiguous votes for slabs of text, nor should we. We would be bound to get things like "Support only if the second sentence is removed" and "Support the first two sentences of A, the last sentence of B and the middle from C". I think we can expect that to be pretty widespread (how often have you seen a proposed lead, particularly on a hot-button topic, and found it impossible to disagree with a single word?). Can we even legitimately prevent the RfC from collapsing as editors present new twists and variations on the wordings originally proposed?
 * Secondly, as soon as we have more than two proposed paragraphs, we open up the likelihood that none will get more than half of the vote. Is it conceivable that a binding RfC can be closed with a "consensus" representing perhaps 20% of the votes cast? Given that, even if we are voting for paragraphs, everyone knows that one particular sentence is of greater importance, what are the closers to do if a version featuring "...is the capital..." gains a plurality, but the various options featuring "...if the [clarifier] capital..." get a clear majority between them, or vice versa? Formerip (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To focus the discussion on aspects we're seeking resolution to we should put simple, straightforward questions to the RFC which can be answered yes/no or by a selection from a few short and clear options. In that regard, options 1-4 sould feasible, with the core of the issue in options 1-2. If we have several questions, they could be designed to be separately closable independently of each other (e.g. treatment with respect to Israel and treatment with respect to Palestine). I think that an open-ended or broad question along the lines of options 5-6 would be least likely to result in consensus since the discussion would branch out, and participants would disagreee more than agree. An additional challenge in options 5-6 would be to communicate to participants, exactly why the RFC is set up and what we're requesting comment on. Discussing the whole lead would result in long drafts, and most participants would probably find some gripes with each of them. Moreover, the years-long dispute we're trying to solve doesn't really involve the whole lead, rather the "capital issues". Ravpapa's idea to de-emphasize the conflict is interesting and not bad, but even if it's adopted I think it's important to get a resolution on the primary point of option 1 which has vexed editors for many years. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FormerIP, no one has said they thought an RfC on the whole lead was a good idea; "feasible" and "not impossible" do not mean "good idea". There's no reason to explain to us why #5 is not a good idea when none of the editors who have commented so far (in this thread at least) have said so. --  tariq abjotu  21:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, well if it's not a good idea, I guess we can just stop discussing it. Formerip (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @ClaudeReigns: You might find the Verifiability RfC instructive here. There were five drafts of two or three paragraphs, and several general questions, and one of the drafts did indeed gain consensus. I recommend reading the comments on the various drafts to see why people supported or opposed them, and reading the closing comments by the three closing admins. (If you have time, that is - there are a lot of comments.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 01:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also to be noted: the amount of time it took to reach a consensus, the volume of disucssion, inlcuding one massive failed RfC, for a comparitively straightforward question. Formerip (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FormerIP raises good points here - allow me to attach some numbers to them. The previous RfC he mentions can be found here, and had over 400 editors respond. This was a proposal of one draft, and the proposal was closed as "no consensus". (By the way, I wouldn't equate "no consensus" with "failed"; I'm sure the editors that opposed the draft wouldn't think so.) There was considerable controversy over the close of this first RfC. It was closed once as "support", then the close was reverted, and after discussions at ANI it was closed again by three administrators. Almost a month elapsed between the discussion being closed to comments and the results being posted. It also took a very long time to set up the second RfC; the mediation that I presided over took four months, of which the draft-writing part took around 6 weeks. I certainly hope that we can set up the Jerusalem RfC in a shorter time than this. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 00:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't dream of shirking the responsibility of reviewing the precedent. Thank you for showing the discussion and result. I am inclined to think we may anticipate a higher level of dissenting opinions here. Five options may be more consensus-producing and I am inclined to go with a proven precedent rather than to go with my best guess of three. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with the third of the six positions on this issue. The way I see it, we have four major questions to address: 1. Is it or is it not in compliance with WP:NPOV to state that Jerusalem "is the capital of Israel"? 2. If so, how should the sentence calling it such be worded, and what qualifications (if any) should be used?  3. Should the lead also mention Palestinian claims to the city, and the Palestinian Authority's declaration of it as the capital of the State of Palestine?  4. If so, in what terms?


