Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem

This is a discussion to decide the content of the lead section of the Jerusalem article. It was mandated by the Arbitration Committee by motion in January 2013, and its result will be binding for three years. The structure of this page was arrived at through a moderated discussion conducted by Mr. Stradivarius. The RfC began at 11:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC), and will end at 11:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC). It will be closed by a panel of three experienced editors: Keilana, RegentsPark, and Pgallert.

The dispute over the lead of the Jerusalem article is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, having first been debated in 2003. Since then it has generated more than 2784 KiB of wikitext in 149 discussion threads, including at least three previous RfCs. The dispute focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Detailed information on legal and diplomatic positions held about Jerusalem by the international community can be seen in our article Positions on Jerusalem. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:00, 23 May 2013

Discussion structure
We have included two general discussion questions for you to answer, and seven drafts for you to comment on. Please answer the general questions using the "yes", "no", "other", and "threaded discussion" subsections provided. Similarly, when commenting on the drafts please use the "support", "support with revisions", "oppose", and "threaded discussion" subsections. Also, please note that the drafts may not be intended to be the first sentence of the lead, and that you may support as many drafts as you like.

In order to keep the general discussion questions on topic, we ask you to please refrain from asking new numbered questions after the two we have already worked out. However, you are of course welcome to ask new questions in the general discussion section. Also, regarding the drafts, we agreed in the moderated discussion that we would like editors to bring in fresh opinions. So you may add new drafts using the mechanism provided below. However, to keep us from having many similar drafts, we ask that you add a comment in the "support with revisions" section if you are only suggesting a minor improvement of an existing draft. New drafts should be reserved for major changes from existing drafts.

Finally, rather than include a detailed breakdown of all the talk page arguments made over the years, we have opted to include a summary of what reliable sources say about the subject of the dispute. We hope you will consider the positions of the sources carefully, and make informed comments based on both the sources and on Wikipedia policy. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Source summary
The capital status of Jerusalem is complex, and there have been many different views expressed on it in reliable sources. The participants of the moderated discussion have collaboratively created a summary of these views:


 * Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law.
 * Few or no countries recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
 * The capital status of Jerusalem is controversial. It is controversial to refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,   and it is also controversial not to refer to it as the capital of Israel.    It is also controversial to refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
 * Some reputable sources use "Tel Aviv" as a metonym, as shorthand for 'Israel',    and some reputable sources refer to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel.
 * East Jerusalem, which our article treats as part of Jerusalem, is in the Palestinian territories and is occupied by Israel.
 * Many sources list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when there is little room for nuance, but in prose, sources often use qualifiers which show that the status as capital was achieved unilaterally.
 * Palestine aspires to make Jerusalem its capital.
 * The Israeli government made Jerusalem its seat of government and declared it its capital.
 * There is very little support for the Israeli view regarding the sovereignty and capital status of Jerusalem (especially East Jerusalem).

Question one
Please answer either "yes", "no", or "other" in the relevant section below, giving a detailed rationale for your choice.

Question one: Yes

 * Yes, Israel has a capital and it is in Jerusalem. There's no "point of view" involved here, just simple fact.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is strictly compliant with NPOV, although the wisdom of stating it without any reference to those who reject this fact is worthy of discussion. --GHcool (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, all three branches of Israel's government are based in Jerusalem, so that makes it the de facto captial. Jerusalem is considered capital of Israel under Israeli law, so that makes it the de jure capital as well. --PiMaster3 talk 23:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, because of the facts PiMaster mentions. This isn't a matter of some group claiming as its capital a place that it doesn't control, or a matter of a country officially making one place its capital while putting its government in a different place; Israel controls and operates its government out of Jerusalem.  Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, (a) Jerusalem never served as the capital city of any other nation, except for the Jebusites from whom King David has conquered the city according to the Bible. (b) Inter alia, Jerusalem indeed serves as Israel's governance hub since 1949, where most high ranked foreign officials arrive for meeting with their Israeli counterparts. Even officials of countries that do not officially acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel's capital do attend such meetings. Thus, not mentioning Jerusalem as Israel's capital is not less than misleading information for layman readers. Instead, it will surely be mentioned that the city serves as a disputed piece of land. ContraApion 16:14, May 24 2013 (UTC) — ContraApion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, despite what international politics might say, Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel, fullstop. 50.140.166.14 (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC) — 50.140.166.14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, Jerusalem is Israel's capital, de facto, and de jure (under Israeli law). Inkbug (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, if Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, what is? This is a simple fact. Instaurare (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, per Inkbug. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Question one: No

 * 1) The statement is too simplistic.  A more nuanced statement composed from the sourced statements above would be better. Jehochman Talk 12:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Too simple, no room for details.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) No. Agreed that it is "too simple" and that details or qualifications of that statement should be appended to it. Sure it is a truth, but it's a qualified truth, so logically a qualified truth that doesn't explain the mitigating conditions associated with its truth is a lie by omission. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that ignores the POV of nearly the entire world.  nableezy  - 14:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, since sources say most of the world doesn't refer to Jerusalem as Israel's capital. --Dailycare (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Clearly not. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, too simple - Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Echoing about oversimplifying a complex topic. Collect (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) No. It implies East Jerusalem is in Israel, which in international law, it is not. It is not treated as such either in many spheres of Israeli law.  The apparently innocuous proposition is, implicitly, territorially appropriative and therefore violates WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) It needs to be neutral and not simplified. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  15:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Per WP:V : it does not because East-Jerusalem is part of Jesuralem but is a Palestinian occupied territory. More, WP:NPoV require all reliable points of views are taken into account and this option doesn't take into account the Palestinian point of view and more important the UNO and international community point of view that reject or refuse to validate that de facto situation. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, as per others here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Capital status is unrecognized by pretty much the entire world save Israel so no.-- The Devil's Advocate  tlk.  cntrb. 17:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) "X is Y" reads as a definitive statement of fact, and while that is fine for almost all situations, e.g. "Boston is the capital of Massachusetts", it is controversial here, as it represents a point-of-view that is a distinct minority. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) No. I didn't dig deep on this topic, but I usually read on news websites (Arabic and English) that Tel Aviv is the capital, but Israeli leaders keep referring to Jerusalem as "the eternal capital of Israel". So I see this as reflecting the Israeli POV in Wikipedia words, which is not acceptable.  Mohamed CJ   (talk)  20:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) No. While I agree with the general principle that states are permitted to decide their own capital, this is a special case. The fact that multiple sovereign nations claim the city as their capital, as well as the UN declaration of corpus separatum, means that a large number of references do not treat the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" as an unqualified fact. WP:V and WP:NPOV require that we do the same. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 20:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, too simplistic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because what must follow is: "but it is complicated..."  Fylbecatulous   talk  20:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) No. WP:NPOV says: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Sources do contest that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel or indicate that the matter is in dispute. Sovereignty over Jerusalem, both East and West, is also disputed. After Israel passed laws regarding the sovereignty and status of Jerusalem, the "international community", through UN motions, affirmed that no country had sovereignty over Jerusalem, that no country could unilaterally alter the status of Jerusalem and that any such acts, including laws regarding Jerusalem passed by Israel, were invalid.      ←   ZScarpia  03:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Although legally recognized by Israel as its capital, the eastern portion of Jerusalem is claimed by the Palestinians. To say unequivocally that Jerusalem is "the capital of Israel" within the lead sentence will inevitably give the impression of bias. Kurtis (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) No. This is a special case that requires qualified language. Otherwise is it not NPOV. Kaldari (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, far too simplistic and partially false. --Felisopus (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is misleading without appropriate qualifiers and caveats. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, without further qualification. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with everyone else, without some sort of qualifier this statement cannot be considered neutral. The lack of qualification implies that the "capital" status is undisputed which is clearly a POV.  AgnosticAphid  talk 21:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) No.  Oversimplified to the point of being misleading.— S Marshall  T/C 22:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) No. Capital city is not much like "largest" or "smallest", it is a matter of politics rather than clear facts. Considering the dispute over east Jerusalem, we should definitely not make such a controversial statement --aad_Dira (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC).
 * 4) No. The city called by the state of Israel "Jerusalem" is indeed the capital of the de jure state of Israel according to international law, but it is also true that the boundaries of this city are determined de facto by that state in contravention to international law. This de facto determination extends the area to include land that is not only not part of Israel, but is also militarily occupied by that state in contravention to international law. In addition, most Muslims (and some others) regard the city, not as Jerusalem (a religious term specific to Judaism and Christianity), but as Al-Quds (which refers to the mosque in the city, and to the revered stories about the "night visit" there by the Prophet Muhammad). Furthermore, many millions of people - including the millions who belong to the now internationally recognised "observer state" of Palestine - regard the city of al-Quds as the capital of Palestine. Finally, it is important to recognise the fact that, at present, the search term al-Quds being only used to redirect users to the "Jerusalem" article is in itself offensive to millions of people. Therefore, given the huge and enduring conflict over, not just this disagreement, but also the illegal occupation, and the status of the whole land west of the Jordan in this area, it would be wrong to continue to refer to "Jerusalem" as the capital of Israel. Indeed, in order to be neutral on the subject, it would be far better also to rename the article "Jerusalem" to "Jerusalem or al-Quds". D Dayus (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) No. As the sources summary shows, saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is a "seriously contested assertion" and therefore a violation of NPOV. Neljack (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) No.  As stated, it is overly simplistic content describing a very complicated subject, to the point of being misleading. It alone is a “seriously contested assertion” and therefore, non-neutral without further qualification.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) No. A capital city is sometimes a complex construction. It is not at all clear as to whether it is decided entirely by the state itself or whether the international community has an input. To declare the answer violates NPOV. Andrewaskew (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) No. I see no reason to exclude any statement that points to the contrary facts. At least is could include by Israel, but/and .... indeed it is "complex" as the RfC intro says, but that is no reason to oversimplify the encyclopedic lead. -DePiep (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Question one: Other

 * 1)  Is one statement with no context NPOV?  Generally, not how NPOV works, but could it be in context, sure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) This question is irrelevant. During the discussion that led to this RfC, some editors wanted this question alone (rather than also Question 2) to be asked, because if this sentence here didn't comply with NPOV, no sentence including it [e.g. the one queried in Question 2] could comply with NPOV. On the other hand, I (and others) argued that the whole "sentence", including the key phrase though not internationally recognized as such, should be queried, as that's what the article says. The compromise was what we have now -- asking about both. Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Considering a number of people have said "no" to Question 1, but "yes" to Question 2 -- and others have explicitly mentioned context in their remarks -- the idea that this phrase needs to satisfy NPOV in order for any sentence or paragraph that includes this material to satisfy NPOV is far from universal. No one is arguing to remove though not internationally recognized as such from the article, so there is no reason we need to discuss a sentence like this one without the added context in Question 2. --  tariq abjotu  01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) It can be NPOV, but it's not helpful. It would be a very bad idea to include the first sentence without following it up with more context, if for no other reason than that it's a complicated situation that readers should understand.  Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) It can be NPOV if it is stated that it is the official capital of the State of Israel. It is factual if stated in that manor IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) There is no "point of view" involved in describing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The statement is consistent with the commonplace meaning of a capital city as the official seat of government; that Israel is governed from Jerusalem, and that the governmental institutions are there, is amply sourced within the article. However, the statement by itself lacks context and fails to provide key information readers would be seeking.  The article currently has a second phrase connected with the statement, and additional context is given in footnotes and in the body of the article.  We owe it to the readers to provide such context. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Question two
Please answer either "yes", "no", or "other" in the relevant section below, giving a detailed rationale for your choice.

Question two: Yes

 * 1)  Yes.  A country decides what it's capital is going to be, and that decision is usually recognized by other countries.  When it isn't, a statement is required to explain the issue. Jehochman Talk 12:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, I have no problem with this statement, It is de-facto capital of Israel, not recognized by the majority of countries.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. Agree with the two comments above, though the sentence could be written more accurately and more explanation is expected to follow.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. This is clearly accurate - capitals are self-determined (so even if no-one recognised Jerusalem as the country's capital, it still factually is), but as it isn't widely recognised, it's worth pointing it out. Number   5  7  14:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, per User:Jehochman. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact, The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East begins its article on Jerusalem in almost exactly the same words (p. 491). --GHcool (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. Jerusalem is Israel's de jure (if not entirely de facto) capital. Israel exercises direct jurisdiction over the city, whether or not that jurisdiction is legitimate or legal. Skimming over the definition of the city as capital, with deference to Palestinian claims of sovereignty, ignores nearly fifty years of status quo. If the current diplomatic standstill continues for another thousand years with Israel in complete control of the city, will we still be dodging the issue of capital status? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 20:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital, and Israel's government is located in Jerusalem. Therefore, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. I also see no evidence, nor have I ever seen evidence, that the lack of recognition by other countries or the fact that part of the city is occupied territory (or "not within Israeli territory") affects that. The absence of another capital city located on occupied territory is not proof that a city on occupied territory cannot be a country's capital. This is a statement of an indisputable fact -- that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel -- followed by an acknowledgement that the rest of the world doesn't like it (for reasons noted here and detailed in so many other places on and off Wikipedia). That position from the rest of the world can be elaborated upon elsewhere -- and it already is: elsewhere in our current lead, in a footnote linked in the lead, in the body of the article in a dedicated section, and in a separate article. Sufficient context and information is given about this issue for this statement to be in the lead. And making this statement does not mean we'd also be saying Jerusalem is indisputably Israeli; yes, the Israeli government does believe that, but the fact that one agrees with them on one thing (that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) does not necessarily mean one agrees with them on everything. --  tariq abjotu  02:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, per what I said to the first question, and it shouldn't be that hard to show that lots of governments refuse to acknowledge it. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Palestinian claim deserves the same consideration in the incipit. --Felisopus (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. Each nation determines its own capital so Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but since the issue is so contentious it can be clarified that most countries doesn't recognize Jerusalem as the capital. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. This is the current wording which is the result of consensus, has been in the article for years and survived multiple RfCs. It is also accurate and supported by sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, per User:Jehochman. Inkbug (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, though as User:Felisopus notes, I'm fine with mentioning the Palestinian claim as well (e.g. "Jerusalem is the capital of both Israel and Palestine").  Nations can declare whatever city they want their capital, and that simply is a fact; they don't even need to control their capital, which Israel does (via occupation, perhaps).  Just look at any government-in-exile; the capital of Portugal was not Rio de Janerio during the Napoleonic wars, despite the fact that the royal court + government was all there, it was Lisbon.  Or, for a more awkward example, the capital of Vichy France was German-occupied Paris, not Vichy.  Anyway, if we grant these examples of declared but uncontrolled capitals - which includes Palestine of course, as they do not control East Jerusalem - we obviously must grant Israel's as well, just the contested control there is a matter of international recognition rather than military defeat. SnowFire (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. This seems balanced. Instaurare (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes.  StevenJ81 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes, per all the reasons already stated (in many cases with considerable eloquence) by virtually all 13 of the preceding 16 commentators who have discussed the statement as it stands without suggesting modifications.  The statement is accurate and, with its accompanying footnotes, provides an unusual amount of context for a capital city article.  The context might be further enhanced by addition of a footnote explaining that countries determine their own capitals, without approval by outside parties (other countries, the UN, the "world community", etc.) being required.  It is neutral to describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, per the mundane meaning of a capital city as the official seat of government, which in the case of Jerusalem is abundantly sourced.  Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel, and is where the governmental institutions are.  Despite endless attempts to bring in extraneous factors, Wikipedia editors are not empowered to deviate from or change the common definitions and usage of words. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Question two: No

 * 1) No. Much of what Israel calls "Jerusalem" is not in Israel. By giving the Israeli claim to it being the capital, we imply that it is "Israeli". The overwhelming majority of sources reject that position, and nearly every state on the planet considers East Jerusalem to be in the Palestinian territories, not in Israel. To call it the Israeli capital, even with the condition given, implicitly supports a position that the majority of sources reject.  nableezy  - 14:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) This is not neutral since sources describe Jerusalem's alleged capital status as a major controversy and Wikipedia shouldn't take sides in those, rather we should describe the sides' arguments. Many sources say that Israel claims/considers/proclaims/etc Jerusalem to be its capital, but that this isn't accepted internationally. That should be the gist of our message. If most of the international community don't say Jerusalem is Israel's capital, neither should we. Here are a few sources that describe the issue: Israel (...) claims it as its capital  Israel considers all of Jerusalem (...) as its capital, a position not accepted internationally  While Israel calls Jerusalem its (...) capital, few other states accept that status  "Jerusalem is Israel's capital and will remain as such." That position is universally rejected by other countries  page 87: "most States (...) do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as claimed by Israel"  Mr Romney referred to Jerusalem as Israel's capital, something the current US administration and most of the international community do not do --Dailycare (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) No as the first half of the sentence states as a fact a widely rejected fringe position. Something like "Israel and Palestine view Jerusalem as their capital, though its not internationally recognized as such" would be npov. Sepsis II (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) No. People have said countries get to define their own capital. True, but in the modern nation state system they do not get to unilaterally define their own territory. Israel has designated its capital outside of its internationally recognized territory - which is why there is so much controversy over the issue. The statement under discussion assumes the minority Israeli position at the expense of the overwhelming majority opinion and is therefore inconsistent with WP:NPOV. For a fairly standard account of the issue see eg (P R. Kumaraswamy 2009): "The international community, however, does not recognize even West Jerusalem, let alone the post-1967 unified city, as Israel's capital. The United Nations and various other international forums and organisations have adopted innumerable resolutions condemning Israel's policy on Jerusalem. With the exception of a few Latin American countries, most states that have diplomatic ties with Israel consider Tel Aviv to be its capital." Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital and moved its government buildings to Jerusalem (these are facts), but what this means for the status of Jerusalem, both in terms of Israeli sovereignty and capital status is not decided. There is a significant divergence of opinions in WP:RELIABLE SOURCES on this and therefore per WP:NPOV we should not be stating it as a fact. A sample of viewpoints diverging from the Israeli opinion of the capital/sovereignty status of Jerusalem can be viewed here.  Neutral, balanced sources such as the Encyclopaedia Britanica use language that is careful to state only the agreed facts without adopting the opinions of one of the parties ("Jerusalem is the seat of government and the proclaimed capital, although the latter status has not received wide international recognition.") We aim to be a neutral and balanced source and we should be taking a similar approach. Dlv999 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) No ... still misses the point Collect (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) No. The UN has rejected this. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) No rmally, I would say: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine", but this case is not normal. If the whole world except Israel says "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel", then stating that it is the capital, especially in the first sentence, is simply not true. You can only say "Israel has declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, although this is internationally not recognized", and only combined with the Palestinian counterpart "Palestine has declared Jerusalem the capital of the State of Palestine". Whereby noticed, that the Palestinians speak of Jerusalem and not of East Jerusalem, even when it is East Jerusalem de facto. The whole point should preferably not be mentioned in the lead, but in the body, just because of its controversial character. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) No.' A country decides what its capital is going to be' (Jehochman). True, but no country, except Israel here, has decided its capital is outside of its legally defined, internationally recognized and sanctioned borders. That is the problem. You cannot stake your claim on both ground you own but include in the stake another man's contiguous patch.  It is therefore, intrinsically, a contested claim.  Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Jehochman is right that a country decides where to establish its capital and he is right that this choice is then recognized or not by the international community but this solution does not comply with WP:NPoV because it doesn't give the Palesitnian point of view and because it forgets to remind that East-JErusalem is an occupied territory as widely reminded in all UN resolutions regarding the topic. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 16:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) A country can choose its capital within its own undisputed borders or, only with agreement, elsewhere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Gives insufficient context for this statement to be neutral, though it is better than just saying it is the capital.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Per Nableezy, Sepsis II and Wickey-nl.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  20:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is still too simplistic, because it leaves out too much context and nuance, and it seems to imply that the lack of recognition is a lesser dispute than it actually is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because 'Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.' This sentence still cannot be neutrally stated without a modifier or caveat.  Fylbecatulous   talk  20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) No. The sentence is asserting as a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel when that is something under dispute and therefore breaches WP:NPOV. Many of those voting Yes are using the argument, as the Israeli government and its supporters do, that states have the right to nominate their own capital. That argument is irrelevant as far as WP:NOV is concerned; it doesn't change the fact that the status of Jerusalem IS disputed and therefore should be presented in terms of points of view. The argument is an attempt to bypass WP:NPOV; it's using an "Israeli" argument to argue that the "Israeli" point of view is a fact rather than a point of view. That is, it is pushing a point of view. If there was agreement that Israel had sovereignty over Jerusalem, nobody sensible would object to Israel nominating it's own capital. The point is, though, that there is widespread agreement that Israel does NOT have sovereignty over Jerusalem, nor the right to unilaterally change that city's status, which is why Israel's choice of capital is rejected. Simply, that view could be expressed as that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital because Jerusalem is not Israel's.       ←   ZScarpia  07:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC) On the "dictionary definition" argument: the argument is weak in at least two aspects, that there are many different dictionary definitions, some favourable to the pro-Israel point of view, some not, and that the neutrality rules are concerned with whether there is a dispute, not, as with the "dictionary definition" argument, the rights or wrongs of that dispute.       ←   ZScarpia  13:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my rationale directly above, outright ignoring the Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem creates the perception of a pro-Israel bias. It also flies in the face of international consensus. Kurtis (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) No. Unless Palestine's claims of Jerusalem as national capital are given equal weight (which I have done in version of the draft) with Israel's, I absolutely and vehemently oppose this, as per Nableezy; This leads to all sorts of problems regarding what's been appropriated, what's been illegally settled, etc. So I think the only possible solution is to list it as capital of both cities, and any article on Jerusalem which doesn't include it as capital of both states is extremely dishonest in my opinion, and also, most likely an attempt to politically rebuke Palestinian statehood on the part of editors.
 * Even if Jerusalem is primarily administered by Israel, Palestine still is entitled to it's share of the city as laid out by numerous UN resolutions and propositions, and so it may be the ipso facto capital of Israel, but it's still the de facto capital of Palestine, and almost the whole world save Israel, including the United States, Japan, and United Kingdom recognizes this, not just Iran or Cuba. Let's not forget this. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) No. It still has Wikipedia taking a definite stance in the controversy rather than neutrally reporting all points of view according to their weight. Kaldari (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Our article Capital city says "Although many capitals are defined by constitution or legislation, many long-time capitals have no legal designation as such: for example Bern, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London, Melbourne, Paris, and Wellington. They are recognised as capitals as a matter of convention... [my underlining] " To my mind, it is this word recognised that is the key here - to be able to say that Jerusalem IS the capital, it needs to be recognised as such - so the sentence as proposed is an oxymoron. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that works either. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this adopts the Israeli position as fact. It needs to say something like "Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital, although the international community doesn't" in order to be a neutral appraisal of the situation rather than the adoption of a point of view.   AgnosticAphid  talk 21:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) No per User:Agnosticaphid.  When tied to land disputes, "capital" is not just a term meaning "seat of government"; it implies legitimacy.  Marechal Ney (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) No.— S Marshall  T/C 22:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) By qualifying that other countries don't recognize something that is normally a domestic decision it interjects other POVs into the lead; such things as recognition of a domestic decision can be carried out in the body of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) No. For the same reason I voted against question 1. The problem is not in including how it is internationally recognized, the problem is in trying to classify a point of view as a fact --aad_Dira (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC).
 * 5) No. The city of "Jerusalem" is recognised internationally by some parties. However, the issue isn't one of international recognition, but of a) the debate over its boundaries, b) the fact of the illegal occupation of parts of the city, c) the fact of the long and violent conflict over the status of the city, and d) the fact that one side of this conflict is using the reference to "Jerusalem" as being "the capital of Israel" as an ideological tool to continue and finalise that illegal occupation.  D Dayus (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) No. This is stating as fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, which is a "seriously contested assertion" and therefore contrary to NPOV. Stating it's not internationally recognised does not change that - the first part of the sentence states Israel's position (opposed by the international community) as fact, whereas the second part states the international community's position (opposed by Israel) as their opinion. The claim that this meets the dictionary definitions of "capital" does not change the fact that whether it is the capital is "seriously contested"; evidently most states do not agree with Tariqabjotu that a state can use (what they regard as) occupied territory for its capital. Dictionary definitions cannot be expected to deal with this unique situation. Neljack (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) No. Without the word 'claims' in the first phrase it is a non-neutral statement which appears to support a minority position.  Rewording to 'Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital, though such is not internationally recognized.' might be closer to neutral.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) No. A capital city is sometimes a complex construction. It is not at all clear as to whether it is decided entirely by the state itself or whether the international community has an input. To say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," whether or not we acknowledge that there is some dispute, is to declare the answer. To declare the answer violates NPOV. Andrewaskew (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) No. Simplified into a level that makes no sense. First the "by Israel" reservation is omitted. Second the "though" part omits reference to many factual points (apart from "recognition") and does not nuance the various parties in "international". That is, out of the nine point Source summary above, the first point is expliucitly there on the lefthand side, and the other eight are somewhat folded into one on the righthand side (and made secondary by the word "though"). The primary source Israel is omitted, and the other primary sources are heaped into "international" (future problem: Israeli POV will claim that the OPT are not even included in "international"). The fact that is is complex (as in: more elements are present), does not inply we should simplify it to a single sentence, useless through compromises. Why cannot we just write it as it is? I can also add that this proposal (Q2) reflects the pro-Israeli POV while the occupation part is not present. For an encyclopedia, this is unacceptable. -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Question two: Other

