Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive 2

Step two: general RfC structure
Welcome to step two! In step one we decided that 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 step two we will refine this scope, and decide the general structure of the RfC. First, I had better define what I mean by "general structure". In step two I would like us to decide:
 * Whether we will use questions, drafts, a combination of the two, or something else.
 * Whether we should assemble evidence in the form of sources for any of the questions or drafts, and roughly how we should present the evidence if we do.
 * How many different questions or drafts there should be.
 * The rough layout of the drafts and/or questions on the page.

Things I would like to leave until further steps to decide include:
 * The specific wording of questions or drafts. It is fine to discuss the general focus that questions and drafts might have, but only as far as necessary to decide the four points above.
 * Individual items of evidence.
 * Introductory text, such as the background to the dispute. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Step two statements
First off in this step I would like you to leave a statement. The procedure for this is pretty much the same as for the previous round of statements - please try and keep your statements short (preferably under 400 words), and don't reply in each others' sections. There will be time for discussion later. In your statements please answer the following question:


 * In step one we decided that 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. How do you think the RfC should be structured so as to stand the best chance of finding a consensus on these issues? Please bear in mind the points above about what is and isn't included as a part of this step.

Thanks in advance for your responses, and as always if you have any questions or comments about the process, please feel free to get in touch with me on my talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is just to let everyone know that I'm in the process of summarising all the different positions that people have expressed, and drafting the next discussion point. I'll probably be finished some time tomorrow, so if you haven't yet left a statement you have until then to post it. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ClaudeReigns
When considering the scope of the RfC, I thought it less helpful to bring up the general consideration of resilience, as any number of solutions large or small may be written well and endure; but when it comes to the structure of the RfC, the particular notion of the endurance and tenure of a piece of encyclopedia writing comes directly into play when we go about creating the structure of the RfC. That which we include in the article's lead as decided content should have a draft, and that draft should be well-referenced, and care should be given to expose the particular NPOV concerns which have made statements troublesome or untenable in the past. Likewise, a new draft may have other concerns not limited to current concerns.

If I should write even something small and inconsequential about someone and want my writing to endure, I take these pains to ensure that such statements are presented with the sourcing and voice to rise above disputes from all sides. A living person will have his admirers and detractors, and I must present what is stated in reliable sources with the weight due to its representation collectively therein. While cities are seldom as controversial as people, I find that in this particular instance, our very best practices are in order. Therefore, each draft should be presented with its sources, and all editors should go about presenting the hard questions about that draft in the voice of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The questions of concern, yes or no questions, not open-ended, should be presented to the community as well, in reference to each draft.

A draft, having already endured such scrutiny, is worthy of mandatory inclusion for some several years to come. Nothing less seems to suffice. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dailycare
On the Talk:Jerusalem page we discussed a two-step procedure that I think would be applicable here. It would consist of an intial yes/no question asking whether the current wording is OK. This would be very conductive to finding a consensus. For the eventuality that the first question is closed with a "no", the second question would then have a few options for an alternative wording. I think this would work. Now that the scope is agreed to also involve the Palestinian aspect, we could have a question three which would present, along the lines of question two, a few options on how to describe Jerusalem as Palestine's capital, declared/proclaimed/foreseen capital or whatnot. Advantages of this approach would include a high potential for consensus on question one (yes/no on the present wording of the first sentence), and this approach wouldn't present the current wording as automatically doomed since editors can opine "yes" in the first question. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mor2
Currently I have no inclination toward either structure and will reserve comments until discussion in the next step.(I'll appreciate any reference to previous RFCs that use both, so that we could contrast and see which way will fit us best).

On a little unrelated note. I agree with ClaudeReigns statement, if we choose a draft, obviously it should be fleshed out, well-referenced and comply with other WPs; so that it will be worthy for inclusion for some several years. Although I doubt that over the past several years, participants of previous RFC(some of them participate here as well), in which similar wordings were supported, operated under different assumptions. So just as we should avoid leading questions, it would be best to avoid any presumption for the outcome of this RFC. --Mor2 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sepsis
This RFC would be utterly pointless without the gathering of evidence. If we do not go to sources for facts we will be going back to the level of talk page discussions where editors kept repeating false statements to back the addition of false statements to the article. We need to gather sources to be able to determine what facts can be stated. After we determine what facts can be stated, we can begin forming prose. Sepsis II (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
I'll support any approach that minimizes the opportunity for anyone to express their opinion about anything other than how the evidence, reliably sourced statements about Jerusalem, should be handled according to policy to produce a summarized statement. I think the best way to achieve a genuine WP:CONSENSUS that incorporates "all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms" (my bolding) and avoids repeating earlier failures is to have near-zero degrees of freedom i.e. keep the focus on what sources say about Jerusalem. I'm therefore inclined to start with the evidence and build drafts from it rather than doing it the other way around, writing drafts and searching for evidence that support them. If any participants make a value judgement that isn't evident from the reliably sourced statements about Jerusalem (e.g. x is more important than y) we will know that the RfC is in trouble.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
Perfect accord with S.Hoyland above. No blather, just high quality sources, preferably academic, to support each formulation.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by formerip
The trouble with the "just do what the sources say" approach is that the nature of the dispute is NPOV. The current version and all the serious alternatives can undoubtedly be more than adequately sourced. So, once we've presented our well-sourced options, it's still about editor preference (basically, the balance of opinion as to how NPOV is applicable to the case, which is something you can't decide just by meditating on the sources).

I think I favour the approach suggested by Dailycare, and I also get the impression from recent discussions that this has most support among involved editors. Formerip (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ravpapa
My position in this matter has already been thoroughly discussed, and pretty roundly rejected, so I have little new to say. But, rather than take my marbles and go home, I will do my best:


 * The RFC should definitely include questions. Drafts I'm not so sure, as drafts tend to push the combatants back into their old positions. The questions should be surprising: they should cast the dispute in a new light, and certainly emphasize the readers rather than the editors (What is the reader likely to understand from specific versions of the lead?).
 * Compiling a list of sources is always a good idea, but is unlikely to advance the cause of compromise. As others have pointed out, there are reliable sources to support every one of the positions in this dispute. In the end, we have to make a choice based not on reliable sources that are themselves conflicted, but on our own senses of fairness and on what we agree that we want the reader to understand --Ravpapa (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC).

Statement by Dlv999
My understanding is that the core of the dispute is whether it is consistent with NPOV policy to state as fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in light of what has been published in RS on the topic. I would like so see a question included to resolve this issue (which should be addressed on the basis of source evidence and wikipedia policy). As long as this question is resolved I am fairly open minded on how the final draft(s) are assembled and selected. Dlv999 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hertz1888
At this point I want to share some misgivings that I alluded to briefly in my introductory statement. I believe the present statement pertains more to this step (two) than to the next one, but please let me know if I am mistaken. In what follows I will try to mention content only to the extent necessary to provide context.

We are dealing with a peculiar situation, because it involves mega-discussions about what may be fundamentally a very simple concept, the essence of which can readily be overlooked in a sea of obfuscation. There is a straightforward, commonplace definition, found in dictionaries, of what makes a capital a capital. Basically, a country designates a city as its capital, and if that city serves as the seat of government, then it is the capital (no modifiers needed). Nothing said about requiring approval or recognition by any outside party, but that and other conditions, such as undisputed sovereignty, have repeatedly been brought into the discussions, and attempts made to attach these conditions to the much-disputed statement or use them to disqualify it. A number of editors have insisted on reliable sourcing for calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel as a statement of fact. It can easily be seen and shown that Jerusalem is the designated capital and serves as the seat of government, but as the discussions have raged on, that never seems to be enough to gain a durable consensus. It has instead been denounced as POV.

It seems to me that if countries designate their own capitals, not subject to outside approval, then the only truly reliable source is the country itself. This is a matter of word usage. I am concerned that any formulation or option offered in the RfC that relies on other sourcing, or attaches irrelevant conditions, could have potentially far-reaching, serious consequences for Wikipedia by setting a bad precedent, and would overstep our constraints. I don’t believe we, as WP editors, are allowed to redefine words at will. Even dictionary editors lack complete freedom to concoct or change a word definition. I believe the wording of the RfC should strive to avoid the pitfalls of straying from the dictionary meaning. Otherwise the result could be immediately challenged, and we would be encouraging a continuation of the current impasse.

The principle involved here applies evenhandedly to all countries and is not invoked to favor any one in particular.

The editor who wrote this (requires scrolling down) apparently shares these qualms about using words other than per their ordinary definitions, particularly where he/she says, "My point is that encyclopedias should use language consistently, and (typos excepted) 'correctly'. By 'natural' I simply mean following the normal rules of the language rather than manufacturing exceptions to them…" Hertz1888 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by BritishWatcher
I believe we should try to come up with draft proposals that can be put to people in the RFC rather than general questions which may not resolve the situation adequately. Each of the different draft proposals should be backed up with some sources either inline as they would be within the article, or after each proposal list the sources that back up the proposal.

I believe there should be a limited number of draft proposals, probably around 5 but no more than 10. That should allow us to have different proposed wording that cover all the main methods people favour. I would present the RFC in the following order..

RFC – summary of the reason for the RFC, summary of the history of the way it has been handled in the intro (how long it has said it’s the capital of Israel, when that changed to capital of Israel but not internationally recognised as such etc.), explanation about people being able to choose which proposal they believe is best way of handling the situation.

Proposal 1 (basic summary of the proposal, full proposed wording, sources)

Proposal 2 (basic summary of the proposal, full proposed wording, sources)

And repeat for each of the proposals. It is true that this process may take a bit longer than asking just general questions, but the extra time in the build up to the RFC is time saved from after the RFC as we will have a far better idea of the change needed, rather than having to debate the general approach people want us to take. If it is not possible to agree on specific draft proposals then i think the best way would be to do a similar thing as i mentioned but just with the basic summary of the proposal, without the specific wording. (Eg. "Proposal 1 - state Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine in the first sentence without distinction"./ "Proposal 2 - state Jerusalem is Israels capital in the first sentence, say Palestinians claim it as their future capital in the second sentence)" BritishWatcher (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two discussion
Thank you all very much for your statements, and sorry that this is coming later than I said it would. Because we have already spent a week gathering statements for step two, it looks likely that we will take longer than the upper end of my 5-10 day estimate. If enough people think that we are taking too long over this process, then I can impose a stricter deadline for the next sub-steps of step two so that we can speed things up. The speed we go at will be a trade-off; the faster we do things the more likely we are to have to progress without fully hearing everyone's opinion. There is something to be said for going quickly, as the real place to hear everyone's opinions will be in the RfC itself, but at the same time I do not want anyone to feel disenfranchised. Please ask me on my talk page if you would like me to do something like this, and I can bring it up here with everyone if necessary.

Now, on to everyone's statements. I've had a go at summarising everyone’s opinions, both from the step two statements, and from the preliminary statements of editors who didn’t make a step two statement (if they made a comment relevant to the general RfC structure). Though I have phrased some of these opinions as "should be" statements for simplicity, none of these points are my opinion; they are all taken from one or more participants here. Some of the opinions contradict each other, and some of them are more detailed than others. I have tried to structure this summary in a way that is easy to understand, but there may be parts that don't flow very well together due to the diversity of opinions expressed. So, without further ado, here is the summary.


 * Summary of views expressed in the statements

There were two general proposals for the RfC structure:
 * Have a three-step structure. (This was discussed on Talk:Jerusalem as a “two-step” structure, but has developed a third step due to the inclusion of Palestine in the RfC scope.) First, include a question about whether the current wording of the first sentence is compatible with Wikipedia policy. Then have a second question to decide an alternative wording if the answer to the first question is "no", and have a third question to decide the wording of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine in the lead.
 * Present a series of drafts of the first sentence and/or the part of the lead dealing with Jerusalem as capital of Palestine. Do not include any general questions.

Participants expressed the following opinions on leading questions:
 * We should avoid asking any leading questions in the RfC.
 * We should not automatically discount the current wording of the first sentence.
 * We should be careful to phrase questions and drafts in a way that implies being a capital depends on outside recognition

On evidence:
 * We should gather evidence, as evidence is necessary to determine whether the drafts we write and the claims we include in them are compliant with Wikipedia policy.
 * The RfC should, as much as is possible, restrict respondents to focusing on how the sources describe Jerusalem.

On drafts versus questions:
 * General questions may be able to indicate a way forward even if any one draft fails to find a consensus.
 * Drafts can lead to a lasting resolution, whereas general questions may not. Once a draft is decided and is binding, then there is no more scope for disagreement.
 * General questions can help find a win-win solution or a compromise, but drafts tend to polarise discussion.

On drafts:
 * We should have at least one draft.
 * There should be between 5 and 10 drafts.
 * All of the main points of view on the issue of Jerusalem as capital of Israel and Palestine can be sourced to reliable sources. Therefore, merely including sources in drafts won't solve the problem of whether those drafts satisfy the neutral point of view policy.
 * As all the main points of view can be reliably sourced, the question of how the neutral point of view policy applies to this case is a matter of editor preference.
 * We should derive drafts from the evidence, rather than write the drafts first and then try and decide which best fits the evidence.
 * All drafts should be presented with sources.

About general questions:


 * The RfC should include general questions.
 * We should include at least one question which asks whether it is consistent with Wikipedia policies to state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
 * If we can't agree on a specific wording for any drafts, we might be able to agree on a meta-wording, e.g. "Proposal 1 - state Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine in the first sentence without distinction" and other similarly-worded proposals.
 * We should decide whether we want to mention Jerusalem's status as a capital at all in the lead.
 * We should decide whether we want to mention Jerusalem's status as a capital at all in the first sentence.


 * My analysis

There have been a wide variety of opinions expressed in the statements, and we still have quite a bit of discussion to do before we find a consensus on how to structure the RfC. The only thing I see a strong consensus for so far is that we should not ask any leading questions in the RfC. We could debate all of the opinions expressed above, but to start with I want to deal with the most essential matters. Here is my take of the most important points we need to decide about the RfC structure:
 * 1) Whether we use drafts, questions, or both.
 * 2) Whether either of the full proposals for the RfC are compatible with the opinions others have expressed on drafts and general questions.
 * 3) How many drafts to have, if any.
 * 4) How any drafts should be presented. Whether we should include sources; whether we should use meta-drafts instead of drafts, or as well as them; and what process we should go through to make them.
 * 5) How we will use evidence in the RfC. Do we present evidence directly to respondents, do we use the evidence to create any drafts, or both? Or is evidence not so important because of the NPOV nature of the dispute?

Looking at this list, the approach we take to points two to five all seem to depend on what we decide for point one. For example, if we decide to only include general questions, then the question of how many drafts to include would become moot. Therefore, I would first like us to decide whether to use drafts, general questions, or both, and I will ask a question to that effect below.