 * These questions could potentially be couched in endless amounts of prose and turns of phrase, but I think it is preferrable to work out specific wordings of the lead to reflect various combinations of the positions beforehand. These wordings can then be presented to the community for !vote during the RfC, with the obvious dissenting option of a write-in/none of the above choice if our suggested phraseology proves wholly unsatisfactory to the community at large. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 06:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I've moved this comment from the section below so as to keep that thread easier to follow. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 00:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being late to the debate, i am slightly concerned that some may overlook what the introduction actually says. It is not just about if "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" complies with NPOV, that is not the whole of the sentence, the sentence includes the fact that this is not internationally recognised which provides the balance. What ever option is chosen for the RFC, i hope that it will make explicitly clear what the actual introduction currently says (including summarising the key points of what is said in the whole introduction where we explain the Jerusalem/Palestine issue in more detail) and the fact it has said it for a couple of years now. Not just something as restrictive as "is Jerusalem is Israel's capital neutral?"


 * The primary focus of the RFC has to be on the big issues of how the opening lines of the introduction handle the capital of Israel/ the claim of Palestinians. In terms of the infobox and other parts of the article, the RFC needs to make clear the knock on impact of certain changes. If people say "put Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and Israel", we need to be extremely clear to people that this would cause significant changes in terms of the infobox, and require a massive rewrite of many parts of this article and other articles. We cannot just ignore the impact, it needs to be clearly spelled out to people who may only be thinking about the introduction, not the wider impact.


 * So out of the list, i would probably say option 3 is closest to my view, provided we spell out the fallout of the different changes. Obviously this would be for phase 2 in terms of structure of the RFC, but i would like to see a sort of impact assessment being stated for each option. So for example the "Capital of Israel + Palestine" would state about the infobox, and need for a rewrite etc. I dont believe the RFC needs to determine what would happen with the infobox, that detail would not take too long to agree if the RFC produces the result "call it capital of both", then id accept the infobox will need to be changed to reflect that. I just want to be sure people will know that some options will require those significant changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that several of those options are either too broad for the RFC scope or do not address the dispute at hand e.g. option #6, it should be noted that this city article is part of several fully fledged articles on various aspects related to Jerusalem, that might be affected by such decisions and before we try to dictate what content should be in the article, at the very least we should have tried to improve it in the article body and discuss in what way or where each topic could be covered better. Besides if each section could easily get an RFC on its own, its a good indication that we are overreaching.


 * As for the rest, its my impression that we all agree that improvments can be made, but while good suggestions were brought up, unfortunately they all seem to come second seat the "dispute", its sole focus was the lead and how the conflict should be presnted in it. Therefore, I think that a variant of #3 is the most appropriate option i.e. whether the city introduction as "capital of Israel, but not internationally recognized as such[ii]" is neutral and whether the conflict should be given more emphasis in this article lead.--Mor2 (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Position of Ravpapa
I believe the RFC should first address this general question: to what extent do we want to present conflict as an essential characteristic of Jerusalem?

The prevailing approach of Wikipedia articles in describing cities that are focuses of conflict is to ignore the conflict altogether, or to bury information about the conflict deep in the bowels of the article. Numerous examples of this approach have been cited: Taipei, capital of a country that does not exist in the eyes of most other countries; Pristina, site of some of the most heinous war crimes of the last 50 years; Belfast, Monrovia, Freetown, all cities torn by civil strife and bloodshed. Most of these articles don't even give passing mention of the tragedies that have painted these cities for decades.

In fairness, I must say that the Jerusalem article does deal with conflict more broadly than any of the articles mentioned above. The subsections beginning here discuss issues of the Israel Palestine conflict, and international opposition to the expansion of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. Nonetheless, discussion of conflict is confined to these subsections, which are pretty far down into the body of the article. Other aspects of conflict in Jerusalem - including the huge disparities between the Jewish and Palestinian microeconomies of Jerusalem, the frequent outbreaks of violence between the different ethnic groups of the city, tensions over education and culture, and more - are ignored in the article.