 * 1) This has more context then the first but still not enough to determine NPOV.  Also, probably too weasily (eg. "generally") to serve in this article well, from a "due" standpoint, or from a three year lockdown standpoint. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Question two threaded discussion
I agree that there are valid objections to this statement. It needs to be expanded to explain that "Jerusalem" is only partly within Israel, as recognized by the world, though Israel asserts that it has all of Jerusalem. This is the very heart of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, and it should be clearly explained. Jehochman Talk 20:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this question is proving problematic. "Insufficient context", "too simplistic", and "still not enough context" are among the phrases used to describe the sentence queried here. So, it seems some people are evaluating this sentence as if its in a vacuum. Yes, if this sentence were the only thing the entire article were to say about the capital status of Jerusalem, it would be woefully insufficient. But, I do not see that as the idea being queried; rather, I see this more as the question Do you think an article [or a lead] with this sentence included could possibly satisfy NPOV? In other words, we must assume that further elaboration and detail you would like would be provided along with this statement. This is not an unreasonable assumption because, let's recall, this sentence is currently in the article in the lead. And, as you can see in the article, there's ample context farther in the lead, as well as in a footnote linked from the lead, in the body of the article in a dedicated section, and in the associated article Positions on Jerusalem. All of the information you provided, for example, is explained in the article and, in fact, in the lead too. This question was not intended to override the information already provided in the article. --  tariq abjotu  02:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I object to any such wording regardless of context. If it stated that Jerusalem is the declared/claimed capital of Israel or any other wording that avoids giving it as a fact (i.e. using Wikipedia's neutral voice "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"), then that would've been different.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Yes, I know some people would object to this sentence, no matter what information is provided in other nearby sentences. Those people are understandably answering no. I wasn't talking about those people. --  tariq abjotu  15:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mohamed CJ. Let's imagine a parallel, say "Man-made climate change is a hoax". Now we wouldn't say that in an article, since while sources exist that say so, many high-quality sources attribute this view to so-called climate change sceptics. We wouldn't say "Man-made climate change is a hoax, although most climatologists disagree" either, since it suffers from the same problem, namely we'd be presenting as simple fact something that many high-quality sources choose to attribute. Now saying "Climate-change sceptics say man-made climate change is a hoax, although most climatologists disagree" would be perfect. --Dailycare (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I wasn't talking to people like you and Mohamed, who don't believe this sentence could be included in a neutral paragraph or article. You are entitled to your opinion; I've got that. I'm talking to the people who say the problem is that it doesn't give enough context. It is possible they are saying that context must be in the same sentence, but I don't know because they don't say. But having the information in a separate sentence may be able to suffice. Note that though your third sample sentence includes the phrase man-made climate change is a hoax, although most climatologists disagree, I can't think of a neutral paragraph or article where "Man-made climate change is a hoax, although most climatologists disagree." is included as a complete sentence. That's the question here. Do you feel that a lead could be neutral if it included the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such." in full? I think yes, as I don't consider this analogous to the climate change point, and you think no, because you believe it is analogous. Maybe some people would say no because it is imperative that it include the Palestinian claims in the same sentence (rather than just an adjacent sentence). Fine, and they can believe that.
 * Either way, I should point out that you were one of the people before the RfC suggesting that we ask about just the phrase Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, even though the words even though it's not internationally recognized as such immediately follow that in the same sentence in our article here. I am very curious to know why you felt that way, even though you have just explicitly acknowledged that adjacent words in the same sentence change the neutrality of a sentence. --  tariq abjotu  16:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is precisely that there exists a large set of phrases that cannot be present in an article that complies with WP:NPOV, no matter how much "context" is provided, unless they're attributed. These are phrases like "man-made climate change is a hoax", "The Earth is flat", "the Apollo moon landings never happened", "Bill Clinton was a great president" and "Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel". (for the record, I consider Clinton to have been a great president) In each of these examples, there are sources that support the statements however a large number of reliable sources present these claims in the context of certain specific groups making them, usually also mentioning that these are not generally accepted. Most of the world doesn't refer to Jerusalem as Israel's capital. We shouldn't either. Most of the world doesn't refer to the moon landings as fake. We shouldn't either. However in both cases, we can present these views, attributed to the groups making them. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You avoided my second paragraph entirely, as I expected. Anyway...
 * It is your opinion that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is equivalent to "Bill Clinton was a great president". It is your opinion that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though it is not internationally recognized as such" is equivalent to "Bill Clinton was a great president, but many people disagree." But what is your reason for approaching me in an irrelevant thread to say that? If that's the way you feel about this issue, the No section above is there for you to say that. As I don't feel that way, the Yes section is there for me to state my position. As I have tried to explain, this thread was not about convincing anyone they were wrong, but to consider the question in the way it was intended (i.e. not consider this phrase as if it'd be in a vacuum). There was no reason for you to butt into this thread and repeat your opinion as if it were dogma, just as I'm not using this threaded discussion section to do that with mine. --  tariq abjotu  16:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerning your 2nd paragraph - clearly if we change the words in a sentence, a non-policy compliant sentence can be transformed into a policy-compliant one. For example, "The Earth is flat" can be so transformed: "the Earth is not flat" Likewise, if we add "Israel insists" to the beginning of the sentence in question, I'd be OK with it. Essentially changing the meaning of a sentence is different from placing it in a different context. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just... never mind. My question is irrelevant to the outcome of Question 2, and I already have a good idea as to why you wanted to exclude Question 2 earlier anyway. --  tariq abjotu  18:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

To Tariqabjotu : I just copy/paste your reasonning : ''"(...) [Palestinian Authority] has declared [East-]Jerusalem [the] capital of the [State of Palestine] [despite the fact that its] government is located in [Ramallah]. Therefore, [East-]Jerusalem is [Palestine]'s capital. I also see no evidence, nor have I ever seen evidence, that the lack of recognition by other countries or the fact that part of the city [because it] is occupied territory (or "not within Israeli territory") affects that. [More, there are many cases of] another capital city located on occupied territory [that is] a country's capital. [Eg, Beijing was still the capital of China under Japenese occupation.] This is a statement of an indisputable fact -- that [East-]Jerusalem is the capital of the [State of Palestine] -- followed by an acknowledgement that [many countries acknowledge this despite the Israeli occupation]. That [support] from the rest of the world [and the Israeli occupation or the special status of the State of Palestine] can be elaborated upon elsewhere -- and it already is: elsewhere in our current lead, in a footnote linked in the lead, in the body of the article in a dedicated section, and in a separate article. Sufficient context and information is given about this issue for this statement to be in the lead. And making this statement does not mean we'd also be saying [East-Jerusalem] is indisputably [a Palestinian occupied territory by a country that refuses to comply to UN resolution regarding this issue]; yes, the [Palestinian] government does believe that, but the fact that one agrees with them on one thing (that [East-]Jerusalem is the capital of [the State of Palestine]) does not necessarily mean one agrees with them on everything. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)"'' As a consequence, on the article Israel, you reasonning would be right to argue the proposal is NPoV but on the article Jerusalem, you own reasonning proves it is not WP:NPoV. (This can be discussed on other talk pages.) Pluto2012 (talk) 08:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? Are you trying to suggest that my statement is just as applicable to the Palestinian claims to the city as their capital? Your supposedly analogous rewording is drastically different in many key areas. For example, I said "Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital, and Israel's government is located in Jerusalem". How is that comparable to "[Palestinian Authority] has declared [East-]Jerusalem [the] capital of the [State of Palestine] [despite the fact that its] government is located in [Ramallah]."? The key word here is despite. Israel declared Jerusalem its capital and its government is there; Palestine declared Jerusalem its capital and its government is not there. How are those analogous at all? And then you've invented this idea that the rest of the world recognizes East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. Since when? Really, can you just say what you want to say rather than make transparently false equivalences. --  tariq abjotu  16:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Palestinian Authority didn't declare Jerusalem the capitol of Palestine, the PLO did prior to the PA even existing.  nableezy  - 16:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tariqabojotu,
 * this is perfectly the same or at the advantage of the Palestinian claims because many (and I didn't write "rest of the world" - strawman argument) states recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine :
 * China supports establishment of Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as capital: special envoy
 * We supported and will support the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to an independent state with its capital in East Jerusalem
 * To this we can certainly add the majority of the Arab and Muslim world and several among the countries of Latine America that also recognized the State of Palestine. We are not far from the representatives of half of the population of the world...
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * From your comment, That [support] from the rest of the world. You obviously didn't read the corruption of my comment that you generated. But, even if you meant to say some of the world... it seems wholly illogical for a country that doesn't have a blatant axe to grind with Israel to support something for Palestine on the eastern half of the city and not that for Israel on the western half of the city. And I see no evidence that that has occurred. Your links demonstrate that China and Russia support the idea of East Jerusalem as being the capital of a Palestinian state; that does not mean that they believe it is so now. Charles de Gaulle also supported the idea of an independent Quebec, but I doubt anyone would argue that he actually believed it was independent.
 * And you never address the dissonance between Israel having its government in Jerusalem and Palestine not, which is a key point when we're talking about capital status. The amount of evidence to support the statement Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and Jerusalem is the capital of Israel will never be equal until either both or neither have their governments in the city. When you made the claim that my remark supporting the neutrality of this statement supported a similar one about Palestine, you glossed over this difference -- and this is and always has been (as if you didn't know, because you've participated in a great many discussions of this type) a key point, as reflected in nearly every definition of a capital city. --  tariq abjotu  22:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tariqabjotu,
 * I didn't mean to say some of the world, I said so ! And precisely : "many countries acknowledge this despite the Israeli occupation (...)". Again, avoid straw man argumentation.
 * You wrote that a state can chose where to establish its capital and that it is enough for it. Now, you change your argumentation and say : Israel established its governement there and not Palestine. So you change your argumentation to make as if a fact should strengthen the claim in order to valide it. What you forget is that you argued that the proclamation was enough to admit the capital status to avoid to discuss the fact that East-Jerusalem, part of Jerusalem, is an occupied city that is not Israeli ie the fact that no country can claim her property (her capital) a city that doesn't belong to her.
 * You have to chose : whether a claim is enough or it is not.
 * If it is, both situations are equivalent. If it is not, both situations lack consistency because there is no Palestinian institutions in East-Jerusalem and because Israel cannot make her own what doesn't belong to her.
 * Regarding the definition issue, if was the real arugment you wanted to put forward, you should have done so immediately either. I just copied/paster your argumentation. Don't add more. You didn't use this before because you know from former discussions that : 1. a definition can have expections and the current case is typically one ; 2. there are other deifnitions ; 3. it was agreed in the RfC discussion that it is WP:OR to make the link between the dictionnary definition and the situation on the ground because if was so obvious, a reminded in WP:V all sources would state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. If they don't it means that it is because it is not so obvious that the situation complies with the definition.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no point in arguing with you. You and I both know we don't agree on this question, and we never will, and that's why I have made no attempt to convince you to change your mind. But apparently discussing anything with you is a wasteful chore, as you have demonstrated time and again, just as you did now, that you read what you want to read and respond to that. My comment explicitly said Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital, and Israel's government is located in Jerusalem., a statement that cannot be said about Palestine without negating the second half of the sentence. Therefore, the original assertion that my comment is just as applicable to Palestine as it is to Israel is baseless. It's as simple as that, and if you could restrain yourself from putting words in my mouth, this thread -- which is basically you putting more words in my mouth -- would never have started.


 * As you have before, you've resorted to playing word games. You denied saying rest of the world, but I could point out those precise words in your comment; you claim you didn't mean to say "some of the world", but meant the allegedly completely different "many countries". As you have before, you've ignored counterpoints presented to you. While you were busy distinguishing between tom-ay-to and tom-ah-to, you conveniently neglected to follow up on my rebuttal of your interpretation of China's and Russia's declarations. As you have before, you've pretended I never said something I did actually say. You alleged that I'm changing my argument, although I have referred to the location of government in every remark under this section, including my original supporting statement. You've claimed I've dodged the point about the occupation of East Jerusalem, even though, yes, that too is mentioned in my original comment, with the context that there is no evidence that its illegitimacy affects the capital status. As you have before, you've thrown around irrelevant policies to avoid acknowledging a basic point. It's original research to use dictionary definitions to suggest that location of a country's government has any relevance -- not necessarily is the defining factor; I'm just talking about having relevance -- to a country's capital? Really? And what do you think the idea of a capital is about, if it has nothing to do with the site of a country's government?


 * As I said, there is no point to this discussion. My comment stands alone, and those who are willing to read it (not you, apparently) can do so, letting it affect them in whatever way they allow it. Meanwhile, you are free to believe whatever fantasy you choose about what I believe and say and what motivates me, and you are free to stay rigid in your views about what is and is not relevant to capital status. Believe it or not, I don't give a damn, as the point of this RfC is not to prove someone right (although I have no doubt someone will arrogantly use this in such a manner), but to find the optimal approach to discussing the capital status in the lead. I have much better things to do than argue with someone who resorts to nonsense tactics to reinforce his point-of-view and who can't even respond to comments as presented. So, I will therefore exit this exercise in futility. --  tariq abjotu  16:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pluto's first language is not English, but he is an excellent and highly knowledgeable (amateur) historian of key I/P events, and deserves better. I suggest toning down your impatient contempt, esp. since you are an administrator, is advisable.
 * I will answer, briefly, one of the points, or questions you posed, in any case.
 * "'Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital, and Israel's government is located in Jerusalem'. How is that comparable to '[Palestinian Authority] has declared [East-]Jerusalem [the] capital of the [State of Palestine] [despite the fact that its] government is located in [Ramallah].'?":::::::Have you never heard of a Government in exile or Rump state? We have a curious mixture of both here (Gaza is a classic rump state, as Joel Peters puts it), and if this mess causes conceptual problems, you should not dismiss other editors who happen to be sensitive to, and unintimidated by, complexity. The Palestinian Authority has an administrative area called the Quds Governorate, and has appointed since 2008 Adnan Husseini as their governor of Jerusalem. He is called precisely that by the New York Times's resident correspondent in Israel, as recently as March 16, 2013. The State of Palestine cannot exercise its 'legal power' in East Jerusalem because that area is under military occupation by a foreign power, as the highest authority in international law has noted. Many on the opposite side of this question have long emphasized that capital city status does not require foreign recognition. Well, I think Pluto is arguing, the Palestinian state does not require Israel, a foreign power, to recognize its claims as a prerequisite for their legitimacy either. These points are reasonable, entertained by numerous scholars, and deserve respect in an encyclopedic venue which demands of editors that they do not allow their personal passions to interfere with the obligation to be neutral, esp. where two nationalisms, as here, are in conflict, and we must represent their claims and positions impartially. No need to reply, of course.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. My. God. How can I say this more simply? Pluto asserted that my comment supports the idea that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine if you essentially replace "Israel" with "Palestine" and make a few minor changes. Except that's obviously not true because you can't change "Israel's government is located in Jerusalem" [true] from my statement to "Palestine's government is located in Jerusalem" [false]. That's it. End of story. There's no equivalence. The assertion he raised is baseless. And so the matter is done. While the italicized comment he modeled after my statement may (or may not) be valid -- and I don't care to argue about that -- it is obviously incorrect to say that that's my reasoning; it's his. You can say how you feel about the actual question under No, as I will say how I feel about it under Yes. You can pontificate about rump states and governments-in-exile in your own thread, and I won't care. I will not argue with you about that, because I know I won't change your mind, as I'm not changing mine either. This thread here was not an invitation for you to come to the aid of one of your friends and again lecture me about how right you are. --  tariq abjotu  18:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's try to keep God out of it- he, or more probably his soi-disant representatives, have done far too much mischief in Jerusalem as it is:) If you read what I wrote, there was no 'lecture about' how right I might be. I wasn't asserting I have the truth: I was asking you for some flexibility in understanding that other people are not always wrong, and therefore should be taken seriously when, as here, they are serious. Perhaps you might mull Montefiore’s remark on the city whose status we are trying to define, which I cited above (‘each of which believes the city belongs to them alone; a city of many names-yet each tradition is so sectarian that it excludes any other.’) Israel's position is that the 'city belongs to 'them' alone. Your position supports that, and, as per Montefiore, has a long history at its back. The name Jerusalem is not a rigid designator operatively, to abuse Saul Kripke's term. But, fine, that's it.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, you want to get the last word in so you can say that? Again, do not put words in my mouth. I have never said that, nor do I believe that. The last sentence of my comment under Yes even explicitly says that I don't. Stop projecting what you believe agreement with this particular sentence implies with what people who actually agree with it state. It's not that hard. --  tariq abjotu  21:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * An inference ('your position supports') is not a quotation (putting words into someone's mouth). 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' entails' East Jerusalem' is part of the capital of Israel. The entailed proposition is the official position of Israel. On this simple issue the community is divided: one group found no entailment implied by the formulation, the other sees this implication as violating WP:NPOV. 'Beliefs' are not the problem, but what otherwise simple sentences might or might not imply. This ambiguity is endemic to natural languages, and the reason why editors have to wrestle with otherwise ostensibly innocuous sentences to hone a neutral text. Goodwill should be able to find a fair compromise. Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem are not separate cities at this time, so, yes, when I describe Jerusalem, I'm describing the whole city. What do you want me to instead say? West Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? That makes no sense. West Jerusalem is now just a concept, an area that is part of the unified (legitimate or otherwise) city of Jerusalem; it is not its own city. I also would not call West Berlin the capital of Germany for similar reasons. Acknowledging that West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem operate together as one city of Jerusalem is not pushing the Israeli point of view or suggesting that this is how things should be; it's simply recognizing the reality that has been in place for decades now. --  tariq abjotu  03:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem are not separate cities at this time, so, yes, when I describe Jerusalem, I'm describing the whole city. What do you want me to instead say? West Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? That makes no sense. West Jerusalem is now just a concept, an area that is part of the unified (legitimate or otherwise) city of Jerusalem; it is not its own city. I also would not call West Berlin the capital of Germany for similar reasons. Acknowledging that West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem operate together as one city of Jerusalem is not pushing the Israeli point of view or suggesting that this is how things should be; it's simply recognizing the reality that has been in place for decades now. --  tariq abjotu  03:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In the first entry in this section, Jehochman writes: "It needs to be expanded to explain that 'Jerusalem' is only partly within Israel, as recognized by the world, though Israel asserts that it has all of Jerusalem. He does not state which part of Jerusalem is in Israel, but if, as I think likely, he means West Jerusalem, that assertion, particularly as it seems to inform several of the drafts, needs to be challenged: "the world" does not recognise that West Jerusalem, or more generally any part of Jerusalem delimited in UN Resolution 181, the partition resolution of 1947, which applies to areas outside the then city boundaries, is part of Israel. For a detailed explanation of of the international community's position on Jerusalem in whole or in part (note that most UN resolutions refer to Jerusalem as a whole) see Wikipedia articles such as Positions on Jerusalem or books such as Mosheh Amirav's Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City. In the latter:    ←   ZScarpia  19:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC) It is a POV not to accept the fact that the country declares it's capital. Only Israel is subject to this.,wikiepdia should ignore what  other countries recognize. 38.104.7.174 (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * p.46-48 detail how Israel and Jordan hoped in the wake of the First Arab-Israeli War that the international community would recognise their sovereignty over the parts of the city that they respectively held but that the UN again voted for internationalisation. "... the UN, which could not impose internationalization on the two sides, made do with a legal ruling, based on international law, saying that Jordan and Israel had no rights to the city and that all their actions in it were considered 'temporary'."
 * p.48 details the conclusion reached by experts on international law who deliberated on the question of who has the right to Jerusalem in the period leading up to 1967: "And all have concluded that regardless of whether Jordan and Israel's hold on their parts of the city is defined as 'occupation,' 'annexation' or 'custody,' their sovereignty in the city was not not recognized by the international community." Amirav continues: "Undaunted, Israel and Jordan continued their efforts to secure international legitimacy for their sovereignty of the city."
 * p.49 details the extent to which Israel manage to gain acceptance of its sovereignty over West Jerusalem up to 1967: "By the mid-1960s, the number of countries that recognized Israel's 'de jure' sovereignty in Jerusalem had risen to twenty-three. Most of these were South American and African countries that were recipients of international aid from Israel in those years, but the group also included one European country - Holland. All of these countries moved their embassies to Jerusalem. And ten more countries were ready to offer 'de facto' recognition of Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem."
 * p.53-55 detail Israel's enactment of legislation to effectively annexed East Jerusalem while not referring to either 'annexation' or 'application of sovereignty'.
 * p.54-55 describe the conditions by which a country may legitimately gain sovereignty over conquered territory, none of which apply to Jerusalem's situation. Amirav states: "Furthermore, Jerusalem's status under international law is that which was determined by the UN in 1947, unless supplanted by another status determined by international agreement."
 * p.56 details the international response to Israel's 1967 legislation: "The UN General Assembly and Security Council passed a series of unanimous decisions decrying Israel's actions aimed at uniting Jerusalem as patently illegal, and called for an immediate halt to them. To this day, international opposition to a united Jerusalem under Israeli control has not abated, as shown, for one thing, by declarations made year after year by various institutions and other international organizations."

Drafts at a glance
We have created seven drafts for you to comment on. Please note that not all of these drafts are intended to be the first sentence of the lead. Some are intended to come later on in the lead, so please bear this in mind when you comment. Also, you may support as many drafts as you like. If you think a draft has merit, then please support it regardless of whether you have also supported other drafts. This will help us to judge what features of what drafts have the widest support, so that we can create new composite drafts if desired. And finally, please give detailed rationales for your choice of draft, based on Wikipedia policy. Some applicable policies and guidelines include:
 * Neutral point of view
 * Verifiability
 * No original research
 * Manual of Style/Lead section

Below is a list of all the drafts constructed for easy comparison. To comment on a draft, please use the discussion sections further down the page. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such. (discuss)
 * 2) Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it within its capital city. Palestine has designated Jerusalem its capital, though neither the Israeli or Palestinian claims have gained international recognition. (discuss)
 * 3) Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli government, but its status as the capital of Israel has been unrecognized abroad. Instead, the international community considers the status of Jerusalem a matter to be resolved with Palestinians, who also see the city as the capital of a future independent state of their own. (discuss)
 * 4) Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their respective capital, but the city isn't recognized internationally as a capital. (discuss)
 * 5) Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital and seat of the Israeli government and the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though the international community does not recognize either proclamation or ownership of the city. (discuss)
 * 6) Jerusalem has long been a point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with both Israelis and Palestinians seeing it as capital of their respective states. Although the Israeli government operates out of the city and has called the city its capital for decades, most nations do not recognize this status. (discuss)
 * 7) Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions&mdash;Judaism, Christianity and Islam [...] Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally. (discuss)
 * 8) Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The status of Jerusalem has long been a point of contention throughout history and in recent years in the context of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it within its capital city. Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally. Instead, the international community considers the status of Jerusalem a matter to be resolved with Palestinians, who also see the city as the capital of a future independent state of their own. (discuss)
 * 9) Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The status of Jerusalem has often been a point of contention, most recently in the context of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions in the city and considers East Jerusalem, which it controls since the Six Day's War, as an integral part of its capital. The Palestinian authorities however claim Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Neither claim is widely recognized internationally. (discuss)
 * 10) Jerusalem is a disputed municipality within the region of Palestine. It is one of the oldest continuously inhabited municipalities in the world, considered holy by each of the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The city is currently divided between the state of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, both of which officially recognize Jerusalem as their nation's capital. (discuss)
 * 11) Jerusalem is a city located in Israel and Palestine, and is claimed as national capital by both states. One of the oldest continuously inhabited urban areas in the world, Jerusalem is considered holy by each of the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is located in the Judean Mountains (also known as the Hebron Hills), between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. Jerusalem is both Israel and Palestine's largest city in terms of both population and area, with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi). (discuss)
 * 12) The Israeli government considers Jerusalem to be its capital. The Palestinian Authority considers Jerusalem to be its capital. (discuss)
 * 13) Jerusalem is the ancient capital of Judea, and is a "holy city"  to three major religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  Modern Israel claims it as its capital, although this is not generally recognised by other nations.  Palestinians have also said they wish it to be the capital of a future Palestinian state. (discuss)
 * 14) Jerusalem is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world. Nestling in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, it straddles Israel and the West Bank and its combined population makes it the largest city in that region. It is deemed sacred by the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam-each of whose traditions single it out for a foundational event: the chosen seat of David’s kingdom, it became successively the hearth of Judaism, the site of the crucifixion of Jesus, and of Muhammad’s visionary ascension. Powers-pagan, religious and secular-have vied to conquer and reconquer it intermittently for millenia, and each has left its mark on the city's monumental architecture, rich mosaic of cultures, languages, ethnic groups and identities. Both Israel and the State of Palestine claim the city as their capital, the former maintaining its primary governmental institutions there, while the Palestinian National Authority foresees Eastern Jerusalem as its seat of power. Neither claim is widely recognized internationally, and its ultimate status is to be determined by peace negotiations. (discuss)

Draft one
^ view all drafts

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft one

 * 1) Factually correct - capitals are self-determined, so what the international community thinks is irrelevant to that fact. However, that it is a controversy is also worth mentioning.  Number   5  7  14:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East opens its article on Jerusalem in almost exactly the same way (p. 491). it is is incredibly succinct and accurate on Jerusalem's status.  --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) As I expected during the discussion leading to this RfC, this draft is handicapped by the fact that it doesn't explicitly elaborate with the additional information that would be included along with it. But, we need to remember that this option is basically just the status quo. And when you look at that status quo, you see an entire paragraph in the lead (Today, the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. [...] The international community has rejected the latter annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. [...]) that includes some of the same information explicitly stated in other drafts that people like. This draft was never intended to be a request to excise that additional background information. --  tariq abjotu  02:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That being said, my support of this draft doesn't mean I believe it's the best. The way the lead is written now is definitely not perfect, if only because this sentence does not work well as the first sentence of the article. But I would support a version of the lead with this sentence and some of the same points already included elsewhere in the lead, even though I believe there may be better options presented here (i.e. more descriptive drafts, like Draft 7). --  tariq abjotu  19:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) assuming this is just the first sentence, and not the entire intro paragraph. It is factual, and is the way Jerusalem is described in many sources, per above, and assuming this is just the first sentence, the lack of recognition can be mentioned in a subsequent one. Prague Drinking Team (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Prague Drinking Team (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 2) Factually correct and succinct, and this is what we've had for a long time and there wasn't a problem with it. I support further clarification, as detailed as the community determines, but it shouldn't be right there in the leading sentence, which should be short, accurate, and should include the most important points (in this case the two stated points). —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) As mentioned above, this wording is factual and supported by the sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Capital city defines a capital as the seat of government and is defined by the law of the country. Inkbug (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) The clearest, most straightforward, concise and accurate of the 15 drafts, so many of which go to great lengths to obfuscate the simple fact of Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel.  Consistently with the way a capital city is defined ("official seat of government" seems to be the most common denominator of dictionary definitions), Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; no "point of view" is involved.  Wikipedia editors are not empowered to deviate from or modify the common definitions and usage of words.  While recognition by outside parties (e.g., other countries, "the world community", etc.) is extraneous to the definition of what makes a capital a capital, we mention the general withholding of such recognition as an essential fact to inform the reader and provide balance.  This draft represents the core of what has been in the lead of the article long-term, where it is accompanied by well-sourced footnotes that provide background and context.  It must be considered together with those footnotes, which should continue to accompany it.  It would be beneficial to include an additional footnote addressing the lack of a requirement for outside approval in the self-determination process countries follow in establishing a capital. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Support draft one with revisions

 * 1) Yes, as "Jerusalem is the de facto capital ..."  StevenJ81 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft one