I welcome any feedback about my summary, my analysis, and the discussion question. If I have missed something out, misread someone’s opinion, or otherwise made a mistake, please make a post on my talk page about it, and I will fix things. Similarly, if you think of a new idea that you would like me to include in the summary, then just ask and I will add it unless there’s a good reason that I shouldn’t. And as usual, you are welcome to post any other questions or comments relating to the RfC discussion on my talk page too. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 02:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question one: drafts or questions
As I have outlined in the summary of everyone’s statements above, some participants in this discussion thought that we should use drafts, as if one draft gains consensus there is no more scope for disagreement. Other participants thought that we should use general questions, as questions can show a way forward even if any one draft fails to gain consensus. Also, they thought that questions can help participants find common ground, whereas drafts tend to polarise discussion. Still others thought that we should use both questions and drafts, for example in the “three-step” proposal of asking a general question about the current wording of the first sentence, and then presenting alternative drafts of the first sentence or the parts of the lead dealing with Jerusalem as capital of Palestine. Due to the differences of opinion on drafts and questions, I would like everyone to discuss the following:

Thank you in advance for your comments. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 02:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the "three-step" approach would offer several advantages, including 1) singling out the current text as a possible solution (some editors were worried the RFC might present the current version as just one option among many), 2) provide a high likelihood of at least some consensus, namely concerning the yes/no question, and 3) lead into a discussion on a specific long-term solution with the drafts. Even if only the first question is closed with consensus, the RFC will have accomplished a lot in terms of addressing the multi-year NPOV dispute. Concerning the leading questions issue, I frankly don't see the problem with having a "leading question" as the RFC question. Since we're inviting comments, we do want to lead the discussion to the specific issue we want comments on. I'm not aware of any policy according to which RFCs can't have leading questions (loaded questions are a different issue). In fact WP:RFC has as an example question "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?", which seems to be a leading question. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Dailycare. Asking at the outset whether the current lead is acceptable or consistent with policy will (Redacted) end with no consensus. I believe a much more promising approach would be to ask a general question which cuts across party lines, such as "what message do we want to give the reader in the lead?" or (my already rejected) "How do we want the issue of controversy (generally or specifically the Israel-Palestinian conflict) to be treated in the lead?" These are questions which, since they have not been posed in this general way, are more likely to generate original thought and discussion among participants (Redacted) . --Ravpapa (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (Redacted) Dlv999 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the initial yes/no question on whether the first sentence complies with WP:NPOV is likely to end in consensus since it's in essence a question of fact that turns on what the sources say. Unlike on the talkpage, this time we have experienced editors to close the discussion and they can ignore arguments that aren't persuasive. The arguments that make sense will decide, one way or another. "What message do we want to give" is a broad question that may not give editors much of a clue as to what we're inviting comments on, and why the RFC was started. That question also runs the risk, I'm afraid, that the RFC wouldn't give an answer to the actual years-old content dispute on whether "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is OK. --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The current version is just one option among many. Sorry, but it's true. No sentiment which prevents a possible improvement to the encyclopedia should receive any weight, whether supported by a rule or not. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This has been a semantic discussion from the beginning, and now that we've gotten to the way we want to structure the debate, we start to find ourselves lacking definitive ways forward. Not surprised. Perhaps if we sought expert opinions on what a capital is, and what a leading question is, and perhaps generated some agreement on other definitions of general turns of phrases, it would help. I think an agreed approach which Ravpapa is looking to discover for lead treatment is a good holistic process, a refinement which could narrow the discussion in meaningful ways. I know the thought of a Reader's Digest approach has not sat well with me (not sure if there is wide consensus against it) but that my own thoughts on lead have been assessed as a kind of "taxi driver" version of things. I know that this is not the core disagreement. But it may boil down to a meta-disagreement which keeps things from resolving textually. A question on whether or not the article lead should say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel seems very precise as well, but does not seem to be the end-all-be-all, either. My original problem wasn't with whether or not we define capital semantically, but how we treat the disagreement about it. I think it's a chief concern, and that we should represent the disagreement. But a concise and clear representation of the disagreement about Jerusalem is different than a concise and clear representation about the disagreement among Wikipedia editors. More precise questioning might lead us to greater discussion and clearer answers. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Another idea that occurs to me - maybe without asking the community, but just among ourselves, we should present the kinds of questions we are thinking about the article lead.
 * Should we state in the article lead that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?
 * What style of article lead are we writing?
 * With what weight should the article lead treat various aspects of the dispute about Jerusalem?
 * If any of these questions being answered would not help, I'd please like to know why. I think they'd be very helpful and I don't think this is necessarily an exhaustive list. Feel free to add. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue of what a capital is and isnt certainly is something that should be taken into account in the RFC. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Whilst i would prefer a method of using drafts for people to choose from, i am not entirely against a certain question being asked first, but that question has to absolutely be fair and reflect the situation fairly. It should not be misleading by just saying "Does the article saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" comply with NPOV". That clearly misses off the whole sentence, which mentions the lack of recognition for balance. But even just saying the whole sentence, is not entirely fair either. That one sentence cannot be taken out of context of the wider introduction. If there was to be a starter question on does the status quo comply with NPOV, there should be a summary of what the introduction actually says... it does not just currently say Jerusalem is the capital, we go into a lot of detail in other paragraphs explaining the lack of international recognition and the whole history / constitutional status of the whole issue. If there is agreement the current version is ok, then clearly no further action is needed. But if the majority dont agree then it would have to go to peoples position on the different drafts. If we are talking about a range of questions then they would have to reflect and take into account the introduction as a whole, not just the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to presenting drafts in the full context of the article lead if we stay within the decided scope. I don't even have any objections of exceeding the decided scope. I think the lead can be written better no matter how small the scope or how contrived the agenda. I'm dying for the chance for one of us or all of us to show that we can write something better. So just name the terms so long as there is a point in the process where the current lead is forced to face some competition. I think anyone who thinks the current lead can get off the hook by having a referendum showing the current lead without markup and asking, "Now that wasn't so bad, was it?" has another thing coming. There are some extremely fine content-producing editors among us and their competence is not to be dismissed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If we seek "expert opinions on what a capital is" or "the issue of what a capital is" is taken into account in the RfC you can count me out and we may as well cancel the RfC. Those matters are only relevant to people who are allowed to carry out original research and synthesis while performing the task of deciding whether something is a capital. Since that isn't our task and policy doesn't allow us to do that, we can't do it. Our task is just to construct a string of words, preferably in a sensible order that makes sense to the reader, that has a high degree of consistency with the various strings of words in reliable sources that directly address the subject, Jerusalem. Those reliable sources are written by people who are allowed to do what Wikipedia calls original research and synthesis and we rely on them to select appropriate words based on their assessments of what those words mean, and the various pertinent facts and opinions. One of the reasons this has gone on for 10 years is that it has not been possible to prevent people from misidentifying themselves as secondary reliable sources and engaging in original research and synthesis during discussions.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur on this. Whatever drafts or questions are made, there should be no scope for questions that intrinsically raise WP:OR discussions about what a capital city is. If we were to replace Jerusalem with Ghajar, the problem would be immediately apparent. It lies on either side of the border, and therefore cannot be called a village in or of Israel or Lebanon, without POV spinning.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think we may have missed a step in this process. The Arbitration Committee motion Arbitration/Index/Motions explicitly states "The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect." Making sure everyone has a common understanding of what constitutes "disrupting the process" is a prerequisite. I think we have missed that step. I've already seen several statements in this RfC that I regard as disruptive because they include personal opinions about the status of Jerusalem and advocate the use of decision procedures that policy prohibits.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * so far there has been absolutely no disruption to the process, people have stated their opinions in statements, which was what people were asked to do. No where do i see rules stating every point in a statement must be sourced and pass a test of neutrality that would apply to the article itself. Censorship of comments what ever view people have, and moving to a position where this process means we are extremely restricted in what we can or cant say, will not help the process. It will merely drive people away and result in them feeling the process has been flawed no matter what the outcome. Unless there is a constant back and forth between individuals who start arguing, comments are not going to disrupting the process. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That confirms that there isn't a common understanding of what constitutes "disrupting the process". People's opinions about the real world issue don't matter, they're completely irrelevant, a distraction, a disruption, something that has resulted in people walking away from attempts to resolve this issue countless times before. No one should have to spend any time reading someone else's personal opinions about this issue unless they choose to do so. There are places for personal opinions about the world, user talk pages for example, not here. Having to wade through irrelevant personal opinion shouldn't be imposed on editors because they have elected to participate in an RfC. It's a cost that participants (or anyone in ARBPIA because the problem is systemic) shouldn't have to pay. Editors should feel highly restricted in what they can say and do here because this is about generating content based on what sources and policy say. Editors aren't sources. The more restrictions placed on us to keep us focused on sources and policy, the more likely we are to address this issue the way we are required to address it and resolve the issue.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then where is our evidence? If we are not to draw upon guidance, we must draw upon sources themselves to avoid contriving a statement found nowhere else. At some point, though, I think the use of abductive reasoning plays a part in forming accurate statements about the world around us. Views are a driver for this process. At the point where views conflict, it soon becomes apparent which views are inaccurate through observation. Science works that way - and an encyclopedia works that way when viewed critically by the reader. Statements are made with evidence presented, and if the statements are questioned, the sources provide the proof. With multiple examples of the same assessment, the reader can examine each with its evidence and ascertain not only the accuracy, but which is more whole and complete. Lacking this process, examination creeps into the mix on its own. That's what we have here.
 * Whichever process we use should be more comprehensive that what we've done in the past. That shouldn't be difficult. I am not beholden to the idea of a step one question. I think the use of a step one question has been supported and opposed on the sole basis of further participation by certain editors. I may have missed something. So let's leave personal opinion out of it entirely. Among controversial RfCs, which RfC structure has been most likely to produce a lasting consensus? ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't really, to any extent, a scientific process, though. No source contains any proof about what is, only information about what the view contained in the source is. By looking at a certain number of sources, it is possible to establish that different forms of words can be used when describing Jerusalem in relation to Israel. But, beyond that, evidence of any kind serves no purpose in getting us closer to the facts. Because this is only about opinions and, whatever we do, at the end of the day all we are working on is a question for people to vote on according to their prejudices, misconceptions and misunderstandings. There's a way in which that's unsatisfactory, but we have nothing better at our disposal. The very best we could do is appropriately highlight sourcing issues and policy considerations and hope that at least some voters take note. Formerip (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, but proof is still possible and necessary to establish who views what. The sources show what has been said of Jerusalem and establish that we aren't making this up as we go along. Some people simply have a prejudice against unsupported statements. I remember a particularly sticky lead section assertion about the views of journalists, academics and so forth in another article that was likely to be challenged, but valid nonetheless. So it was supported by five citations. :) Some thought the citations excessive, but the statement stood nonetheless. It still stands. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sean, I agree that the current advice on the conduct that I expect from participants is a little bit vague, and recent discussions have convinced me that it needs updating. I'm not yet sure exactly what form these should take yet, but I will work something out in the next day or so. In the meantime, discussion about the discussion process itself should probably go on my talk page, as it could distract from the main question of whether we should use drafts, general questions, or both. Also, if you feel another participant is being disruptive, and you would like to draw my attention to specific behaviour in the form of diffs, then I recommend you contact me by email. You can also post things like this to my talk page if you don't want to communicate off-wiki, but using email is probably better. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 01:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

IMO, all that really matters is that there's a clear, simple question dealing with the opening sentence and NPOV. I don't see that any additional questions or drafts are necessary, but I wouldn't necessarily care enough to oppose them. The two-step/three-step proposals seem OK to me. Formerip (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Some comments:    ←   ZScarpia  00:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A way of introducing the RFC while avoiding making leading questions or statements would be to stick to making factual statements about what we have been asked to do and what the initial step carrying out that process is, i.e. a discussion of the first sentence of the Lead.
 * One aspect of compliance that hasn't been mentioned yet is whether the Lead summarises the body of the article properly (and it's worth remembering that what the body of the article says about the status of Jerusalem hasn't been the cause of any significant contention).
 * Rather than diving straight into producing drafts, perhaps it would be worth taking the intermediate step of producing lists of source-derived facts about the status of Jerusalem, one of simple facts, assertions that sources don't dispute, and one of facts about points of view, assertions that sources do dispute? To that end, the Positions on Jerusalem article is there for assistance.
 * I find myself very persuaded by several points here. Unchallenged sources already present in Wikipedia concerning Jerusalem provide us a strong pool of sources which not only do not require us to go fishing, but also limits us to doing with the lead which the lead should do - summarize. Personally, my problem has been that I do not feel the sources are not represented with proper weight and clarity. I'm still open to the possibility that I am wrong, and a proper RfC format would provide an opportunity to best summarize those sources. The lists of source-derived facts is also a quite meticulous step that I have undertaken in writing other articles. I can find nothing here with which I disagree. I endorse this format. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for my delay. I've been busy with work and mildly ill with a lingering case of flu. My view is that the RfC should contain both proposed drafts and questions, as I believe a question such as, "Does X wording present the facts in accordance with WP:NPOV?" is more likely to result in a consensus based on a firm understanding of policy than simply asking people to choose from a list of proposed wordings. In my view, the first question ought to be whether or not the current wording of the lead meets the requirements of WP:NPOV, as that seems to be the dispute that started this whole mess. If those stringent standards are already met, then people should have an opportunity to express that view above and beyond the context of a simple list of other drafts.

People would still have the option not to answer that question, of course, but I think at least asking it will be enormously helpful. If we can't establish a consensus to the effect that the current wording of the lead is non-neutral, then replacing it with another purportedly neutral one would seem to be pointless. Asking that question encourages discussion and debate, and reminds people, before delving into the balance of the RfC, that we are here to answer the questions based on reliable sources and Wikipedia policy, and not on our own personal feelings on the matter. I am confident that everyone here understands that, but I am also confident that many of those who will show up for the RfC will not. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 08:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Evan on questions and drafts. I'd also like to remind everyone that we're at this point only discussing whether to have questions, drafts, or both. The wording of any questions and drafts are to be discussed in a subsequent stage. --Dailycare (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The current wording is disputed, therefore it deserves to be favored? Completely illogical. Sentimental baloney, and a gamble that the uninformed will not be able to discern the nuances lost in a vacuous bubble outside of sourcing. Anyone so beholden to the current wording should have to double down and present it alongside other drafts. But since that would risk the chance to be able to foul up a different draft, it's an unacceptable risk. How can one even pretend to understand neutrality with such obvious investment? ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Allow me to prophesy: If we ask (one way or another) if the current lead is consistent with policy, the following will happen: editors who have been involved in this issue will repeat positions they have adhered to up to now. New participants in the discussion will respond variously, but my guess is that a preponderance will say that it is not inconsistent with policy. There will not be enough editors on either side to reach a consensus, and the RFC will end in failure.


 * Those who believe that a recital of sources or a reliance on policy will lead to a consensual end to this dispute are wrong. Because the sources are themselves divided and policy is not capable nor is it intended to replace fairness and judgement on the part of editors.


 * The only hope of resolving the dispute is by looking at it from a new perspective, one which puts the readers, rather than the editors, in front. Have I said that before? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion discussion of sources and policy is the only thing that is relevant to consensus. Discussion not related to sources and policy has no bearing on consensus and should not be taken into account in deciding article content.
 * WP:NPOV dictates that we:
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
 * Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.
 * Now it is a simple matter of analyzing the sources to decide whether WP:Reliable Sources present "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" as (a) an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion" or (b) "reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter".
 * I would be strongly opposed to any process that is not based on Wikipedia policy and Reliable sources. What is the point in having this RFC if it is not to ensure the content in question is compliant with our core policy? Ravpapa states that because the sources are divided policy is not relevant, but that is not right, policy tells us exactly what we must do if sources are divided. Dlv999 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your conviction in your position is admirable. But you should take into account that others - including uninvolved editors who may join this RFC - may see things differently. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy to come out on the wrong side of an RFC so long as it is grounded in policy and sources. But I can't understand the reasoning of editors who say that policy and sources are not important. Dlv999 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What sources, let's call it evidence, can do, is allow people to see whether and to what extent a statement that summarizes the evidence is consistent with the evidence. A statement of fact like "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is really no different from a statement of fact like "$0.877 fm$ is the proton's charge radius". It can be tested against the sources. In the latter's case it can be shown to be an incomplete description that is somewhat inconsistent with the evidence. Hence the proton lead says "The internationally-accepted value of the proton's charge radius is $0.877 fm$" and mentions a significant alternative value. Not only are the sources divided for a variety of reasons, with many sources presenting the CODATA value 0.8768 as a fact, but the data itself is contradictory. And yet it is handled quite well without incident because the editors are looking at the sources and, despite the confusion and contradiction, summarizing what they say according to policy. Charge radius of the proton, capital status of Jerusalem, same thing, apart from the former is orders of magnitude more complicated. I think it's a bad idea to rely on the fairness and judgement of editors on this issue without being able to measure their fairness and judgement against what sources say. As for a consensual end to this dispute, it depends what is meant by "consensual". When the statement about Jerusalem can be shown to be reasonably consistent with the way sources present this information, taking into account the diversity and contradictions, there won't be anything of substance left to legitimately argue about and Wikipedia's version of WP:CONSENSUS should follow.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If it was so simple, we wouldn't be here. And among the reasons it's not simple is because people disagree about what constitutes a conflicting statement. For example, some people have stated that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and [Jerusalem is] not internationally recognized as [capital] -- i.e. the two halves of the opening sentence -- are contradictory and so the first sentence is equivalent to starting by saying X is true, then finishing by saying X is false. But there are certainly people, myself included, who do not believe those statements are contradictory and that they are addressing two different, mostly independent points: whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and whether Jerusalem is internationally recognized as the capital of Israel.


 * And I believe, because of different understandings of what constitutes a conflict (along with a variety of other differing interpretations), people should be prepared for respondents to draw different conclusions based on the evidence. No matter what framework we set up here, there will always be that human element of interpreting the interplay between policies and the ways (that's plural) various sources address this issue. That's unavoidable.