If the RFC decides to put conflict front and center in this article, decisions about the lead become much simpler. And, by the same token, if we decide to take the usual Wikipedia Readers Digest approach to describing cities, it will dictate the character of the lead. The lead, as it stands now, is an unsuccessful compromise between these two approaches: it winks at the issue of conflict, but in a way that makes the opening sentence almost unintelligible to the average reader.

Which brings me to my last point. All the proposed versions of the lead have behind them hosts of arcane arguments that are completely beyond the reader of this article. While each nuance in the proposed leads has mountains of meaning for the editors arguing on the talk page, these nuances are completely lost the minute they hit the ether. If we want the reader to get a message, we need to write it clearly and boldly.

All of which is why I think the RFC needs to deal with the issue of principle first, and only after deciding how we want to approach the issue of conflict in this article, should we begin working out the syntax of the first sentence. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reading your comment, I can tell that you have big plans for the article. If I have got this right, it looks like you would first like to have an RfC about how we should cover the Jerusalem's current racial, religious, social, and economic tensions in the article body; and then you would like to revise the lead section based on whatever conclusions we come to. Is this correct? Also, I'd like to hear your thoughts on how this eventual update of the lead section might interface with the current wording of the first sentence. For example, if the article put more emphasis on this type of conflict, do you think that the treatment of how Israel and Palestine see Jerusalem would be moved further down in the lead section? Do you think the lead would need a complete rewrite? If I can understand exactly how your proposal relates to the other participants' views, it should help us to reach an agreement that will satisfy everyone. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 02:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right that a decision of the RFC to focus on conflict as a fundamental characteristic of Jerusalem would entail a major edit of some sections of the article. How specifically it would affect the lead is hard to tell at this point; the Israel-Palestine conflict is certainly the most visible these days, but it is certainly not the only one. There are tensions and frequent violence between the various ultra-orthodox sects, and between the ultra-Orthodox and other groups; recent attacks against Arabs by ultranationalist Jews is not simply a reflection of international politics, but the result of real and local ethnic hatreds.


 * But my main point is that, if we can decide on an overall approach, much of the argument over the wording of the lead will become moot. Reading through the mountains of talk page, you will see that a key motive (if only in subtext) of the pro-"capital" editors is to keep conflict out of the lead as much as possible. In that, they have failed - the current wording draws attention to the conflict much more than a version that, for example, simply said that "Jerusalem is the seat of government of Israel" - a version that the anti-capitalists have agreed would meet with approval. So I think that if we were to make explicit a decision on the approach, many of these issues would be resolved.


 * Note that my personal opinion is that the article should focus on conflict. But I would be perfectly willing to live with a decision to go the Readers Digest route, in which case all reference to the conflict (including the "not internationally recognized" clause) would be pushed out of the lead. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's hard for me to say anything definite yet other than to say that I respect the eloquence of your pen. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not true, and the way you say it makes it sound like there is an effort to bury the conflict, an effort to pretend the conflict doesn't exist. As you've noted, the Jerusalem article's lead -- and body -- devotes more space to its relevant controversy than most other articles on cities in conflict, and I have seen no effort to substantially cut down on that content, let alone eliminate it entirely. What there has been, insofar as I can tell, is a desire to not devote too much (i.e. more) space to the conflict. But that issue can be addressed in either direction independent of how the capital point ends up being presented. Further, I'm not sure that has been a big enough issue here (although you've brought it up a couple times) to warrant making that a focus of this RfC. That being said, it may not hurt to do so since we're already here. --  tariq abjotu  09:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in, but I'd like to make a comment about the 'pro-"capital" editors' remark. I find that it's not generally useful to group editors into "sides" in a dispute. Giving editors a label like "pro-capital" tends to dehumanise discussion, and emphasises differences in opinion, whereas to work together effectively we need to emphasise what we have in common. Labels are dangerous - they allow us to filter our reality and make it easier to understand, but they are not necessarily accurate. The actual reality of the situation is that each individual editor has their own motivations, and is capable of agreeing or disagreeing with something for a startlingly wide array of reasons. If we group editors together and assign them an easy-to-use label, we are neatly glossing over a reality which is substantially more complex. Another way of saying this is that to label someone is to judge them, and that judging other editors is not the best way of resolving disputes. (And by the way, "not true" is also a judgement in this context.) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be anti-capital editors who want to keep conflict out of the lead? If we decided to remove any hint of conflict from the lead the article would start out with "Jerusalem is a middle eastern city", and there would be no mention of its relation to nations, at least until the body of the article.
 * That said, the issue at hand of how we can neutrally describe Jerusalem's position would simply move from the lead to the body if the conflict was to be fully whitewashed from the lead meaning that we would still need this RFC, so let us get back on track to determining the scope of this RFC. Sepsis II (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That said, the issue at hand of how we can neutrally describe Jerusalem's position would simply move from the lead to the body if the conflict was to be fully whitewashed from the lead meaning that we would still need this RFC, so let us get back on track to determining the scope of this RFC. Sepsis II (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Ravpapa: ok, I have another question. Have you tried previously to expand the article body with content about the tensions which you mention? Is there some discussion history that I need to be aware of here? From my naïve point of view there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you adding these things to the article right now. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Stradivarius: First, I accept your criticism about labelling. You are quite right, and I will certainly refrain from this henceforth.