 * 1) Oppose as the first half of the sentence states a widely rejected fringe position as a fact in violation of NPOV. Sepsis II (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" shouldn't be stated in wikipedia's neutral voice since most countries don't refer to Jerusalem as Israel's capital. --Dailycare (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose because of the NPOV statement (per question 1 vide supra). This draft lacks all context that would adequately summarize and explain the issue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Per comments on if it is NPOV above.  nableezy  - 15:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, while it might be viewed as being technically correct by some, there are so many better choices that we might as well eliminate it. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) As explained above, not the whole truth. Thus factually not correct. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) A country decides where to establish its capital and this choice is then recognized or not by the international community but this solution does not comply with WP:NPoV because it doesn't give the Palestinian point of view and because it forgets to remind that East-Jerusalem was chosen as capital of the State of Palestine as well and also is an occupied territory. (This last point is widely reminded in all UN resolutions regarding the topic.) Pluto2012 (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Per reasons here and responses to question about NPOV above. Significant omissions are made.-- The Devil's Advocate  tlk.  cntrb. 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) This is the third question out of three in which my objection is about the statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". My rationale is as above.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  20:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, as being too simplistic, and thus inferior to other draft options that are below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, echoing what I said above in answer to question one re: NPOV. The first half remains POV and with the additional text, the entire statement now becomes paradoxical. How can Jerusalem be an unrecognized capital?  Complications alone make it so,  which leads one down the garden path of POV explanations to give context.   Fylbecatulous   talk  21:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Per my answers to the two questions in the above section. Kurtis (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, per NPOV discussions above. Kaldari (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, far too simplistic. --Felisopus (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Per comments above. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. Not particularly good wording, and its overall effect is impossible to judge here given the lack of context. Surely this is not going to be the whole intro paragraph? Without knowing what's going to be in the next sentences, I certainly can't support this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose without further qualification. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose on NPOV grounds. It doesn't mention who claims the first phrase, and denigrates the second phrase with 'as such'. Nonetheless, it is the most succinct lede statement, and easily corrected with further qualification and improved wording.CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. Stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is a "seriously contested assertion". The second part of the sentence doesn't change that; in fact, the international community's position is portrayed as an opinion, while Israel's position is asserted as fact. Neljack (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. Thou shalt not state seriously disputed assertions as fact. Thou shalt neither tease nor omit disputing parties. You shall place no community before the world community. This is the way of neutrality. It is known. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. The example given elsewhere here, "Bill Clinton was the greatest president, but not everybody agrees," nicely illustrates the neutrality issues with the draft. Some editors are supporting the draft on the grounds that it is factual. However, in Wikipedia facts are assertions which are not seriously disputed. That Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is seriously disputed and therefore cannot be presented as a fact here. It can, though, be presented as a point of view. Some editors are supporting the draft on the grounds that "countries get to choose their own capitals." In the case of Jerusalem, for reasons which have already been outlined, that's obviously an argument that is not accepted by the international community and is therefore not an established universal principle, at least as far as countries declaring cities which they do not have recognised sovereignty over as their capitals is concerned. Neither is it an argument which is based in Wikipedia rules and policies, rules and policies which it cannot "trump". The argument is seeking to push a minority view as a fact and so is in conflict with the fundamental neutrality policies. In such a situation, a typical solution would be to state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital in Israeli law and that, though that's not accepted by the international community, the Israeli government and its supporters argue that it's a principle that countries get to choose their own capitals. That way, readers can decide for themselves what they believe is valid. I might have supported a modified form of the draft. However, I think that it would be wise to adopt a draft which has a wider scope than the current one.     ←   ZScarpia  10:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. Way too limited in correctness, and incorrect by points above (all of them). -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft two
^ view all drafts

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft two

 * 1) This draft actually says where Jerusalem is and how it functions. 3rd choice.  nableezy  - 14:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) OK. Awkward reading, but introducing most of the relevant statements. -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Support draft two with revisions

 * 1) This sounds good, although it may be read as endorsing Israel's universally rejected claim to having Jerusalem as its capital. Suggest to re-phrase this to " (...) has included it within its proclaimed capital city. Palestine has designated Jerusalem (...)". Further, saying the Western half is "in Israel" is also something that't not accepted by any country aside from Israel itself. Saying the city is "in the Middle-East" or similar would work. --Dailycare (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I think this draft does a good job of neutrally summarizing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and ongoing international situation), but elements of political facts (i.e. defining the nature of the capital status) and historical context is lacking.  I proposed a combination of these elements in Draft 8.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Jerusalem is before all one of the oldest city in the world and the most symbolic one. The current Israeli-Palesitian conflict should not hide this per WP:Due weight. Anyway the presentation of the other facts is precise enough and consice to comply with WP:Due weight and complies with WP:NPoV. A merging in draft 7 would be good. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Could use some clarifications and noting the historical status of the city would be important in the opening of the article. It's mainly notable for being an old-ass city that a bunch of people can't stop arguing about.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) This is more of a provisional support in the absence of anything else which better captures the issue in its entirety. One important addition to make is the fact that the Palestinians only claim East Jerusalem as their capital, rather than the whole city. Kurtis (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) With draft five: Jerusalem is a middle east city and the proclaimed capital of Israel and Palestinian territories, though the international community does not recognize either proclamation or ownership of the city. --Felisopus (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I found myself oscillating between support and oppose on this, and both were weak. I think it could work, but it gives kind of a muddy picture compared to some of the other options imo. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) This deals best with the controversies, ie it is most balanced and includes all the main points re both claims, but is perhaps too focused on them. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Includes valid perspective, but the city predates any borders it now straddles. Its significance to Abrahamic religions is older and more broadly based than heavily weighted post 1967 happenings. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Acknowledges the claims of all sides without giving undue weight to any. One minor issue with grammar "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it within its capital city . , Palestine has designated Jerusalem its capital, though neither the Israeli or Palestinian claims have gained international recognition." Andrewaskew (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft two

 * 1) Jerusalem is occupied by force and formally never recognized as Israeli territory, even West Jerusalem. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't like the Palestinian claim over Jerusalem (there's no way they'll ever get West Jerusalem in any peace agreement).  --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I think that the official British position is that in neither such place as it was meant to be a Corpus Separatum. "Straddles the border of" or some such might get round that problem.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) This is only a weak oppose. I know what is meant by saying that it is a city in two places, but that's a really awkward way of saying it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) This version introduces the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital as being with aggression (Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem... and now ...and included it within its capital city). I don't see that as a neutral way to introduce that point. Further, it doesn't make clear a key difference between the Israeli and Palestinian capital claims: that Israel's government is actually located in the city. --  tariq abjotu  02:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Awkward and too much focussed on the wiki-conflict and on striking a "balance" about it at the expense of simplicity and clarity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Unclear, because it does not say that Israel considers all of Jerusalem, including West Jerusalem, its capital.  DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Violates NPOV by stating that it is in both Israel and the PT. Taking a moderate position is still taking a position.  The draft is also terribly unwieldy.  Marechal Ney (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Lots of problems with this draft. For one, its "facts" are actually what is in the heart of the dispute—where East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian Territories, or not. The very term "Palestinian Territories" is largely an Israeli term, and it officially does not include East Jerusalem (but this is disputed, therefore POV). Many countries, on the other hand, refer to the territories as the Occupied Territories, a term that clearly includes East Jerusalem is in itself disputed (and therefore POV). This brings me to the next point, the term "occupied" is another term that's loaded and disputed. It is not therefore POV. The final point, also a clear factual error, is the linkage between anything 1967 and the status of Jerusalem as capital. Before 1967, East Jerusalem was ruled by Jordan and its status as capital of Israel was exactly the same as it is today (official, but disputed by some). So any information about 1967 is not relevant to the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) I might be missing something obvious, but where's the source that says "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. It is not NPOV to claim that Jerusalem is in the "Palestinian territories" or is "occupied". It has been annexed by Israel, and is not under military rule (unlike Judea and Samaria). Giving equal weight to the Palestinian claim disregards the fact that Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government, not the Palestinians' (see capital city's definition of a capital). Inkbug (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Stating that Jerusalem is in Israel and the Palestinian territories is a "seriously contested assertion". The UN, the EU and various states regard Jerusalem as a corpus separatum and thus neither Israeli nor Palestinian territory (see also Positions on Jerusalem and the sources cited therein). Neljack (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. The draft contains several problems, which centre round Jerusalem's status as a corpus separatum under international law (Mosheh Amirav, Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City, p.54-55: "Furthermore, Jerusalem's status under international law is that which was determined by the UN in 1947, unless supplanted by another status determined by international agreement.") You could say that Jerusalem is in the region containing Israel and the Palestine Territories, but to say that it is 'in' them implies that it is part of them, which is a matter of dispute. To say that Israel included East Jerusalem in its capital implies that West Jerusalem was indisputably both part of Israel and Israel's capital, which it was not.      ←   ZScarpia  11:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Awkward, for starters.  StevenJ81 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose.  Having one's seat of government there is relevant; international recognition is not. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft two threaded discussion
GHcool, what does not liking the claim have to do with it being the claim? And to that point, I dont know that القدس الشريف (al-quds al-sharif, commonly translated as simply Jerusalem), which is what was proclaimed as the capital, even refers to West Jerusalem.  nableezy  - 17:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * GHcool. When Ben-Gurion declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, in 1949, he was referring to the Jerusalem within Israel, on Israel's side of the armistice line. When Palestinians in their declaration of 1988 declared Jerusalem as their capital, they were mimicking the same device. The positions of the negotiators for Israel and the State of Palestine have been, since 1993, when the Oslo Accords relegated the final status of Jerusalem to the end of the peace process negotiations, consistent and are as follows:-
 * Israel: All of Jerusalem, West and East, is Israel’s eternal, undivided capital. All of Jerusalem must remain under Israeli sovereignty forever.
 * PLO: All of East Jerusalem (the area beyond the Green Line) is the capital of the Palestinian state. All of the territories of East Jerusalem must be under Palestinian sovereignty forever. This includes the Jewish “neighborhoods” in East Jerusalem.
 * This has been confirmed as recently as 2011 by Saeb Erekat, who went on the record as affirming that by Jerusalem as its capital, the Palestinians mean ‘East Jerusalem’ within the 1967 borders, just as Ben-Gurion, in declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel in 1949-50, was referring implicitly to Western Jerusalem.
 * So, the Palestinian position is that they do not intend to take over West Jerusalem, as Israel took over and cleansed the Palestinian Arab suburbs of Katamon and Malha in that sector in 1948-9. History moves on, and we do well to follow in its wake, picking up the details thrown overboard, rather than raise fearful spectres of awesomely undocumented claims. Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * All of the proclamations, etc, should be in the body of the article. The lead should succinctly and clearly summarize the facts.  As of this writing, Jerusalem is (both in theory and in practice) the capital of no country other than Israel.  --GHcool (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I.e. the fact you like should be in the lead. The fact you dislike, that part of Jerusalem is not in Israel, should be swept down the page, to some note in the body of the article. That too fails WP:NPOV, by selectively privileging one fact over another. Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Nishidani was right in saying that the PLO merely claims East Jerusalem as their capital and they do not intend to take over West Jerusalem. Two things have to be said. 1: Parts of West Jerusalem are still claimed, although not as part of the capital; 2: Large parts of municipality Jerusalem were actually not Jerusalem at all before Israel captured them. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, would saying Jerusalem is a city split between Israel and the Palestinian territories be better? Or is there some other phrasing you would find better? @DGG, would rephrasing the sentence to say Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it within an expanded Jerusalem municipality, which it has designated its capital satisfy your objection? Or do you have some other suggestion?  nableezy  - 01:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For me, yes that would help. However, I still prefer some of the drafts below, overall. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think there might be a problem with implying that there is some kind of border running through the city, with Israeli Jerusalem on one side and Palestinian Jerusalem on the other, which is what that sounds like, and which is clearly not true. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is true, though it isn't a border. The Green Line separates the portion of "Jerusalem" that is in the Palestinian territories and the portion that is in Israel. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Green Line separates the two territories occupied by the two respective parties at the time of signing. It does not recognize any Israeli territory, especially not Jerusalem. Actually and interestingly, this also means that East Jerusalem is neither in the oPt nor in Israel, despite all UN resolutions! --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I must add, unless you define the oPt as the Palestinian side of the Green Line. But that is not the original meaning of it. In fact, UN resolutions did include East Jerusalem in the oPt, but AFAIK there has never been a resolution that says that Jerusalem or even West Jerusalem is Israeli territory. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You know, very soon after I said that, about no border, it occurred to me that I would get called out on the Green Line. However, I think that the very fact that we have to go back-and-forth on how to word it indicates a shortcoming of this draft. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for your comments. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft three
^ view all drafts

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft three

 * 1) Excellent. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Reads fine to me. Historical context would be provided in the lead, just as it is now. --  tariq abjotu  02:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Seems ok to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I think this is OK and policy-compliant, although draft seven is stylistically superior. --Dailycare (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Support draft three with revisions

 * 1) Support, but would replace "with Palestinians" with "with the Palestinian authorities" - the Jerusalem case won't be negotiated with the Palestinian people(s) as a whole. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as closest to the actual state of affairs. Collect (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I like this a lot, but its less succint than Draft One. --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) With the revision suggested above this would also be a suitable addition.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) I could live with this but I would prefer one of the options below that mention the historical and religious context.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) I feel the same way that Peter cohen does. It's also rather simplistic in treating the view of the international community as monolithic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I think draft 2 is best so far but i could live with this subject to the base tenet that a good draft must include all the key points in Mr Stradivarius' "Source Summary" at the top of this page. In this draft the missing point is East Jerusalem - e.g. "East Jerusalem is internationally recognised as being in the occupied Palestinian territories". Oncenawhile (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Other than the stated NPOV problems, I agree with GH; I also agree with Peter. But mostly I agree with Trypto and the simplistic treatment of the international views in all iterations.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) I think this needs a copyedit but, in terms of the information it coveys, it does the job. Formerip (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Very good. I would just note that the state of international recognition should be more clear --aad_Dira (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC).
 * 11) This is a reasonably good starting point, but there are a few issues. The word "also" doesn't make sense, as Israel does not see it as a "capital of a future independent state"; Israel already exists as an independent state. Also, I think it would be helpful if the lead section mentioned the city's status as capital under Israeli law, maybe between the words "status as the capital of Israel" and "has been unrecognized abroad". I also agree with Skäpperöd's point above. An effort should probably be made to make this less wordy, perhaps by removing the word "Instead, ", replacing "the status of Jerusalem" with "the city's status", possibly switching "has been" with "is" if that makes grammatical sense (?). --Yair rand (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Support with Skäpperöd's changes (although it should be Palestinian Authority, not Palestinian authorities). Inkbug (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Stating "its status as the capital of Israel has been unrecognized abroad" could be construed as stating that it is the capital, despite other nations refusing to recognise it. Since stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is a "seriously contested assertion", this would violate NPOV. I suggest that it be changed to read "...but Israel's declaration of it as its capital has been unrecognized abroad." Neljack (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) I quite like the draft. A shortcoming is that it implies that the dispute is confined to Jerusalem's status as a capital, when, perhaps more importantly, it extends to sovereignty.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  11:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Fine, but stylistically prefer #7 and #14.  If using this one, prefer "has not been recognized" to "has been unrecognized".  StevenJ81 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft three

 * 1) Not clear enough. Everybody will not make the link between the "seat of the governement" and the capital status; even less that according to some definitions, the capital is where the embassies stand and not where the government seats... Pluto2012 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Too much focussed on the details of the conflict. There are more important things to say about Jerusalem than these details about what functions of a capital it has or doesn't have. This should not be the first sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Weaselly. Being the seat of government is tantamount to being the capital, but the draft avoids saying it is the capital. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft three threaded discussion
Concerning the "too much focused on details", this RFC is largely about how to express the capital/seat-of-government point. The article itself naturally does cover also other ground.--Dailycare (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The phrase "has been unrecognized" doesn't make sense. Do you mean "is unrecognized" or "has not been recognized"? — This, that and the other (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes a difference. They all read as meaning the same thing, even if one of those formulations may (or may not) be incorrect. --  tariq abjotu  02:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft four
^ view all drafts

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft four with revisions

 * 1) More succinct then suggestions above, but "isn't recognized as a capital" is a bit confusing. Noting that the claim is what is not recognized would be better. We should also mention the de-facto control of the city by Israel.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) For one thing, please change "isn't" to "is not". I recognize that this draft would not be the opening of the lead, so how well it would work depends a lot on what comes before it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) My suggested revision: "Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their respective capital, but the city is not recognized internationally as such". Using "capital" twice reads awkwardly and is redundant.  If "as such" would have worked in earlier drafts or questions, why not now? Otherwise, I like this as being rational and well stated.   Fylbecatulous   talk  22:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support with the revision suggested by Fylbecatulous. Balanced and succinct. The likes of Tariqabjotu have never convincingly explained why the fact that Israel has de facto control of the territory is relevant to this claim (it will obviously be mentioned elsewhere) - this is about who is entitled to it, not who is currently occupying it. Neljack (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft four

 * 1) Oppose: "Palestine" is a virtual and/or future state/concept. What there is now should not be described as some "Palestine" claiming a capital. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Jerusalem actually is the capital of Israel right now and not the capital of Palestine at the moment. The article ought to reflect this reality.  --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Probably my last choice. Like Draft 2, but in a more overt fashion here, this puts the Israeli and Palestinian claims to Jerusalem as capital on an (unnecessarily) equal level. Israel's government is located in the city, Palestine's is not. That is a key difference when we're talking about capital city and that needs to be noted, or at the very least implied with slightly different language referring to the two claims. --  tariq abjotu  02:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Too simplistic - ignores most of the key points in Mr Stradivarius' "Source Summary" at the top of this page which are critical to a reader's understanding. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Other contenders are better, and the second phrase needs a 'for either' at its end. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Although a decent starting point, it doesn't give enough context to the city, or its historical and cultural significance.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Like Skäpperöd, "Palestine" doesn't exist. Inkbug (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Ideally, drafts should be addressing the following points: that Jerusalem is under Israeli control but that its claimed sovereignty isn't internationally recognised; that Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and, under Israeli law, its capital, but that its status as capital is not internationally recognised, Israeli attempts to unilaterally change the status of the city having been rejected; Palestinian claims on the city. The draft is inadequate from that regard.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  11:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Opposed.  Doesn't contain enough, as per ZScarpia.  StevenJ81 (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose.  The evenhandedness that characterizes this draft is bogus. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft four threaded discussion
The view that "Palestine" is not a state is something without any basis in the sources. Palestine is a state that has been recognized by the vast majority of other states. It isnt a country (it doesnt control its territory, it doesnt exercise a monopoly on violence, ...), but it certainly is a state. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Two countries vie for the city, so 'Israel and Palestine' is fine. The problem is stylistic. I.e.capital in 'but the city isn't recognized internationally as a capital,' is repetitive, since the word was already used in the preceding sentence. I suggest reformulating as 'Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their respective capital, though neither claim is internationally recognized.}} or something like that (there I go, objecting to repeating, and replacing one type with another (viz.claim).Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this proposal. Is this supposed to be the first sentence of an article? If yes, it clearly doesn't work. It might work as a sentence somewhere within a lead paragraph, but that's impossible to judge without context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not intended to be the first sentence. This is just the sentence in the lede that would deal with the disputed status. Neljack (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft five
^ view all drafts

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft five

 * 1) Neutral, informative, with no room for misinterpretation. Sepsis II (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) This one seems fine in its current state, at best one could switch "seat of the Israeli government" with "the proclaimed capital" to be clear that it is de-facto the seat of the Israeli government and not just proclaimed as such.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Succinctly sets out the de facto position on the ground (it is Israel's seat of government), the competing claims, and the view of the international community. Neljack (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Support draft five with revisions

 * 1) Question of ownership was missing in draft 3. either should be both. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Another acceptable option thay could be merged in draft 7. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) With draft two, simple and clear. Jerusalem is a middle east city and the proclaimed capital of Israel and Palestinian territories, though the international community does not recognize either proclamation or ownership of the city. --Felisopus (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh, I dunno. Too many "proclaimed" and "proclamations" for my taste. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd prefer if the drafts tied down details such as control of Jerusalem and the city's size relative to others in the region, but I could accept the draft if those details appeared elsewhere in the Lead. It's not so much the proclamations that were not recognised as the proclaimed statuses, which I'd prefer the draft to state. Also, I'd prefer the word 'sovereignty' or the expression ' de jure sovereignty' to be used rather than the word 'ownership'.   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  00:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft five

 * 1) Oppose: "Palestine" is a virtual and/or future state/concept. What there is now should not be described as some "Palestine" claiming a capital. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Jerusalem actually is the capital of Israel right now and not the capital of Palestine at the moment. The article ought to reflect this reality.  --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I think the language about proclamation and ownership creates more problems than it solves. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) The word "proclaimed" is so forced in this draft and makes this sentence read terribly. --  tariq abjotu  02:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Too simplistic - ignores most of the key points in Mr Stradivarius' "Source Summary" at the top of this page which are critical to a reader's understanding. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose for the reasons stated by others. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, based on Skäpperöd, GHcool, and Tryptofish's reasons. Inkbug (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. More evasiveness.  Proclaimed capital plus seat of government equals capital. Why not say capital? Hertz1888 (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft five threaded discussion
The first two opposing !votes are detached from reality and should be ignored as such. Sepsis II (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Jerusalem actually is the capital of Israel right now and not the capital of Palestine at the moment.'
 * GHcool. Well, in what capital of the world do you find the utilities divided nationally? East Jerusalem's predominantly Palestinian sector has its water and electricity supplied by the Palestinian Authority's grids; the allocation of 'Jerusalem' municipal funds runs 92-94% overwhelmingly in favour of Jewish residents, to the West or in the encircling settlements. Sewage and road infrastructure idem: they're 'their problem'. The Jerusalem muncipality refuses most applications for building permits for Palestinians in East Jerusalem: 33% of its housing infrastructure is thus illegal and can be bulldozed on court order. The whole curriculum of Palestinian East Jerusalem schools is based on the curriculum established by the PA in the West Bank, by another country. The fact is, while Israeli law applies to East Jerusalem's status as part of Israel's unilaterally declared 'eternal and unified Jerusalem', in de facto terms it is abandoned to its own resources, and the equal application of the laws of Israeli does not apply. That is a very peculiar state of law(lessness) for a putatively united capital city, incongruent with all other cases I am familiar with.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem was the capital of Israel since 1948. It remains the capital today. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite any injustices Israel may or may not have committed against Palestinians.  I will accept that it is the capital of Palestine only when Palestine's seat of government actually exists in Jerusalem.  --GHcool (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * West Jerusalem, not Jerusalem, was the capital of Israel since 1948. The use of Orient House as an official office of representation in East Jerusalem by the Palestinian Authority was denied by the occupying power under Ariel Sharon (the wiki article doesn't tell you the full story). The State of Palestine cannot have its government in East Jerusalem simply because the occupying power refuses to allow it to host diplomatic functions there, its role being limited to supplying its Arab residents with the water, electricity etc., that the occupying power doesn't worry about.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As with proposal four, please clarify if this is meant to become the actual first sentence or whether it should be placed somewhere else (and if the latter, what will the first sentence be?) As a first sentence, I'd oppose it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft six
^ view all drafts

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft six

 * 1) I'll give this draft weak support because I strongly disagree with the oppose rationales that have been given prior to my timestamp. However I would definitely prefer some of the more nuanced and detailed versions below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I can't for the life of me understand what some of the opposers are talking about. Too pro-Palestinian. The Government of Israel is based out of Jerusalem. Ok... Are you reading the correct draft? It says that. Afaik, the Israeli government operates in the city. Saying something operates in a city and out of a city is functionally equal. Some of the others seem equally puzzling. --  tariq abjotu  02:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Not my first choice, but I could live with this, as long as it's not the 1st sentence of the Lead. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Factual and balanced. Neljack (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Support draft six with revisions

 * 1) I think this draft does a good job of neutrally summarizing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and ongoing international situation), but elements of political facts (i.e. defining the nature of the capital status) and historical context is lacking.  I proposed a combination of these elements in Draft 8.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Should not be the first sentence, but is a helpful clarification. It would need to be broadened though, as the drafting suggests that the capital status is the main bone of contention in the conflict over Jerusalem, which it is not. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I overall support with three wording changes.  First, put "Control of" at the beginning of the sentence to clarify.  Second, I would suggest changing "Israelis and Palestinians" to something less sweeping; perhaps "many Israelis and Palestinians" or "Israel and the Palestinian Authority".  Third, at the advice of one of the opponents, "out of" should be changed to "in", not to avoid bias, but because the latter preposition makes more sense.  Marechal Ney (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with not being the 1st sentence. Its 2nd sentence suffers from the missing 'because' phrase at its end.  Without reasons included, it is incomplete and seems overly lachrymose.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) As the draft only comments on the international community's attitude to Israel's claims, it rather implies that the State of Palestine's claims are recognised, which I think is a bit dubious, the UN General Assembly having ruled that no entity can unilaterally change the status of Jerusalem. The wording of the last sentence implies that the international community should recognise Israel's claims because Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and because Israel has referred to Jerusalem as its capital for decades, a point of view that I can't see any reason for the article to express. It would be better if the last sentence was split in two, with a sentence stating that Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and another stating the international view on the status and sovereignty of Jerusalem. I don't think that it's really worth including a non-specific statement about the length of time that has passed since Israel proclaimed any part of Jerusalem it's capital, though the inclusion of more specific statements about Israel's declaration of West Jerusalem as its capital in 1949, followed by the declaration in 1980 declaring the whole city its capital, might be worthwhile. I think that the Lead should mention somewhere that the whole city is now under Israeli control.   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  01:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft six

 * 1) Too pro-Palestinian. The Government of Israel is based out of Jerusalem.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) "Israelis," "Palestinians" and "most nations" do not hold unambiguous collective opinions as if they were borgs. Also, the Israeli government is not claiming J. as "its" capital, but as the capital of Israel. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Afaik, the Israeli government operates in the city. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) As of this writing, Palestine does not operate out of Jerusalem and therefore cannot reasonably called its "capital" right now. --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Seems too POV in its description of the Israeli claims. Seems to be trivializing Israeli control when that is actually a significant detail.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Dispersive. --Felisopus (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, per Skäpperöd and The Devil's Advocate. Inkbug (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, per Chris Troutman. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft six threaded discussion
The rationals behind opposition votes 1 and 4 doesn't seem to match this draft. To Wickey-nl, yes it does operate "in", but it also operates out of (out over the nation) Jerusalem too so the grammar is fine. Sepsis II (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft seven
^ view all drafts