 * I am perfectly happy with one of several different approaches to this RfC, but I think any ideas that there is some magical approach that will obviously lead to a conclusion to this matter should be abandoned. We've been at this for years, and to suggest there was one obvious, surefire way to end this (wrongly) implies that there were editors intentionally trying to subvert them. --  tariq abjotu  19:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think WP:V provides useful guidance on this point, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". What editors believe about the statement, it's logical structure etc doesn't tell us anything useful about it's verifiability. What matters is the degree of consistency the statement has with statements in sources, which is something that can actually be measured. It's not a question of belief. The entire statement, parts of the statement, the individual words, the way it is constructed grammatically, can all be tested against sources to assess it's verifiability, and determine differences caused by either the presence or absence information that can impact on NPOV compliance. This has never been done. If someone asked me to estimate how much, between 0% and 100%, the current statement complies with WP:V or WP:NPOV, I wouldn't know. All I could do is tell you what I believe about the current statement, which doesn't matter at all. As far as I'm aware, no one has conducted a survey of a large sample of reliable sources to look at their statements about this issue. There has been some piecemeal surveying of tertiary sources, news articles, books etc along the way in this 10+ year journey, but nothing systematic/extensive. So I can't tell whether "If it was so simple, we wouldn't be here" is true. Perhaps we are here because we haven't done the work. Perhaps doing a large survey won't clarify anything, I don't know, but it might. Either way, I think we need to stop doing things we have done before and do something different.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have thought at times we're just here because the real-world debate shapes the content debate. I'm now seeing that nostalgia for consensus past is a symptom of our condition here. New structures which foster editorial distance and source-based discussion therefore seem superior. Thanks for raising the percentage question, though. It inspired an analysis which sounds in my head to be both witty and incisive, something I am just as happy not to present unless required by circumstance. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no magic bullet. Any format which draws heavily upon the tools expressed in WP:NPOV to foster due diligence and editorial distance seems like a step in the right direction. There are some options on how to pursue this. I think to imply that one process is golden just as a sentence is golden recognizes no room for improvement. I endorsed a structure but by doing so, I do not imply that it could never be improved. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A thought which occurred to me on waking is the presumption that involved editors will be able to debate the RfC while it is in progress. Is this true? Is this necessary? It seems like by presenting sources and statements and then requiring involved editors to take a step back would be more conducive to agreement. This is why we focus on content. I'm not sure how presenting the core question of a protracted debate then exhibiting that debate leads to anything remotely resembling consensus. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Re SeanH's last comment. A great many sources that would qualify as reliable would yield 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel', both before 1967 and after 1967, while denoting different realities. The problem is that pre-1967, Jerusalem meant implicity 'Western Jerusalem', and after '1967' it came to refer explicitly to a unilaterally imposed 'united Jerusalem'. The problem is conceptual, unfortunately, as your excellent analogy re "$0.877 fm$ is the proton's charge radius" shows: a statement may be both true, and verifiable, but be at the same time incomplete, and requiring closer definition. Editors aren't to blame for the inadequacies of RS. But every one here, unless they are in bad faith, must allow that 'Jerusalem' lies in part outside of the official borders of the state of Israel, which means, a conceptual crux is thrust on us: part of the capital of Israel is not in Israel.
 * For this reason, I would prefer or at least hope that eventually, this conceptual issue be addressed. Some formulation that neatly sets forth the crux, and requires each contributor to the discussion to discuss it not in terms of opinion, or trawled sources, but analytically. Conceptual analysis gets to the heart of issues that are not resolvable by RS tallies. Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The current wording in the lead should be given favored status in the RfC because it is the most recently agreed-upon wording. At this point, we don't even have a consensus that it needs to be changed, and if we don't establish that then this whole business is pointless. At any rate, putting it up for vote without qualification in a manner no different from the other options seems silly and unnecessarily confusing, especially when someone !voting in the RfC clicks onto the article and sees that version in place. We are not giving an RfC to effect change for change's sake. We are giving an RfC to determine consensus on how best to comply with neutrality and verifiability policies in a highly contentious article. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 22:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Recent has little to do with it. Defending a past consensus is not improving the encyclopedia. New suggestions anywhere else in Wikipedia do not require a consensus that something needs to be changed before presentation. This is simply a form of I like it, and I don't hear that with regards to the views that it could be improved. As silly as presenting statements with their sources might sound, and as confusing as linking statements with actual citations evidently appears to you, this is the way critical thinkers actually begin to evaluate the balance of weight. This sentiment, this conviction, this bias should require more courage. Are you prepared to step away from the process if the community does not decisively concur the current statement cannot be improved? Such are the stakes you wish to impose on the disputing editors. ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Um... what? Did you even read what I wrote, or have you just decided to go berserk at the first hint of someone not agreeing with you? As far as your "citations" non sequitur goes, I haven't even mentioned citations on this page, so I don't know where or how you cooked up the idea that I am somehow opposed to the use of reliable sources...


 * I was going to reply some more, but I can't figure out how any of your comment is supposed to relate to what I said. When you're prepared to respond to what I wrote, and not to your baffling misinterpretation of what I wrote, please let me know. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 23:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If we are to have a default RfC result that has favored status, perhaps it should be for the lead to say nothing about this issue. If we can't find consensus for the presence of a statement then we could default to the absence of a statement, a kind of null result. The dispute would go away and the lead would reflect the current state of affairs with respect to consensus i.e. it doesn't exist. I suppose the validity of that approach depends on other aspects of the RfC, the nature of the questions and what role the current wording plays in those questions, but the objective of the RfC is meant to be to resolve this issue one way or another. An advantage of the default being the absence of a statement is that it ensures that everyone has to make their case here in this RfC rather than rely on events that took place is a less structured decision making environment and it might encourage people to take a different approach in the long term to find a solution, perhaps Ravpapa's approach.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we cant find a consensus the article should not be stripped of something from the introduction that has been in place many years. The fall back position must be the status quo and i totally oppose any RFC wording that seeks to favour a change to the status quo as that appeared to suggest. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a perspective I don't really understand. If the outcome is that there is no consensus as to whether a piece of information complies with mandatory policy, why would the default position be to retain the information ? As I said, I think the default depends on nature of the questions and what role the current wording plays in those questions. If it was about change vs no change, whether the current statement should be retained or removed, without asking people specifically to consider whether the statement complies with policy, I can understand why a default position would be to retain because there was no consensus for removal. But I think when it comes to an assessment of policy compliance, it's a bit different, at least to me. What if this were about a different aspect of policy compliance, the reliability of a source that had been present in an article for many years, and the outcome was that there was no consensus as to whether the source met Wikipedia's mandatory RS criteria in the particular context in which it was being used ? Should the fall back position be the status quo, leaving the source in the article ? If so, why ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's called WP:NOCONSENSUS. That's policy. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Let the wikilawyering commence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer the question. As it says "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." That is an observation of what normally happens, not an instruction. We can do anything we want to do in the RfC as long as it stays within the constraints of policy. We need to decide what we want to do and why. Understanding why someone thinks one action is better than another is important to that process. Whatever we decide to do though, the text of the RfC should include information that makes it clear to respondents what will happen in the event of each possible outcome. If we decide that no consensus means that current text is retained (or removed), that needs to be made clear to respondents. We shouldn't make assumptions about people's assumptions.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ravpapa's last stand
I see I am in a minority of one here. Not the first time for me. Is it some character flaw, or perhaps, as Hamlet said, bad dreams? Never mind. I will here make my last attempt to convince you all.

Sean, your analogy of the lead of this article to "$0.877 fm$ is the proton's charge radius" is clever, but misleading. A better analogy would be to the statement, "Love is a many-splendored thing!" Is love a many-splendored thing? Depends which TV show you watched last. The proton's charge radius is not debated in parliaments, and is not a subject of demonstrations and civil revolt. You can't mix sulphuric acid and potash particles in an alembic and come up with an answer to whether Jerusalem is a capital or not. It is a completely different sort of question. Nor will a search of reliable sources resolve this quandary. Many highly reliable sources call Jerusalem the capital, not because they have debated the issue, weighed the arguments, and come to a studied conclusion, but because that was the handiest word to use at the time.

Here is the practical dilemma: the question whether the current lead is consistent with policy and RS has been debated ad nauseum by the 10 or 15 editors of this page over the last two years. My experience with RFCs is that they usually attract another 5 to 10 outside editors; let's be optimistic and say 15. In all likelihood, those editors, like us, will be divided on the question. The result will be: no consensus.

The only way for us to break this deadlock is to break out of our editor-centric viewpoint. The debate over policy, and over the weight of different sources, is one that puts the editor in the center. We need to break out of this viewpoint, and put the readers in the center. What do we want them to understand from the lead? What issues do we consider it important to impress upon them at the outset, what questions do we want to raise in their minds that will draw them into the article to explore further? What will confuse them, and what will enlighten them?

Finally, I must say that, personally, I will be disappointed if the RFC debates the issue of whether the lead is consistent with sources and meets our policy of neutrality. Because I will be forced to take the position that it is consistent with sources and is not inconsistent with policy. And, as you all know, I despise this lead, and want it down. But not because it is inaccurate or non-neutral, but because the reader, presented in the first sentence with a polemic that only half a page of footnotes can explain, simply turns to Encarta or Britannica and reads from there. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've said it before. Your solution is the best one, and I think several others have agreed. The solution mooted is like that negotiated by, I think, Norwegian peace specialists when Peru and Ecuador where on a war footing over the borderlands of the Cordillera del Condor. Just, they said, turn it into a nature reserve where no one has exclusive sovereignty. I.e. each side must suspend the technical obsession with law that made a resolution all but impossible. That helped, but an Ecuadorian friend told me the other day that geologists have found "gold in them thair hills", and that's the end to it. The only time commonsense prevailed over national interests in recent times was when England abolished the slave trade, to the known detriment of its GNP.Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the proton example is in fact quite accurate. The whole thing, of course, turns on sources. Wikipedia editors aren't going to experimentally study protons, rather they use sources which is exactly what we'll do for Jerusalem. Even in the unlikely case where zero new editors participate and the involved editors just present their views, there will be a consensus on the yes/no question since the issue is so simple. Any arguments that aren't based on policy and sources will be ignored, this isn't an excercise in counting "votes" one way or another. And concerning the idea of putting the reader in the center, that's interesting and laudable, but not in the center of the content issue that spawned this binding RFC. So in my view, even if we went with that, we'd need to have something like the yes/no question on the first sentence in order to have a shot at resolving the root cause of this RFC. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note on numbers - there are no guarantees of how many editors will comment, but this will be quite a well-publicised RfC, and I think 50 editors would be a reasonable low estimate. If we are lucky we might get 100 or more. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would including an initial question about whether the current text is Okay necessarily rule out the sort of approach Ravpapa is advocating? It is my understanding that the approach is based on the current situation, i.e that we have a longstanding dispute with no consensus over whether the current text is okay or not. There are three possible outcomes to asking the initial question. (i) There is a consensus in favour of the current language. Irrespective of my own opinion on content, this would be a positive result in terms of the RFC: We would have a consensus in support of the current text, and editors who do not like it (for whatever reason) would just have to accept that. (ii) There is a consensus that the current text is not okay, in which case we move on to the next stages of the RFC in a better position than we are now in that we have a positive consensus that change is needed. (iii) No consensus, in which case we are in the same position that we are in at the moment, there is nothing stopping us moving on to the next stage of the RFC to find a solution that can be supported by consensus. Of the three outcomes (i) resolves the dispute, (ii) Makes the next stages of the RFC easier because we have a positive consensus for change (iii) leaves us no worse of than we are now, having not asked the question.
 * Maybe I have overlooked something, but what are the "costs" of asking this initial question? Dlv999 (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "You can't mix sulphuric acid and potash particles in an alembic and come up with an answer to whether Jerusalem is a capital or not. It is a completely different sort of question. Nor will a search of reliable sources resolve this quandary." That makes it sound as though we are trying to resolve the question of whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital of Israel, which is not the way I, at least, view the situation. Isn't what we are trying to do, or should be trying to do, just to reflect what sources say on the subject? As I hope has been made apparent, the difficulty I have with the Lead is that I think that the upshot of what sources say is that the status of Jerusalem is disputed and so the article should be presenting it in terms of positions without making a judgement that one of them is correct.
 * "The result will be: no consensus." Since the first part of the RFC process raises questions about policy compliance, and deliberating on questions of policy compliance is one of the functions of administrators, I think that best resolution method for it would be to ask non-involved administrators, of which we already have three waiting in the wings, to adjudicate which of the positions being advocated interprets policy best. In fact, I think that the debate over the wording of the Lead could have been resolved a long time ago by invoking authoritative outside opinions, which is, of course, what the failed request for arbitration amounted to. I hope that the first part of the RFC isn't resolved by holding a show of hands. Without very wide community involvement in the RFC, I think that'd be pretty unsatisfactory.
 * "The only way for us to break this deadlock is to break out of our editor-centric viewpoint." I think we're supposed to assume that readers resort here in search of high-quality encyclopaedic information, meaning an accurate and neutral compendium of what sources say on particular subjects which is written in the appropriate style. Since policy is designed to ensure that is what is achieved, debates about whether policy is being followed are fairly inevitable and, in fact, may be beneficial. Similarly, given the nature of what we are trying to achieve, debates about sources are inevitable. In trying to put the reader at the centre, perhaps questions about what we want them to understand, what issues do we want to impress on them and what questions do we want to raise in their minds and not the right ones to ask?
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  12:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is fair that we take an entirely different approach because the outcome of the RFC might be no consensus and the status quo remaining. It would seem like this whole process is merely designed to get the current wording changed if we deem "no consensus so maintain status quo" as an unacceptable option. I do not like the sound of several uninvolved administrators decreeing a result, wikipedia is meant to work on a consensus basis and unless there is a very clear and strong reason for going against a consensus or not maintaining the long standing status quo when there is no consensus, i think we should respect the outcome of the community RFC. The important issue here is does the current introduction comply with wikipedia policies and if it does not what changes are needed. As i said before what ever process is decided, i dont oppose a straight forward first question about the current wording and if it is compliant, provided it is put into the appropriate context. The WHOLE of the first sentence, not just "is it fair to say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", and the whole of the introduction, explaining that the Palestinian dispute is explained in more detail in other parts of the introduction. This situation makes me think about British Isles article in a way. There are a number of editors (no one here) who rigorously oppose the name "British Isles" and have conducted a campaign to remove it from wikipedia with article changes regularly spotted across wikipedia relating to it. The first sentence and first paragraph of that article make no reference to the controversy but it is handled in detail in the final paragraph of the introduction which ensures a balanced and neutral introduction compliant with wikipedia policies. Its important we take the whole introduction into account of the jerusalem article, the "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but not internationally recognised as such", is merely the first basic point, the dispute is handled in much more detail further in the introduction and this should not be overlooked in the first question of a RFC. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we find the status quo to be in breach of policy/false/a fringe view than it must go. Consensus is little more than a popularity contest, uninvolved admins can decide what is best based on the strength of the arguments presented. Even if there was no consensus, than plurality should dictate the result not status quo. Sepsis II (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point we're just discussing whether to have the question, I think, not yet how it ought to be worded in detail. --Dailycare (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * if the RFC finds that the current introduction is not in compliance with NPOV then of course it must change, i never claimed otherwise. My point was if there is clearly no consensus, then the status quo should stand as default... rather than as some seem to be suggesting above there should be positive discrimination in favour of change.. which is not fair and would make the entire process one sided. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question one close
Hello everyone, and thank you for your comments. It is finally time for me to wrap up this discussion section; my apologies for not doing so sooner. The discussion has been wide-ranging, and has strayed a bit from the question I set. I will deal with this by providing a close of the discussion on the question that I set, and by asking you some more questions on the other matters that we have discussed, judging the consensus where possible.

For the initial question of whether we should use drafts, questions, or both, there weren't any strong opinions expressed for either drafts only or questions only. Several editors were strongly in favour of having some form of general question about the first sentence of the lead, although there was some disagreement about exactly what form such a question should take. No editors were completely against including drafts in the RfC, although some thought the drafts were secondary to having a question about the first sentence.

The main argument for including a general question was that such a question would lead to at least some degree of consensus on the issue of how to deal with Jerusalem's capital status. It was also argued that a general question would provide a good lead into a discussion on drafts. The main argument against using a general question was that asking such a question would result in no consensus, as the arguments expressed in the RfC would be the same as have been debated at length on Talk:Jerusalem and subpages. However, this argument was mitigated somewhat by two argument: first, that a no consensus result may be avoided due to the fact that the consensus from such a question would be judged by its adherence to policy, rather than by counting heads; and second, that we might structure the question using evidence in a way that has not been tried before, and that a fresh approach like this may provide a result that previous discussion has not.