 * Regarding Tariq's and Sepsis's comments: You are both right. Editors of all opinions have aligned for and against inclusion of conflict. The issue has been explicitly discussed a number of times, but always left in the air because other issues overtook it. So it was perhaps incorrect to attribute this view to one camp or another.


 * Regarding Mr. Strad's question: yes, but not in a major way. I expanded the section on Culture to include Palestinian cultural institutions, but have not attempted to tackle other aspects (particularly, ethnic diversity and economy). I once tried to write a version of the lead focusing on conflict, which, at the time, garnered some support. You can read it, and the discussion here, and a second time here. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those links - I have a much better idea of what you mean now. I've been thinking about your proposal, and I have a suggestion about how you might best go about implementing it. Now, judging from the discussion above, there is not much appetite to include anything outside the lead section in the RfC. Also, from your comments, it seems that there has been a mixed reaction to your ideas for the lead in the past, but not much (or any?) discussion about your plans for the body of the article. Looking at these points, I don't see any obstacles to you just going ahead and adding your material to the article body. How about you start by doing this? Once you have changed the article body, it should be easier to see how your changes would affect the lead, and by extension how they would affect the questions I have set everyone here. Also, for our purposes here, it would be useful if you could make an estimate of how much of your ideas for the lead you could negotiate using normal talk page discussion, and how much would need wider discussion in the RfC in order to gain consensus. Could you give me your best guess about this? Thanks — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Advice taken. It will take some time to do the research, but I have already started working on it. tnx --Ravpapa (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you think this will be a good way of doing things. So, how about that estimate about what would need discussing in the RfC? Let's imagine that you have already updated the article body extensively, and have added content about conflict in the city. Let's also assume that your updates include arguments about Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel and/or Palestine, and also content about other kinds of conflict in the city. Let's also assume that you have developed a completely new draft of the lead section that incorporates your changes to the article body. Now, it is the reality of editing Wikipedia that you will most likely need to debate various parts of your proposal for the lead, and most likely you will need to come to compromise on various aspects of it with the other editors of the article. The question I'm interested in is this: how much of this hypothetical lead do you think you would be able to negotiate by talk page discussion alone, and how much do you think has already become controversial enough that it would need a binding RfC to decide? If this is unclear at all, please ask me, and I will clarify for you. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 05:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Strad, your question is perfectly clear. And the answer is, I think that without an explicit decision by the community to focus on conflict, every one of the edits in this direction will be controversial. And even if the edits to the body of the article get by, with or without argument, there will still be a huge argument over the lead, because that is what partisans care about most. So changing the focus of the article will not, in itself, end the argument, without an explicit decision to make that change of focus.

On the other hand, I believe that reaching consensus on the big question of article focus is something that is possible, more possible than reaching consensus on specific wording of the lead. That is because, as Tariq has pointed out, opinions on focus cut through partisan lines; they change the entire nature of the argument, and offer a fresh approach to old problems.