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft seven

 * 1) I think this is my favourite of the various original seven drafts though there are interesting developments below. Jerusalem was fought over long before the modern State of Israel was thought of, let alone the State of Palestine. The religious context explains a lot of the modern dispute and avoids WP:Recentism. (Equally I think that there are problems with Rome where the city being the core of an ancient imperial state and its role as the base of the largest branch of one of the major religions are more important than its being the capital of a medium-sized modern state.)--Peter cohen (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Second Third choice, almost a perfect draft, though I would like to see something on the city being in Israel and the Palestinian territories. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) This is a very good draft that manages to both comply with policy and present the situation dispassionately in deep context. --Dailycare (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Per WP:due weight : the religious history of the city touches several billions people and is thousands years old ; the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its political impacts touches a few millions people and a hundred year old. -> That is totally in compliance with wikipedia principles to start talking about this and discussing about the capital issue later 2. Per WP:NPoV, both claims should be placed on the same level because : both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of their State (max. 10,000,000 people each) ; both are supported by their allies (of course for a political question) but all neutral countries and the majority of the internatinal community (the remaining billions people) do no recognize one claim or the other and ask the problem is solved through peace negociations. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) This version is very good but I prefer the 14th for operationnal reasons. Leaving the text to add uncompleted ([...]) opens the door to a potential conflict and the first reason why the ArbCom asked for this RfC was to put an end to this conflict that disturbs wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Factually accurate and NPOV.  Religion has to be mentioned as it is the main cause of the disputes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you to a certain extent. Yes, it is an important aspect of the dispute, but I think the clash between Zionism and Arab nationalism is the primary factor in the decades-long conflict. Although this is the best wording proposed so far, I'm working on a newer revision that will begin with Jerusalem's present-day status. Kurtis (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Enthusiastic support. I strongly prefer this general approach. Beginning with the historical and cultural context is very helpful, because of the role of religion in the geopolitical disputes, and the description of the Israeli and Palestinian positions is a balanced summary. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) As stated below, I think this the most of the first seven. Jehochman Talk 21:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) So far, this is my first choice.  Mohamed CJ   (talk)  21:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) This reflects everything that is needed and nothing more.  Fylbecatulous   talk  23:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) This is an excellent draft and my personal favorite of the ones submitted so far. It's clear, to the point, and not too wordy. --Septagons (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Septagons (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 06:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — You're correct in the I signed up for Wikipedia recently. I was not aware that I am not allowed to comment on discussions or these type of things.-- Septagons (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) I would say this is the most appropriate choice, though I second Nableezy's concern for an inclusion of a mention that Jerusalem is located both In Israel and in Palestine. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I feel this version best summarizes the various points without casting unnecessary aspersions on reasonable positions. It also directly acknowledges that the city's storied history and religious importance is more significant than, and therefore should be placed before, the recent conflict. --  tariq abjotu  06:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Factually accurate and neutral without being too verbose or convoluted. Also does a good job of succinctly explaining the context of the respective claims. Kaldari (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Very good. Pithy. Puts politics in the backseat by highlighting first of all its religious-historical importance. It needs a few stylistic fixes, however.Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) This works well for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) First choice. I read through all the choices above before I looked down here at the votes, and recorded my impressions on paper. This is the only one I wrote "yes, yes" by. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Seems to cover all the major points in a neutral manner. --Carnildo (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) This draft seems to cover the most important points better than the other options, and is less verbose than the new options below. -    t  u coxn \ talk 22:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) A truly neutral description. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC) — 85.167.109.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. disputed
 * 15) This is my preferred draft.— S Marshall  T/C 22:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) I like this draft. I actually like draft 14 more, which is similar to this draft. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. It's the best of the 15 drafts. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) Support as a distant second preference to draft 14.  This version suffers from recentism in a way that draft 14 does not, and in that aspect I think it does our readers a grave disservice. Whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of either state is a minor issue in its history and should be de-emphasized by including other important aspects.  This draft is at least more balanced than the others and includes more than the others do of a historically conscious overview.  If draft 14 is rejected, this is my second choice.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 19) Definitely the best of the available options. Best of all, it both balances the rival claims and also alludes to the fact that some countries do support one claim or the other. --Dweller (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 20) Is balanced and sets the current dispute in the context of the city's long and significant history. Neljack (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Support draft seven with revisions

 * 1) I think this draft was the best of the original 7 as it begins to draw the discourse by setting the historical context adequately, but needs to provide political/international relations information as presented in other drafts above. I proposed a combination of these elements in Draft 8. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I would suggest that the revisions Skäpperöd mentions with regards to "Israelis" and "Palestinians" would be a good idea, but keep State of Palestine per nableezy's comments on Skäpperöd's draft. Even if not formally established as a state given the occupation, it is a partially-recognized state.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) This seems the best to me. Though I would want to add the following rather pertinent information: it is currently fully under the control of Israel; the western part is within the internationally recognized borders of Israel; the eastern part is within the areas that have been occupied by Israel since 1967 and are claimed by the State of Palestine. (Apologies for any factual inaccuracies, but this is the sort of thing that readers would expect to be told.) Victor Yus (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I indicated above some stylistic adjustments. Some possible tweaks. The elephant in the room in this version deserves further thought. I refer to the [ . . ] between the opening and closing sentences. If we approve this as it stands, the ARBCOM version will leave a yawning gap in the lead 1 para, just waiting to be filled by the same sort of contentious finessing that has troubled us for nearly a decade. One line of development could be as follows.
 * "Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is considered holy by the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Both Israel and the State of Palestine claim the city as their capital, the former maintaining its primary governmental institutions there, while the Palestinian National Authority foresees Eastern Jerusalem as its seat of power. Neither claim is widely recognized internationally, and its ultimate status is to be determined by negotations. Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)"
 * 1) I think draft 2 is best so far but i could live with this subject to the base tenet that a good draft must include all the key points in Mr Stradivarius' "Source Summary" at the top of this page. In this draft the missing point is East Jerusalem - e.g. "East Jerusalem is internationally recognised as being in the occupied Palestinian territories". Oncenawhile (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It states only Jerusalem as the capital, not East Jerusalem. (according to the Basic Law of Palestine, Title One: Article 3) 2003 Amended Basic Law. Scroll down to Article 3.
 * Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Only if the revision by Nishidani, which excludes the inappropriate references to people groups as having collective views, is used. If the version to be adopted includes the phrase "Israelis and Palestinians", rather than referring to the two states, this is an oppose. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support with tweaks provided by Nishidani above. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Nishidani, "...as Israel maintains..." is poor syntax because it implies causation where there may or may not be any. Also, "one of the oldest cities in the world" is vague and unnecessary. Formerip (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I like this proposal because it does not imply that political status is the number 1 most important thing about Jerusalem by putting it immediately at the very beginning. But I think it would be slightly more powerful if the end of it was "...seat of power. But neither claim is widely recognized internationally."  The sentence right now is so long, and it's also a bit stuffy.  I'd still support this proposal if it wasn't revised.  AgnosticAphid  talk 22:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) In this proposal the necessary principal facts are stated in a neutral and accurate manner, but it needs to be copyedited slightly. I could be wrong, but instead of ... as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power ..., I think it should be "... as their capital, with Israel maintaining its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foreseeing it as its seat of power ..." Of all the proposals, this one appears the most suitable. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support in line with Colonel Henry and Nishidani's comments. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft seven

 * 1) Oppose, as the shortcomings of this proposal outweigh its benefits. The additional information of draft eight is missing, and "Palestinians" and "State of Palestine" should be replaced with "Palestinian authorities," and "Israelis" with "Israel." We can neither proclaim some opinion/legal claim as being held by a whole non-borg people, nor should we imply that the "State of Palestine" is, atm, any more than a concept. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Long winded and confuses more than it clarifies. --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Too much focus on religions and archeology. --Felisopus (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) The word "major" seems POV to me. I would support if it said "to the three oldest Abrahamic religions" or something similar.   Pass a Method   talk  19:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Opposing rather than supporting with revisions because I have a few too many reservations about the draft: firstly because, as with many of the other drafts, it doesn't tie down details such as that the whole city is under Israeli control and that sovereignty, as well as status, is disputed; secondly because the wording implies that the Israelis see it as their capital because government institutions are there, whereas they legislated that Jerusalem was their capital and moved government institutions there to affirm and reinforce the justification for their view about its status; thirdly, although I like the first sentence, I'm not sure that its subject matter should be covered by the three-year ruling which will be produced as a result of this request.   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  01:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) "Claim" is a pleasant-sounding but weasel-like way to avoid confronting the actual situation. Other shortcomings further vitiate any advantage this draft may possess. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft seven threaded discussion
I wounder how is this draft confusing? ( By the way, is it just me or do other people have to click "save" twice for edits to go through too?? )  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  21:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is the cause of your needing to double-save, but ... if you've activated the gadget to remind yourself to put an edit summary ... and then don't put an edit summary ... then you'll have to save twice. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think this draft is fine in most respects but the reference to communal, borg-like views held by "Israelis" and "Palestinians" is a huge stopping point for me. It's not that it's not neutral; it's that it's not accurate to ascribe views to an entire group of people. And it's enough that I'm unwilling to support this draft and very much considering opposing it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with your concerns about ascribing views to an entire group of people. I hadn't noticed that. Perhaps it should just say Israel and Palestine. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. However I thought I'd fixed that obviously loose and misleading phrasing in the tweak I provided above (support for the draft with revisions) ('Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital' ='Both Israel and the State of Palestine claim the city as their capital,'). The change required is minimal. Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, but is that the one I'd be supporting if I comment in favour? It still looks to me like the original is still in the big box and attracting support. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The procedure is to express one's view, with the motivation for or against. But, if there is some merit generally in a draft, one can choose another option, expressing approval if certain modifications are made. You'll see that option in the Support draft seven with revisions  section two sections above this. One can do this for all drafts, of course, not just this. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a nitpick if ever I've seen one. I wouldn't care about the replacement of Israelis and Palestinians with Israel and the State of Palestine, but for the fact that those same terms are used later in the sentence. The sentence reads better without such repetition, and the reference to groups in such a fashion is completely normal and appropriate given the context and the prevalence of the ideas within the groups. And this is well-understood in the English language; no one would allege that someone saying (for example) "Americans are so friendly" believes every single American is friendly. The assertion that the use of groups in this manner is "borg-like" would necessitate qualifying many mentions of "Palestinians" and "Israelis" in this article, to say nothing of groups mentioned all across Wikipedia, with already-assumed words like "most". --  tariq abjotu  15:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A way to avoid the repetition even with the words Israelis and Palestinians replaced with Israel and Palestine is by replacing the second mentions with the former and the latter. I still don't think it reads as well as it does currently, but I do think it reads better than a version that has Israel and the State of Palestine both repeated. --  tariq abjotu  15:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You certainly have a stylistic point there, but I don't think Heimstern Läufer was nitpicking. The point he made reflects a very substantial scholarship which advises against referring to any population as though it shared an homogeneous political, cultural or social outlook. It's a hangover from German Romanticism: Herder started it and rather persuasively, nicely, democratically, but we ended up with ranting about Blut und Boden and Victor Klemperer's immortal study of what can happen when we don't pay close attention to the otherwise little incremental changes in our everyday idiom. Given his name I guess this is what HL has in mind. Most countries, and especially democracies like Israel certainly here, don't have a shared outlook on anything. Indeed it goes against their proverbial wisdom (Tsvay yidn, drei meinungern: two Jews, three opinions) It may be completely normal in conversation, tourist guides or that variety of fiction which writes about The French, the Russians, the Japanese, the Chinese. Area scholars, if they note such books, usually brush them off as amateurish and, at worse, dangerously close to stereotyping. I note this at length because it is a problem on many wiki articles. I.e. see the subject of every event in List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 and a dozen related lists, where 'Palestinians' is used for the actions of an extreme minority of militants.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you think it's a nitpick to object to ascribing views to an entire group of people? Doing that is exactly what leads to all the wrong stereotypes I'm stuck fighting on a daily basis, so yes, it is wrong. And even if it is understood as a "most of the group" thing, and even if that really were how people would understand it (and no, I don't think it is), it's still not a representation of the facts. It is states we are talking about here, not people groups, and substituting one for the other ought not to be done. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You've done nothing but exaggerate -- no, fabricate -- malice in the use of groups in this fashion. And, again, if you choose to interpret the use of groups in this manner as "inappropriate", "borg-like", and something that "leads to all the wrong stereotypes", you have quite the mission ahead of you concerning ridding acceptance of such from Wikipedia articles and the English language. Godspeed. --  tariq abjotu  19:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What a completely rubbish assumption of bad faith. I assumed no malice in this wording; I just think it's horribly misguided. You can call me wrong as much as you need to, but accusing me of fabrication, that is to say, dishonesty, is a personal attack that neither I or anyone else ought to be subjected to here. And as for your implication that I'm some lone voice in the wilderness saying this wording isn't good, did you not read Nishidani, Skapperöd and Sean.hoyland's comments? This is not some fringe position. But in a way, that's beside the point, since my beef with you now is that you've wrongly ascribed dishonesty to me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why would I think that? Oh.
 * You didn't say I think it would be better to say Israel and Palestine instead of Israelis and Palestinians because the latter might be misunderstood as suggesting each and every person within those groups agrees with their government's actions. No, you called the current wording "borg-like" and "inappropriate". You put forth an ultimatum, twice stating that you'll oppose this wording if the change you want isn't made. You made it sound like you were championing the greater good, opposing a "horribly misguided" wording that "leads to all the wrong stereotypes [you're] stuck fighting on a daily basis". You asked me the loaded question, "you think it's a nitpick to object to ascribing views to an entire group of people?" And yet, I'm a dick for believing you thought there was anything other than the best of intentions (and the obvious understanding that not every Israeli and Palestinian is the same) with this wording? If you're so concerned that your words might be misconstrued, perhaps you should choose your words more wisely.
 * And, I know you're not a lone wolf, which is why I suggested a wording that addresses your concerns, as well as my stylistic concern, even though I don't see eye-to-eye on what's wrong with the current terminology. But on the other hand, there are a dozen and a half people who supported the wording as-is; presumably they all read the wording, and presumably very few -- if any of them -- believe every Israeli and every Palestinian thinks alike. --  tariq abjotu  02:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it difficult to either support or oppose this draft. The capital identity statement is a great improvement, but the recognition statement compounds exactly what I dislike most about the current lead sentence in the article. No nation on earth recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel except Israel. Newsorg sources which dance around this fact in the face of more authoritative academic sourcing have been used to justify the hedge, and then the statement is nested in a passive adverbial phrase so that the actors - the world community - lose their authority in the relation of this hedged fact. Add to this the inference that the claims are congruent in international eyes (with what support?) and we have a worsening of this final clause. Thus I find that this draft is not a net improvement over the current sentence. "Support with revisions" would not be sufficient to reflect my apprehension. ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. But I don't think there's any evidence to support anything more definitive about recognition. For starters, let's go with the statement
 * We don't know that for sure. No country ever holds a press conference to say "Hi, our country is going to recognize Buenos Aires as the capital of Argentina". Recognizing capitals is just not a thing countries do. While there are certainly governments that have explicitly said they don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, most have not explicitly said anything about the topic, and we're left to infer their position. For example, Paraguay has its embassy in Mevaseret Zion, a close suburb of Jerusalem. So does Paraguay recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? And, going for another country's example, many countries have embassies in the Hague rather than Amsterdam. So do they not recognize Amsterdam as the capital of the Netherlands? We don't know because recognizing capitals is not a formal gesture (as it is for countries). So, this "dance" is the best we can do, in the absence of consensus (which apparently doesn't exist) that location of seat of government and that government's declaration is sufficient to achieve capital status.
 * With that, I'm not sure how you can even make a case that the "congruency" is inappropriate. You feel convinced that 'no nation on earth recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel except Israel', but feel hesitant to say the same about the capital of Palestine? The state with no territory to its name, the state with all embassies to it in other countries' capitals? Odd. --  tariq abjotu  03:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know that for sure, else someone could do better than the Paraguayan example. No one has because no one can. Halpern had two concrete examples in 1999, but those countries no longer have embassies there as explained in Amirav 2009. Horowitz 2010 concurs. Curtis and Gitelson 1976 pg. 140 explicitly gives a clear criteria for recognition: "When the Dominican Republic moved its legation in 1965 from Tel Aviv and raised its rank to ambassadorial level, it announced [emphasis mine] that it recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." Cummins 2008 states in the active voice "The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state." And while I might be happy to argue that claiming a capital while in the violation of international law is a poorer claim that claiming a capital while not in possession, that is not the crux of my position. Using inferior sourcing to hedge the position of the world community as clearly delineated in the article "Positions on Jerusalem" is not neutral. Using the passive voice to further undermine the weight of the position and obscure the actor is also not neutral as neutrality relies on attribution. I could tolerate perhaps one slip of neutrality, but not both. This is why I cannot endorse this otherwise acceptable draft. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (Tariq)'Recognizing capitals is just not a thing countries do.' Actually,states come into legal being by an act of recognition by other countries, as the legal literature repeatedly states. If one recognized state plunks its capital outside of its borders, the status of that city as capital becomes problematical for the simple reason so many refuse to acknowledge: recognition involves borders, and, while Israel has been 'recognized' one of its borders has not, precisely the one where it decided to place its capital. To accept Israel's definition of its borders when they transgress international law, as in Jerusalem, would be to injure the state interests of third parties, which, under law, have the same entitlements as Israel. 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' means 'Jerusalem is not the capital of Palestine', cancelling the rights of one of two parties in a dispute. We didn't create this problem of fuzzy illogic. History did, and NPOV obliges us to state the views of both sides, not use sleight of hand to assert unilaterally one nation's claims at the expense of another.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft eight by ColonelHenry
^ view all drafts

I chose to combine the important elements from the 7 previous drafts to make one comprehensive stand-alone paragraph.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft eight

 * 1) First choice - I don't understand how anybody could say that their POV is not included here, which ultimately is what NPOV is all about. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) First choice; more than fair to everyone concerned. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Also first choice for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support ; this is clear and concise, represents all POVs, and places the issue in historical context, all in just a few sentences. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC) changed to support with revisions -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Seems NPOV to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I would be very happy with this one, though I think highly of #14 as well. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Support draft eight with revisions

 * 1) This is also a very good text, I'd leave out the "and has included it within its capital city" wording as Israel's claim that Jerusalem "is" its capital is universally rejected internationally. Otherwise, I'd be ready to support this. --Dailycare (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, but "Palestinians" and "State of Palestine" should be replaced with "Palestinian authorities," and "Israelis" with "Israel." We can neither proclaim some opinion/legal claim as being held by a whole non-borg people, nor should we imply that the "State of Palestine" is, atm, any more than a concept. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Switch to oppose. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) First Second choice, with one modification. The part Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it within its capital city. Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power is a bit repetitive. So get rid of and has included it within its capital city and that would be my first choice. But thanks for putting this together. Hits everything as far as I can tell. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) "throughout history" is rather sweeping. I would be happier with an explicit mention of the crusades and "often".--Peter cohen (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See History of Jerusalem. This issue extends far beyond the Crusades. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, but change "...and in recent years in the context..." to "...and, more recently, in the context..." The two ins are confusing. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I actually like this draft just as much as draft 7, which it resembles. However, I think that it should indicate that the resolution has to be reached with both Israel and Palestine, as opposed to the language that only names the Palestinians. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) ... and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally. Instead, the international community considers the status of Jerusalem a matter to be resolved with Palestinians... Make a cut in the middle of this first sentence at "however" and incorporate "neither claim is widely recognized internationally" into the next sentence...somehow. Or just make the statement neither claim is widely recognized internationally a separate sentence. Otherwise I support, although I'm more in favor of draft seven because I really prefer a succinct style.   Fylbecatulous   talk  22:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Good progress. Two problems: (1)"The status of Jerusalem has long been a point of contention throughout history and in recent years in the context of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict." => this jars a little, as it's not really the "status" which has historically been in dispute, more "control"; and (2)"Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it within its capital city" => this also jars as we say they've included it within their capital, and then contradict it with the next sentence. This latter point would work if we said "declared capital". Oncenawhile (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Progress yes, but my problem is with 'recent years' or similar wording. How long has this trouble existed? The plan is over a century old, with initial fruition and violent objections nearly so.  With an appropriate vintage year, I feel things have only morphed over time, little has changed and there is no suggestion of resolution.  What has changed recently to justify using those words? Oslo Accords and the treaty with Jordan are nearly two decades old; what justifies 'recent years'?  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) As with draft 9, this one makes it sound as though the international community just doesn't recognise that East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem's capital, whereas, in fact, the international community doesn't recognise that any part of Jerusalem is either Israel's part of Israel's sovereign territory or it's capital.     ←   ZScarpia   01:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft eight

 * 1) Per WP:due weight in comparison with draft 7. First I consider very important the [...] that is suggested in draft 7 and that lacks in draft 8 and which means that the political status of the city should be moved farther in the article. Second, even if what is written in draft 8 is more accurate than in draft 7, I think it is too much for the lead which must remain a summary and not explain everything. If the capital controversy deserves these 4 lines on my screen then the history and symbolic weight of the city would deserse 20 and not just half one... (Anyway Draft 8 is much better than drafts 1 to 6 regarding my reasonning.) Pluto2012 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. ColonelHenry did a good job combining the relevant pieces of the first seven proposals, but I see a need for further improvement. First, "Palestinians" and "State of Palestine" should be replaced with "Palestinian authorities," and "Israelis" with "Israel." We can neither proclaim some opinion/legal claim as being held by a whole non-borg people, nor should we imply that the "State of Palestine" is, atm, any more than a concept. Second, the paragraph can easily be condensed without loosing any information. See proposal nine below. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Too long for lead. That is why I proposed to place in the body. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Long winded and confuses more than it clarifies. --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Way too much detail for the lede. Summary style should still be a priority.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Too much detail for the lead, especially in succession. The way it's worded shifts the focus too strongly and abruptly to the recent issue, being almost dismissive to its historical and religious importance. --  tariq abjotu  06:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, as per Pluto2012. It gives very little information on Jerusalem, and seems to be giving undue weight to the political upheaval and status of Jerusalem, while ignoring other crucial figures such as geographical location and religious status. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, useless informations in the incipit. --Felisopus (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, the implication that the current Israel-Palestinian conflict is somehow part of a larger narrative of a history of "contention" reeks of OR to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, in part because it just doesn't seem like a lead, and in part because one line ("and has included it within its capital city.") implies that West Jerusalem is the legitimate capital of Israel. Marechal Ney (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. It's far too focused on recent events and ignores myriad aspects of the importance and meaning of Jerusalem.  Roughly per Solntsa90.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. To much duplication and undue material (especially compared to draft 7). Inkbug (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. A bit long-winded. Also it says that Israel has included East Jerusalem within its capital, but it never says what its capital is! Neljack (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Nothing definitive about the current situation here; overgeneralization and false even-handedness instead. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft eight threaded discussion
One thing I'd add, though this could go elsewhere in the lead, is that the city is split between Israel and the Palestinian territories by the Green Line. Yes I know many states dont recognize any part of Jerusalem being anything other than a corpus separatum, but in practice it is widely understood that west of the Green Line = Israel and east of the Green Line = Palestinian territories. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerning Palestine, the State of Palestine has been recognized by more than 100 countries and has been admitted to the UN as a non-member state, so I'd call it more than just a theoretical concept. Israel hasn't been universally recognized either, yet we have no problems saying "Israel" here, instead of "Zionists". --Dailycare (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Even though I tend to be on the side of Israel in the conflict, I would disagree with any euphemism (i.e. "Palestinian authorities") that denies the statehood of Palestine. An independent Palestinian state is inevitable. It is here to stay and not just a "concept"--as it is both recognized by a sizeable portion of the world's countries, and working towards evolving into an established entity/presence. It won't go away and to diminish the status of Palestine and the Palestinian people by reverting to denial of it or calling it just an "authority" is POV.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On claims that Draft 8 is "too long", I ask what should be revised or left out? I do note there is a tautology in that the latter sentences are repetitive and can be condensed. However, WP:LEAD advises a lede should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article"  While concise implies brevity (as an attribute), concise does not equal brevity.  We're at no impelling need to be austere. The concepts have to be discussed to make it stand on its own, we have before us the task of summarizing historical context, political context, international context, and cultural context in one brief section.  If we do not address these four areas in the lede, it can't stand on its own, and we do so by omitting essential summaries of the reality of Jerusalem.  While it refers mostly to article size, it can apply adequately to the scope of a lede, WP:SUMMARY states: Opinions vary as to what counts as an ideal length; judging the appropriate size depends on the topic... and specifically regarding ledes...make a concise intro that works as a standalone.  Per WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I admit that some subjects need longer summarizes than others. It is more the question, what to summarize and what not. You cannot all. If a bad summary of medium size is the compromise between a short and a long one, I choose for the minimal one instead and leave it to the article body. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * FPS Reeks of OR? Actually, the violence often characterizing Jerusalem's spectacular history (not its long periods of wallowing in a listless doldrum) was a point Ravpapa made eloquently some time back in his proposed lead draft, and reflects a common topos in the serious literature. We tend to softpedal this aspect out of respect for religious sensibilities, though even fine sensitive writers on the city, like Simon Sebag Montefiore remind us that 'Jerusalem is a Holy City, yet it has always been a den of superstition, charlatanism and bigotry; the desire and prize of empires, yet of no strategic value; the cosmopolitan home of many sections, each of which believes the city belongs to them alone; a city of many names-yet each tradition is so sectarian that it excludes any other.'(Simon Sebag Montefiore, Jerusalem: The Biography, Hachette UK 2011 p.24). To respond however specifically:
 * Victor Davis Hanson, reviewing Eric H. Cline's appositely titled Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel, (University of Michigan Press, 2004) wrote that:'Besieged is a fascinating account of how and why a baffling array of peoples, ideologies, and religions have fought for some four thousand years over a city without either great wealth, size, or strategic importance.'
 * Serge Schmemann, reviewing five books on the city in his ‘A Symbol on a Hill,’ New York Times. December 8, 1996, wrote: ‘Three great monotheistic religions deem it sacred, yet no city has a comparable history of carnage, destruction and strife.' (This is uncannily close to what is objected to as WP:OR in our draft.
 * |James Carroll, Jerusalem, Jerusalem: How the Ancient City Ignited Our Modern World, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011 p.307:'Jerusalem is the cockpit of violence, and within its precincts, for three thousand years, humans have pushed and pulled to the point of blood against their own inbred tendency to push and pull: the solution to violence was more violence.'Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is to me a tad PC-ish to studiously refrain from following the remark about its sacredness to Abrahamic religions by a brief half sentence, easily sourced, noting that violent contentiousmess, religious or imperial, has often riven the city, with its record number of invasions.Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft nine by Skäpperöd
^ view all drafts Rephrased and shortened draft eight per concerns there.