There was less call among editors for the RfC to contain drafts than there was for it to contain a general question. However, there was no serious opposition to including drafts, and several editors supported their inclusion. The arguments for including drafts were that there should be a fair chance for alternative wordings of the lead to be considered, and that drafts can provide a long-term consensus in a way that general questions can't.

Putting all these factors together, I have come to the conclusion that the RfC should contain both drafts and general questions. For discussion, please see below. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question two: order of drafts and questions
The only proposal for a general structure that came up in the discussion was the "two-step" or "three-step" structure, where a general question would be followed by specific drafts. This was backed up by the argument that a general question or questions would lead well into a question about specific drafts of the lead. No alternative suggestions have been suggested so far, apart from the "drafts only" approach which has been ruled out by the close of step two question one. So, I propose the following:

Please let me know if you think this would be a good idea or not, and why you think so. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we could have a general question (on the first sentence) first, with drafts after it as Mr. Stradivarius proposes. While I don't see the order as hugely important, having the question first could convey the thinking behind the RFC and illuminate the underlying content/NPOV dispute quite effectively. The question would lead naturally into evaluating the drafts that follow, and a "yes" result on the question would remove the need to close at least one of the competing-drafts questions, which would potentially save a lot of work for the admins.--Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This could go any number of directions. Such a format could consist of specific questions about the policy compliance of the statements in the lead section. Another way forward is presenting the drafts with a question about policy compliance, such as "Which of these drafts best...?" ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this would largely depend upon what those questions are, but questions first and drafts second seems to be a reasonable general rule to lay down. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal provided the first general question is balanced and not strictly about the the first half of the sentence or just the whole sentence. The opening sentence cannot be taken in isolation to the wider introduction which goes into more detail, including about the Palestinian claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * While I'm OK with a compromise of asking the specific question about the entire first sentence, as opposed to the first part of it, I don't see the point of asking about a broader section of the lead as that would serve to confuse and de-focus the discussion. The first sentence contains material that can be judged against NPOV in isolation of any other considerations, as this is a straightforward question of sources and neutrality. I don't see a need to take steps that would risk turning it into a complex question. Whether "X is Y" is neutral turns on what sources say about the relationship between X and Y. If it's not neutral, it doesn't become neutral by placing it into a context, and if it's neutral, then a specific context doesn't make it non-neutral (although specific contexts may introduce other problems such as OR). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question three: capital question
As I mentioned in the close of question one above, there has been some disagreement about what exactly a general question about the capital status of Jerusalem might ask. Some editors think that it should just be about whether the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" satisfies WP:NPOV. Other editors think that such a question should ask about the entire first sentence, including the text "but is not internationally recognised as such". Hence question number three:

— <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is what the content/NPOV dispute is about so asking about that would be sufficient. I'm not strongly opposed to having the whole first sentence in the question as the discussion will still turn on the first part, the latter part is amply sourced and non-controversial. --Dailycare (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Part two of that sentence is passively voiced, relegates its actors to an adverb, and their intent to a footnote. It's weasel meat. There are plenty of better phrasings which actually appear in sources and say what is meant without starting a war. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is your opinion, and you are free to state it during the actual RfC. But we should not structure the RfC around one's position on the matter. --  tariq abjotu  23:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure why this half-sentence suggestion has been given credence. The RfC obviously should ask about the whole sentence, because that's what's written. The article previously said "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" on its own before the October 2010 compromise (or whatever we're calling that now) appended the second half of the sentence. That's what was decided then; the previous formulation was discarded. So I see no reason the pre-October 2010 version has any relevance today. And I would accept zero compromise on this. --  tariq abjotu  20:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A reason a reductionist approach like that could be given credence is because the existing sentence is a compound statement that can be broken down into its component parts. It's usually helpful and it might be helpful here given that the dispute is focused on the first "half-sentence" and much less on the second "half-sentence".


 * The first "half-sentence" is a statement of fact in the unattributed neutral narrative voice of one of the most popular web sites on the internet in an article that gets thousands of hits every single day. It can't be wrong. It has to be an absolutely 100% factually correct statement where ~100% of sources agree that it as a fact. If that first "half-sentence" doesn't comply with policy because there are a significant number of sources that do not present it as a fact or there are sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel or there are sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of something else (=> a contradiction), things that can only be determined by actually comparing it with sources, the entire compound sentence doesn't comply with policy, no matter what the rest of the sentence says (unless the rest of the sentence happens to modify the statement of fact into a statement consistent with the sources). So, I think breaking the statement down into its parts and asking respondents to address each part, particularly the statement of fact in the encyclopedia's voice, is probably a better approach. However, I don't think people should be asked to evaluate the policy compliance of existing half-sentences without the RfC also presenting the entire existing sentence in it's present form and asking them to evaluate the policy compliance of the entire statement by comparing it with evidence.


 * Having said all that, there's no good reason for the drafts we present in the RfC to be based on the existing wording. The existing wording has been created through a process more akin to genetic drift than sampling and reflecting sources based on policy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And these are all issues participants should decide for themselves. You, obviously, feel the first half of the sentence is not supported by sources, and that this means the entire sentence is unacceptable. But there may be people who feel the first half is unacceptable, but that, in conjunction with the second half of the sentence, the whole sentence is fine. And, of course, there may be people who feel the first half (and the second half) is acceptable. That's for the participant to decide, and we should not force a conclusion based on an assumption that is not universally held. That point also goes along with the idea that a source suggesting Jerusalem is the capital of something else (presumably Palestine) constitutes a contradiction. This is not a universally held position, and we should not generate the RfC around this point. --  tariq abjotu  23:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I do agree that it is relevant to investigate whether sources say that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, but when I posed a similar request in December, you were completely uninterested, saying:


 * "Regarding 'if we take the stance that it is not correct or accurate to say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, we leave ourselves with some important questions. Namely, if Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, what is?', I disagree. That isn't relevant at all. Also 'you're going to have to elaborate on what you believe -- sorry, what the sources say -- Israel's actual capital is, or whether it has one at all.' No, no one has to do that, nor should they. If anyone is stupid enough to do that, they probably need to be article banned or at least have a nap."


 * I don't see anything different about what you suggested here and what I suggested there. I was trying to find a more direct and clearer way to substantiate the perception among some editors here that there are sources that do not believe Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. As years of discussion have shown, we are never going to agree on whether recognition makes and breaks capital status. Similarly, we are unlikely to come to an agreement that Jerusalem being the capital of Palestine prevents it from being the capital of Israel (although this is my first time seeing that posited). And while unattributed statements to Jerusalem not being the capital of Israel would be an obvious contradiction to the statement currently in the article, those are unlikely to exist (just as you're unlikely to see sources that explicitly say Birmingham is not the capital of the UK). Instead, contradicting sources would more likely be ones that say that some other city is the capital of Israel or that Israel has no capital at all.
 * But you thought that exercise was a waste of time. Why? I don't know. My best guess at the time was that doing so was going to be a futile task, as such contradicting sources are, from what I can tell, few and far between. The best would be those that say Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. However, the idea of standing behind the "Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel" statement has never gained traction. Either way, if you're going to stand behind your oft-repeated suggestion of comparing X to the sources, we need to be clear about what is widely understood to be a contradiction. That means recognition, ownership, legality, and the relationship to Palestine are off the table. And despite realizing that leaves little wiggling room and a difficult task for those who want to insist that the current formulation is a blatant violation of policy, I am willing to accept that what may be an acceptable formulation may not necessarily be the best. --  tariq abjotu  23:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For my part, I've never objected to the second part of the sentence being considered in the RfC. While I think the simple statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is the main cause of contention, I see no problem with dealing with both statements. Of course I am willing to accept compromise, and to be honest, I'm not sure what the alternative to that would look like. I'm not going to be declaring war on anyone. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Tariqabjotu, the point is that Israel has no undisputed capital and we shouldn't be representing it otherwise, nor trying to argue that one position or the other is "correct". We can indicate that there is a dispute, describe the different positions, outline the arguments (which include what one particular dictionary definition is and a claimed right that countries get to choose their own capitals) and so on, but that's all. I think that was the substance of what Sean was saying, and I totally agree with him. The question of what  is  the capital of Israel is irrelevant. We don't have to answer the question, nor should we be trying to. Sources dispute the answer, therefore, that's how we should be representing the situation. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  14:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we're getting a bit too far off-track -- I was only responding because Sean brought it up -- but this will be a point that I will likely re-raise when the RfC begins. That point I was trying to make is that there is little agreement about what statement would constitute a contradiction or a dispute. The only ones I consider contradictions of the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" are "Israel has no capital", "[Another city] is the capital of Israel", and, of course, "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". But, Sean expressly presented "Jerusalem is the capital of [another country]" as a contradiction -- but I don't think that's one. Based on previous discussions, a number of people believe "Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel" is a contradiction, but, of course, many people, myself included, don't agree that that is (hence, why we're here, after all).


 * And so when we do this presenting of sources, we need to be careful about leading people toward conclusions. I don't know how the presentation of sources is going to be structured, though; if we can make signed comments about the sources, then it would be acceptable to bring up your interpretation of them, as it will be okay to bring up mine. But I understand my use of "interpretation" in this sense has been vilified, so perhaps it's just best to let sources speak for themselves. But, in that case, we should not say matter-of-factly that a source contradicts "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" because it, for example, states that Jerusalem is not widely recognized by other countries as Israel's capital.


 * Bringing that back to the question here, it's why I also believe the first sentence should be presented in full. Prior to this discussion, there was a bit of discussion about this concept of an "identity statement". Some, particularly Ubikwit, argued that the first half of the sentence was an untrue "identity statement". That discussion seemed to center around the concept that, like in the example I gave above, the lack of recognition [i.e. the second half of the first sentence] contradicts "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" [i.e. the first half of the first sentence], and for that reason it doesn't make sense to present two supposedly contradictory statements as one continuous statement. But, while that may seem logical from the position of someone who believes recognition invalidates capital status, it does not seem logical to someone who doesn't believe that is the case. There is no strong evidence that either interpretation of the importance of recognition is actually correct, and so we shouldn't structure an RfC question around either angle. In other words, we should present the sentence in full and allow participants to decide for themselves whether they believe the first sentence is unacceptable as a clause followed by a contradicting clause or whether it consists of two independent statements. --  tariq abjotu  17:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll try to avoid straying too much into detail which, properly, belongs to the RFC itself.
 * Answering your last paragraph and responding directly to the question posed by Mr. Stradivarius in this section, I would agree that, since the position of one group of editors is that the first sentence of the Lead, taken as a whole, is policy compliant, then we need to examine the whole sentence rather just one clause of it.
 * I'm hoping that you would broadly agree with the following. We have reached a point where the majority of editors have become entrenched in two opposing positions, which dispute the policy compliance of the Lead. Nobody would argue that one position presented in sources is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. One group of editors (let's call it Group A) is claiming that an alternative position, that Jerusalem is not the capital, is also presented (which is the third item in your list of contradictions to the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"''). Some editors in the opposing camp (Group B) appear to accept that that's the case while others don't. One task for the Group A editors to accomplish is, therefore, to demonstrate (or re-demonstrate) that their claim about an alternative position is true. In any case, the Group B editors maintain that it is a fact, unchanged by opposing views, that Jerusalem is the capital and neutral to present it that way. In contrast, the Group A editors maintain that, due to the nature of what constitutes a fact on Wikipedia and the rules on how to handle assertions which sources dispute, it is contrary to policy to state, as the article currently does, that Jerusalem is Israel's capital and that Jerusalem's status should either be stated in terms of points of view or, alternatively, in terms of statements about Jerusalem's status which are not disputed.
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  23:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. No, I don't agree with that summary.
 * Your characterization of Group B suggests a willful disregard for policy, whereas I believe the central issue here is a disagreement that the contradicting view has been demonstrated. Disagreeing with the existence of the evidence is substantially less nefarious than accepting the evidence and ignoring policy. I really don't want to elaborate on this further, as I've explained this many times, to you personally, broadly, here in this section, before on Talk:Jerusalem, etc. There really is no point, and explaining it to you again is going to have no effect on the trajectory of this RfC. --  tariq abjotu  00:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well. Thanks for your reply, it's helped me make more sense of what you were saying in your previous comment. Let's see how re-presenting the evidence to once again try to demonstrate the existence of a counter-view goes. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  01:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well. Thanks for your reply, it's helped me make more sense of what you were saying in your previous comment. Let's see how re-presenting the evidence to once again try to demonstrate the existence of a counter-view goes. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  01:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe just asking is "Jerusalem the capital of Israel" compliant with NPOV would be biased, misleading and not something i can support. It should be the whole first sentence, but A compromise where by it is split in two questions is something i would support. With the first question asking about is just saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" ok, the second asking, is the whole sentence compliant when including "though this is not internationally..." etc. I believe this is a sensible way forward. Whilst i would support these two questions focused on part and then the whole of the first sentence, i do still feel the RFC introduction must reinforce the point, that the sentence must be put into the context of the overall introduction where more information is given on the Palestinian claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that two questions be asked, and the questions should relate to the two elements of the first sentence. If i think that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" satisfies WP:NPOV, but I think that  'but is not internationally recognised as such' is POV, then how would I vote on the whole sentence?   There should be two questions, one on each element of the first sentence. This will help distinguish which parts of the sentence are under dispute.Upper lima 65 (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me that the consensus in this discussion is coalescing around the idea of asking two questions, one about the first half of the opening sentence, and one about the whole of the opening sentence. The arguments for both possibilities seem valid to me. I find convincing the argument that we should concentrate on the most specific question we can; namely whether the first half of the opening sentence complies with policy or not. I also find convincing the argument that just presenting the first half of the sentence would not give respondents the full context, and that editors may be of the opinion that the first half of the opening sentence is not neutral, but that the sentence as a whole is neutral.

Also, having two questions may not actually end up being substantially different than just having one question about the full sentence. If we were to have one question about the full sentence, a significant part of the discussion there might well focus on the first half of the sentence anyway. If this is true, then having two questions might just be a more efficient way of structuring what would in effect be the same conversation. Would you all agree with this? Also, if we were to have two questions, then we would need to think about how the question on the full first sentence would interact with the other drafts that we present. Would it make sense to have one question about the first half of the opening sentence, and then include the question on the full opening sentence as part of the drafts? Or would it be better to make the question about the entire first sentence separate from the rest of the drafts? Please let me know what you think. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we have a question on the first half and then the whole sentence as one of the drafts, that could work without making the process too complex. The question on the whole sentence requires a similar analysis of the sources as does choosing from among the drafts, so doing it in one go makes sense. The current whole sentence might be labeled as the current text among the drafts. --Dailycare (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst maintaining the status quo should clearly be an option in the section responding to the drafts (so people do not feel they must pick between Change 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc unfairly ignoring the status quo), I do not think its appropriate to just ask the first half of the question and then fudge the whole of the sentence into the drafts section, that will be going back to the problem with an unfair question and misleading opening question. I believe it should be set out in this sort of format..
 * Is it compliant with NPOV for the opening sentence of the article to state "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"?
 * In 2010 a compromise was reached changing the first sentence to say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though this is not internationally recognised as such." Is this sentence compliant with NPOV?
 * The following are drafts for potential changes to the introduction, please state which draft/drafts you believe would be most appropriate for the article, or if you favour retaining the current opening sentence?
 * If we do not ask the second half of the question, there is absolutely no point in asking the first half of the question. Less than a handful of people if any are on here saying that the introduction should just say "jerusalem is the capital of Israel",its merely asking a question for no reason at all except for people to be given a chance to state their opinions on if they disagree with it. Its not in the article in that context, nor is it being proposed. Why would we need to hold a RFC on such a question? BritishWatcher (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Closing comments

Not a lot has changed between now and my February 22 comment, and consequently I am closing this question as a consensus to include two general questions, one dealing with the first half of the first sentence of the lead, and the other dealing with the whole of the first sentence of the lead. My reasons are the same as before. Both arguments for the half-sentence question and the whole-sentence question are valid, and having two questions may not end up being substantially different from having one question about the full sentence, as a large part of discussion about the full sentence would probably be taken up by the issues surrounding the first part of the sentence anyway.