As I have said, I have an opinion about this, but I can certainly live with a decision to cleave to the milquetoast approach to city articles, if that is what the community wants. And I think that is true of most other editors here. See? Already we have defused a lot of the passions over this article.

So I think that, tactically, this would be a good approach to the RFC. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your reply. At this point I would like to hear what others think of Ravpapa's proposal. Do you all think it would be a good idea to have an RfC about how the article should treat conflict? How does Ravpapa's proposal mesh with the instructions for the RfC given by the Arbitration Committee? Can you see a way for this view to be reconciled with the views expressed above? Please let me know your thoughts. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 01:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a terrible idea and that each further word on the matter in this RFC on the matter is to further derail this RFC. Thoughts on changing how the article handles the conlict should be presented and discussed on the article's talk page. This RFC is about how to neutrally state Jerusalem's status in regards to the pertinent nations. Frankly, I was surprised this section was not closed long ago as being too far off topic. Nothing personal, I would actually support the proposed lead of yours that you linked to Ravpapa, but the problem of how can we neutrally present Jerusalem's status is a thorn which will not vanish no matter the focus. Sepsis II (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Shutting down the discussion would be the easy thing to do, but I think it would do the participants an injustice. The reason that we are having this discussion is so that we can find a consensus about the scope of the RfC. Finding a consensus doesn't mean choosing the view with the highest number of supporters; it means finding the solution that best incorporates the views of all the editors involved. Maybe we will be able to find a way to reconcile Ravpapa's view with the views others have expressed further up the page; maybe not. However, if I don't at least try to find a way to incorporate everyone's views then I will have shirked my responsibility as moderator. Also, about your "derailing" comment - I think it is too early to talk about derailing the RfC. If you will allow me to stretch your analogy a little further, we are still only building the rails. It is going to be a while yet before the train leaves the station. Are you perhaps operating under the assumption that the RfC scope has already been decided? The instructions provided by ArbCom weren't that specific, and as you can see from the six different positions I found in everyone's statements, there are a lot of different views on the subject. I could understand claims of derailing if we had already decided on the scope, but then came back to it as part of a later step, but for now I see the discussion in step one as a fairly normal consensus-building exercise. As the RfC scope hasn't been decided, it doesn't seem right to dismiss Ravpapa's ideas for the scope as being off-topic. Do you have any other reasons for thinking that Ravpapa's proposal would be a bad idea? It will help to be as specific as possible. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the primary objective of the RFC should be how to present the "capital issues", since even if we decide to de-emphasize the conflict very likely we'd want to mention the claim/status of Jerusalem as Israel's/Palestine's capital somewhere in the article, so we'd need to arrive at a consensus on how these should be presented. If this is a multi-question RFC we could have one question about whether the conflict should be de-emphasized, but if that risks making the RFC unwieldy I'd favour not having that question. I feel that the level of emphasis given to the conflict isn't the essential substance of the multi-year content dispute that resulted in the RfArb, which resulted in this binding RFC project. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I share Dailycare's thoughts. Sepsis II (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I too agree with Dailycare on this. Matters relating to the wider conflict and how that is handled is secondary. The key issue at the heart of this dispute is how we handle the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and how we would describe Palestinians claims. Along with at least considering the wider impact on such decisions (like the impact on the Infobox if suddenly we suggest Jerusalem is two countries capitals as some want.) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Judging the consensus for step one
The discussion has died down, and people seem to have debated the RfC scope as much as they are willing; I think it's about time we judged the consensus from step one and got on to discussing step two. My reading of the discussion above and the statements that people left is that the consensus view for the RfC scope is some variant on option three, 'the RfC should consider how to treat Jerusalem's relation to Palestine in the lead, in addition to the "capital of Israel" question.' 'the RfC will focus on how to treat, in the article lead, the issues of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine and Jerusalem as capital of Israel.' In general editors thought that options five and six would be too broad and that it would be difficult for such an RfC to gain consensus, although option five did have some support. Participants were unanimously of the opinion that option four wasn't necessary, as the content of the infobox could be worked out fairly easily after the question of how we describe Jerusalem's status had been settled. Note that this is a separate issue from whether/how we say in the RfC text that changes made to the lead could affect the infobox - we will get onto that issue probably in step three or step four.