Support draft nine

 * 1) Support as nom. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Support draft nine with revisions

 * 1) I can support this draft as taking a similar approach to drafts 7 and 8, but I can also agree with some of the opposition, that the wording about the Authority should be corrected. There's something to be said for the greater concision, although I expect that 7 or 8 will prove better able to satisfy competing concerns about neutrality. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) The draft makes it sound as though the international community just doesn't recognise that East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem's capital, whereas, in fact, the international community doesn't recognise that any part of Jerusalem is either Israel's part of Israel's sovereign territory or it's capital.   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  01:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft nine

 * 1) As draft 8, too long. Plus the POV of Skäpperöd, that the Palestinian authorities should be mentioned instead of the Palestinians or the State of Palestine. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) It is not Palestinian authorities that have claimed Jerusalem as a capital, it is the State of Palestine. Somebody can believe that such a state does not exist, but that person is wrong. A state exists when other states say it exists through the act of recognition. Palestine has been recognized as state by other states and as such it exists as a state. And it was the State of Palestine that declared, in its declaration of independence, that Jerusalem is its capital. The draft also uses euphemisms in place of factual content on the status of East Jerusalem. In sum, this is, in my view, a considerable downgrade from either 7 or 8. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Long winded and confuses more than it clarifies. --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) While I like the excising the tautology present in the latter sentence of Draft 8, I disagree with the POV in downgrading the Palestinian state to "authorities"--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Nableezy, it is a partially-recognized state and it is appropriate to acknowledge it as such.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) This rephrasing has strayed into something that reads like an essay. As I've said above, I prefer my encyclopaedic style to be succinct. Although this draft covers pertinent facts, it needs to stand up straight and look sharp!  Fylbecatulous   talk  03:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Too long and dispersive. --Felisopus (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Same objection as with draft 8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Doesn't hit the points as well as 7 or 8. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) It says that Israel considers East Jerusalem an integral part of its capital - but doesn't say what that capital is. It is never made clear that Israel claims West Jerusalem too. Neljack (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft ten by Kurtis
^ view all drafts

I propose that the following text be considered as the introduction to the article's lead paragraph.

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft ten

 * 1) I think I am fine with the current revision.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd prefer to see Jerusalem described as being in the region containing Israel and the Palestinian territories rather than the southern Levant and as Israel's seat of government rather than its administrative capital, but I think the draft is Ok.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  22:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Support draft ten with revisions

 * 1) It would have my complete endorsement if not for that troublesome opening sentence. Palestine is indeed the generally accepted, historical name for the region; my fear is that many Wikipedia readers may see the word "Palestine" and immediately assume political bias.  I would instead use Levant, although that word is a bit outdated.  The other issue is the use of the term "de facto".  The term is usually only used when something is de facto, but not de jure.  In the eyes of Israel, Jerusalem is the de jure capital; in the eyes of the international community, it isn't.  Marechal Ney (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the first sentence as per your suggestion. Kurtis (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I would support if the term "administrative capital" (which is unclear) was changed to "seat of government". Neljack (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft ten

 * 1) Sorry, but this is quite off the mark, perhaps due to lack of familiarity with the conflict. The first sentence is, for lack of a better term, jarring. If one thinks it's bad to start the article by saying Jerusalem is the capital of a particular state, beginning it with Jerusalem is a disputed municipality in the region of Palestine is worse. Is that the first thing people (should) think of when they think of Jerusalem? Absolutely not. "Municipality" (which I see is repeated further on) is quite clinical; what's wrong with city? And nobody talks about cities being in regions rather than political borders, especially ones that share names with states. Farther on, it's not clear "State of Israel" and the "Palestinian National Authority" are appropriate counterparts, and the city is not really divided between them anyway; the PNA has no control over the city. And then, I don't think it makes sense to equate the Palestinian and Israeli claims to Jerusalem as their respective capitals, as it misses the crucial distinction that the Israeli government is located there and the Palestinian government is not. --  tariq abjotu  06:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But Israel's claim to Jerusalem remains heavily disputed. I don't think it it would be sufficient for us to flatly state that "Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel"; it would certainly comes across as biased. Also, if it seems as if my knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is limited, perhaps this bit of context will change your mind. I wrote that myself back in late 2011. Kurtis (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like that you completely changed the draft after I commented. Nevertheless, I still object. My point about saying "region of Palestine" still stands. Now, we also have the capital point oddly stated twice but broken up by another point. And I believe the use of the term "recognize" in the last sentence is confusing, given how they're not "recognizing" another state's actions. The reason I assumed you weren't familiar with the conflict was because I found it surprising you'd write a draft with some notable issues (particularly the one that suggested control of the city was split). --  tariq abjotu  16:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't argue against your rationale, but to make one thing clear, I changed my original draft by a large because of your comment. If you'd like me to link to a prior revision that contains the first draft for reasons of disclosure, I'd be glad to do so. Kurtis (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I oppose because I think that the lead would lead to too many problems. Also, municipality is a political term, and thus it leads to confusion as to which state's municipality it is. Also, It's called The State of Palestine, as the Palestinian National Authority has given way after the latest UN vote which granted Palestine observer status. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Referring to Jerusalem as being in the Region of Palestine is arbitrarily POV. Why not refer to it as being in the biblical Land of Israel? --GHcool (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The name "Palestine" is very ancient and refers to the region itself; the biblical Land of Israel was one state that existed within the area. Kurtis (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a genuine effort, but the wording (e.g. "administrative capital") isn't very strongly in-line with sources that describe the situation. --Dailycare (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Dailycare. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft ten threaded discussion
I borrowed some of the text from draft 7 above and expanded on it so as to include what I hope will become the introductory sentences of the article. If anyone has some suggestions on what can be changed, I'd be glad to hear it. Kurtis (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made some revisions per Tariqabjotu's oppose rationale. Kurtis (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You clearly have a gift for lucid and succinct summary. I am still minded to express a preference for option 7 or 8 (Colonel Wilson and co), but they need the quality of paring you show here. What to keep, and how to pare will of course depend on further editorial input.Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. Thanks! :-) Kurtis (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft eleven by Solntsa90
^ view all drafts

Tell me what you think. I used the current revision as a template, tweaked it a bit, and created a scenario that should be mostly satisfactory to both parties, or at least, international law:

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft eleven

 * 1) I obviously support my own draft. :P Solntsa90 (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Support draft eleven with revisions

 * 1) Because of the sovereignty dispute, I think that it would be better to say that it is "in the region containing Israel and the Occupied and the Palestinian areas" rather than "in Israel and Palestine." Actually, I think that East Jerusalem is under Israeli administration too. Israel does have its seat of government in Jerusalem, which should maybe be mentioned in a separate sentence. Perhaps truer to say that the Judean Mountains are in between the coastal plane which borders the Mediterranean and the the Jordan River/Dead Sea. Again, because of the sovereignty dispute, it's probably better to describe it as the largest city in the region rather than the largest city in Israel and Palestine.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  21:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft eleven

 * 1) This version equates the Palestinian and Israeli claims to Jerusalem as their respective capitals, missing the crucial distinction that the Israeli government is located there and the Palestinian government is not. --  tariq abjotu  06:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Clear pro-Palestinian POV.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) 'Most of the land (except East Jerusalem) is under Israeli administration . . . though Palestine only administers East Jerusalem.' Statements like these are wholly unfactual, and make the text unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) The claim that Jerusalem is located in Israel and Palestine is highly contestable (as can be deduced from this very discussion)! --GHcool (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Factually incorrect ('Palestine only administers East Jerusalem.'). Shouldn't be considered a serious proposal in an encyclopedia. Prague Drinking Team (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Prague Drinking Team (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 6) Factually incorrect. East Jerusalem is under Israeli administration, not under Palestinian administration. Inkbug (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) NPOV since stating that Jerusalem is in Israel and Palestine is a "seriously contested assertion". Many international organisations and government regard Jerusalem as a corpus separatum and thus neither Israeli nor Palestinian territory. Neljack (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Nishidani and others. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Long-winded, bogus evenhandedness, with questionable assertions and lack of focus. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft eleven threaded discussion
Have revised, as per Tariq's concern. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not Israel's "de facto" seat of government; it very much is it's seat of government. There is no doubt Israel's government is in Jerusalem. --  tariq abjotu  16:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is actually what "de facto" means. --Yair rand (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft twelve by Sm8900
^ view all drafts

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft twelve
Note: see discussion on this page, in section Jerusalem. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Support draft twelve with revisions

 * 1) The sentence is correct, but it's hard to tell if it's NPOV without knowing where it will be in the article and what kind of context will be given. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft twelve

 * 1) The lead should start with 'Jerusalem per MOS:LEAD. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Missing information on location, function, occupation, sovereignty, and the entire Palestinian side. Sepsis II (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Too weasel wordy.  --GHcool (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Insufficient information to judge this draft option. --  tariq abjotu  23:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Abrupt and unclear. Inkbug (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Lacks information on other relevant matters, such as the international community not recognising the claims. Neljack (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Inadequate as far as the details which drafts should be covering is concerned.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  21:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) More bogus even-handedness. Not much else here. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft thirteen by Collect
^ view all drafts

I suggest this is accurate, neutral, and avoids the pitfalls of adding religion details, and war details. Collect (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft thirteen

 * 1) Collect (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) GHcool (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Support draft thirteen with revisions

 * 1) Although Jerusalem was certainly the capital of Judea, I'm not sure that fact should be the first one mentioned in the Lead. Also, it begs the question of why, if that is mentioned, other historical facts relating to its role during the Cannanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Crusader, Ottoman and Mandate periods aren't.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  21:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft thirteen

 * 1) The current state of Palestine claims Jerusalem as its capital, not a future state. The "ancient capital of Israel" bit is quite a random fact which could be read in more than one way. Missing information on the occupation, location, sovereignty, and function. Sepsis II (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) As far as I understand, "Jerusalem is the ancient capital of Israel" is true only according to the Bible. Samaria (ancient city) is the capital of Israel as far as otherwise recorded history goes. Formerip (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Mentioning the theory Jerusalem was anciently capital of Judea sounds like undue weight, and IIRC archaeologists aren't convinved that "capital" is an appropriate word to use in that context. Jerusalem was also capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, for example. --Dailycare (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Per WP:Due weight.The fact it was the former capital of Judea is certainly not the most important fact regarding the city so the lead should certainly not start by this information. More, the weight given to the information linked to the symbolic value is too little. Per WP:NPoV the Palestinian and international point of view on the capital controversy are not properly given. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Per the previous opposes. Neljack (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Any historical fact or statement should be secondary (even in the lead): describe the current status first (which will take enough space already), then one can start bout history. Still, only mentioning the Judea claim is POV and should be avoided. -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Modern Israel does more than "claim" it as its capital. Too vague, at best. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft thirteen threaded discussion
Per comment about Samaria, change to "Judea" as being correct by all accounts - Biblical and Roman etc. AFAICT, the PLO does not claim that Jerusalem is the effective capital - the concept of "future" is in accord with the PA texts. This is not the article to have the interminable P/I wrangling. Collect (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Collect (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft fourteen by Nishidani
^ view all drafts

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft fourteen
appears to be WP:CRYSTAL. Such things can be discussed in the body of the article, and need not be in the lead.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I like this approach the best. It is a masterpiece of evasion: it touches on all the points of contention without making them sound at all contentious. It presents a four-thousand year old battleground drenched in blood and makes it sound - well, normal. And that, it seems, is the Wikipedia way: take a pit filled with hate and misery, like Pristina or Colón, Panama, or Damascus and write an article about Valhalla. I say this with a touch of cynicism, but I really do think this lead does the best job. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) This proposal complies with WP:Due weight between the different facts that should be reported regarding Jerusalem : symbolic value, geographical situation, size and population. The capital controversy is dealt in compliance with WP:NPoV : both claim are given with the minimum precision that is required to understand what they consist in exactly adn the international community's point of view is finally given. Excellent compromise and sysnthesis of the different comments that were made on this talk page. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I strongly support the part about the capital. All text above it is in fact irrelevant for the discussion; it only says that the capital-statement should not be in the first sentence, which I also strongly support. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC). See my supporting proposals below. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I like this approach. I am pleased to see other editors viewing this positively as well. a worthy effort. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Like some of the other longer, more nuanced drafts, I think this one is quite successful. A quibble: the third sentence is a run-on sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) First choice, though the easter egg links should be removed. I really dont know why the words Green Line are verboten, saying straddles the Green Line between Israel and the Palestinian territories should be fine. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Not my preference, but I can live with it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Comprehensive and gives due weight.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  17:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) I strongly support this version. Jerusalem is a very old city that's very important for very, very many reasons.  The recent situation is of short duration in proportion to the city's history and significance.  This version gives due weight to the various aspects of the long history of Jerusalem itself rather than undue weight to recent issues while, at the same time, acknowledges the fact that the recent issues are important to our current readers and (probably) to the long-term history of the city.  Nishidani has outdone his usual fine work here.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (*I hope you don't mind if I strike that out, ALWL. Actually, I had and have reservations about identifying the drft as mine. It is a synthesis of months of discussion here and elsewhere, and two parts at least are wholly the work of other editors, whose excellent work I have incorporated. I should have acknowledged this. Mea culpa)Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support--bravo for putting together this synthesis, Nishidani. I strongly support this. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. As draft number seven, this draft is admirably neutral. Either would do 85.167.109.26 (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support for this draft, as well as its dynamic and collaborative genesis on and off the page. Thank you all.  I do not share the concerns of excessively cocky prose threaded below. I see a very uncommon bird, duly weighed, neutrally worded and served with prose that presents our subject's notability in the world's space and time; it describes the forest in which other things have grown. I consider this iridescent prose commensurate with Jerusalem and fully justified. Kudos.   CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support Kudos for strong referencing and for presenting a multitude of viewpoints. This draft represents a high commitment to Wikipedian ideals of neutrality and verifiability without breaking any rules. And while we should strive for verifiability and not truth, I find the statement to be true as well. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support, not bad, but the last past of the last sentence "and its permanent status is to be determined by peace negotiations."
 * 1) Support puts the emphasis on the long history but still covers the current situation. filceolaire (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Nice balance integrating much of the discussion before and after. Clearly several users have skin in the game, and I intend to use this thoughtful discussion as evidence as to why high school teachers should not fear using Wikipedia as a resource for even the most controversial of topics, with the weight of RS cited and the careful consideration of style and POV. As one with limited familiarity with Latin, I'd love more references for lusus rei pubblicae; it seems in this case a means to a desirable outcome. I agree with several below that we want to be careful with the last clause, in that we can't know by which methods the disputes will be resolved, but that this draft as currently languaged is the best alternative proposed. MsPorterAtFHS (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support Great work Nishidani, as always. A very thoughtful draft, with the type of prose that we should all aspire to. Per my comment below, the only thing it doesn't do is point to the inherent contentiousness of an article about Jerusalem. Ravpapa's construction "There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious, starting with the most basic facts: what country is it in, and how many people live there" is eloquent, shows balance, and tells a reader to be cautious when reading the rest of the article, something that is very important here. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Fine, subject to the reservations that I think it should be mentioned that the whole city is under Israeli control, that the international community doesn't currently recognise any country's sovereignty over the city and that I'm dubious that the three-year sanction should be applied to any text which doesn't relate to the issues of sovereignty or capital status.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  21:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Support draft fourteen with revisions

 * 1) It's reasonable, but there are a couple issues. I'm not sure if they're significant enough that this is actually an oppose, but here they are:
 * 2) *? Combined with what? It exists as one city today; it should be discussed as such. And "Israel and the West Bank" doesn't really bode well as one region. If you're not willing to say it's the largest in the Israel (and I know you're not), or at least the largest in those regions, you should just drop the largest city bit. Jerusalem is not a particularly large city anyway, with a much larger city (Amman) just 70 kilometers away.
 * 3) *The foundational events referenced do not need to be listed in the lead. (Also, the link you're looking for is Isra and Mi'raj.)
 * 4) * That sounds a little PEACOCKy. Also, "religious and secular" are probably enough.
 * 5) * So, this speaks to your rewrite under Draft 7 as well. The way the sentence is constructed sounds a bit confusing. In the first part of this sentence we say that the State of Palestine claims Jerusalem as its capital. Then in the second half, we say that the PNA foresees the eastern half of the city has its capital. I don't think most people are going to understand the distinction -- I'm not even certain what it is -- and so it sounds repetitive. If the "while the PNA..." bit is intended to clarify the statement about the State of Palestine claiming Jerusalem as its capital, the comma between there and while should be dropped. Either way, as or with should also be added before the former.
 * 6) *There are also a few Easter egg links: straddles pointing to Green Line (Israel), monumental architecture pointing to Jerusalem stone, ultimate status pointing to Oslo I Accord. These should be removed.
 * --  tariq abjotu  16:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tariq. That's very useful. It's late here, and I'll reply in detail tomorrow. Briefly though, if I took out the bits you think peacocky, or problematical, the text would suffer ( and this is the eternal problem here), from WP:Recentism and an WP:Undue focus on the modern political aspect, which I think is the problem that has plagued us for yonks. I've tried to thematize in chronological order the major points, as succinctly as possible. The article lead must give a thumbnail synthesis of 5,000 years, history and culture included. But, I'll sleep on it, and hope to do justice to your careful construal tomorrow. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the sentence should be removed entirely, just perhaps toned down. It makes it sound like the city is some cosmopolitan city with people from all over the world (like New York or London), but this isn't true. Maybe cutting out some of the adjectives would help: Powers -- religious and secular -- have vied to conquer and reconquer it intermittently for millenia, leaving their marks on the city's architecture, culture, and identity. --  tariq abjotu  19:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't like "it straddles Israel and the West Bank." I'd prefer if it said something like "it exists on Green Line" or something to that effect.  --GHcool (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason that was (a) Nableezy mentioned the need to put something in explicitly on the Green line. A few others objected to that, so I had to avoid Green line inside the text as a compromise, but since I had sources which used 'straddled' specifically, which is absolutely neutral to both sides, I linked it to Green line. A city isn't, surely?, on a line (most cities are financially 'on the line', though:)). Lines divide. There's a heck of a lot of RS that mention a divided city, as well as the unified city. I've tried to avoid both. Thanks.
 * 1) I'm not sure we need a fourteenth draft, especially as this seems to resemble draft seven which we already have. I don't have many gripes with this, except for the notion that West Jerusalem would currently be "in Israel", which is a fringe view and should go. --Dailycare (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The peace negotiations are mentioned here. I don't see an implicit recognition of territory. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "straddles" comes across as suggesting West Jer would be in Israel. However this is maybe a relatively minor flaw in an otherwise good draft, along with draft seven this is the only one with real style. --Dailycare (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added another source. We have a geographer unrelated to the topic, Ira Sharkansky,professor emeritus of political science and public administration at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and if he is considered a bit of a 'lefty' or 'liberal', now also Joshua L. Gleis, who is an expert on Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic insurgencies, and got his doctorate from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts, taught at Harvard and Columbia Universities, and is a global security consultant. All three scholars with different POVs see no problem with the metaphor.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Per most of what Tariqabjotu says above. But this would otherwise be my first choice. :-) Kurtis (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I think this does a pretty impressive job of covering the important historical elements of the history of the city, as well as fairly stating the political controversy. I agree with Tariq's concerns about the peacocky writing, though, and think that his rewrite thereof would be very good. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Best draft so far, with one problem: the sentence "Powers—pagan, religious and secular—have vied to conquer and reconquer it intermittently for millenia,[12][13] and each has left its mark on the city’s monumental architecture, mosaic of cultures, languages, ethnic groups and identities". Will true and excellent writing, I don't see how it contributes to the introduction.  I would replace it with a sentence which more clearly states that it has been fought over throughout history; as User:Tariqabjotu pointed it, it's too peacock-y.  Marechal Ney (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * hmmm, I would suggest we start the sentence as "Various powers..." Just makes it more readable, in my opinion. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Vague. 'Great powers' was what I had in draft, but ever-conscious of the need for brevity and the rule against adjectives, I truncated it. It has good RS support for the concept. Come to think of it, 'Powers' alone, makes one think rather biblically of 'dominions, principalities and powers', and probably needs the more geopolitical concept of 'Great Powers' Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Generally fine, except for the some of the flowery stuff. Also, would probabely have to oppose the last clause of the last sentence per WP:Crystal and merely a hope that no one presently knows. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I would support if and only if the statement that it "straddles Israel and the West Bank" was removed. Many international organisations and governments regard Jerusalem as a corpus separatum and therefore in neither Israel nor the West Bank(see Positions on Jerusalem and the sources cited therein). That statement is thus a "seriously contested assertion and violates NPOV. Neljack (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support. I think this version is brilliant, and is the best of the lot.  I would only edit some stylistically, as follows:
 * 4) *"Largest city" bit is unnecessary and awkward.
 * 5) *I would break with a period after "foundational events", then start a new sentence.
 * 6) *I might break the sentence starting "Both Israel and the State of Palestine ..." in two pieces.
 * 7) *BTW: Why are "Israel" and "State of Palestine" corresponding?  Shouldn't either both or neither be "State of ..."?
 * StevenJ81 (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft fourteen

 * 1) This would require a very large amount of changes to be acceptable. The facts that the city is currently administered by Israel and functioning as Israel's capital/seat of government are both much more noteworthy and essential to the topic than either Israel's or the PA's international claims. The former is not mentioned in this draft at all, and both should be mentioned before the dispute. The statement "its permanent status is to be determined by peace negotiations" is the position of the international community, and should be stated as such, instead of being presented as simple fact. I agree with the concerns above about the statements "it straddles Israel and the West Bank.", "combined population", and "pagan [powers]", as well as WP:PEACOCK issues. I'm a bit apprehensive about the general approach of delaying the political situation explanation after the religious, geographic, and historic background, at least to the extent of throwing a kilobyte of text before mentioning about the city as it exists today at all. Also, the lead should probably mention the city's status under Israeli law. --Yair rand (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) "Nestling" sounds somewhat like a travel brochure. "Straddles" doesn't work well. "Powers—pagan, religious and secular—have vied to conquer and reconquer it intermittently for millenia", reads somewhat like a tour advertisement, not an encyclopedia, which is also the case for, "and each has left its mark on the city’s monumental architecture, mosaic of cultures," -- It also gives undue weight to its location, which would require swapping the second and third sentences to alleviate. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the arbitration committee "the result of this structured discussion will be binding for three years" and per the top of this page "the dispute focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". We need a focused solution, not a lead re-write with superfluous modifications and purple prose that we won't be able to change for three years. The result of the RfC should not bind the hands of the community any more that is necessary and it should remain possible adapt the lead to reflect the changing contents of the article. That's not to say there are not some good features to the proposal, just that it is not necessary to use a binding RfC to nail down content that was never especially contentious in the first place. Formerip (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Much prefer draft seven. The tone here is unencyclopaedic.— S Marshall  T/C 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) The focus of the dispute that led to this RfC has somehow gone missing amidst the highly sophisticated prose of this draft. The reader looking to clearly know what is the capital of Israel won't find the information here.  It also appears that if this draft were to be adopted, the vital contextual information currently footnoted in the lead at "ii" would largely or completely be scrapped. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft fourteen threaded discussion
The text is consciously (I hope not unconscionably) based on the principle of three in order to overcome the divide that tends to reduce every edit, and editor, in the eyes of her fellows, into a paladin for one of two positions, pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. I wanted to avoid the use of the law of the excluded third whose unwitting application as a premise, in my own humble view, afflicts this editing area. That is why (a) three geographical points are mentioned (b) three Abrahamic religions cited (c) three foundational events noted (d) why the word ‘pagan’ is added to ‘religious and secular’, and why (e) the recent conflict breaks down into the two positions, Israel vs the Palestinians, with ‘international’ dissent added.

City articles characteristically have current population data. So I retrieved this point from the article. For several years, chronic squabbling has invested precisely this. If you say ‘the largest city’ it has to be qualified either by ‘in Israel’/Israel’s’ or in Israel/Palestine or in the region. If I mentioned ‘unified’ I would have, per WP:NPOV, to mention ‘divided’ as per, to cite just a few of many sources at hand. ‘Combined’ implies both unification (Israel) and divided (Palestinian and international sources. See these refs, which I had withheld, but which influenced my decision, after much mental scrounging, to opt for ‘combined’.)  No agreement seems possible with the first because it identifies the whole city as lying within Israel, which is a legitimate but partisan POV. ‘in Israel/Palestine’ is possible, but many dislike the combination. I chose ‘region,’ which as the source notes clarify, means Israel/Palestine, not the area and the contiguous Middle East. One could resolve the issue by saying in the ‘Israel/Palestine region’ or ‘in those regions’, which you suggest and is fine by me. (2) "‘the foundational events need not be listed’" I introduced it (a) to fit the rule of three (b) because the historical sentence which follows it requires a set of key events to contextualize the rivalry over the city from past to present (c) In the two drafts which so far have the most support (7 & 8) the post 67 section has either 2 or 3 sentences (in CH’s one very long sentences) that create a  WP:Undue tilt towards  WP:Recentism. There was no history, therefore two sentences covering 5,000 years in synthesis seemed to provide the balancing solution. (d) I specifically had in mind your own two comments, on drafts 7 and 8. "Draft 7. Approved: It also directly acknowledges that the city's storied history and religious importance is more significant than, and therefore should be placed before, the recent conflict.." "Draft 8 opposed: Too much detail for the lead, especially in succession. The way it's worded shifts the focus too strongly and abruptly to the recent issue, being almost dismissive to its historical and religious importance.]|undefined" I share a lot of ground on these two judgements, with the difference that I think draft 7’s reference to three monotheisms and nothing more is religious, not historical, and thus the passage neglects history. I agree wholly with your criticism of draft 8 which focuses too strongly on recent history, at the cost of ignoring the larger historical picture. (3) (a) Thanks for the heads up on the proper miraj link, have adjusted. "(b) That sounds a little PEACOCKy. Also, 'religious and secular' are probably enough." I read PEACOCKy for the first time. I strove to keep evaluative adjectives out of the text, and on examining the guide, elided, as per your own advice below, ‘rich’ from ‘rich mosaic’. But I fail to see colour or puffery in the line. It is, I believe, a neutral statement of the Longue durée in terms of the seminal elements over time, the wrestling over who controls it, and the impact of numerous occupying powers on its culture and architecture. A minimalist statement. You suggest dropping 'languages'. I don't know why, but as a philologist, I'm fascinated by the way, at every 20 or 30 yards as one walks around, the language I've just been keyed into is lost as a new one comes within earshot. I needlessly embarrassed a bus-driver a few years ago. Devout Muslim, he was sitting with another bus-driver waiting for his Christian tour-group to end their mass inside a church. Since I was the only pagan in the group, I also sat out those moments, and religiously sucked on a Marlboro or two in his company. I couldn't help but note how his Palestinian Arab was peppered with Hebraisms, a fascinating Mischsprache, e.g. tov for quais, and asked him about it. (c) Are ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ enough? My principle of three suggested no because (a) ‘religious and secular’ alone would echo strongly the rift between religious and secular Zionism (b) ‘secular’ is modern, and the struggle over time hasn’t been between ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ powers or empires alone. ‘Pagan’ alludes to the pre-Israelitic history (2,000 years), including the Pharaonic period, but also to the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman invasions and meddling. These were fundamentally non-religious, non-secular, empires, outside of the logic and fold of the three Abrahamic faiths, and often strenuously, violently opposed to them. Apart from my editorial design based on three, this summarizes as per WP:LEDE the three central events which account for a large part of the history. I might add that other editors might well challenge two other pieces of phrasing here you didn’t mention, from a different POV, as PEACOCKy, namely ‘Nestled’ for ‘located in’ and ‘hearth of Judaism’. ‘hearth’ took a lot of time: I had thought of ‘cradle’ of Judaism, ‘crucible/cradle’ of Christianity, for example, but couldn’t come up with a balanced, adequate and familiar metaphor for Islam (‘golden bowl/goblet’ in Al-Muqaddasi was unacceptable, with its scorpion inside: he in any case, attributed this saying to the Torah) and so dropped the experiment. Others might object that two phrases for Judaism, compared to one for Christianity and Islam, overeggs the sparse pud in the first’s f(l)avour infringing WP:NPOV. Per WP:IAR, I ignored here the rule, because I think some consideration is due to the historical fact that the sacrality of the city, and its contended history among creeds, flows from the peculiar and germinal role it assumed in the first of the three creeds, Judaism, and it’s not pointy to phrase things that give it more than merely a chronological priority. These bits, I freely admit without embarrassment, were also intended as a ‘trade’: let’s lower the temperature of the recent conflict in our editorial room in exchange for recognizing that the city began its religious significance with Judaism.
 * 1) "'Combined population . largest city in the.region’"

(4)(a) I write that both countries claim the city, but then specify the PA identifies East Jerusalem. This you argue, gives rise to perplexity. The facts are Israel’s position is that the city is one, eternally unified. The PLO declaration claims Jerusalem as its capital, and then modified this in talks to say it meant ‘East Jerusalem’. As of now, Israel asserts its claim to the whole city, the PA has restricted its claim to one part. I intended to stick to the facts, and maintain nuances. Perhaps I haven’t phrased this adequately, but I can’t see it, honestly. The slight adjustments and punctuation you suggest appear to overlook the fact that, technically in rhetoric, the clause ‘the former maintaining its primary governmental institutions there while the Palestinian National Authority foresees Eastern Jerusalem as its seat of power’ is ‘epexegetical’.