As to the question of whether the whole-sentence question should be presented in the drafts section or not, I find BritishWatcher's February 27 solution to be the most persuasive. His suggestion allows representation of both the half-sentence and whole-sentence positions, and also allows the current first sentence to be presented on an equal footing with other drafts. However, we should also bear in mind DailyCare's suggestion that doing things this way may lead to overlap in responses, so we should try and structure the questions in such a way as to minimise this risk. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question four: other general questions
We have talked briefly in step one about other general questions that we might want to ask in the RfC. Ravpapa's proposal that we ask how the article in general should deal with conflict didn't find consensus, but that does not preclude us from asking a similar question that would fit within the scope we decided in step one. Also, Ravpapa has suggested that we ask how we want readers to experience the lead, which we could work in as a general question. There may be other questions that other participants would like to ask as well, so I would like you to discuss the possibility of having other questions here.

— <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any. If anyone else does, I'll see what I think. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Should sources directly related to the international response to Israel's declaration of Jerusalem as their capital be weighed in comparison to the declaration itself? If so, with what weight and voice?
 * With what weight should retractions about Jerusalem's status (both affirmative and negative) be considered?
 * To what degree do sources relate Israel's claim to Jerusalem vis a vis Palestine's claim to Jerusalem as capital?
 * These would help answer how drafts should treat the views of the international community (which I strongly favor) and the views of Palestine (to which I am sympathetic but have no set stance on the question of Jerusalem-as-capital). Given that I am admitting my own bias, I would hope other editors would help me better phrase the questions most neutrally. The core of these questions, however, are needed to be understood to produce the best possible drafts. If the community is allowed to rule on the weight given to the international community, I will be satisfied whether the decision favors it or not. If the community is allowed to rule on retractions about Jerusalem's status, it should refine our understanding on whether or not we should also retract, and I will be satisfied even if the community rules that these retractions have no weight. If the community is allowed to rule on Palestine's claim, I will be satisfied even if it is decided these are unrelated or non-exclusive. Although I might maintain that the second part of the sentence deserves more active phrasing, my hands will be tied by a strong consensus if it is clear this is not the case. It has been stated that the second part of the sentence is non-controversial. I disagree that it is correctly voiced according to policy. So please show me. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question five: evidence
There were conflicting opinions in the question one discussion on how we should use evidence. One opinion was that presenting sources and relying on policy would not create a consensus in the RfC, and that instead editorial judgement should be used. However, I regard this as a weak argument, as policy must take precedence in our decisions both in this discussion, and in the RfC itself. Our core content policies of WP:V and WP:NOR are clear that we should not decide content based on the personal opinions of editors, and the core content policy of WP:NPOV makes it clear that neutrality should be achieved by reflecting what is written in reliable sources. It is beyond our mandate to challenge such policies, and they must be factored into our decisions.

Another opinion on this matter was, unsurprisingly, that we should present evidence in the form of sources in the RfC. This position has the support of policy, and so is a much stronger argument than the one of using editorial judgement. However, a good counterargument was made that we should not simply engage in source-counting but that we need to critically evaluate any sources that we use. The example given in the discussion was that many pre-1967 sources and post-1967 sources call Jerusalem the capital of Israel, but that these are referring to different entities. Given the argument for using evidence, and the counterargument, I would like you to answer the following questions:

— <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Evidence can be in the RFC question or editors may present their evidence when they enter their submissions. I think it would be sufficient if editors presented their own evidence, but if we choose to have evidence in the question, maybe a single piece of evidence per question answer or draft version would suffice. We'd have to select them beforehand. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting argument. I'd like to hear more. I don't know what kind of a job we want to try to engage the community in undertaking as they review sources. Typically the level of evidence needs to be commensurate with the boldness of the claim. In a draft, we simply cite the evidence for a claim. But an ideal draft should encompass the scope of the sources comprehensively. We should first figure out which sources we're summarizing so that the drafts can reflect these. As for the final presentation, I am not sure whether presenting a list of sources and asking which draft best summarizes, or presenting drafts with a variety of sourcing is more likely to produce consensus. My guess is the former rather than the latter. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This question is a little problematic, in my view. The very first job of a lead is to summarize the article and comply with all relevant guidelines. If the article is neutral, it logically follows that the lead will be as well. Any "evidence" presented should not take the form of external links or quotations of outside sources. Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are not supposed to be included in the lead, and I see no reason to bring them into this discussion. The statements in the article are sourced already, and this isn't an RfC about sources. It's an RfC about WP:NPOV and the current lead of the article. The only evidence we should need ought to be arguments in favor and opposed to proposed drafts. (Keep in mind that that is my view at the moment; there may be a substantially convincing argument to the contrary that I haven't yet heard that may convince me that we need to ignore guidelines on citations in leads for this particular situation.) Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. If we feel we need to present "evidence", maybe we could do it in the form of two *short* pro and anti statements in boxes just under the question(s). Formerip (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we're drifting away from the data. Unless drafts and views about drafts are based on the degree of consistency or inconsistency with sources they really don't matter. I understand that it's easier to just make stuff up and then say what we think about it based on the toy universes in our minds, but this kind of approach is bound to fail. Whatever we do needs to be demonstrably correct(-ish) and connected to evidence or it won't last and it won't have any validity (even if people like it). For example, do any sources state as a fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine" and go on to say "though neither is internationally recognised" or thereabouts ? If not, forget it, it's out of scope and doesn't matter. We know that both primary sources, the Israeli and Palestinian basic laws, each individually state as a fact that Jerusalem (not part of Jerusalem, a thing they call "Jerusalem") is their capital, but that obviously isn't the same as us making up a statement of fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think its obvious that we wouldn't present any options that are unsupported by sourcing, but to suppose that voters can somehow objectively choose between sources based on their "degree of consistency" with the sourcing is a red herring, IMO. Each version will be 100% consistent with the sources that support it and there's not much anyone can say beyond that without showing their colours. I think we just have to accept that we have no way of forcing objectivity in the RfC. Formerip (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit it's not an easy issue, it's been 10+ years but it's no red herring. It's the opposite, um, Herrings Green, in Bedfordshire. Avoiding looking at a substantial number of sources that deal with this because it's tedious and instead have a bit of a chat about what we all think seems okay is much easier. But I think the problem with an approach that is based on generating multiple versions that are 100% consistent with the sources that support them, presumably an inevitably small biased sample of sources using a "what you see is all there is" approach, is that it will mean that it's not possible for anyone to say anything very meaningful about whether the versions comply with policy. People will no doubt still say many things but it really won't mean anything from a policy compliance perspective. People won't be answering the question asked. They can't because they don't know the answer. They will instead look at a version, think about it and see whether it matches something they think they know, the truth, the meanings of the words in the versions presented, what they imagine large numbers of sources they have never seen say etc. Thinking is not our friend in this process. It hasn't really got us anywhere in 10+ years. For example, I might see the words "proclaimed capital" and think, seems alright, pretty policy compliant, but I have absolutely no idea whatsoever about the proportion of sources that describe it that way, so my answer is really only about me, my 'colours' as you say, not about whether the statement complies with policy. I have no idea whether it complies with policy so that is what I should say. I probably won't though. I've always thought that the best way to avoid doing things properly i.e. the impossible or at least the very tedious by looking at a lot of sources, is to just state facts. When I read an encyclopedia I want everything I read to be true and I don't want to see my footprint. For example, it's a fact that Jerusalem was declared Israel's capital city in December 1948 after the State of Israel was established. It's a fact that Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law. It's a fact that in 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law which declared Jerusalem the "complete and united" capital of Israel. It's a fact that the international community doesn't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It's a fact that Palestinian basic law says that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. You get the idea. They're simple uncontroversial and informative facts suitable for an article introduction in an encyclopedia. I think it would be better if our versions were constructed out of these simple and true things. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a totally logical and reasonable approach, but I don't think you can expect other editors to automatically take it. To another editor "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is also a fact if it is contained in a source. Saying otherwise isn't about weighing the sources, it's about giving braintime to the question of what is a matter of fact and what is a matter of opinion. Moreover, I don't think policy actually compels us to bother with that. Formerip (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually if you consult our policy it has some very specific guidance on that point: see WP:NPOV:
 * "''Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
 * "Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice."''
 * So what we must do, according to policy, is look at the source evidence and decide on what points reliable sources agree are uncontested and uncontroversial (i.e. facts) and what points there are that reliable sources make conflicting assertions (i.e opinions). Now I would say that the points Sean raised fall into the first category (uncontested facts) while your example is one in which reliable sources make conflicting assertions over (ie an opinion), but this is something that the RFC should be deciding by presenting the source evidence in light of what our policies say. Dlv999 (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is also sensible. But you can't assume that everyone will see things the same way. Supporters of the status quo will focus on the parts you didn't bold. They will want to see the "conflicting assertions". "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "Jersualem is the [x] capital of Israel" are actually compatible assertions. And "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" is hard to find in good sources, for the obvious reason that it is not a natural thing to write ("Today in Jerusalem, which is not the capital of Israel, by the way..."). So you're into a discussion of sources which entirely misses the point.
 * Back to the main point, though: none of this, in the final analysis, is about presenting evidence. Everyone knows that some people consider Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel, that others do not and that others still would rather not be drawn. It's about which of these is a neutral approach. You can't tell whether a particular claim is neutral by staring at it. And participants in the RfC are not going to devote an awful lot of time to considering their own prejudices. All a "consider the sources" approach will achieve is "X because it supported by a source", which is not really helpful and not really valid, although it will get counted. Formerip (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't highlight the text, I presented it exactly how it appears in the policy document. In any case, the first points you raise to me are legitimate policy/evidence based arguments and I think these are exactly the sort of considerations the RFC should be focusing on and I would be more than happy if I come out on the wrong side of the content issue if it has been decided on the basis of these sorts of considerations.
 * On the other hand on "the main point", as you call it, I cannot understand where you are coming from. You say you can't tell whether something is neutral by staring at it. Correct, the only way to tell is to look at what we define as neutral (i.e, our WP:NPOV policy) and decide whether the claim is consistent with that policy. The policy says "neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Deciding if a claim is neutral (in Wikipedia terms) can only be done with reference to source evidence. It doesn't even make sense to me to have a discussion about neutrality (in Wikipedia terms) that is not focused on what has been published in Reliable Sources, it just makes me think that people don't know what our policy is and what we mean when we talk about neutrality and WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary sub-section break

 * I sense some confusion about what exactly "evidence" might entail in the RfC. I am seeing two main views: the first is that evidence would come in the form of citations for individual statements in any drafts that we present; the second is that evidence would come in the form of summmary of all the sources available on the subject of the dispute. As FormerIP says, the former approach is not so helpful in a dispute over the neutrality of an assertion, as there are likely reliable sources that could be used to back up all the major positions. If evidence is to be meaningful from a neutrality standpoint, it will need to be of the second variety - a summary of all the sources. WP:WEIGHT says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It is this question of the prominence that each viewpoint has in reliable sources that we would be addressing through this form of evidence. I note that Sean Hoyland is in favour of gathering evidence in this way. Do other participants think that it would be worth the quite considerable effort necessary to compile such a summary in order to determine the relative weight of the different positions in this dispute? Might there be another way to determine what content would satisfy the neutral point of view policy? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there may be a shortcut to getting at the relative weights, since some sources describe the relative prevalence of the respective views directly. An example is this one: "The battle for Jerusalem has always been a battle that Israel has waged alone, since even the United States has not recognized the city as Israel's capital, and most Western governments cling to an old notion of internationalizing Jerusalem and its holy sites." Likewise some UNGA resolutions have been passed with supermajorities that take positions concerning Jerusalem, that gives an angle to the relative prevalence if the viewpoints expressed in them. Personally I still feel that we as drafters of the RFC could make life easier for ourselves by simply allowing editors participating in the RFC to present evidence in their comments. If we're to read through dozens or hundreds of sources before the RFC is even started, this is going to take a while. --Dailycare (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * this endless searches for new and better "sources" is what is going to derail this entire process, imho. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think talking about "derailing the process" is a bit strong, and also a bit vague. I'm not against discounting the idea of compiling sources if the consensus here is against it, but I don't think it can be so easily swept aside. Wording like "derailing the process" is a good example of the appeal to fear fallacy, and I don't really think it will be helpful in making a decision here. We should be basing our decision on the substance of arguments and how they relate to Wikipedia policy, rather than resorting to rhetorical devices to make our points. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 06:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Above (or maybe it is below, I've lost track), I suggested having short "pro" and "anti" statements after the questions. I don't know how problematic to do that would be in general but, if it were done, those statements could include to-the-point observations about sources (but not TLDR trawls).
 * I still maintain, though, that asking voters to focus on weighing the prominence of different sources would be a dead end. The alternatives likely to be but forward will all be prominent enough. Sure, there's no harm in editors checking that if they want, but I don't think it is important in terms of resolution. It's not going to be possible for anyone to honestly conclude that a particular way of doing it has no prominence, so that's not where the answer lies. There's also the thing that I also mentioned above/below - the alternatives will be mostly compatible. "J is the C of I" and "J is the X C of I" are not mutually exclusive statements, so finding lots of sources that say one thing does not necessarily make the other thing untrue. i.e. this is slightly different from the standard case where you might identify a fringe viewpoint - we're not really arguing about conflicting viewpoints (although those underlie the thing, of course), but about how to neutrally communicate a complex of facts. Formerip (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that in an RFC a detailed assessment on weights in sources is a bit unlikely to happen. However, I don't think that's necessarily a problem, since to determine an acceptable version we don't so much need exact weights, but an understanding about what statements are majority statements and what are minority views, or even just identifying what is controversial and what isn't objectionable. Some sources say that "J is C of I" is a fact, others say it's just a claim, still others will say the claim is widely unrecognized. And, again, we do have sources that describe the relative prevalence of some of these viewpoints. ("Mr Romney referred to Jerusalem as Israel's capital, something the current US administration and most of the international community do not do.") This all adds up to material for NPOV conclusions. The "pro" and "con" statements sound to me very much like statements that can be made by editors participating in the RFC. --Dailycare (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dailycare that sources that address these things at a kind of meta-level are particularly useful because they have already done what we haven't, establish and describe the relative prevalence of respective views. And people can (and should) cite sources and use them as evidence to support their comments/position on the RfC issue. Sources help to ensure that people are aware of how reliable sources present the issue. Without sources there's nothing left but what Wikipedia editors think they know, which often involves treating (or seeing) the J, C and I in ways that are not described in the statement itself (or the sources) and will therefore be opaque from the reader's perspective e.g. This is what you get when people are allowed to think rather than test statements against sources and select the most representative statements without caring what they say or mean. But for the most part these mental gymnastics people perform to parse statements and the assumptions they entail are invisible to the reader. Think about how many people here over the years have said "J is the C or I because the government is there" or something similar possibly involving a dictionary. Then think about how many people have suggested including that in the statement and changing the statement to "J is the C or I because the government is there" or "because it is consistent with the definition of the word capital in dictionary/most peoples understanding of the word capital". Possibly none. The decision making is hidden from the reader. We should at least allow the reader to know why the encyclopedia says what it says (which is a requirement of WP:V). A large survey of sources would great, at least in my view, but identifying sources that address this issue at the meta-level and contain statements that describe the relative prevalence of respective views could save a lot of effort. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * the "Israel" in the "J is the C of I" statement is an Israel not defined by the green line
 * or Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel
 * or the "Jerusalem" in the "J is the C of I" statement is an abstract undefined thing rather than the spatial object described by the Wikipedia article
 * or a capital can be anywhere a state wants including outside of the geographical boundaries of the state without anyone's agreement
 * or a capital is where the government is regardless of any other factors
 * or truth and government policy are the same thing so Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine simply because they both say so
 * or capital-ness is a function of something tangible like who operates the bus routes etc.
 * I agree with Dailycare and Sean Hoyland (I feel I've said that before), that we need to collect sources and that looking to meta-sources would not only be easier, but also produce much better results. Counting how many times advocacy groups write articles pertaining to the capitalhood of Jerusalem, or counting how many times loose lipped journalists wrote half sentences that contained the wording "Jerusalem is...", is worthless in determining neutrality. Sepsis II (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NEWSORG, the individual references should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Nothing is inherently impertinent because it comes from a news organization. Generally, though, such things do carry far less weight. Basically wherever an assertion is made it should be supported with evidence, and when an extraordinary assertion is made it should be supported with extraordinary evidence. (WP:V 5.3) We should be using evidence now and always, with regard to even statements made in how we formulate the RfC. For example, one may claim that only X and not X+Y is controversial, but if an outside source questions the complete statement, then perhaps the nature of unsupported statements in our discussion should be viewed with more skepticism. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I've not seen that Signpost before. Skepticism is always good. It would be handy if a bot just removed unsupported statements from discussions. Of course it would remove this one too and almost everything ever said on this issue in Wikipedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with several of the points above about not depending too heavily on simply finding out what the sources may say. of course you can find any source for any view that one may want. the whole point of a dispute resolution process, which is what this really is, is to try to find some reasonable compromise between the two sides on this issue. not to keep hitting each other over the head with the question of what is in some source.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC) I have moved this comment from the start of the current sub-section. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 06:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Finding a compromise (or even better, a win-win solution) is a good thing, of course. The problem is that we can't compromise blindly - whatever we do has to be within the constraints of policy. Because of the current wording of WP:NPOV, we have to consider sources at one level or another. This is well-illustrated by the following quote from the policy: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". I hope this makes things clearer. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 06:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Step two: statement on "no consensus" outcomes
There were quite a few comments in the discussion about what would happen in the event of a "no consensus" outcome. We won't be doing anything special here; we will just follow what the policy on consensus says. In particular, WP:NOCONSENSUS says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." So in the event that the RfC closes with no consensus for any particular outcome, the article will remain as it is currently.