Position one enjoyed greater support than options four, five, and six. Editors arguing in favour of this option made a good point that it would enable RfC respondents to focus on policy and would discourage them from commenting based on their personal preference. This was countered by the equally good point that it might be a more resilient solution if we could decide on a specific wording for the first sentence or two of the lead. Out of options two and three, participants most often chose option three; there seems to be a broad agreement that both the Israeli and the Palestinian claims to the city are an integral part of this dispute, and that treating only the Israeli claims in the RfC might not be as likely to lead to a consensus. The tough decision here seems to be between option one and option three, as there are good arguments for doing things both ways. From the point of view of consensus, though, option three seems a better choice, as a) it is supported by more people, and more importantly b) if an RfC with the scope of option three finds a consensus, it will also satisfy the editors who argued for option one. The best course of action here may be to go with option three, but to try and incorporate suggestions from the editors who argued for option one wherever possible in the following steps.

Ravpapa's view provided an intriguing twist to the proceedings. Though it does not seem as though there is much appetite for his original proposal in its entirety, Dailycare raises an interesting proposal for a compromise: having a multi-question RfC and asking an open-ended question about how the article should treat the various types of conflict in the city. This is an idea that no-one has really discussed yet, so I am bringing it up again here to find out whether people think it would be a reasonable thing to ask in the RfC.

To make sure that everyone is ok with this proposed outcome for step one, and to tie up the remaining loose ends, I'd like to ask you three sets of questions. Please reply to them in the appropriate subsections, and discuss your replies with each other if you have any points that you would like to bring up. I plan on allowing the discussion to continue for another two or three days, and then after that I plan to formally close the step one discussion. Thanks again for your participation, and if you have any questions about the process please do feel free to ask, either on my talk page or by email. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Step one, closing question one: assessment of consensus