(5) Easter egg links (neat phrase by the way, I was unfamiliar with it).
 * ’straddles’ links to the Green line. Yes, but (a) it’s a well-sourced idiom, and one that gets rid of all sorts of complications by admitting two areas (per Shlomo Hasson) without denying the conurbated unity of the place (b) that’s in to respond to Nableezy and some others’ comments. It is an implicit (hidden), not overt reference to an historical fact that still affects much discourse, legal and negotiational, on Jerusalem.
 * monumental architecture links to Jerusalem stone. We need an article on the architecture of Jerusalem, it’s lacking I believe. But the stone-work is distinctive for the quality, especially the light effects, of the locally quarried Jerusalem stone. I think it’s a neat link, but if people dislike it, it’s no big deal to remove it.
 * ’ultimate status’ points to Oslo 1 Accord. I would defend this simply because it is a fact that in the Oslo 1 Accords, borders were to be determined at permanent status negotiations (Article V), an undertaking still on the table. ‘ultimate’ might be adjusted. I first thought of ‘permanent’ as per the Oslo protocols, but nothing there is ‘permanent’, and that goes for the wide world itself. ‘Ultimate’ sounded (tongue in cheek) like the apocalyptic ‘end of time’, i.e., never. That’s my only private joke, I own up to it. But some link to a wiki page noting Article V is required, surely? Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed two of the three Easter eggs. I'll remove on a larger consensus the third because I still don't personally think it fits that characterization. What one personally thinks however is irrelevant.
 * For those editors who, regarding draft 8, this version and some others, see a problem in long drafts not dealing specifically with the key status issue (i.e. not concentrating on the one (of several) conflicted lines, I should clarify that (a) I take arbcom's remit literally, at the top of the page:'This is a discussion to decide the content of the lead section of the Jerusalem article.' This not only does not restrict the scope of drafts to the status issue, but calls on us to iron out the lead generally. Like several here, I'd like to see something that more or less gives us if not 7, then 3 years to compensate for the seven years of fallow (Gen.41 somewhere), which has strained all our nerves. The second point is that the excellent draft 7 most approve have two dots signifying material lacking. My draft accepts it, and leavens out the missing part between the overture and the political end. At least that is the purpose. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dailycare. On 'straddle' implying Jerusalem is in Israel, I'll repress my own primary image of what the word evokes (seeing one of my heroes, Valeriy Brumel, winning Olympic Gold in 1964), for another early association which really does fit the sense intended (apart from source support).
 * "'this standing captain is all alive to the importance of sustaining his dignity by maintaining his legs. Nor is this any very easy matter; for in his rear is the immense projecting steering oar hitting him now and then in the small of his back, the after-oar reciprocating by rapping his knees in front. He is thus completely wedged before and behind, and can only expand himself sideways by settling down on his stretched legs; but a sudden, violent pitch of the boat will often go far to topple him, because length of foundation is nothing without corresponding breadth. Merely make a spread angle of two poles, and you cannot stand them up. Then, again, it would never do in plain sight of the world’s riveted eyes, it would never do, I say, for this straddling captain to be seen steadying himself the slightest particle by catching hold of anything with his hands; indeed, as token of his entire, buoyant self-command, he generally carries his hands in his trowsers’ pockets; but perhaps being generally very large, heavy hands, he carries them there for ballast. Nevertheless there have occurred instances, well authenticated ones too, where the captain has been known for an uncommonly critical moment or two, in a sudden squall say—to seize hold of the nearest oarsman’s hair, and hold on there like grim death.' Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Dell ed. 1959 pp.273-4 (chapter 53)."
 * Takes the poles, front and back as the two realities. (Recalling this, I'm beginning to feel like Ahab in here:) Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Pass a Method, in raising an objection for his oppose vote on draft 7, comments that major in 'major Abrahamic religions' is POVish, and suggests oldest as more neutral. I actually thought of the Bahá'í Faith while copying this sentence in from draft 7, but dismissed it out of a purely numerical calculation (the 3 major religions having more members). 'Oldest' puts the antiquity of Judaism, Christianity and Islam on a par, which is not true, but other considerations are possible. But it is certainly worth our attention. Any suggestions? Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to, Judaism, Christianity and Islam always clear the bar (based on reliable sources) when one describes religions as "major". See, for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion.  StevenJ81 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That clarifies much, thanks.


 * Marechal Ney. The sentence that worries you (as peacocky also) is part of the balancing act. If we take out the dual reference to the history of great power contention over the city, and the aspect of its cultural importance, we get WP:Undue problems with the final part: recent political claims would emerge as 1/3rd of the lead. The problem of snipping out this or that in any drastic way must be handled, I guess, with this overriding concern for structural side-effects. The way the great power bit is phrased also is intended as giving an historical gloss on the religious element in the preceding sentence, while priming the reader for the last item on the I/P conflict. Thanks (also for the compliment). Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Yair rand. Fine but note that the part you question most severely is exactly the section which in draft 7 has overwhelming bipartisan consensus (30/4), and which, on that basis, I adopted with minimal tweaks into this version. Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish. That's a fair quibble. One could, if one dislikes the much misunderstood functions (also musical) of colons and semi-colons, replace the colon after 'foundational event' with a full stop, thereby lengthening the reading pause by a factor of a quarter, and convert the succeeding clause into a sentence of its own. Belonging to the coelacanthic generation, I have fossil instincts and prejudices however on that :)Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You could just put a period and start a new sentence after "David's kingdom". No big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Somedifferentstuff I've added some further sources to assure you the prose and content of that sentence does not come from tourist brochures. Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User:FormerIP The voting above shows that a very strong majority thinks it is not neutral, so I take, provisorily, that issue in the dispute to be resolved. The voting also shows very strong support for the way this issue is formulated in draft 7, so I have adopted it into this (collective) text.

The remit is the lead generally. There we are given two statements. "'This is a discussion to decide the content of the lead section of the Jerusalem article.'" "'The dispute focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.'" You have taken the first in the sense of the second. I take the first at its word. We are called on to determine the content of the lead section. But, please note, all editors who have offered a rewrite of the lead, have, rightly, restricted their efforts to the first paragraph, so even we fall short of that larger request. The synthesis you see, and the others, do not lock in the lead. If one of them is adopted it, it will lock in only the first paragraph, the most contended, chronically edit-warred overture. There is more than ample space in the remaining lead paragraphs for people who wish to exercise the liberty of touching up the lead. Unfortunately, we have a problem that most people who jump into an article and then edit it, fix on the lead. One suspects they never read past it. The real problem with the article is its main body, which has been so damaged the article lost its FA status. A little stabilization of the opening of the lead, might induce eager editors to look beyond it, and actually work towards a restoration of its former status. Finally, if one limits the draft to the status of Jerusalem along the lines of draft 7, we have not solved the edit warring. That draft has the opening sentence of para 1 and the closing sentence, separated by. . .The implication operatively is that, if a form of draft 7 is approved, if we only decide on the Jerusalem status sentence, everything inbetween will be an excuse to weasel in, edit-war out, POV-tinker with the meat in the paragraph sandwich. That would make a mockery of what ARBCOM in the broader remit has asked us to do. Stabilize the lead.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A further reflection. While I thought that your criticism of the sandwich filling part of my draft, that it would lock in content for 3 years, slightly off the mark (since the suggested content is fairly banal and obvious, and not really strongly contested as to its appositeness as a succinct lead summary of the major themes -name/location/history/symbolic value/status-), further reflection has led me to raise a point related to your criticism. I think there may be a small oversight in the moderator's introduction. Surely, 'its result will be binding for three years' is provisional? Were some freak miracle or lusus rei pubblicae bring about a peace agreement in the meantime, one involving Jerusalem, then self-evidently, the change in geopolitical realities and status would demand an immediate adjustment to the relevant section of whatever text is chosen. This would regard, not the bits I have synthesized, but the status section worked out in draft 7, which I have adopted. I suppose this just means that, in such circumstances, ARBCOM would be notified and they would modify the lock-in provision to allow the changes, but that might well take some days, if not a week. Perhaps it's best to foresee such an extremely unlikely contingency, and add a note along the lines 'subject to no change in the city's status taking place in the interim'. Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I rather assumed that exception by inference, but it couldn't hurt to make it explicit. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Neljack:'I would support if and only if the statement that it "straddles Israel and the West Bank" was removed.'
 * Which 'Jerusalem' are you referring to? Our article refers to the area covered by several borders, whether with juridical value or illegal. The city as defined by the Jerusalem Municipal Boundaries extends West into Israel, beyond the British Mandate boundary in force until 1947, and East into the West Bank beyond the borders of the Jordanian defined muncipality (1950-1967) by virtue of the unilateral (pseudo)-"annexation" of large areas of the West Bank, including the West Bank land of Palestinian 28 villages (Moshe Arimarv p.63, see also esp. p.20). This creates all sorts of anomalities: Abu Dis is inside the Corpus Separatum, but outside (in good part) of Israel. Beit Hanina, like Anata is inside the Jerusalem Municipal Boundaries, but outside the corpus separatum. Precisely because source confusion is so diffuse and profound over the legal intricacies of the lines defining the corpus separatum, Israel and the West Bank (most RS, including OCHA refer to those (sect.1 p.8) 28 villages as in 'the West Bank', which however is, technically, a confusion since many are covered by the corpus separatum), I have striven to avoid the immense potential for confounding the reader here by trying in one line to make a statement that does not falsify the facts, legal or otherwise. Whatever way you examine it, the defining borders of the corpus separatum do not imbricate over the Jerusalem Municipal Boundary lines unilaterally drawn up by Israel, and, in consequence, 'straddle' serves to straddle the conceptual confusion arising from assuming, as I think you do, without historical basis, that the two are identical. Take out the phrase and there is no generic indication of where Jerusalem is. Leave it in in this form, and no legal implications are conveyed. Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it is ambiguous and misleading at best, given that it fails to mention anything about the corpus separatum. I disagree that it doesn't convey any legal implications. Exactly the same argument is being made about that statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and we rightly reject it as a basis for concluding that it complies with NPOV. Neljack (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd beg to differ on its being 'ambiguous' or misleading. Your argument is, essentially, that by sidestepping mention of the corpus separatum, it is misleading or ambiguous. The decisive things for me are that one has to find language that is (a) not misleading or ambiguous (b) acceptable to all parties consensually (c) yet, sufficiently generic and uncontroversial, while covering the known facts. Once editors approach the text with one particular legal issue at heart, the text automatically becoming unwritable, for the simple reason that the immensely complex historical details, with their varying interpretations in partisan and even neutral secondary sources, are intrinsically unwieldy. Ive given you the example of Abu Dis. The British Mandate authorities excluded it from Jerusalem; the U.N. Partition plan included it; the Jordanian excluded it; the post 1967 Israeli plan included and excluded it. It's both in, and outside, their plan, but almost all sources place it in the West Bank (including Palestinian).
 * In brief, one cannot allow a single issue, that has its theoretical historical legal value, to trump the overwhelming majority of sources, or later factors, like the 1949 ceasefire agreement, which also is ultimately relevant to legality issues re the borders. We write, not according to a single legal theory which would blind us to what the general consensus of highly reliable sources states. To allow abstract theory to obscure what RS state would be to bring a preconception into our evaluation of sources, which I do not think we are permitted to do (other than opening a huge can of worms to be gluttonously picked over by epicures of edit-warring :) This is, one should keep in mind, para 1 of a three or four para lead. An issue like the corpus separatum is not excluded thereby from the lead, but simply relegated to slightly lower down, if editors care to clarify this by an expansion there.
 * Your point's a fair one, but, in my view, ignores the nature wikipedia works. I'm happy to take your considered judgement as a nay vote, a more than legitimate position. I personlly can't see any other way to avoid edit warring than to use a neutral descriptor like 'straddle'. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * MsPorter Mea culpa for the lapsus calami in lusus rei pu'blicae spelt with of course only one b, and of course punning on lusus naturae.
 * "we can't know by which methods the disputes will be resolved"

Well, all I wrote is that we do know what the parties agreed to do by a mutual legally binding agreement in 1993. 'to be determined' in traditional bureaucratic usage is what is called technically a stock placeholder phrase, employed precisely when there is a deadlock: ‘is to be resolved at a later date’/’at a date to be decided later’/to be determined in due course' etc mean 'is not resolved at the moment, but if it is to be resolved, that issue shall be addressed in the future, not here or now.' A half a century ago no one would have been troubled by this. Language changes over time, unlike myself. I was taught that these instances of the infinitive 'to be' plus past participle' refer to a decision not to decide anything at the moment the provisory decision is made, but to relegate it to another occasion, in order to sidestep a deadlock. But, then again, I'm a fossil, and perhaps don't think 'encyclopedically'. It can easily be tweaked, but the agreement is important, and should be alluded to. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC) '"'Powers—pagan, religious and secular—have vied to conquer and reconquer it intermittently for millenia.'"
 * To those who find parts of this 'unencyclopedic' I would suggest they glance at the incipit of Bernard Wasserstein's article on Jerusalem for the Encyclopedia Britannica, esp. 'Character of the City' in the Introduction. That is replete with colourful descriptive language far in excess of anything like what several discerned at as 'unencyclopedic' in this draft. Coincidentally, I didn't consult this before my own draft, and was delighted to find that, more volubly, Wasserstein introduced the same elaboration on the Abrahamic faiths that some find problematically unencylopedic here. I remark this somewhat wryly. My curriculum does include commissioned work for an encyclopedia, although in French. The editor passed it without detecting anything 'unencyclopedic', apart from a minor grammatical error.:) Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oncenawhile. Apropos:'the only thing it doesn't do is point to the inherent contentiousness of an article about Jerusalem,' I thought I handled that in the most generic way possible, in writing (using deliberately the past tense with its function to flag present consequences).
 * Of course its present state is fraught with contentiousness, and I think Ravpapa's version handles that very well but this draft is designed for the lead para 1, writes against WP:Recentism preferring an overture sub specie aeternitatis and above all aims for concision for 5,000 years of history. From the outset I noted that there is a problem in choosing to focus on one or two sentences, as if that would end the chronic edit-warring. Only those things that have caused bitter fighting in the lead for nearly a decade have been addressed in the most synthetic, contentionless manner I can manage. Above all, we have to find a formula for several of these points that all parties can underwrite as fair and adequate. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * StevenJ81. Thanks, Steven. You're certainly correct that one or two sentences might improve with punchier punctuation. I just wonder at this late date whether it is proper to fiddle with it. A bit like retreading the runners of the chap in the marathon just as he staggered into second or third place!
 * The 'largest city' bit is there because that (if all of Jerusalem were in Israel, it would be Israel's largest city (a strongly tilted POV if/(Arab)East Jerusalem is the West Bank/Palestinian Territories' largest city) caused endless edit-warring. If one elides it, then it's likely to crop up further down the lead.
 * Thanks for the point on the disparity of 'Israel' and 'State of Palestine'. I'd wholly missed that implication (it might well seem to imply, ever so covertly, now that you state this, that Israel is not a state). I thought is universally accepted, apart from the lunatic fringe, that Israel was a state, while Palestine is not widely thought of as one. If one writes 'the state of Israel' for balance, it looks pleonastic; if one elides 'state' in 'State of Palestine' you can't help conjuring up the idea, shared by Hamas, that the state of Palestine is irredentist, and includes Israel, i.e. the historic Palestine. One could write 'Palestine' linking it to State of Palestine (That's my private view: whatever state the Palestinians end up with, if the two state solution doesn't expire, will be known as 'Palestine'/Filasṭīn) but many editors have in the past gotten upset at that. Well, it's given me something to sleep on. I'll get back to this, I hope, tomorrow. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * User:ZScarpia. I'm reminded of Ulysses' speech in Troilus and Cressida ('Take but degree away, untune that string,/And, hark, what discord follows!.') All objections here privilege some thread over others in the confused legal lie of the land. Accentuate one, and you upset others. This applies even to words.
 * ‘Control’. Some would, with the UN Security Council and the ICJ (2004) ruling, insist that is both administratively untrue (Arab East Jerusalem is largely abandoned to its own strangled resources – its taxes are even used to pay for West Jerusalem's institutions, while its own languish -, and it is more in line with RS to write ‘occupied’. ‘Control’ is stronghanding the Western Jerusalem situation  because there’s a modicum of international support based on the legal implications of the 1949 armistice agreement and tends to accept that as in Israel. Michael Dumper, ‘Constructive ambiguities: Jerusalem, international law, and the peace process,’ in Susan M. Akram, Michael Dumper, Michael Lynk, Iain Scobbie (eds.) International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Rights-Based Approach to Middle East peace,’ Routledge pp.113-144 p.119:’UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended the creation of an international zone, or corpus separatum, in Jerusalem to be administered by the UN for a 10-year period after which there would be a referendum to determine its future. This approach applies equally to West and East Jerusalem and is not affected by the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967. To a large extent it is this approach that still guides the diplomatic behaviour of states and thus has greater force in international law than many of the other approaches. At its core, this approach can be characterized by the refusal to accept the claims of either of the parties to sovereignty over the city to the exclusion of the other. The problem with this approach is, as we have already noted, the degree to which Resolution 181 is still active or has fallen in abeyance and has been superceded by Security Council Resolution 242.’ ; ‘with regard to Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem, this approach has received a modicum of recognition and is tolerated by the international community by virtue of its acceptance of the borders of the Armistice Agreement with Jordan. In addition, implicit recognition is also contained in the international community’s support for Security Council Recognition 242, which calls for withdrawal of territories occupied in 1967 with no mention of West Jerusalem acquired by Israel in 1948. Nevertheless this is weak recognition . .The UN Security Council has repeatedly declared that Jerusalem is occupied territory and subject to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. Indeed, UN  resolutions and EU declarations rarely make any distinction between East Jerusalem and the other territories occupied in 1967.’ (p.118) ‘Occupied’ is formerly correct for East Jerusalem. If you add ‘control’ you must add also ‘since 1967’, but can’t use that in a clause referring to Palestinians (‘Since 1967 Israel’s control of the city has been challenged/contested by Palestinians’, since Palestinians and Arabs have challenged the city’s status since 1947, etc. One could play with: ‘Defined as a corpus separatum in 1947, . .the international community has denied both parties their respective claims to sovereignty over the city’ (and its permanent status is to be determined by peace negotiations’). But expanding para 1 thus anticipates para 4 of the lead, while violating WP:Undue. Generally, all the points you mentioned are covered in the rest of the lead, and I think trying to cram every nuance into para 1 would devastate the fragile consensus that might be established at least for that. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"The reader looking to clearly know what is the capital of Israel won't find the information here"
 * Hertz1888. You write:
 * I don't think readers go to articles on Paris, or Tokyo, or Moscow to find out what the capital of France, Japan, or the Russian Federation is. Additionally, if one includes the other POV, one could complain that:'The reader looking to clearly know what is the capital of the State of Palestine won't find the information here.'
 * I.e., Your anxiety about the lack of information regarding Israel has, inadvertently discounted any curiosity about the corresponding lack of information about the State of Palestine. That fails WP:NPOV.
 * The remit is 'decide the content of the lead section of the Jerusalem article'. No draft has, however, addressed this. The most favoured draft 7, provides two sentences, one to open the first para. The other to close either the first para, or the lead. I.e., it does not exclude further material. My draft, to name one, takes draft 7, and assumes the ((...)) signalled in draft 7 means that a lacuna is to be filled. I filled it with a neutral statement of the most contentious issues, taking the final line of draft 7 as the closing line of para 1. It's certainly not an optimal solution, but then nothing offered is, and generally, there has been a huge amount of suggestions and criticisms, but very little practical input as to how to resolve the remit's note that we determine what 'the content of the lead' is to be. I think we have placed them on the horns of a dilemma: accept draft 7, and none of the traditional conflicts will be resolved because the lacuna offers an open sesame to edit-warring along the old lines. Accept some other draft like mine, and you signal that this is what the lead content is to finesse, in the following three or four paragraphs. Whatever the result, it just means we have to get back to the boards and carry on. Well, I've done my bit, as have several other habitués to the article. So, here's to the next generation to ours and 'the next decade in the Jerusalem article'!:) Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Crystal ball