There was a suggestion that there was no consensus that the current wording needs to be changed, and that therefore it should be given preference to other versions. I think this is looking too deeply into the consensus-building process, however, and that in reality the policy is simpler. In a nutshell: if there is significant enough disagreement with any content, and the disagreements do not contradict policy, then there is no consensus for that content to be there. However, the content stays like it is until there is a consensus, at which point the content is changed to the consensus version. I'm not aware of any policy that requires a consensus to change content before it can be changed, although please point it out to me if I am wrong.

Also, there was a suggestion that if the RfC ended in a "no consensus" outcome that we should default to having no statement about the capital status of Jerusalem at all. However, I can't see any policy-based reason to default to anything but the current version in this case. We could change the lead to a version which has no statement about Jerusalem's capital statement if that version gains consensus; but I'm not aware of any policy-based reason to do otherwise. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong on this point.

You may discuss this statement here if you wish, but it is not a question as such. It does, however, lead on to the next two questions about drafts. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * While I see the usefulness (keeping discussions shorter so editors will move on to be productive elsewhere) of keeping the status quo when there is no consensus for smaller matters, I feel that in large cases like this, the plurality winner should be found in case of no consensus. This is because the plurality winner (which of course could also be the status quo), is by definition the one with the most support. I think the failure of this statusquo policy could be easily seen if one were to apply it to Israeli elections - the nation would still be ruled by a party which received a minority of the vote over half a century ago! Sepsis II (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify about my statement on giving the current version "favored" status, as I think that's what you're referencing above. The statement did not mean that I want the current version to be given preferential treatment somehow, or for !voters to somehow be led into supporting it. It simply means that, to me, logic dictates that the question of its neutrality should be first and foremost in the RfC. Prospective article content is not on the same level of importance as current article content. In the event that !voters choose one of the other drafts without explicitly condemning the current version, we would of course go with the preferred wording. I just think it should be clear to those taking part in the RfC that there is a current wording of the article, that it was arrived at by consensus, and that there has been no agreement so far that it needs to go. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that if there is no consensus the status quo should remain which is based on a previous compromise that had majority support BritishWatcher (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please link to that discussion? Formerip (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like BritishWatcher is talking about this thread, the result of which was first implemented in the article with this edit on Oct 6, 2010. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a compromise, or a majority in support, in that discussion. Formerip (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There should be a focus on minimising the chances of a no consensus outcome, in preference to thinking about what to do in that eventuality.

I worry that the RfC may be a bit futile, because closers are likely to not want to be seen to take sides in a controversial dispute unless consensus is extremely clear. It would be good to get an undertaking from the closers that they won't take an approach like that and that they'll instead endeavour to declare a consensus unless it is simply impossible to do so. Formerip (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from here, but I don't think it is really possible to lay down a bright line between what constitutes a consensus and what constitutes no consensus. The closers are all aware of the history of the dispute, and I'll make sure that they're aware that the participants are keen to find a resolution, but I wouldn't want to affect their judgement of what constitutes a consensus or not. We don't want to influence the closers one way or the other, as that could raise procedural objections to the RfC, and may provide ammunition to anyone who is unsatisfied with the final result. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the closers should approach the thing in acknowledgement that we are at the most advanced level of dispute resolution that WP has. We don't have a guideline or policy that allows for a particularly high benchmark to be reached for a consensus, but we do have NPOV as a pillar. I would have thought that the closers will need to think very hard before deciding that we have an NPOV dispute that cannot be resolved other than by default to the status quo. Formerip (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am very concerned at the idea we would seek to make it almost impossible or be seen as some massive failure for the closers by suggesting a "no consensus close" must be avoided at all costs. If there is no consensus, it should be closed in keeping with normal rules, not with an "additional bonus" for those who want change to try and get it and potentially slant the judgement. If a clear majority say NO to the opening questions asking if the current sentence is compliant with NPOV, and then there is a split between 2 or 3 drafts that would not have to be the end of the process. We would clearly have to see a change to the article, but there could be further debate on which of the most stated drafts should be implemented and how. Or the closers use their judgement of the drafts to pick from the most popular drafts and decide which is the most appropriate. But if there is no consensus on the opening questions, it needs to be closed as no consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * At least from an in-world Wikipedia perspective, demonstrating that there is an NPOV dispute over a relatively simple matter that can't be resolved other than by default to a status quo that doesn't have consensus and is the cause of a 10+ year NPOV dispute could reasonably be considered a failure, in my opinion. It would demonstrate that there are things that Wikipedia can't do. We all know that. It would be pity if the outcome is no consensus but there are probably millions of statements in Wikipedia that unambiguously don't comply with policy, many of them, no doubt, in very prominent articles. Whatever happens, nobody died. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think our goal should be to resolve the NPOV dispute, and we need a consensus to do that, so that's what we should aim for. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel that if no consensus is reached, you should declare that. Since no one here is doing anything to try to find or to forge a compromise, the probable outcome is that probably no resolution will be arrived at. just a thought. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * of course it's a failure. you're not supposed to keep looking for NPOV when there is no objective NPOV view. you're supposed to try to work out a compromise, when there are two divergent views which are both advocated by good-faith editors. but no one here is trying to pursue an actual resolution. ah well. we used to try to work out resolutions and compromises all the time, when I-P editing issues might arise. ah well. whichever. :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * i agree with sm8900 - we should really make this lot more simple. it is obvious that there are 2 or 3 ways to state the sentence. let's make it work instead of sending it to committee to be unresolved. Soosim (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question six: scope of drafts
The fact that we have agreed that the RfC should cover Jerusalem as capital of Palestine and of Israel has some implications for how we present the drafts. For example, we could have a series of drafts of the first sentence, dealing with the capital status regarding Israel, and we could have a series of drafts of a later section in the lead dealing with the capital status regarding Palestine. Or we could have a series of drafts that included passages about the capital status regarding both Israel and Palestine. Or maybe something else.

— <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My preference would be to keep things as simple as possible to concentrate minds on the primary aspect of the RFC. I'd support having a limited number of drafts for the first sentence, and to mirror that a similar number of draft sentences, of roughly the same length, on the Palestinian claim to the city. --Dailycare (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think concerns over context were adroit and I think I should suggest presentation of changes in a first paragraph context, unless it is decided that Palestine's view of Jerusalem-as-capital does not merit first paragraph mention. A single paragraph would provide some necessary context. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is not something that we should commit to firmly at this point. Once we start on the actual drafts we can see what approach is going to be needed. Most of the drafts are going to be focused strictly on the first sentence, but there is no reason why some drafts should not include the first two sentences or whole paragraph (if we wanted the Palestinian claim handled in that second sentence / first paragraph). At the time i can see the benefit of a smaller number of drafts going outside of the first paragraph of the introduction, but that obviously will get more complex and take up a lot more space. So the primary focus should be first sentence drafts initially, with the possibility of a second sentence draft for some or even the whole first paragraph. With the potential if agreed and seen as necessary for including of a draft proposal that merely alters another part of the introduction (Such as keep the first paragraph the same, but in another paragraph make the following change... etc), which could be seen as a compromise position for some. Whilst i want the introduction of the RFC to make explicitly clear that people should take into account the whole of the introduction to put things in context, for drafts that just alter the first sentence i dont think it would be needed to put the whole first paragraph in the draft, which would take up more space and be unnecessary duplication BritishWatcher (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that approach.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 16:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question seven: number of drafts
In the close of question one, I said that there wasn't much objection to including drafts, and that many editors supported doing so. However, there hasn't been much discussion at all about how many drafts there should be, and roughly what they should cover. The statement in the previous section has implications for this question, in that we might consider including some drafts on a procedural basis. For example, we might consider including the current version as a draft to make sure that it is given due consideration (indeed, a few editors have already suggested that we shouldn't discount the current wording). Similarly, we might also make a draft, or drafts, that do not mention Jerusalem's capital status at all, in order to sidestep the issue or to delay its treatment until further in the lead. Bearing this in mind, please answer the following questions:

— <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the number of drafts depends on the number of ways that sources have expressed the idea in genuinely different ways. This depends on the sources, overall the number of drafts could be similar for both "drafts" questions, and the smaller the number the easier it is to close. Three would IMO be enough, eight would be too many. --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe there are going to need to be alot more than just 3 drafts, which is far too restrictive. I would say the aim should be a limit of about no more than 10, with a hope that it will be slightly less. I cant support less than 5 though. 3 seems impossible in my opinion.  That might just give us 1 draft saying the status quo, 1 draft saying its the capital of Israel and palestine, and 1 draft not mentioning its the capital at all. That is not enough choice and if we are going to be so restrictive in the number of options, then it would be better to just have a small set of general approaches for people to choose from, rather than specific draft wording. I think 5-10 drafts is the best number to aim for, that will then give us enough to focus on just the first sentence, one or two about the second sentence, 1 or 2 potentially about the first paragraph, with room for the possibility of 1 or 2 proposals on alterations to other parts of the introduction instead of the first sentences. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Three drafts should be fine as the contents of the drafts would all be practically the same as they could only contain statements already concluded to be neutral. For example, no draft would contain the statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" if the sources show that that statement is a fringe view point. So, the drafts would be alike for statements that are controversial, just different styles, and three should be fine for deciding style. Sepsis II (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If the first question is closed with a "yes", then the status quo remains so the current version doesn't need a draft. The Palestinian aspect would have a separate set of drafts, so the drafts on the revised first sentence would be something like "Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as it's capital, although it isn't internationally recognized as such" vs. "According to Israeli law Jerusalem is it's capital, although it isn't internationally recognized as such", I don't think we need ten of those. In fact, I don't think there are ten distinct ways that sources tend to express this idea. --Dailycare (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When i say 10 drafts i mean ten overall, covering both the palestinian and israel issue. I do not see how we can split it to Israeli aspect vs Palestinian aspect. There should merely be a set of drafts, some of which are likely to be favoured more by those of an Israeli POV and others of a Palestinian POV. But if you do mean that there would be several drafts for proposals more to the Palestinian aspect and several for the Israeli one i guess that means overall you agree there is going to be more than 5. So we may not be too far apart on this issue. How this is all presented is important.. i was imagining it as a basic list of drafts from the original to the most drastic proposals, not divided by separate aspects. Also how we handle the status quo in the "drafts" part of the proposal seems to need more discussion. I am concerned that if the responses to the "questions" section is just divided, it would result in the responses to drafts being taken into account, which clearly would benefit those demanding change because the status quo is not on offer. If its a big yes to it being NPOV or a big no to it, then going on to the drafts or them not applying is fine. Its just what happens if it is very close on the question section which is certainly a potential outcome. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have failed to find even one non-circular source that phrases it in such a way. We should stick to the phrasing used in sources to be the most neutral and avoid original research. "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" is succinct, correctly voiced, and representative of other sources. Any number of them would probably do just as well. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst i do not advocate or support "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" being one of the drafts... If that is going to be prohibited because it is deemed a fringe view, then that could be said about some of the other proposals. I believe it is totally biased for the article to start "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine", that has always been by far the most radical change proposed and one i have always opposed for policy based reasons such as it giving blatant undue weight. By restricting the drafts to about 3 and having some form of veto over inclusion of certain proposals, we are going to be back where we started with arguments over what is and is not valid. it would surely be better to offer a more wide ranging number of choices for people so that we can get opinions on what is appropriate. I think these issues demonstrate why at present we maybe should not set a low limit, and just see how it goes once we get into the phase of drafting the options. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. A practical matter and a vision for the future are apples and oranges and can't be sewn together. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. We need more than three, and enough to ensure that we consider a number of possibilities.Upper lima 65 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, have more than three, so long as none of them contain fringe view points being stated as facts or other serious problems. Also, please BritishWatcher, stop trying to present arguments on content here, it is highly inappropriate. Sepsis II (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that fringe view points should not be among the drafts, but the number of drafts needs to cover variations in the possibilities. E.g. One possible draft could be    "In year x Israel declared J to be its capital city''  that could also be 'In year x J  was declared as the capital of Israel'. I am not arguing for content here, but if we come up with an agreed base for a wording, we should look at variations on that wording.Upper lima 65 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We could perhaps group alternatives, so that editors are not voting for one of 48 different version, some of which differ only in minor detail. Instead, they could cast a vote for a version of a certain type (so, for example, if one editor prefers "proclaimed" and one prefers "declared" they end up voting for the same option - the RfC doesn't really need to come up with as decision as to which of those options is best). Formerip (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this makes sense. It makes little difference that I can see, which specific "Israel has declared"-type draft is selected, but I can see a difference between a "Israel has declared"-type draft and a "According to Israeli law"-type draft. --Dailycare (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As it has been stated that the RFC must take into account both the questions and the drafts, with the potential of drafts section being implemented even if there was a majority saying the current intro wording is fine in the opening questions, it is vital that one of the drafts in the draft section represents no change. Otherwise this whole draft sections clearly only favours those who want change.

As for the numbers, i have just put together a brief selection of possible wording. I do not believe that some of these culd be merely merged into a smaller number of more general type drafts very easily. I would not object to a draft that for example just has one word difference like (proclaimed / declared) being merged and clearly giving the people choice of that draft and which word they prefer. But its these other types of potential wording i see as the reason for needing more than 3 drafts..
 * Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though this is not internationally recognised as such.
 * Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine, though neither is internationally recognised.
 * Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world and is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea.
 * Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel though this is not internationally recognised.
 * Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel in Israeli law, but this is not internationally recognised. It is also the proclaimed capital of the Palestinian state, but Palestinians exercise no sovereignty or control of the city.
 * Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though this is not internationally recognised as such, and its future status remains one of the key issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
 * Jerusalem is the defacto and dejure capital of Israel, but its status is not recognised internationally and forms part of the core issues of the Israel-Palestine with Palestinians seeking Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.

Obviously there is a huge number of potential ways to word a sentence, and it will be important just have a limited number of drafts that cover all the basic ways of handling the situation, not worrying about minor word alterations. All of the proposals above seem significantly different to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Provided we are not simply merging hugely different examples, like the 7 i suggested above which are all very different, i would not object to a statement for each rather than specific wording if that is going to be easier and avoid having to focus too much on every single word in the sentence. So for example (state Jerusalem is the capital of both and that neither are internationally recognised", "Do not mention the capital status at all", State Israel is the proclaimed or declared capital of Israel) etc.