 * I think this is a fair assessment of the opinions expressed. --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a very reasonable summary of the consensus arrived at, and I have no issues with it. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 09:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's fair enough.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Where did I go wrong? ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not quite following you. I'm not aware that you went wrong at all - could you clarify? Thanks — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 17:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've re-read the above discussion and I am still wondering this, who are these "editors who argued for option one"? I see a short discussion on what option one meant, but I see no editors actually calling for option one, am I blind? I do see a wide agreement on option three, though that is, option three prior the revision with the revised version having a minimum of three fewer supporters. Sepsis II (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was taking into account the opinions that everyone left in their initial statements. In particular, the statements by Sean.hoyland and Dlv999 argued for a narrow scope. Some other editors, e.g. Mor2 and Formerip, supported a narrow scope in their statements but were also open to other options. Taken as a whole, these statements were the reason that I created option one. I didn't think it would be reasonable to discount anyone's opinion just because they hadn't taken part in the step one discussion - although it is definitely easier for me to determine consensus from these discussions if everyone takes part fully. I hope this answers your question, but let me know if I have left anything unclear. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah right, I was only looking at the above discussion, not the opening comments, but you are correct in using those statements as well. Sepsis II (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by AnkhMorpork
I would like a wider scope of the RFC than just the first sentence of the lede. I think the extent of the inclusion of the current politial perspectives in the lede should also be assessed. I consider the current inclusion of: "though not internationally recognized as such... The international community has rejected the latter annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation. The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies" as excessive. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  17:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is a result of unclear wording on my part. Actually, option three is not just about the first sentence, but also covers the political perspectives that you mention. See my reply to Dlv999 below, and my subsequent rewording of option three at the top of this section. Does this clear things up? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 02:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Dlv999
Regarding option three, why is the scope of the RFC with respect to Israel different from the scope with respect to Palestine? Why not: What is the rationale for narrowly focusing the question wrt Israel but having a broader question wrt Palestine? Absent any persuasive answer to this question I would be strongly opposed to this option because I don't see how we are going to resolve the dispute by addressing how we treat Palestine's relation to Jerusalem (in the lead) but not addressing how we treat Israel's relation to Jerusalem (in the lead). In my view the RFC should either focus on the specific question of whether Wikipedia should state as fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (there is no need for the corresponding question with respect to Palestine as no one has suggested that we state as fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine). Or alternatively if we are going to look at the broader picture we should look at how we treat both Israel and Palestine's relation to Jerusalem in the lead. In my view addressing one and not the other is likely to result in an unbalanced article, which in turn will lead to ongoing dispute. Dlv999 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The RfC should consider how to treat Jerusalem's relation to Palestine in the lead and how to treat Jerusalem's relation to Israel in the lead.
 * I didn't get the impression that we'd at this point be selecting the specific wording, rather we're just coalescing around the idea that the RFC would ask about both aspects - the Israeli and Palestinian. Likely the Israeli side of this would involve discussing whether we can say in Wikipedia's neutral voice that it's Israel's capital. When selecting the eventual wording, I agree that we should select similar scope for the Palestinian prong, e.g. by asking how to describe Palestine's claim to Jerusalem as capital. I'd favour asking about capitals rather than "relationship" generally, again since capitalhood is what the substantive content dispute is has been about, and also since general relationships may get too complex to close in consensus. --Dailycare (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On this, I share Dlv999's thoughts and think his wording for the scope is perfect. I think the relationship should be part of this RFC as the lack of recognition of Jerusalem as an Israeli city is a very large part of the lack of recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. I questioned the neutrality of stating that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" because it seems to state as a fact that Jerusalem is an Israeli city. And of course, the scope, and any questions should treat Israel and Palestine as equal, to not do so would be to introduce bias. Sepsis II (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it looks like I wasn't very clear when I created the wording for option three. It probably makes more sense in the context of the other five options, but reading it again I agree that it looks strange on its own. Dlv999's proposed wording is much clearer, and I also agree with Dailycare's suggestion to use "capital" instead of "relationship", as that is really what I intended. Also, Dailycare is correct that we aren't selecting the specific wording for any questions or drafts just yet; step one is only about deciding the rough focus of what the RfC should cover. We will decide specific wordings of questions or drafts in step three. (See the schedule at the top of the page if you want more detail on this.) As Dlv999's/Dailycare's wording is a big improvement on mine, I'll strike through my wording and use that instead. Hopefully this will clear up some of the confusion, but do let me know if there are any points that you still aren't sure of. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 01:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording to 'the RfC will focus on how to treat, in the article lead, the issues of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine and Jerusalem as capital of Israel.' I thought this was clearer than a mix of Dlv999's and Dailycare's suggestions would have been, as the grammar wouldn't have quite made sense. Does this look more acceptable to all of you? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 02:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the changes and they have largely assuaged my concerns. I do have some follow up questions: To what extent can we address "the issues of Jerusalem as capital" of Palestine/Israel without addressing the related issues of sovereignty and recognition (of capital and sovereignty). If we accept Stradivarius latest proposal are we at this point ruling out sovereignty and/or recognition from the scope of the RFC or is this something that is yet to be decided? Dlv999 (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say recognition is an inherent aspect of the capital question, as evidenced by the current wording of the first sentence. Sovereignty will probably come up at least in the discussion. I don't recall seeing sovereignty as part of any proposed wordings for the eventual solution though. My recollection isn't what it used to be, though. I'd be OK with the wording. --Dailycare (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dlv999 - how/whether we address the issues of sovereignty and recognition is something we would decide in step two and step three. I see sovereignty and recognition as aspects of how we would deal with the capital issues, rather than a question of scope - although I realise that the boundaries here are blurred and that different people may have different ideas of what "RfC scope" could mean. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 00:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mr. Stradivarius and Dailycare initial post in this thread. In my impression we merely decided to address both issues, while the formulation of the wording will be discussed/decided later on. @Dailycare, which is where views on what is and isn't an inherent aspect of Capital city will be placed;) --Mor2 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned reading through the above that we might drift into replacing a six-word phrase in the lead with a short essay about the competing claims of Israel and Palestine over Jerusalem. That is really content for the body of the article and it isn't directly what has led us to this discussion. Formerip (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While my proposed close of step one could possibly result in such an essay, it could just as easily result in a very concise statement on the issue, or even no mention of the capital issues in the lead at all. We would decide how concise or wordy any drafts should be in step three, should we choose to make drafts, and of course the final decision on the article content won't happen until the RfC itself. Does this help to assuage your concerns? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 02:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Before we can begin to formulate prose we must be able to state what the facts are that the prose would be based upon. Even if the goal of this RFC was reduced to option one - whether it is neutral to state that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" or not, the ownership of the city is still such an integral part of the answer to that question that we must first be able to state facts about the ownership. So it does not really matter that our final goal does not include determining ownership for we must determine this as a prerequisite to determining our goal of capitalhood. Sepsis II (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Step one, closing question three: open-ended questions
My view is no. These are important questions, but they are barely related to the dispute at hand. I think most of these issues are unconroversial. If, for instance, culture is only discussed from Israel's perspective, it is not because editors had strong objections to any other perspectives, but because no one has bothered to include other perspectives. If disputes do arise over some issues, they should be dealt with separately. - BorisG (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think open-ended questions are a good idea. I argued for a broader range of discussion than some others (addressing the Palestinian claims rather than the Israeli claims alone), but in my opinion anything open-ended would be far too broad. We are addressing the lead in particular, and aspects of the article beyond that aren't at issue here. There will always be time to address those issues at the article's talk page, but they're not the main focus of this dispute, and involving the community at large is unnecessary at this time. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 09:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the remarks above. Directed questions will get directed responses, while open-ended questions like this one will lead to open-ended responses that are difficult for the closing admins to parse. And I think the heart of the dispute can be resolved without addressing Ravpapa's question, which is a bit too philosophical right now. --  tariq abjotu  11:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Open-ended questions tempt all to blog, and that invites indecisiveness. In the short term, we should focus on one or two points at the heart of the disagreement. My primary concern is to see that a principle is established that the article, here I disagree somewhat with Evanh2008, reflect impartially the three basic religious constituencies, and deal neutrally with the political claims of the two parties. The way the key issues in the lead are worked out for neutrality and due balance to all parties, sets the example for the rest of the page.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that we share a similar view or at least I agree with most(if not all) of the arguments he made, in his initial statement in both Steps1/2. However, while I tried to pin pointing the issue that led us here, Ravpapa tried to address Mr. Stradivarius request for a solution that would be conducive to finding a long-term consensus to the dispute i.e. seeing the current issue as the latest issue.(at least IMO). As for the suggested question. I tend to agree with the remarks above, on the usefulness of open-ended questions for our purpose, but I lack experience with RFC to say anything more definite. More importantly I doubt this question can address the issue(current/whole) through the RFC, it shouldn't be "how the article should treat conflict in Jerusalem?" but "Whether this article should treat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Jerusalem in any way diffidently?" (compared to other city articles or other conflict in Jerusalem).--Mor2 (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