 * User:Alanscottwalker.Alan. To respond to your suggestion that the last clause of the last line exemplifies WP:Crystal, I have added an appropriate source. The clause has nothing to do with crystal-ball gazing, but, being unsourced, might lead one, legitimately, to suspect it was. Personally as a realist I'm convinced final status talks will never talk place, and that one state will incorporate the whole area. But personal beliefs can't inflect what sources say, or influence how we summarize the status quo. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is still written as an unqualified prediction of future events in Wikipedia's voice. We can state what is current in that voice, (viz.The status is subject to Oslo. [cite]) but it cannot be an unqualified assertion about the future, as it is now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Is to be ..." is absolutely grammatically correct in this setting. It is not at all an unqualified prediction of future events.  Assuming the footnote (or a footnote) at the end of the sentence cites Oslo, the sentence is absolutely appropriate.  (One could start, "Per Olso ..." to be certain.  Still, it's really fine as it stands.)
 * I assume, by the way, that whatever option is chosen will get a brief polish before publication for grammar and such. I haven't voted yet, but my inclinations (here and option 7) possibly require a breaking up of a run-on sentence now and again, and the like.  Are those "Support" (and assume a grammar polish), or do I need to "Support with Changes" and suggest the changes now?  StevenJ81 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing just grammer, which is at any rate non-responsive to the criticism and a rather unimpressive focus. It is the idea that is being conveyed, and yes it could be said better, as you note, and I agree, which is the point of my comment.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reference to peace negotiations is made pursuant to Israeli/US pressure at the Oslo-proces, contrary to ending occupation. While peace negotiations are widely welcomed, this statement is superfluous, though. The only alternative would be military. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stephen. You've saved a long-suffering number here from reading my posting of a gruellingly tedious explication of the grammar of the copula (is)+infinitive (to be)+past participle's various nuances.:) I think the appropriate place, if you wish to vote for this but have some objections, is the"Support with Changes". Some of the comments in that section have already led me to alter my original draft, where I see some consensus. By all means suggest your changes there also. I expect that the votes just narrow the field, and towards the end we may be given the opportunity to thrash out niggly details that worry many, whatever the draft. It's best to get suggested changes in early, so that we have plenty of time to mull them, and others, who perhaps have refrained from taking a position, can take the objections into consideration. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. We don't need tediuos discussions of the grammar, which are, at any rate unresponsive to the substantive criticism; we need to be clear that the statement is not misinterpreted, and that you don't have to read the footnotes to inform the reader of what is meant. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless I am mistaken you are the only participant who sees that statement, and its phrasing, as problematical. That in itself is meaningless, because often in these matters, a solitary editor will fail to see the The Emperor's New Clothes and prove to have keener vision. You may have a point. I can't see it. If a wider number of editors back you up, per WP:CONSENSUS, the text will require remodulation.
 * The footnotes do not inform what the text means. Per standard wiki practice, the footnotes display the material basis in RS for what has been written, per WP:V and WP:RS. I refuse to be tempted into being once more tedious. But I'd appreciate it if you could clarify the WP:Crystal, futurative meaning of the often used legal phraseology:'the contract between the parties is to be considered null and void.' As I understand it, this kind of formulation often rules on a past event, saying that whatever consequences flowed from it, in the past to the present moment of arbitration, and the future, are null and void because the contract was invalid. It is not strictly speaking 'futurative' (for which we have the explicit variation, '(the contract) shall be considered null and void', usually appended to an if clause). That's just one of several examples.Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Such parsing is rather absurd. The point is not to have the reader of the article parse -- as opposed to a judge or a lawyer; we are not writing this for a judge, lawyer, grammarian, but for a general audiance.   In ordinary communication, the sentence says that some actual described thing is to happen, but here, no one (least of all Wikipedia) knows that that thing will happen.   (Also, re-read the first Oppose, where this issue is also mentioned.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe the problem is semantic ambiguity. "Is to be determined" is an ambiguous but grammatical phrase.  It seems to me that Alanscottwalker is taking it as a prediction of the future, but it is also a perfectly grammatical way to say "is intended to be determined" or "is meant to be determined."  Either of these formulations would make the non-futurative status of the statement more clear.  Maybe it would be better to replace it with "is meant to be determined" in order to avoid this ambiguity?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alan. As innumerable sources state, Israel and the Palestinian reps have undertaken formally to reserve discussion of the permanent status of Jerusalem to future talks. This kind of language is ritually repeated throughout the period 1967-2013 by the United States, Europe, the Vatican (whose interests in the 17% of (East)Jerusalem's churches, what taxes they pay and to which authority, depend on a final negotation, to cite but one actor we frequently ignore), etc.etc. What you appear to be saying is that since this undertaking concerns the future, it cannot be described per wikipedia policy, since the future is unknown. We are not describing clairvoyantly the future, we are transcribing what the historic actors have undertaken to do sometime in the future, something they undertook to do in the past. Whether it is true, or will happen, is totally immaterial. It's like refusing to register that part of Obama's 2013 State of the Union Address where he undertook (will) to reduce the number of US troops in Afghanistan by 50% by early 2014 on any relevant wiki article because we don't know now if this actually is what will happen. The final status of Jerusalem is not an Israeli-Palestinian problem. A huge number of outside national and religious interests, those that have property in Jerusalem, hinge on the fate of the Corpus Separatum's legal implications etc., all of which will expire only when conclusive negotiation replace them. Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alf. I'm not desperately defending the phrasing: hundreds of variations e.g. 'the permanent status of Jerusalem has been, by common accord, relegated to future peace talks', could do . What I am doing is simply challenging a reading of the given text that seems forced, and taken to mean WP:Crystal has been violated. Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And as I have indicated, if sourced, we can state "The Parties say this is [to be] the future. [cite]"  What we cannot do is say, 'This is [to be] the future.' Alf is correct, also. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've made numerous close arguments. You repeat a position. My brief is not to persuade you. The phrasing has nothing to do with WP:Crystal. Perhaps it suffers by my removing the link to Oslo Accords, which Tariq objected to, where that specific undertaking was explained. That explanation however is in the source. WP:Peacock was raised on one or two points, and I learnt something, but it rapidly became a meme among editors, who began to use it rather loosely. I hope WP:Crystal doesn't have the same morphogenetic field effect! In a half century of reading and writing English, perhaps I've missed something. Just one simple final point. If you can construe this sentence for me, which has the exact same structure and tense, to imply that the future is meant, you may have a case.
 * "Robert H. Stein. ‘Who Makes Up the Rules?,’ in Roy B. Zuck (ed.) Rightly Divided: Readings in Biblical Hermeneutics, Kregel Publications ‎1996 pp.30-45, p.34:' It has been argued that ''literature' is to be interpreted differently from all other forms of written communication.'"
 * This is elementary grammar, and requires no philological expertise to construe in its obvious meaning.In these contexts, there is no predictive implication whatsoever. Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You repeat a position, that it is perfectly clear but yes, my position is it is not. As written, it is not obvious, but it is in Wikipedia's voice, and it is not saying "it has been argued [by someone]" as your example does.  It is a different thing for our articles to say 'someone else says this is to be', and for Wikipedia to say 'this is to be.'  Wikipedia does not make such opinion claims about what is to be, although we can in-text attribute such claims to others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alan. We're not disagreeing about policy. I too am absolutely sure wiki's neutral voice does not allow predictions or opinion claims. What we have disagreed on is how to interpret an English idiom. I'm glad you raised the point. The nature of Rfcs like this is that such things are to be determined by consensus. As you can see from this last instance, the idiom employed is conditional, it sets the conditions for something if it is to take place. It doesn't mean that something will take place, any more than 'I will go to London' is predictive: it is an expression of intent now. Of course, if it emerges that many editors share your concern, there's no problem changing it. Indeed it will be obligatory. You just add, 'by common accord' and link to Oslo. My priority was concision, and still is. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the crystal ball. The problem is stating a view as a fact. You could say: "Parties view that the permanent status of Jerusalem is to be determined by peace negotiations." At last, it is all about the Israeli distortion that Resolution 242 means that withdrawal from occupied territories is subject to negotiations. This is reflected in Oslo too. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that it is opinionable that in the Declaration of Principles co-signed, and having legal force, by Israel and the PLO in 1993 and reaffirmed in 1995, took place, or that its explicit content says what it says? It is a fact, not a viewpoint, that both parties made a solemn, legally binding undertaking to address issues of 'permanent status' pursuant to the DOP, one of which is Jerusalem's status. Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What the Oslo-accords say is fact, but the article should reflect current views. Israel and its "honest brokers" determined that it should be negotiated. The Palestinians had nothing to choose. I am sure, they think Israel has to withdraw unconditionally to the pre-1967 borders. If the fact of Oslo is to be mentioned ;-), it is not a general fact, but a specific one of 20 years ago, and still the formal view of the signing parties at the time.--Wickey-nl (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Signed agreements have force in politics and law, until superceded or abrogated by further agreements. I think you have the history back to front. The PLO's historic position was to insist borders, refugees and Jerusalem form part of the early negotiations, but caved in to Israel's insistence that these be deferred to some later moment (see any inside account of the 1993 negotiations). The language we have on the undertakings is a compromise. Paradoxically it became the only straw Palestinians could still grasp at, while Israel proceeded to act unilaterally towards the eventual annexation of the whole region. The sticking point for Israel remains their commitment to discuss things already, for them, resolved by faits accomplis. Technically, peace cannot be declared, nor Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem recognized, until the Palestinians register their assent in final negotiations. In any case, all this is none of our business. except to note (check the history of interim versus final status talks on Jerusalem from 1967 to 2013) that a commitment to resolve Jerusalem's status was formally undertaken as the agenda for final peace talks, and agreed to by both parties in a binding document. Whether that happens (it won't) is immaterial to what we are to write, which is the technical lay of the land for the legal determination of Jerusalem's status.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Rather than argue endlessly about this, how about something like: "The international community does not widely recognize either claim, and expects the city's permanent status to be determined by peace negotiations."

There are a million ways to say everything.--Ravpapa (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, dead right, Rav. It's just procedural. All the votes above refer to the phrasing prior to the crystal ball objection. If, for every objection, one accommodates a change, the text would be completely different at the end, and some who approved all or a good part, might have good grounds to revise their opinion. So one examines things closely.
 * Concision's the dominant concern for me now, then sentence rhythm. You add four words. Your proposal can be cut back to 18, one over the present 17.
 * 'Neither claim is widely recognized internationally, and its permanent status is slated for discussion in final peace negotiations.' (has been relegated to final peace negotiations/). I still prefer the first version of c(o)urse. One of the original protocols runs:'the permanent status to be conducted pursuant to the DOP,’DOP being the 1993 Declaration of Principles :).Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to say that nothing here is obvious. Therefore I think it is not useful to mention it at all (controversial). If noted, it should be in general terms, without reference to Oslo, not necessarily in the same sentence. E.g. The final status of Jerusalem is not yet determined. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

one of the oldest cities in the world
Telling it is one of the oldest cities, is not only a dull unencyclopedical statement. It is also un ap provable. Refering to the Bible is not so convincing. Old, yes. One of the oldest, just PEACOCKy. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not saying it's one of the oldest cities, it's saying it's one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities. This is not only true but easily sourced from archeological information irrespective of what the bible says.  It's neither dull nor "unencyclopedic," whatever that means.  See, e.g. List of cities by time of continuous habitation.  What part of WP:PEACOCK do you actually think it contravenes?  It's not at all obvious.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Although a late reply, one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities is still unprovable. Indeed unencyclopedic. There are so many old continuously inhabited cities. It is not specific and not the first characteristic of Jerusalem, unlike being sacred by the three major religions. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You would have apparently a good technical point if one accepts the premise that in writing 'oldest continuously inhabited cities', oldest refers to pre Late Bronze Age cities. One can’t of course prove continuous habitation almost anywhere earlier than that date. Jerusalem has Early Bronze Age houses predating, for example, the Erechtheion on the Acropolis, (which dates to the Middle Helladic period, and marks the onset of archeologically verifiable continuous habitation there). Palestine suffered a precipitous population decline, perhaps due to climatic change and aridity, in the Late Bronze Age, and Jerusalem as well: by late pre-Davidic times, we’re only talking of a few hectares, but, with the Jebusites, a well-fortified citadel. It is verifiably subject to continuous habitation from that period on, however, and that, in the list page, makes it young compared to several others there, but still continuously inhabited for over 3,000 years, which very few cities in the world can claim. Ultimately, we go on RS, and perhaps you wish to challenge the Frommer guide?
 * But I gather from your first note that you also challenge its status as one of the world's oldest cities as well as 'unencyclopedic'. Unfortunately for that thesis, we do have an encyclopedic RS contradicting it,David Bridger, Samuel Wolk (eds.)  The New Jewish encyclopedia, Behrman House, Inc 1976 p.236:'Overall view of Jerusalem, one of mankind's very oldest cities.' I had this among my downloaded source lists for each phrasing, but never used it because 'very oldest', i.e. very +superlative, is something that grates on me. As you know these issues are resolved by RS, not by truth challenges, and therefore I have  eliminated Frommer as incompetent to judge, and added Richardson's book on Herod for the factual claim. Richardson has a Cambridge Phd., degrees in architecture and history, and is professor Emeritus at Toronto. His speciality is Second Temple Judaism, and, while I personally think his wording 'unverifiable', we have to discount our personal judgements here, and go exclusively on quality RS statements. Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, your answer is convincing and rather impressive. My main objection, also for your link to The New Jewish encyclopedia, remains that the Bible universally is used as source, which is really unacceptable. Zionists, of course, love it, as they want to create their own truth. Whether it is noteworthy for the first sentence or for the body remains of course a personal view, but that is a very minor question here. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at my references, you may note that I have tried to choose them from all sides of the spectrum over a range of questions. I tried, in selecting sources, to choose those from writers with different political viewpoints, or 'ethnic' loyalties, who happen to share basically the same rough position on each point. It was, if you like, an attempt to get WP:NPOV's cancelling clauses also into the material source basis of the draft. The Bible isn't used: a professor of archeology's book is cited for the full statement. As to The Jewish Encyclopedia, there again, a large number of sources spin things, and this is not limited to 'Zionist' books. I have no evidence that the editors of that work were Zionists. They were Jewish. There is no intrinsic overlap between Zionist and Jewish as far as I am aware of. Thanks for the compliment. No one should object to a workload if it leaves people either satisfied or feeling that their point of view is taken seriously and, where possible, accommodated. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tariq made some excellent points, apropos WP:PEACOCK, but I think we should be wary here of abusing the term to erase any hint that the city is anything but a politically contested place. Peacockery refers to 'puffery' and the promotional (or denigratory) use of adjectives, which have been studiously avoided in this draft. It does not mean 'avoid writing anything that might smack of a sense of literary style,' or 'sensitivity to readers' expectations of enjoyable prose'.
 * If we compare our drafts to what is actually the practice in city articles, we will see that it is almost punitively conservative and astringently bureaucratic if corrected on all points against any tint of style. Count the number of times a superlative or a first, or most, (famous, noted, major, largest, reknowned, opulent, powerful etc) is used in the leads of the following articles London,  Los Angeles, New York, Madrid, Rome, Paris, Athens, Beijing, Tokyo. For that region compare Tel Aviv ("party capital" due to its thriving nightlife, young atmosphere and famous 24-hour culture'); Haifa (most, major, largest, oldest, liberal atmosphere, respected academic institutions important,); Beirut ('one of the ten liveliest cities in the world':'best city in the Middle East')  the Palestinian city (like Damascus, for example) articles are far more astringent -Hebron, Nablus (my own addition to this draft was influenced there by the lead summary:’ Nablus has been ruled by many empires over the course of its almost 2,000-year-long history.’)
 * My impression, therefore, is that WP:PEACOCK is not a problem here, and should not be waved around like a red flag, if we compare what we are writing with puritanical caution to the general style of other major city articles. Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. WP:PEACOCK doesn't mean "WP:Never use an adjective" (sic).  Writing without adjectives is dull.  The key is to get the right balance, both here and elsewhere in WP.  StevenJ81 (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll put this here because it's relevant to WP:PEACOCK claims, but also the the overall problem of writing acceptable drafts, if we are weighing minutely everything in the legal scales to the potential detriment of a structured, coherent and fluent lead. If we wish to achieve something positive, perhaps we would do well to keep in mind the anecdote Peter Elbow cites in his recent book. Peter Elbow, Vernacular Eloquence:What Speech Can Bring to Writing, Oxford University Press 2012, p.352:'For years I’ve played word cop on myself. . .I’ve been an English teacher for almost 20 years . .I’m no longer pursuing content, no longer engaged in trying to persuade or entertain or clarify.' Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A WP:LEDE should establish why a topic is notable. If it is supported by RS, it should be allowed, whether or not it seems 'peacock-y'. Is there any RS on par with sources mentioned by Nishidani to back up a challenge to the statement that Jerusalem is not one of the oldest cities in the world? I should think not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but in this case the archaeology has been quite thorough, and the experts seem to be in agreement. Please challenge with evidence, not rhetoric. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Two proposals

 * Change the second-last sentence into: Both Israel and the State of Palestine have declared Jerusalem as the capital of their state (sentence splitted). The reason is that it presents the question as parallel claims and not as conflicting claims and that the Palestinians already presently regard it as their capital.
 * Leave the second part of the second-last sentence (about the actual presence) to the body. The reason is that the Israeli presence violates international law (e.g. because it includes East Jerusalem): Resolution 303 (IV), 9 December 1949, 38 votes against 14; Resolution 2253 (ES-V), 4 July 1967, 99 to 0; UNSC-Resolution 478, 20 August 1980, 14 votes to 0.


 * Isn't it WP policy to avoid controversies in the lead?


 * If you want to emphesize that Israel has its government in Jerusalem, and Palestine wants it in the future, fine, but then there should immediately follow, that the international community recognizes East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory and therefore the Israeli capital is not simply an undisputed fact. Thus, don't say it in the lead.


 * BTW, international law is what the vast majority of the states considers right; it is any way controversial.


 * Wickey-nl (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tinkered in a minimal way with this draft (where I see agreement between strong editors that are usually identified as having opposed general POVs), but can't really adjust that section, though any imput is valuable. I can't tinker with that (other than removing the so-called easter egg links) because it was lifted with very minor adjustments I discussed there, from draft 7 which 32 wikipedians have given it strong support. I don't consider I have the right to play round with it, since, at the moment (everything could change) it looks pretty consensual. I'd disagree on international law. It's not what states consider right: it's what the highest jurists, in an institutional forum, regard as the way things are. States are obliged to take heed, though most of them wipe their arses on it by a variety of dodges if they get the chance (my own countries of origin included).Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW: Be careful about arguing around international law.  On the one hand, each of you is right to a certain extent.  On the other hand, where a lot of Americans, at least, start having trouble with on this is that
 * (a) When it's about "states", not all "states" have free, democratic elections such that the government of those states truly represents the will of its people
 * (b) When it's about "highest jurists" ... who the bleep chose those guys, anyway?
 * It's not, of course, that we Americans couldn't do better about getting with the program on international law sometimes. But our political philosophy is very strongly built off of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:  Governments have legitimacy because the people say they do, not otherwise.  And so ...
 * When governments that are not freely elected constitute a huge chunk of the number of states voting on this or that issue of international law ... or when jurists seemingly appointed from thin air decide this or that issue of international law ... we have a whole lot of skepticism about how valid those actions are, regardless of the issue at hand. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All this should go into the threaded discussion section, but everything we are talking about is based on treaty that the US (and Israel) have signed, and further is generally considered customary international law, binding on all nations whether or not they have signed a treaty enacting it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it should be shifted, and perhaps our moderator will see to that. I'll only add this. All true, Steven. But in the specific case bearing on this part of the problem (the Legal Lay of the Land, (ICJ Advisory Opion, 2004), the voting was 14/1 on nearly everything, and that near-unanimous majority crossed all borders and embraced judges from democracies -France(Gilbert Guillaume), the United States (Thomas Buergenthal) Great Britain (Rosalyn Higgins), Venezuela (Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren), Holland (Pieter Kooijmans), Japan (Owada Hisashi), Germany (Bruno Simma), Slovakia (Peter Tomka), Brazil (Francisco Rezek), Madagascar (Raymond Ranjeva), Sierra Leone Abdul Koroma,  to China (Shi Jiuyong), the Russian Federation (Vladlen S. Vereshchetin), Jordan (Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh) and Egypt (Nabil Elaraby). Of course, origins may count, and they did in some cases, but by the law of averages, (and wikipedia is based on the same principle), large consensus over reasonably representative numbers,  tends to cancel out bias.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, you can call it international law or customary international law. I am not a jurist. Fact is, that there is nearly-consensus that East Jerusalem yet is not (part of) the capital of Israel. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Modifications
With so many modifications and proposed modifications, it's impossible to (re-)evaluate this draft's intentions. However, I must take issue with a late remark by Nishidani:

"'of those regions' should preferably be 'of historic Palestine'/'of those two regions'. Tariq's suggestion ' those' implies the regions referred to are already mentioned. They are not. Sorry." Huh? Those regions are mentioned: Israel and the West Bank. How is "of those two regions" (which also implies those regions are mentioned) acceptable to you, but "of those regions" not? To be honest, I have no problem with the addition of the word "two" (not 'of historic Palestine' though) if that placates you, but the arrogant way you said "They are not. Sorry." truly irks me, especially when you're clearly incorrect. --  tariq abjotu  03:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why you feel the need to stick the boot in with boring insinuations at this late point escapes me. 'in those regions' is still a tad problematical, because it can refer to Israel and the West Bank: Israel is not a 'region' but a country. The emendment I have now restored from your suggestion 'in those regions' is sufficiently ambiguous to suggest the wider Middle Eastern countries (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon).It was that, and fatigue, which mislead me to ignore the preceding two terms.
 * I assure you I don't need to be 'placated', and the arrogant tone you find in an apology, when I made an error after several hours battling broken bus services under an 'African' heatwave to go 30 miles, only to glance over things for a final revision, is an example of not assuming good faith, even for someone unaware of the personal circs. Still, I've removed it. I have no investment in the text I wrote: it responds more or less to dozens of suggestions, and several years of bickering, and represents what the majority appear to accept as reasonable. I won't be flustered when it is discarded. But I know that I rolled my sleeves up, and at least tried to find common ground with people whose approach to these issues has often struck me as ultramontane and inflexible. And now for some relief reading: Much Ado About Nothing.:)Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft fifteen by Ravpapa
^ view all drafts

Friends: I offer you this option of a lead, not because I believe it will ever receive any support, but just because I like it (it has already been discussed extensively on the Jerusalem talk page, and roundly rejected):

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Support draft fifteen

 * 1) I am a big fan of "There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious, starting with the most basic facts: what country is it in, and how many people live there." It is eloquent and shows balance. It also tells a reader to be cautious when reading the rest of the article, something that is very important here. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Me, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Support draft fifteen with revisions

 * 1) Tightened up,(for for example the comment thread below) this is exactly how I'd wish it to be written, even on wikipedia, since it looks at the often brutal realities of historical Jerusalem directly without camouflage, addresses the conflict, adds that it has a modern dimension, which we lack, etc. It's an excellent realist sketch of the city, as opposed to the dour realism of versions that must cope with the pressures, self-censure, compromises, inhibitions and restrictions, of writing both for wikipedia and within wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Nishidani above. If it were more concise, I'd support it whole-heartedly.  --GHcool (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I like the ideas here, but I see some problems, in my opinion. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) That the western part of the city has been part of Israel since Israel was founded or that Jerusalem is 'in' Israel are contradicted by the international community's view which is that Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any country and by international law which sees the proper status of the city as a corpus separatum. Some Arab residents may not be Israeli citizens, but they are still part of the city's population. Apart from that I think it should be explicitly stated that the whole city is under Israeli control and that I think it dubious that material which does not relate to the city's capital status or sovereignty should be placed under a sanction, I think that the draft is OK otherwise.   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  20:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose draft fifteen

 * 1) This doesn't seem to comply with WP:NPOV since "the western sector of the city has been part of Israel since the country was founded" is also a claim that is "almost universally rejected by the rest of the world", since no-one except Israel considers West Jerusalem to be Israeli. On stylistic grounds this seems to bring up the conflict quite often. Prefer draft seven or fourteen. --Dailycare (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) This RfC doesn't call for a rewrite of the lead. See my comments opposing draft 14. Formerip (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) For reasons given above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) As Dailycare notes, the claim about the western sector is a "seriously contested assertion" and thus violates NPOV. Neljack (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) The writing is too informal, more appropriate for a verbal, rather than written, introduction to Jerusalem. The (awkward) construction of the first sentence suggests Jerusalem is primarily a focus of conflict, rather than the center of religious and historic importance. This draft includes questionable statements such as "The western sector of the city has been part of Israel since the country was founded" and "There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious...how many people live there." There's also far too much detail in the wrong places in the wrong places in the second paragraph. There are better options on the table. --  tariq abjotu  03:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft fifteen threaded discussion
"Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym, 'Abode of Peace'; Arabic: القُدس (audio) (help·info), al-Quds [al-Sharif], 'The Holy Sanctuary')[ii]"
 * I think this is taken from a draft which precedes the exhaustive discussion that led to its removal because 'Yrušalaym, "Abode of Peace",' was shown to be a false etymology by User:Zero0000 and myself, and perhaps others. Since 'abode of peace' is an unacceptable folk etymology passed off as the real meaning in Hebrew, the literal rendering of Al-Quds, the Arab term, also was removed on the grounds of 'parity'. Such are the workings of wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nish is correct. There is no evidence whatever that "Yerushalayim" means "Abode of Peace".  Actually there is no etymology of the name that is accepted by most experts, though the clear majority favors a derivation from the name of the Canaanite god. Zerotalk 08:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

My reading of the sources is that the divergence of significant views goes back to 1948. That West Jerusalem has been part of Israel since its founding is certainly a significant view, but it is not one that is universally held in RS. See e.g:
 * "The western sector of the city has been part of Israel since the country was founded;"
 * 1) States recognizing Israel did not recognize Israeli sovereignty over west Jerusalem.[64] They typically cited UN resolutions proposing an international status for Jerusalem.'[65] In December 1949 the General Assembly recommended placing Jerusalem under a "permanent international regime," supervised by the Trusteeship Council.[66] But the Knesset soon declared west Jerusalem Israel's capital .[67] Few states located embassies there, however, and Tel Aviv remained the effective capital.[67]
 * 2) Elucidating the “main positions” on the status of Jerusalem, with respect to West Jerusalem, the source cites Henry Cattan: "Israeli control in west Jerusalem since 1948 was illegal and most states have not recognized its sovereignty there.[76] International law does not recognize the acquisition of a sovereign right by use of force, and Israel's status in the New City is only that of an occupying power.[77]" Citing Jordan's Crown Prince Hassan Bin Talal: "Israel's seizure of the western part of the city in 1948 did not grant it sovereignty because according to international law self-defense is not a method of aquiring title to territory; Israel's status in the city is that of a military occupant.[79] Nor do resolutions passed by the UN after the 1967 War attest that the organization has recognized implicitly Israel's sovereignty in West Jerusalem, and most states have refused to recognize any such claim.[80]" Citing G.I.A.D. Draper; "Israel did not aquire sovereignty in west Jerusalem in 1948 (nor did Jordan in east Jerusalem), because the international community had intended to establish in the city an international regime under UN administration. Both then and now, sovereignty has remained suspended and Israel's status in the city is that of a military occupant.[81]"
 * 3) Re Israel's attempts to "attain international legitimacy for Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, as capital city": In the 1950's, this diplomatic effort was somewhat successful, as 24 countries agreed to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and transferred their embassies there. However, the United States and the major European countries were not a part of this group. They refused to recognize Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, let alone consider the city the capital of Israel....
 * 4) "it should be pointed out that the cardinal dispute revolves around the rights of the State of Israel in East Jerusalem, whereas broader agreement exists regarding West Jerusalem, at least with respect to the future control of Israel in this part of the city (though not with regard to sovereignty)."

The key citation is probably the last one. There is "broader agreement" over "the future control" of West Jerusalem, but its sovereignty status, both today and historically since 1949 is not something that is agreed upon in reliable sources. Dlv999 (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite cogent I think with respect to Ravpapa's wording. If you read The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, (2004), the highest authority on international law in this regard, you will note it somewhere says that West of the Green Line is 'Israeli'. All contending parties understand this, except Hamas and Neturei Karta . That questions remain unresolved  concerning the technicalities of the Corpus Separatum doesn't really change this specific consensual understanding. I'm quite aware of course of the technical literature over 'sovereignty' as dlv notes above. It's just that 'western sector' is a rather clever way of stepping round this. Ravpapa is speaking (a) spatially and (b) by the subtlest of nuances, even with a military allusion ('sector' is also used of cities whose land is split up between contending occupying powers. Berlin earlier etc.)  Nuance is everything.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe my mind is not quite subtle enough to see the nuance, but when I read: "The western sector of the city has been part of Israel since the country was founded", what I understand is that western Jerusalem has been part of Israeli sovereign territory since 1948. That is what it means to be "part of Israel". When I turn to the sources, that is not something over which there is agreement. One of the core principles of our neutrality policy is that we don't state things as facts that are not agreed as facts in reliable sources. I understand that Israel has a lot stronger claim over west Jerusalem than East Jerusalem, and that there is a "broader agreement" over the "future control" of west Jerusalem, but this does not alter the fact that its historical and current sovereignty status is disputed. I'd be interested in the exact language used in the ICJ opinion. I searched the document ( 8.1MB) for a few different terms, but I could not find the relevant statement. Dlv999 (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've absolutely no disagreement with what you're arguing.
 * "Para.83. According to the report of the Secretary-General, in its northernmost part, the wall as completed or under construction barely deviates from the Green Line. It nevertheless lies within occupied territories for most of its course. The works deviate more than 7.5 kilometres from the Green Line in certain places to encompass settlements, while encircling Palestinian population areas. A stretch of 1 to 2 kilometres west of Tulkarm appears to run on the Israeli side of the Green Line.'"
 * Every word in those documents is parsed and combed for weight and nuance. It's the nature of legal prose, for to slip up will cause consequential profit and damage for parties. It hooked itself on the memory when I read it years ago precisely because I am familiar with the literature you quote. I don't however think that here the judges or their clerks are making a legal point: they are writing clear narrative prose. That's the distinction we risk losing. If we can all agree on the strict legal lay of the land, we shouldn't hold every jot and tittle of text to a test of juridical fidelity where the wording is innocuous. The real objection to that line is historical, not legal.Nishidani (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, only Israel claims it as their exclusive capital, leaving only a few neighbourhoods for the Palastinians, as symbolic capital. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the ICJ paragraph carefully it only refers to the side of the Green Line where Israel is, it doesn't say that Israel starts immediately West of the Green Line at all points. This source states that "no state recognizes Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem in neither its eastern nor western half" (p. 2, paragraph 2 and p. 17, paragraph 3). You can check Kattan's academic credentials online. Obviously, if it were differently there'd probably be many embassies in West Jerusalem. --Dailycare (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft [insert number] by InsertUsernameHere
^ view all drafts

Please comment in the "support", "support with revisions", or "oppose" section below, giving a detailed rationale.