But i think that should be the fallback position, because it leaves us open to extensive dispute in the future still over how to word things if we go for the general approach. We should at least try to agree on a reasonable set of no more than 10 drafts, considering the numbers involved here i do not think it would be impossible to do to cover all aspects that people believe should be covered. If it clearly does not work, then wed go to plan B of "draft type" statements or maybe just a brief vote on which draft options should be culled and not included in the RFC to ensure it remains less than 10 draft options. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But drafts should not be for arguing content, only for style as even in the few drafts you presented above many of them contain unacceptable content (several false and several fringe ideas across those 7 alone). We need to first conclude what can and cannot be said.
 * Is is neutral to call the State of Palestine a "future state" or the "Palestinian state"? Is it neutral to state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Is it neutral to ignore Palestine's designation of Jerusalem as its capital? If one was to answer no to these three simple questions then they could not accept any of your seven drafts even if they agree with many parts of the drafts. They would then suggest their own versions of the drafts, and we would have 100 drafts quite soon. So, before we get to drafts, we need to find what sources tell us are the answers to questions like those I presented. Sepsis II (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The one i view as totally unacceptable and most in violation of wikipedia policies is the one saying it is both the capital of Israel and Palestine as though the two cases were equal. Now just because i strongly oppose and fundamentally reject that version, and view it as a fringe view, does not mean i do not think it cant be put to the people at least. Otherwise why are we all here? I am rather concerned if we are just going to get into a position where lots of versions are rejected by the small number of editors here as being "fringe", the outcome of the RFC will be extremely slanted with the set of drafts that blatantly benefit those who want more radical change to this introduction, rather than being fair. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we're drifting away from the data. Unless drafts and views about drafts are based on the degree of consistency or inconsistency with sources they really don't matter. I understand that it's easier to just make stuff up and then say what we think about it based on the toy universes in our minds, but this kind of approach is bound to fail. Whatever we do needs to be demonstrably correct(-ish) and connected to evidence or it won't last and it won't have any validity (even if people like it). For example, do any sources state as a fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine" and go on to say "though neither is internationally recognised" or thereabouts ? If not, forget it, it's out of scope and doesn't matter. We know that both primary sources, the Israeli and Palestinian basic laws, each individually state as a fact that Jerusalem (not part of Jerusalem, a thing they call "Jerusalem") is their capital, but that obviously isn't the same as us making up a statement of fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think its obvious that we wouldn't present any options that are unsupported by sourcing, but to suppose that voters can somehow objectively choose between sources based on their "degree of consistency" with the sourcing is a red herring, IMO. Each version will be 100% consistent with the sources that support it and there's not much anyone can say beyond that without showing their colours. I think we just have to accept that we have no way of forcing objectivity in the RfC. Formerip (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit it's not an easy issue, it's been 10+ years but it's no red herring. It's the opposite, um, Herrings Green, in Bedfordshire. Avoiding looking at a substantial number of sources that deal with this because it's tedious and instead have a bit of a chat about what we all think seems okay is much easier. But I think the problem with an approach that is based on generating multiple versions that are 100% consistent with the sources that support them, presumably an inevitably small biased sample of sources using a "what you see is all there is" approach, is that it will mean that it's not possible for anyone to say anything very meaningful about whether the versions comply with policy. People will no doubt still say many things but it really won't mean anything from a policy compliance perspective. People won't be answering the question asked. They can't because they don't know the answer. They will instead look at a version, think about it and see whether it matches something they think they know, the truth, the meanings of the words in the versions presented, what they imagine large numbers of sources they have never seen say etc. Thinking is not our friend in this process. It hasn't really got us anywhere in 10+ years. For example, I might see the words "proclaimed capital" and think, seems alright, pretty policy compliant, but I have absolutely no idea whatsoever about the proportion of sources that describe it that way, so my answer is really only about me, my 'colours' as you say, not about whether the statement complies with policy. I have no idea whether it complies with policy so that is what I should say. I probably won't though. I've always thought that the best way to avoid doing things properly i.e. the impossible or at least the very tedious by looking at a lot of sources, is to just state facts. When I read an encyclopedia I want everything I read to be true and I don't want to see my footprint. For example, it's a fact that Jerusalem was declared Israel's capital city in December 1948 after the State of Israel was established. It's a fact that Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law. It's a fact that in 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law which declared Jerusalem the "complete and united" capital of Israel. It's a fact that the international community doesn't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It's a fact that Palestinian basic law says that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. You get the idea. They're simple uncontroversial and informative facts suitable for an article introduction in an encyclopedia. I think it would be better if our versions were constructed out of these simple and true things. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a totally logical and reasonable approach, but I don't think you can expect other editors to automatically take it. To another editor "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is also a fact if it is contained in a source. Saying otherwise isn't about weighing the sources, it's about giving braintime to the question of what is a matter of fact and what is a matter of opinion. Moreover, I don't think policy actually compels us to bother with that. Formerip (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually if you consult our policy it has some very specific guidance on that point: see WP:NPOV:
 * "''Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
 * "Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice."''
 * So what we must do, according to policy, is look at the source evidence and decide on what points reliable sources agree are uncontested and uncontroversial (i.e. facts) and what points there are that reliable sources make conflicting assertions (i.e opinions). Now I would say that the points Sean raised fall into the first category (uncontested facts) while your example is one in which reliable sources make conflicting assertions over (ie an opinion), but this is something that the RFC should be deciding by presenting the source evidence in light of what our policies say. Dlv999 (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is also sensible. But you can't assume that everyone will see things the same way. Supporters of the status quo will focus on the parts you didn't bold. They will want to see the "conflicting assertions". "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "Jersualem is the [x] capital of Israel" are actually compatible assertions. And "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" is hard to find in good sources, for the obvious reason that it is not a natural thing to write ("Today in Jerusalem, which is not the capital of Israel, by the way..."). So you're into a discussion of sources which entirely misses the point.
 * Back to the main point, though: none of this, in the final analysis, is about presenting evidence. Everyone knows that some people consider Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel, that others do not and that others still would rather not be drawn. It's about which of these is a neutral approach. You can't tell whether a particular claim is neutral by staring at it. And participants in the RfC are not going to devote an awful lot of time to considering their own prejudices. All a "consider the sources" approach will achieve is "X because it supported by a source", which is not really helpful and not really valid, although it will get counted. Formerip (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't highlight the text, I presented it exactly how it appears in the policy document. In any case, the first points you raise to me are legitimate policy/evidence based arguments and I think these are exactly the sort of considerations the RFC should be focusing on and I would be more than happy if I come out on the wrong side of the content issue if it has been decided on the basis of these sorts of considerations.
 * On the other hand on "the main point", as you call it, I cannot understand where you are coming from. You say you can't tell whether something is neutral by staring at it. Correct, the only way to tell is to look at what we define as neutral (i.e, our WP:NPOV policy) and decide whether the claim is consistent with that policy. The policy says "neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Deciding if a claim is neutral (in Wikipedia terms) can only be done with reference to source evidence. It doesn't even make sense to me to have a discussion about neutrality (in Wikipedia terms) that is not focused on what has been published in Reliable Sources, it just makes me think that people don't know what our policy is and what we mean when we talk about neutrality and WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we should take the time to present drafts for consideration in the RfC and we simply let that decide how many drafts will be included. Should we only agree on allowing three for consideration then so be it, if we agree on more than that so be it. Personally, I do not believe we need a draft to represent the status quo as the status quo will be represented with the first question, I believe.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 16:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * of course this kind of issue will get into content disputes; they always have and they always will. I know that some editors will say this process does not relate to content; they always do. those kinds of statements about this process are wrong; they [almost] always are, no offense. :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question eight: feedback
Finally, I would like some feedback on the close of question one. Specifically:

— <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think your work here has been very commendable and even-handed. --Dailycare (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dailycare, i believe the process is going well and we are heading in the right direction which will see a RFC that is accepted by all sides. Mr. Stradivarius is doing a great job and i would also like to praise the time scale of the procedure so far, some of us sadly do not have the amount of time we would like to be able to respond sooner, so i think the time the different questions have remained open so far has been appropriate and allowed for more contributions to be made. As i said before, this is a dispute that has lasted for many years and the result will last for years. Taking time to allow as many people to contribute at each stage as possible can only be a good thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I do have one question/issue. Now it is clear we are having a general question on the first sentence (or split in two), followed by draft proposals. Im unclear what happens in a number of scenarios, for example if there is majority view that the first sentence is fine, is the draft section of the RFC basically ignored, or if there is a "bigger consensus" on the draft, does it basically overall the initial question? Will these sorts of matters be handled in stage four? if so that is fine, i just want to clarify because its the one thing im not clear on with regards the questions/drafts plan. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It will be up to the closers to decide exactly how it should be closed. They might decide to go with the "bigger consensus" method, which would have a policy basis in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Or they might decide to do something else. Whatever it is they decide to do, it will be with the aim of best summing up the consensus from the discussion as a whole, rather than from the individual parts. Now that we know we are having both questions and drafts, we should bear in mind how easy the entire discussion would be to close as we work out the finer details. All we can do is structure the discussion the best we can - the closing admins will be allowed complete freedom in the methods they use to judge the consensus. (Well, complete freedom within the constraints of Wikipedia policy, of course.) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I do hope that regardless of what is stated in response to a question about the current statement, the rest of the RfC is not ignored. It is entirely possible that we can get consensus for "the current statement is fine", but also get stronger consensus for a different statement. In other words, fine does not equal best, and we will only see which is the preferred option if all of them are considered side-by-side. --  tariq abjotu  10:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question nine: tertiary sources
Thank you all for your patience, and again allow me to apologise for being so slow in closing the previous discussions and in updating the page. From the step two discussion so far, we now have a pretty good idea of what the RfC will look like. Here's a brief overview:


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

The only issue left in part two on which we don't really have a clear consensus yet is that of evidence. And small wonder, as the evidence question goes right to the heart of the dispute. This dispute isn't as simple as the typical NPOV dispute where the problem is basically judging the quality and the quantity of the sources that take different positions. This dispute is operating at a more fundamental level - it is about deciding whether there is a disagreement at all. Most of the time we are pretty reliable at being able to tell what is a contested fact, what is an uncontested fact, and what is an opinion, and we can just make the correct judgement and then go about our business of writing articles. However, the current dispute is rare in that editors disagree about even this, something which is usually taken for granted.

Now, as you have probably noticed I closed question five as showing a rough consensus to use sources which deal with these issues on a meta-level. This is a good start to finding how we should use evidence in the RfC, but there are still some more questions that need answering: namely, what we mean by "meta-sources", and what issues exactly we are trying to shed light on by investigating them. For example, by "meta-sources" we could mean scholarly works that deal in detail with the different ways other scholars have dealt with the Jerusalem capital question, complete with lengthy quotes and analysis. And we could see such evidence as a way of judging the relative prominence of the viewpoints of scholarly sources.

There is a problem with gathering evidence in this manner, however. As FormerIP pointed out, '"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "Jersualem is the [x] capital of Israel" are actually compatible assertions', and editors may disagree that these count as the "seriously contested assertions" spoken of in WP:YESPOV. Merely judging the prominence of scholarly viewpoints may not be enough to solve the NPOV dispute. So allow me to suggest an alternative solution - how about trying to see what the sources say about whether there is a disagreement at all?

It may well be the case that there are no sources that directly address the question of whether the fact that Jerusalem's status is disputed internationally counts as contesting the statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". However, there will be plenty of sources that address the question indirectly. My idea is that we should compile a list of the best and most representative tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias and textbooks, that introduce Jerusalem in the manner that we will do in the Wikipedia article. (Note that per WP:TERTIARY, tertiary sources "may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other".) We could then investigate how these sources approach the capital issue - whether they feel the need to qualify Jerusalem's status as capital, or whether they state it as fact. This would provide us with an objective way of deciding whether Jerusalem's internationally disputed status counts as contesting its status as capital. If a significant number of tertiary sources qualify Jerusalem's status, then we could take that as evidence that it does count as contesting it; if only a few sources qualify Jerusalem's status, then it would be stronger evidence that it wasn't.

What would people think about an approach like this one? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 18:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

replies to this question

 * Regarding "evidence," I imagine the only question remaining to be decided is, what evidence are we going to introduce that isn't already cited in the article, and how are we going to use it in a sensible fashion that doesn't contradict the spirit of WP:LEADCITE? Your idea above is the most reasonable answer to that question I've seen so far. It is important, of course, that we do our best to cover a broad range of tertiary sources, if that is what we decide to do, but in principle I agree wholeheartedly with this idea. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 19:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if tertiary sources as such make good "meta-sources", rather I understand meta-sources as secondary sources that are reliable for statements on the prevalence of certain viewpoints. Another kind of meta-source could be a source that states that "our editorial policy in this matter is X", such as this one. The point about YESPOV is interesting, but doesn't involve the entirety of YESPOV. Personally I find the first element of YESPOV to be even more relevant here: "Avoid stating opinions as facts". If one group of sources says "J is C" is a fact, and another group says that it's only an opinion that "J is C", then that's something we can discuss. --Dailycare (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * you just summed up the crux of this whole issue. In my opinion, I would say that if one group of sources says that something is a fact, and another says it is not, then we now have the essence of the issue before us.


 * any item which is backed up by a reliable source as being a fact, should be eligible for inclusion. any item which says the exact opposite as a fact, and which is also backed up by a reliable source, should also be eligible for inclusion as well. finding some compromise language, in which both are presented as alternate or competing views of the same issue, is, in my opinion, a way to find a solution to this set of issues. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per my comment below, this is the correct logic for the body of the article, but not necessarily for the lead. Formerip (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This approach doesn't really make sense to me. You start off by quoting FormerIP's statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "Jerusalem is the [X] capital of Israel" are compatible -- and they are -- and then suggest we use the prevalence of the latter statement as support for changing the article from including the former? I don't follow that logic.


 * It seems the only thing that should be proof positive of a need to change the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is something that actually negates it. I'm quite confident at this point that we will find the majority of sources using the second ("proclaimed capital") formulation, but we have no reason to believe [particularly in the case of online sources] that such choice of words is motivated by informativeness and accuracy rather than an understanding that any formulation that says anything solid will draw the ire of someone (as the BBC and the AP have learned over the past year when they were brow-beaten into issuing "corrections", the former for omitting a capital in a profile of Israel and the latter for calling the city Israel's capital).


 * This whole evidence thing has always struck me as a fishing expedition. Those who have participated in several incarnations of this discussion are not oblivious to the sources and information available. It's inconclusive; that's why we're here. It does not solidly provide one approach over another. And these "innovative", "new" approaches that attempt to prove that the current formulation is wrong using criteria that wouldn't be used in any other situation because it cannot be shown that there are actual contradicting sources are hardly fair. I understand you're trying to think differently, but it's delusional to believe that one formulation is going to be proven over another -- and I thought the whole RfC process recognized that. Just provide a bit of background of this controversy in the real world and on this article, examples of sources that say certain things, and several options that try to present the information available in a manner that considers several angles (and there were a few suggested back in December). One need not prove that the current formulation is wrong or disputed to get it changed, provided the alternative wordings do not present the "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" perspective with overt skepticism. And, then, let people do what they were going to do anyway: vote on options based on their feelings toward the information available. Really, I don't understand what all this micromanaging is about, or why it takes so damn long to do the most trivial of things. --  tariq abjotu  19:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There's sense in this, to the extent that we can't expect voters to look at the sources, get out their abacuses and - hey presto! - come up with a clear, objective answer to whatever question we end up putting to them. We shouldn't be trying to formulate an RfC that will clarify for people how they should think, although I don't actually believe that is what is going on here - I think it is much closer to the process you suggest than you appreciate. I don't, though, agree that we are here because the sources are inconclusive (indeed, I think it's a fairly significant moment to hear someone who has supported the status quo accepting that they are).
 * You ought to know by now that there are a great many contradicting sources on this question, which have been repeatedly presented - please let go of that fiction. But these are not the point. They operate for the ATTRIBUTEPOV model which would be appropriate for the body of the article, rather than the lead. A solution of the form "My dad says Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but my mum disagrees, my sister's not sure and I have a cousin who thinks its Cleethorpes" has rarely if ever been proposed for the lead.
 * The alternative neutral model is to identify what is beyond dispute and to stick scrupulously to that. My view is that this model is preferable (and, naturally, preferable to the status quo). The point of the RfC is to find out if the community agrees or, if not, what it does agree with. From that perspective, the idea of presenting "meta-sources", while it has drawbacks, does get to the nub of the thing. Because we will see that a number of high-quality sources follow my model and a number do not. The job of the community is then to give a view, sans abacus, which, AFAICT, meets what you say you want out of the RfC (?). Formerip (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't patronize me.
 * Don't patronize me.