To what degree have open-ended questions been helpful in producing previous RfCs with clear consensus? ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More open-ended questions tend to solicit a wide variety of comments. The more diverse the comments, the harder it is for the closer to judge what the consensus is, and therefore the chance of a "no-consensus" close is increased - but not certain, by any means. This is also covered in the RfC instruction page. For specific examples, try looking at the list of all open RfCs and see how the question affects the comments, or you could also look through the history of the requested closures noticeboard. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Step one closure
Thank you everyone for your further comments. Although there are still a couple of replies I had been hoping to receive, on the whole it looks like everyone's concerns have been dealt with. Given also that we have run a little over schedule, I think it is about time that we pressed on with step two. There are no surprises in the result of step one: the RfC will focus on how to treat, in the article lead, the issues of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine and Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Ultimately there was not enough support for Ravpapa's proposal for the RfC, and we will not be including any open-ended questions about conflict. This does not preclude editors from writing content about conflict in Jerusalem, or from having future RfCs about how to deal with conflict in the article, but those content questions will have to be settled through normal talk-page discussion or in future non-binding RfCs. Still, I invite editors to consider how Ravpapa's proposal relates to the scope that we have chosen, and to bear this in mind as we progress through steps two and three. Similarly, as I mentioned before, I would also like editors to bear in mind the opinions of the editors who supported option one as we discuss the next steps.