 * And I have explained many times, including in this RfC discussion (even though it's irrelevant to all these questions), that this has not been demonstrated from the perspective of someone who does not agree that other countries' rejections or non-recognition constitute a contradiction to a statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If you start from the perspective that non-recognition makes a city not a capital, then, yes, of course, it has been proven a thousand times over. But based on sources, it is, putting it lightly, inconclusive that is the case. And that's why we're here. If it were so obvious, as you imply, that there are contradictions to "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", it'd be out of the article by now. But what it obvious to you is not obvious, over even apparent, to all (myself included here).
 * And I have explained many times, including in this RfC discussion (even though it's irrelevant to all these questions), that this has not been demonstrated from the perspective of someone who does not agree that other countries' rejections or non-recognition constitute a contradiction to a statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If you start from the perspective that non-recognition makes a city not a capital, then, yes, of course, it has been proven a thousand times over. But based on sources, it is, putting it lightly, inconclusive that is the case. And that's why we're here. If it were so obvious, as you imply, that there are contradictions to "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", it'd be out of the article by now. But what it obvious to you is not obvious, over even apparent, to all (myself included here).


 * So, while you are free to continue to hold the opinion that non-recognition is a contradiction, please don't use your opinion, in a discussion where there are so many, to suggest that I am holding on to a fiction. --  tariq abjotu  01:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your above statement is the first time I have been aware of someone from the other side of the hill acknowledging that there is inconclusiveness in the sourcing. It's a bold thing to accept because, obviously, it raises the question as to why our current wording expresses a conclusion. Emphatically, that is not patronising, and it is not directed at you personally in any case.
 * When I say "You ought to know by now...", perhaps I am misremembering what discussions you have been in and which you have not. On the one hand, plainly "I do do not recognise it as..." is equal for practical purposes to "it is not". Because "J is the capital of I but I do not recognise it as such" would be incoherent. Leaving that aside, there are sources that say is clear language that J is not the capital of I (relatively scarce because, as you have pointed out previously, this is as natural as saying "Birmingham is not the capital of the UK") and many sources that say Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. We should not be focusing on these, because we don't want the lead to dwell on these POVs. But what you should note is that the hurdle you suggest is easily jumped. In any event, demanding evidence that the status of Jerusalem is a matter of controversy has never been anything more respectable than a stalling tactic, and I wonder how well it will work in the RfC (again, this is not directed at you personally). Formerip (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)




 * The sources are inconclusive. the sources are inconclusive. I didn't know that anyone here doubted whether that is the case, or doubted whether we all here accept that. the sources are inconclusive. I am happy to reiterate that if you wish. in my opinion, that is the whole reason this process is occurring in the first place. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand my purpose of the word "inconclusive". As I said in the comment you just replied to, it's putting it lightly. As I've said somewhere else, if you were to ask the average man on the street what makes a city a capital city, they would probably say it's where the government is located -- i.e. something that would make Jerusalem obviously the capital of Israel. But now we have this non-recognition element. Despite recognition unlikely to come up in any generic man-on-the-street definition, or any dictionary definition, there are people who believe that this non-recognition invalidates capital status. As far as I can tell, there has not been sufficient proof that this is the case. On the other hand, there hasn't been sufficient proof that this is not the case. In other words, I believe people have put forth a position without proof that I cannot disprove. That's what I mean by saying this is "inconclusive", hardly a compliment. I'd prefer the word not be manipulated into some sort of white flag or even olive branch; it is a simple statement that reflects how I believe we should operate when framing this RfC -- that, despite how baseless I feel the non-recognition = invalidation idea is or how you might feel about my opinion, the RfC should be in the context that neither approach to this point has been proven (and may not ever truly be).


 * Most of the rest of your comment is of no interest to me, as I have no desire to [again] participate in the futile task of [again] debating elements of this issue with long-time participants of this dispute [again]. However, if you wanted to accuse me unknown, nameless entities of "stalling tactics", you're late to the party, as no one seemed interested in substantiating these hollow claims when I gave them the chance to do so before the Arbitration Committee in December. So as water under the bridge, I request those who feel inclined to intimidate other participants with distortions of what others have said please refrain from doing so (er, this is not directed at you personally). --  tariq abjotu  03:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The crux of my issue with Mr. S's suggestion comes when he says...
 * "This would provide us with an objective way of deciding whether Jerusalem's internationally disputed status counts as contesting its status as capital. If a significant number of tertiary sources qualify Jerusalem's status, then we could take that as evidence that it does count as contesting it; if only a few sources qualify Jerusalem's status, then it would be stronger evidence that it wasn't.'"
 * This is not merely presenting information for RfC participants to peruse and consider; it suggests making a conclusion based on it. In a closed moderation, this would be a reasonable thing to do as we [us participants in this discussion] would decide the outcome. But, in an RfC, fresh eyes are expected to decide the outcome. And so, I have a huge problem with us presenting or suggesting conclusions based on sources, especially in a case where such approaches in the past have not been successful at generating any outcome other than ones that continue to draw ire. This also doesn't seem to follow the perception, quoted from you (although I now have no idea what you truly believe), that qualification does not constitute a contradiction. --  tariq abjotu  02:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "I have a huge problem with us presenting or suggesting conclusions based on sources"
 * I wrote a paragraph in response, but I really couldn't post it considering its vulgarity. If you are against references then you should not be on wikipedia at all. Sepsis II (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How about you actually read what I write before actually responding? I said "This is not merely presenting information for RfC participants to peruse and consider; it suggests making a conclusion based on it." The problem isn't the presentation of sources; it is suggesting it leads to one conclusion, rather than allowing participants to make their own conclusions based off them (or whatever evidence is available). It is exceedingly obvious that that is what I meant if you don't cherry-pick from what I wrote. And it is exceedingly obvious that what you said was not what I meant, even without reading what I wrote, if you just use some basic common sense. Don't take me for an ass. --  tariq abjotu  22:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tariq, I agree with you that Sepsis has misunderstood your position. My suggestion is unusual, there is no question about that. Though I intended my suggestion to be in line with the spirit of Wikipedia's sourcing policies, it is certainly debatable whether it complies with the letter of the policies or not. Determining whether something is an uncontested fact, a contested fact, or an opinion, is something we usually just decide for ourselves as Wikipedians, not something we usually look to sources to decide. It is entirely reasonable for people to disagree with my suggestion of using sources to determine this, just as it would be entirely reasonable for people to object if I proposed that a similar suggestion became a part of the WP:NPOV policy itself. That said, it isn't helpful to assume bad faith on the part of people who haven't understood this point. Language like "don't take me for an ass" and "use some basic common sense" is only going to inflame the situation - I think it would be better to explain your position calmly and leave it at that. And Sepsis, saying things like "you should not be on wikipedia at all" is also not helpful. Most of the time, things like this will be a misunderstanding, so it is best to confirm that the other editor really meant what you think they meant before you jump to conclusions. Hope this clears things up a bit. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for your helpful reply, and for all your helpful efforts and work here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still not understanding what exactly is being asked of with regards the sourcing and how this will be worked. I can produce a source for example CIA world factbook which is used to source numerous amounts of data on wikipedia, and it says that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. There are obviously many other sources saying the same. At the same time lots of sources can be produced which states Jerusalem status is not internationally recognised. The British Guardian newspaper on Wednesday acknowledged it was wrong to call Tel Aviv Israel’s capital, but reiterated its stance that Jerusalem is not the capital either, since it is not recognized as such by the international community. These are of course just two sources, but there are more that can be included. Is that not whats required, and doing the same process for each of the drafts? If those types of sources do not justify the current introduction, then its going to be very difficult to reach agreement for sources of each draft. Sources have not and have never been provided by those who demand change to justify the article saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine, because that is not the reality of the situation. Yet such a draft is probably very likely to be wanted in the RFC by some. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a better source than I have ever seen in support of our current statement, and still superior to how we have stated the matter. "Not recognized as such by the international community" at least avoids some of the passitivity of our statement by making the actors a noun instead of an adverb, and the source goes into some detail about the resolution which precipitated what they characterize as a condemnation of the 1980 annexation of East Jerusalem. Finally there is a source to provide some justification for the way we have phrased the matter, and whether or not it is circular - they may have drawn upon our work to create the markedly similar phrasing - I deem it an improvement. Others may continue to contend as to whether this is the most authoritative source, or whether we should be drawing upon more than the Guardian or the Times of Israel to crystallize the language which we use.
 * Having thought for a time upon which sources might be most appropriate, it occurs to me that a children's reference was once given as an example for a position which I would otherwise be inclined to support. I do not think that any source which might be apt to oversimplify for a particular audience is especially appropriate, no matter which position it is taking. How we might set a particular criteria, or how any particular source fits in seems a task of supreme ambiguity and terribly subjective. I might consider the CIA factbook to have oversimplified the matter, whereas you may be entirely satisfied with its authority as a source. These newsorg sources are probably not where we want to end up, but I'll give them this much - they do discuss the reasons and history behind the capital controversy, and can be considered more comprehensive in most respects than some other sources. Where we feel we should draw the line is still something worth discussing. I hope that some good ideas for making the criteria a little more objective can be reached. ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tariqabjotu's insightful comment which has been stated here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

further replies

 * I'm not so certain that I've seen every piece of sourcing, even as narrowly as it is defined here. Which makes me certain not every editor in the community-at-large has either. It seems very important to me that the discussion, no matter how much yardage has been covered over the years, not be separated from sources. Others have been careful and correct to temper my optimism since I joined the conversation; nonetheless, I still hold out some hope that sourcing can help keep the conversation grounded. If what you say is true, at least the inconclusive nature of the sources as you represent them will help any hypothetical editor with no formed opinion (the process assumes they exist) understand our dilemma better. A summary of tertiary sources dispassionately done would be a fine point of reference for anyone going back to see what we've decided as a community to begin to understand our decision. This isn't mathematics but we should show our work for transparency. In short, transparency, relying on the participation of some editors who will form an opinion during discussion, and proving assertions are all positive goals reinforced by policy and the way things get accomplished satisfactorily elsewhere. I can't imagine doing things differently and still calling this a decision of the Wikipedia community. If consensus is just a vote, then I may have bought into a load of crap. I actually believe that our way is a real way and a good way for handling things. I seem to have noticed some irritation at me in the past that I'm forever 'arguing from the pillars' but to me that stuff is good meaty stuff to think on that has changed the way I look at the world around me. I don't know how else to make myself understood in this regard. Our way just makes a lot of sense to me. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the approach. The evidence, and ways of sorting it out, seem well defined. It doesn't seem like any interpretation of the sources would likely be suppressed, nor any approach to solving any decided problems would fall by the wayside. There is ample opportunity for a course correction from community input before anything is set in stone. There is ample opportunity for the community to assert with evidence the reason for its final decision. I see the potential for a resilient resolution that would stand alone on the thoroughness of its process regardless of the mandatory nature of the final decision's decided shelf life. It may be too much to hope that the argument never presents itself again, but should it, the decision we make should ideally inform and refine future debate. I don't see why we can't accomplish all these things with the proposed process. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * to answer your comment, you're right; no, "consensus" is not a vote. consensus is consensus. that means, [in my opinion], trying to find a mutually beneficial approach, to try to accommodate two very opposed well-sourced viewpoints from the Wikipedia community, at once. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the steps so far and think good progress is being made. The issues of the sourcing are extremely important but also problematic if we are going to be determining which is and is not backed up by the sources in question. Those of us who support the current wording believe that there are sources that back up that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (something that a state itself can decide and no evidence has been produced saying that is not the case), whilst accepting this is not "officially recognised" by the international community. Just because something is not "officially recognised" does not mean it is not a reality, some states do not "recognise" Israel, but we are not going to start the Israel article saying it might be a country. The trouble is there is a big judgement here about what is a capital and sources are so very mixed in how they describe it. Maybe instead of us deciding what are and are not worthy in terms of sources, it might be easier to come up with a very broad statement on the source situation. Specifically stating all the positions and backing that up with the sources. Like "some argue that a country decides its own capital and this does not need international approval (sources), whilst others say etc". This whole issue of sources is going to fundamentally impact on how the different drafts are handled, so we need to get the right approach. If we list the sources that back up the current introduction, and those who disagree with it dispute those sources and point to their own sources.. we are stuck in the middle again. Is going to need significantly more debate, once we get over this hurle the specific drafts should not take too long to come up with. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)




 * some of that sounds pretty good, in my opinion. thanks. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You forgot to add that to be a nation's capital that nation must also control the city, ohterwise you would also be arguing for the wording that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. Sepsis II (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How is this relevant to BritishWatcher's comment or the question at hand? --  tariq abjotu  22:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Question nine close
This has been one of the hardest questions to close so far. As I mentioned at the start of this section, the issue of sources gets right to the heart of the dispute, and it shouldn't been surprising that there have been a wide variety of opinions on how to approach their inclusion in the RfC. As far as my suggestion goes, I do not see a consensus to implement it outright. It is by no means certain that using tertiary sources to determine whether something is a fact or not has a basis in policy, and this was pointed out by editors who did not agree to the approach. While there was also some support for the suggestion, I do not see it as being at the level that would allow me to declare a rough consensus.

On the other hand, there was a general agreement that we should use sources in some manner, a finding in accordance with the weak consensus to use meta-sources from question five. The suggestion that we should let Wikipedians decide the "fact/uncontested fact/opinion" issue based purely on their personal opinions did not receive much support. Therefore, the middle ground here appears to be BritishWatcher's suggestion that we come up with a broad statement about the source situation for RfC participants to read before they leave comments. RfC participants will still be free to base their answers on any criteria they choose, and to talk about tertiary sources in the discussion section, but we will limit the evidence we present in the questions themselves to BritishWatcher's format. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 03:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question ten: placement of capital status
It occurred to me as I was writing the text for question nine that if we were to compile a list of tertiary sources, we might be able to use them to guide us on the neutrality of aspects of the lead other than the neutrality of the first sentence. In particular, we could use them to judge where in the lead we mentioned the various aspects of the Jerusalem capital issue. In WP:WEIGHT we find, "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." So there does seem to be a basis in policy for using external sources to help judge content placement in articles. For example, if we were to find that most sources placed more emphasis on describing Jerusalem's history than on describing its status as capital in their leads/opening pages, then it may indicate that we should also make our history content more prominent than the capital issues in the lead. Would anyone be interested in taking an approach like this, and possibly asking a third general question about it? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 18:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I would say that this approach might simply lead to more conflict, in greater degrees of intensity and greater degrees of complexity on each of these issues. that's just my opinion on this question. thanks for your help on this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, this answers to some extent the approach dilemma with less injection of arbitrary opinion and more of a basis in solid sourcing. I have been wont to argue this point from opinion or preference. It would make so much more sense to link this to the sources themselves and avoid personal preference. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

General comments section
I noticed that there is no "general comments" section here, so i decided to open one. normally a page like this would have its own talk page automatically, but that was not generated, due to the fact that this page actually is a talk page (or more accurately, a sub-page of a talk page). thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Sm8900
I have to say that I think I agree with Ravpapa's general statement, in the section for introductions, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * also, you're not supposed to keep looking for NPOV when there is no objective NPOV view. you're supposed to try to work out a compromise, when there are two divergent views which are both advocated by good-faith editors. but no one here is trying to pursue an actual resolution. ah well. we used to try to work out resolutions and compromises all the time, when I-P editing issues might arise. ah well. whichever. :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello there Steve, and thanks for posting here. I see that you've also added your name to the list of participants, so I assume that you would like to join the discussion until we have made the RfC. That's great, and welcome on board - I just ask that you read all of the archives and all of this page before you begin commenting, so that you are fully up to speed. Also, please watch out for language that makes assumptions about people's motivations - I'm sure others here will disagree with your statement that "no one here is trying to pursue an actual resolution". It's better to avoid judging people like this, and to concentrate on facts in your comments. Please leave me a message on my talk page if you are unsure about what I am getting at here. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there Mr. Stradivarius. I really appreciate your helpful reply and input. Thanks for your valuable insight. Ok, fair enough. I will try to modify my comment, and simply discuss the actions here, rather than any possible motivations. I feel that wrangling over the weight of various sources will not lead to an effective resolution. the reason we have convened here in the first place is because there are a number of good-faith editors disputing this issue, all with their own approach to editing this article, and almost all with some valid sources. what we really have here is a dispute in need of resolution. the best way to do so imho is to try to find a path which can encompass the concerns on both sides of this dispute. thanks. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Stradivarius, I really appreciate your helpful replies recently, elsewhere on this page. I think I will simply sit back for a bit, and let the discussion proceed. Obviously, we can assume that other people will be appearing here to chime in. I still have the same opinion as I have expressed here on this page. I would like to try to make sure to present my views here constructively, by participating as new views and comments come up. thanks very much for your helpful input in this process.Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Well, I wanted to make an additional comment. I just found the notice indicating this matter may be closed soon. well, sorry that I didn't show up here before. anyway, I do look forward to trying to be part of the process as it goes on. thanks. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)