Aspects of drafts
I think all seven drafts are accurate and neutral. It comes down to what aspect (holiness, power, recent history) should be emphasized. Perhaps the last one, number seven, is the best initial sentence for the article because it provides the broadest context about what's going on with Jerusalem. Some of the other statements, or pieces of them, could be incorporated into the lede as well. This should not be so contentious. The situation is that both sides claim Jerusalem as their capital, and Wikipedia has no business deciding who's claim is superior. Jehochman Talk 12:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we get a draft that unifies the key aspects of the other drafts. Each draft has great points but is inadequate stand-alone. A proposed paragraph that combines those points in a single statement would be much preferred, and far more comprehensive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I took a few moments and combined several elements of the first seven drafts and propose Draft 8 (vide supra).--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This came up in the prep for the RFC. The people that put together the drafts were focused on the capital issue and how it should be described. That is to say that content being lacking in a draft should not be read as saying that such content should not be included in the lead of the article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing some backstory. I agree on the content inclusion issue as well.  It is a complex issue, and the more comprehensive we approach it in the view of concision, we can get as close to a clear, neutral and factual statement.  Without content/context, a simple statement is inherently   controversial.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Participation
Not sure whether this belongs here, but I created the item on Jerusalem on Wikidata, and added the description "city in Israel". It was immediately changed to "capital of Israel", and when I tried to make it more neutral I was harassed by a number of Israeli participants. A thread was open in Hebrew Wikipedia, where I was called "antisemitic" (if the Google translate gives it right) and some other unpleasant and ungrounded names. The participants of this thread subsequently came to Wikidata to accuse me in God knows what. I am not sure how harassment of participants of this discussion can be prevented, but for me it was certainly less then pleasant experience.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Source Summary
There are numerous problems with the source summary section.


 * First, just before this RFC went live an editor decided he wanted to remove an extremely important point, then went on to make the usual I don't consent, therefore no consensus argument. The point was

"No news agency with a guideline for neutral reporting allows Jerusalem to be reported as the capital of Israel."


 * Second there are many problems with the "source summary" of "Many sources list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when there is little room for nuance, but in prose, sources often use qualifiers which show that the status as capital was achieved unilaterally."
 * The problems are, "many sources" is actually only a single source so this violates WP:WEASEL. Second, there is no mention at all about the numerous sources which leave blank the capital of Israel when there is no room for nuance, meaning there is no balance and thus bias. Third the statement that "the status as capital was achieved" is from a POV held by less than 1% of the world and disagreed with by the other 99%, meaning it should never be stated as a fact like it has. Sepsis II (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to set the record straight, the statement you quote is untrue, which might explain why it was removed. For example, the Associated Press has guidelines for neutral reporting, but the only reference in its style manual to Jerusalem is that it is used alone in datelines. Associated Press articles refer variously to Jerusalem as the capital, the declared capital, and other terms. The New York Times style guide has several references to Jerusalem, none of which specify how its articles are to refer to the capital-noncapital status of Jerusalem. The UPI style manual also does not specify how Jerusalem is to be referenced. (Fair disclosure: I am looking at versions of the manual from previous years. These manuals are constantly updated, and may today include guidelines in this matter. But I doubt it.) --Ravpapa (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * AP is contained in sources 5 and 6; stands alone in dateline plus a revision where they corrected an article that had stated Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. If you have the NYT style guide I would appreciate a quote as it is not free. UPI, like the Economist is irrelevant here as it's for grammar not for advising on political nuances, and I think the AP stylebook is the same. So in total, nothing you stated disproves the source summary. Sepsis II (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about just about everything. It is true that AP issued a correction to one article in which Jerusalem was cited as the capital; however a spokesman later said it should not have been released as a correction, suggesting there is no consistent policy in the matter; on the contrary, I have seen AP articles referring to Jerusalem as the capital, as the disputed capital, and have even seen an AP article referring to Tel Aviv as the capital (erroneously). UPI's guidelines are not irrelevant, because UPI does have standards for neutral reporting, and does not have a style guideline in this matter. Same is true of AP. You completely ignored the New York Times, whose manual I cited.
 * But, more to the point, it is clear from your response that you have not made a comprehensive study of style guidelines of all the syndicated news agencies of the world, and therefore have absolutely no basis for making such a blanket statement. "So in total," you write, "nothing you stated disproves the source summary." No, my friend, the burden of proof is on you, not on me, especially when you make such a blanket statement that encompasses all the major news outlets of the world. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have already stated, AP and NYT are behind pay walls, since you claim to have accessed them can you please add them as I have twice previously requested. There are two types of guides for papers those that say whether to use "e-mail" or "email" like the Economist and others that I did not include and those that describe how to report politically contentious topics. If AP has " no consistent policy in the matter" as you claim then they would not be considered a "news agency with a guideline for neutral reporting". I will state again, besides AP and NYT which are behind paywalls (and likely just grammar guides anyways), I have compiled a complete list of major news agencies' style guides, none of which allow Jerusalem to simply be reported as the capital of any nation. Sepsis II (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Offensive remarks
While I'm all for free discussion, I feel there are a few things that should not be tolerated. For example, I already see one user spewing out denial of the existence of Palestine. I do hope we can all agree that offensive falsehoods like this should be erased as they do nothing to further this RFC and can only detract from it. Sepsis II (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that denial of the existence of Palestine is very inappropriate. Nevertheless, this procedure is for collecting views. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The best way to deal with extreme views is not to draw attention to them. I am sure they will be ignored in the final outcome. Jehochman Talk 21:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone also deal with GHcool, his !vote rationals like "I don't like the Palestinian claim over Jerusalem (there's no way they'll ever get West Jerusalem in any peace agreement" are ridiculous while his other comments go against the source summary. As an aside, isn't is against policy for GHcool to use his user page to host offensive original polemics? Sepsis II (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you not do this here? Pretty please? People are going to have opinions you dont like, just as you will have opinions that others dont like. If you think he is wrong refute them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Say what you want, and don't focus on what other people say that you don't like. Try to be positive rather than negative. Jehochman Talk 21:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with everyone telling Sepsis to "ignore it". How would hate speech otherwise be tolerated in any other context? What if what was being said was anti-semitic in question? It'd be reported and the user would most likely be blocked. What if it was towards blacks? Hispanics? But anti-Arab sentiment usually seems to get a pass, so I encourage some form of arbitration on this matter, because denying the existence of Palestine is akin to Holocaust revisionism in terms of outright falsehood. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole generates hyperbole. Jehochman and Nableezy are right. We're all grown up here, can interpret bias (which is a pretty normal feeling), without getting on our high horses and making a distractive issue of it which only derails editors from their obligation to focus on the various proposals. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Solntsa90, not a single reasonable person takes Holocaust denial seriously as an academic, historical, or even responsible mode of thinking. In contrast, the existence of Palestine is essentially a legal fiction combined with wishful thinking.  I am not speaking of the existence of Palestinians or of the Palestinian Authority or of the Palestinian Territories.  I am speaking of an independent nation called Palestine that has its own government recognized by its own citizens and by the world that occupies a territory with undisputed borders and all of the other accouterments to which the Palestinian people aspire.  This aspiration is just in my opinion and I would appreciate it these rather moderate views would not be compared to Holocaust denial.  I must join Nishidani in asking us all to take a chill pill and keep editing with good faith.  --GHcool (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's probably more akin to, I don't know, denying the existence of Israel. No one would be blocked on Wikipedia for saying that, and it wouldn't be characterized as hate speech. If anything, it'd be characterized as silly. People would then give that person a hard time, devoting countless hours and precious bandwidth fruitlessly trying to show him or her the error of the position, but nothing of value would be achieved. And the same goes here. --  tariq abjotu  16:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's probably more akin to, I don't know, denying the existence of Israel. No one would be blocked on Wikipedia for saying that, and it wouldn't be characterized as hate speech. If anything, it'd be characterized as silly. People would then give that person a hard time, devoting countless hours and precious bandwidth fruitlessly trying to show him or her the error of the position, but nothing of value would be achieved. And the same goes here. --  tariq abjotu  16:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

More sources on status
Had I come to this discussion earlier, I would have added a few more sources to the source summary above. I've decided to take Mr. Stradivarus's suggestion and give the sources here:

The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East is incredibly succinct on Jerusalem's status: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" (p. 491). This is the first sentence of the encyclopedia's entry under "Jerusalem." Other reference books that explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel include The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44), Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia (2003 ed., p. 628), and Britanica Online Encyclopedia. Many of the above state that most countries' embassies are in Tel Aviv, but most of them simply identify the capital of Israel as Jerusalem just as they identify the capital of the United States as Washington, D.C. --GHcool (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I only have access to the one online source you presented, Britanica, which states that "Jerusalem is the seat of government and the proclaimed capital, although the latter status has not received wide international recognition." So that source has obviously made sure NOT to call Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know this is not a source, but a google search for "capital of Israel" reveals, unambiguously, Jerusalen: Israel, capital. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Google's source for that is...Wikipedia. Sepsis II (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The link to Google above doesn't work, thanks to 707. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * An ideal lead sentence would look something like Continuum or Britanica's lead. --GHcool (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi GHcool, looking at the Continuum and Britannica' leads I think there is a significant difference in approach:
 * "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" (Continuum p. 491) - I did not check the source, I am transcribing from your comment above
 * "Jerusalem is the seat of government and the proclaimed capital, although the latter status has not received wide international recognition." (Britanica)
 * My view is that Britannica states as fact what is fact: that Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and Israel has proclaimed that it is it's capital. But it does not state opinion as fact: i.e. that the Israeli actions have had a definitive effect on the city;s status (which is disputed).
 * Contrariwise continuum adopts the Israeli position on the status of Jerusalem: that it is the capital of Israel. My view here is that there is an important distinction between the two approaches and that the Britannica is more consistent with our policies such as WP:NPOV and the principles on which we write the encyclopaedia. Just a brief note on the continuum source. It appears to be an encyclopaedia of the Middle East written entirely by Israeli scholars. This is not to say it's not a good source or that we shouldn't take it into account. Only that it is not necessarily a source that would be entirely representative of the totality of global views in RS on the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should we care about it being unilaterally declared? That sounds rather anti-Israel in POV as long as we say that about Jerusalem but not about other countries' capitals; I doubt that there was much multilateral input about having Thimphu, Bogotá, or Abidjan become or remain the capitals of their countries.  Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why ? Because much of the spatial object called "Jerusalem" described by the Wikipedia article Jerusalem is not inside the spatial object called "Israel" described by the Wikipedia article Israel according to anyone but the State of Israel. The situation is not similar to Thimphu, Bogotá, or Abidjan at all. It is more like the Democratic Republic of the Congo ignoring the existence of the Republic of the Congo, treating Brazzaville as part of Kinshasa and unilaterally declaring the combined spatial object as Kinshasa, the "complete and united" capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. "anti-Israel in POV" ? I think not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Repeating what has been explained before, the significance is that the UN decided that no entity had the right to unilaterally alter the status of Jerusalem in any way. All Israel's unilateral moves, including annexation of territory and the declaration of Jerusalem as its capital, are therefore viewed as being invalid and of no standing. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  12:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to say to Sean.Hoyland, that's an excellent analogy, considering the status of independence of both Congos from France and the fact both capitals face each other across the River Congo. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer Div999, I'd support either Continuum's or Britanica's approach. The difference you point out is significant, but either one would be acceptable to me on Wikipedia.  --GHcool (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I just checked The World Book Encyclopedia again. This is the first sentence of its article on Jerusalem: "Jerusalem is the capital and largest city of Israel and one the world's holiest cities." It is only 3 paragraphs later until the geopolitical concerns revolving around Jerusalem are addressed. Food for thought. --GHcool (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Which of course, as a glance at out lead shows, makes an egregious error in stating categorically, 'the largest city in Israel,' without the neutral, very precisely documented clarification our 'if' clause' has added ('if East Jerusalem is added'). One reason wikipedia has the potential to be better than such works in encyclopedic terms, is that the number and variety of its editors compel us not to overlook crucial nuances and things standard works of the kind customarily miss. Even the donkey I once rode in the Old City's streets would have known that - it stuck to the Old City.Nishidani (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The World Book Encyclopedia is '"designed to meet the curriculum needs of elementary through high-school students." It is not the kind of source we should be giving too much weight to in our deliberations. Dlv999 (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion by Sm8900
I suggest that we simply say "Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital." that statement seems to me to be fairly accurate. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If so, then per WP:NPOV, since two parties vie for the city, one would write "Both Israel and the State of Palestine consider Jerusalem to be their capital." Any other statement, eliding the other party, privileges one to the disadvantage of the other. Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * well, in my opinion, the problem with that statement's phrasing is that the Palestinian Authority currently has its headquarters in Ramallah. I agree that the Palestinian Authority states unequivocally that it is allowed to establish its capital in Jerusalem. my point is that no one, not even the Palestinian Authority, would claim that its capital is currently located in Jerusalem at the present time. Here is an article which describes their current use of Ramallah as their administrative headquarters. Article, jpost.com: 08/20/2010, Fancy restaurants, five-star hotels and new construction sites. Welcome to the new Ramallah, the de facto capital of Palestine.   I am open to other phrasing to address the points which you mentioned, of course. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, the Palestinian Authority works out of Ramallah, yet it considers East Jerusalem its capital. I fail to understand this persistent difficulty in recognizing that wikipedia's core principle of WP:NPOV must apply to a conflicted situation like this. You simply cannot elide one party or single it out as the only subject of a generalization without prioritizing one of two interests and violating core policy.
 * The PNA is forced to do work from Ramallah because of a fiat imposed by military and political dictate: the occupying power (the standard international term for Israel's presence across its borders) has forbidden the Palestinian Authority from operating in East Jerusalem at Orient House, which was the headquarters for the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Peace Talks. served as the PA office to represent East Jerusalem's Arabs interests in negotiations with the Israeli government, Israel refuses to allow them to be present in East Jerusalem despite calls by the EU to revoke the 2001 closure edict.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * okay. then how about, "Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital. The Palestinian Authority considers Jerusalem to be its capital."--Sm8900 (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In prose style manuals, or at school, it is advised that where two clauses share the same predicate, they should be combined by making one clause, headed by 'both', introducing the two subjects defined by that predicate. In any case, The P(N)A considers East Jerusalem its capital, not Jerusalem. Only Israel claims total sovereignty over the divided city.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * how about, "Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital. The Palestinian Authority [also(??)] considers Jerusalem to be its capital. The two entities differ significantly over what is geographically considered the borders of 'Jerusalem.' " --Sm8900 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Revised my draft
I revised my draft wording. is that ok? --Sm8900 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

indicate favorite draft
crossing out my own section. right now this seems premature. maybe we could revisit this idea later in some form. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought it might be helpful to set up an informal section here where editors can note what their favorite draft is. I am doing this simply to make things easier for the closers. it seems to me that this could serve as an informal straw poll of sorts. I hope that sounds like a somewhat workable path of action to others here.

you can comment here if you wish. I will make a subsection for folks to actually note their favorites. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

List of favored drafts

 * draft 14. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * draft 1. --GHcool (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference section
The references section contains two separate references (13 and 39) to the same article by Raphael Ahren in The Times of Israel. The second reference is summarised in a way which tends to make it appear as though the Press Complaints Commission decided against The Guardian. In fact, the opposite was the case (see the companion article: The Times of Israel - Guardian not wrong to say Tel Aviv is Israel’s capital, UK press complaints panel decides, 22 May 2013). <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  13:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Israeli control
Curiously, none of the current drafts apart from the last, draft 15, explicitly state that the whole city is under Israeli control and has been since 1967, a fairly fundamental fact (though draft 15 does state that West Jerusalem has been 'part' of Israel since Israel's founding, a disputable assertion given the international view that it is not part of Israel's sovereign territory). <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  13:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The current 4th paragraph of the lead states: "Today, the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, West Jerusalem was among the areas captured and later annexed by Israel while East Jerusalem, including the Old City, was captured and later annexed by Jordan. Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently annexed it. Currently, Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's "undivided capital". The international community has rejected the latter annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel.[20][21][22][23] The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies."
 * I think the main focus of the RfC is to conclusively resolve a long-term dispute over the neutrality of the first sentence of the lead and ideally come to a consensus over the opening of the article. Thus the proposed drafts do not necessarily need to cover all the important points that you would expect to see in the lead (and are already covered in later paragraphs of the lead). Dlv999 (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That being the case, do you think it might be better to concentrate text about the sovereignty and capital status issues in the 4th paragraph, omitting reference to them in the initial sentences?  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  14:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Would the thinking behind that be that in that case, they're only dealt with in one place in the lead? While I see a certain logic in that, I see that as a discussion that's separate from this RFC. --Dailycare (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two strands to the logic: one is to avoid tedious repetition; the second is to pin-down the wording for the way the capital status and sovereignty issues are described in the Lead, avoiding a situation where they are dealt with in two separate places but the wording is only fixed in one.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  08:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the introduction to the drafts: "We have created seven drafts for you to comment on. Please note that not all of these drafts are intended to be the first sentence of the lead. Some are intended to come later on in the lead, so please bear this in mind when you comment." - It appears my previous comment was not quite accurate. Presumably if we pick a draft that covers material already discussed in the 4th paragraph we will also have to remove repetitions for a coherent lead. But I am not sure if anyone has yet discussed how we will incorporate the chosen draft into the lead. [Dlv999: 09:24, 19 June 2013]
 * Yes, it would be good to have a clearer idea of what might happen. A third logical strand that I didn't mention is that I think the 4th paragraph as it stands is pretty good and could be improved to very good with a small amount of extension and modification. It struck me that doing that might be the best solution. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  12:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the word 'annexation' has to go out. The line:'Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently annexed it,' is not only untrue: does not even respect Israel's formal legal position, since neither in 1967 nor in 1980 did any Israeli law extending the municipal boundaries eastwards use the word sipuach (annexation). This point, analysed in detail by Ian S. Lustick, 'Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem,' at Middle East Policy, Vol. 5 Issue 1, January 1997 pp.34-45, as I think User:John informed me several years ago, has, to my meagre knowledge, never been disavowed.  Anyone who cares to should make that edit to the Jerusalem lead 4th para immediately, replacing it with 'imposed its jurisdiction' or something of that sort. It is a POV, not a fact.Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The link you gave to Ian Lustick's article in Middle East Policy no longer works. I can recollect discussions on the subject, though, and think I can remember the gist of what Lustick wrote. My impression of what happened was that, in 'unifying' the city, there was a legal pretence that East Jerusalem wasn't being annexed, though that was in effect what was being done and that was how the international community interpreted it. I have read that subsequent Israeli court decisions have confirmed that East Jerusalem is part of Israeli territory, though I can't provide sources for that. Above, I've been quoting from Mosheh Amirav's Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City. Pages 53 to 58 deal with the Israeli 'annexation' and reactions to it. I recommend having a quick read through it if you've got the time:
 * p.53: "Four ministers opposed annexation, but by the end of the meeting, a majority supported the idea of unifying Jerusalem and annexing the Old City to Israel. ... Following the cabinet decision of June 11, 1967, a ministerial committee was formed to prepare the appropriate legislation and determine the boundaries of the annexation. On June 27, the Knesset passed several pieces of legislation aimed at formalizing the city's unification: amendments to the Law and Administration Ordinance and the Municipal Cooperation Ordinance and the Protection of the Holy Places Law."
 * p.53-54: "In presenting these bills, the government deliberately avoided any explicit mention of the terms 'annexation' or 'application of Israeli sovereignty' in regard to East Jerusalem. Foreign Minister Abba Eban explained the significance of the legislation in his response to the UN Secretary General on July 10, 1967, after the UN General Assembly condemned Israel for annexing East Jerusalem. Eban said, "The term 'annexation' which was used by supporters of the vote is not accurate. The steps that were taken [by Israel] relate to the integration of Jerusalem in administrative and municipal areas, and served as a legal basis for the protection of the holy places of Jerusalem."
 * p.53-54: "It bears emphasizing that, contrary to popular notion, neither 'annexation' nor 'application of sovereignty' actually occurred, legislatively speaking [my emphasis], just as the foreign minister claimed. Legal expert Professor Yehuda Zvi Blum asserts, and most other jurists agree, that "there is no basis for the use of the term 'annexation' to describe the steps connected to applying Israeli sovereignty over territories of Palestine, including Jerusalem.""
 * p.55: "Even Justice Minister Yaakov Shimshon Shapira, who brought the three pieces of 'administrative' legislation to the Knesset, admitted that "no such act of sovereignty may be made in the absence of a number of prior conditions." He was referring to the conditions mentioned above. This is why the legislature in 1967 preferred not to use the word 'sovereignty' in regard to the unification of the city. Instead, the Israeli government chose to 'apply the state's law, jurisdiction and administration.' Similar language had been used when territories that were not within the State of Israel according to UN Resolution 181 were annexed to Israel in 1948."
 * p.55: "As far as Israel was concerned, the city was now united. Israel chose to ignore the international legal aspect, as well as the fact that almost every nation in the world refused to recognize the city as united. The legal question didn't bother the decision-maker's in the least. They vividly recalled how, just nineteen years before, the same thing was done when Israeli rule was applied to the territories that were annexed in the wake of the 1948 war."
 * p56: "The international response to the legislation concerning East Jerusalem was not long in coming. And it was much more harshly worded than the Resolutions regarding the occupied territories, where Israel was not imposing its rule of law. ... Many countries, including some of Israel's friends, denounced these moves, saying the annexation of East Jerusalem was a violation of international law. Even the United States pointed out that "these moves can have no bearing on the fate of the holy places or Jerusalem's status.""
 * So, not annexation "legislatively speaking", but annexation in effect? Note the quote from page 55 which says: "Similar language had been used when territories that were not within the State of Israel according to UN Resolution 181 were annexed to Israel in 1948." That means that we should have the same problem with lands 'annexed' in 1948 as we do with East Jerusalem. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  23:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's odd. If you google Lustick+has Jerusalem Been Annexed' it comes up fourth, and clicking on it opens the whole essay. If you make a link of this googled page and put it in here ([PDF] Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem? - School of Arts & Sciences (https://www.sas.upenn.edu/.../Lustick_Has%20Israel%20Annexed%20Jerusalem_1997.pdf) it doesn't work! If you need it I can send you a copy, in any case.
 * Arimav's book backs what Lustick says. There remains however a distinction between the territories of 1948 and those of 1967, because the legal status of the former is affected by the terms of the 1949, UN brokered armistice. This does not hold for 1967. In all of this, whatever the wording, intentions, or whatever of Israel were, it was, as Lustick showed, the drafters of those acts were extremely careful not to use language that would have created a huge legal headache for Israel itself. 'Annexation' 'sovereignty' would not be an offense against Palestinians. It would have been a measure adopted against not only the UN, but several powers which have a real stake, via their properties, in the status of Jerusalem.
 * What Lustick's essay showed was that the use of the word 'annexation' (and 'sovereignty') is an identifiable POV for the 1967 and 1980 acts.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad your query made me reread it. People have suggested that 'is to be determined' is WP:Crystal ball. I will now add Lustick's words to the relevant section, so one can see this more clearly.
 * While waiting with figures crossed, for someone with the technical knowhow here to find out how you can readily access that essay by googling for it, but can't make a usable link to it on this page, here's the gist in full:
 * p.35‘regardless of the catechisms on Jerusalem that the Israeli right-wing has lately tried to force all Israeli politicians to recite, and the premature closure of the question they wish to achieve, the future of expanded East Jerusalem is, in a legally and politically binding way, subject to negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians. Regardless of what happens in Hebron, and even if they are delayed until the election of a new government in Israel, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will resume their forward momentum only after an agreement that the future of "al-Quds," if not 'Yerushalayim," will be a central item on the agenda of those negotiations. Once those permanent-status negotiations, or negotiations about the negotiations, begin, it will quickly become apparent how much the problems associated with the issue of Jerusalem have been clouded and complicated by misconceptions so basic that few have even thought to examine them. To be sure, there are Israeli jurists and scholars who maintain that annexation has been accomplished. Their arguments are weak and often calculated to create the political and legal reality that they implicitly admit does not now exist. From virtually any international legal perspective, according to prima facie consideration of the relevant documents and laws inside of Israel, consistent with the claims implicit in the behavior of Israeli politicians and based on the explicit judgment of leading Israeli judges and legal scholars, neither annexation nor the extension of sovereignty that attaches to annexation, has occurred.'Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If I click on the above, it works. Duh!
 * See also:
 * Ian S.Lustick, 'Yerushalayim, al-Quds and the Wizard of Oz: Facing the Problem of Jerusalem after Camp David II and the al-Aqsa Intifada,' in The Journal of Israeli History, Vol.23, No.2, Autumn 2004, pp. 200–215.


 * In June 1967 the Eshkol government decided not to annex the Jordanian municipality of al-Quds. Under Israeli law this could have been done straightforwardly by using the same statutes employed to annex the Western Galilee into the new state after the 1948 war, and then to incorporate the Little Triangle in June 1949. But the government chose not to annex Arab Jerusalem, nor to declare Israeli sovereignty over the city. There were three reasons for this decision. First, the government feared a coalition crisis with the National Religious Party who would have objected to what would have been an implicit decision not to annex the other portions of the Land of Israel that had been “liberated.” Second, Levi Eshkol and his Cabinet feared a political confrontation at the United Nations and a legal battle at the International Court which it certainly would have lost. Third, it did not want to enfranchise the more than 60,000 Arabs remaining in al-Quds and the portion of the West Bank freshly demarcated as part of “reunited Yerushalayim.” p.202


 * At least since 1988, the Arab neighborhoods, villages and refugee camps of al-Quds and its environs, including most of the Old City, have been treated as unknown, foreign, “occupied” territories. When not trying hard to recite the official catechism about the city’s “reunification,” politicians commonly referred to the Arabs of East Jerusalem as Palestinians within the West Bank or Judea and Samaria. The Statistical Abstract of Israel continued to place an asterisk next to East Jerusalem to indicate its inclusion within the area of the state as listed. The municipal eruv, which runs along the boundary of the city within the Green Line, was constructed carefully in the eastern sector to divide the city, excluding mostArab neighborhoods and villages.' p.207


 * What you appear to regard as missing is something like the following. 'While regarding Jerusalem as 'complete and unified', Israel has neither annexed nor asserted sovereignty over East Jerusalem'? Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that your reasoning here, Nishidani, is only blurring the lines: the word 'annexation' has to go out. While that may be a good debating tactic, for an encyclopedia that is more like throwing out the baby with the bath water. What we need here at WP is a readable yet concise description. -DePiep (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Blurring what lines? And what 'tactics'? It's not a 'debating point' that Jerusalem has not be 'annexed'. It's a fact. Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Blurring the lines of clarity, by diving into detailed details. That is a 'tactic', not a way to improve encyclopedic readability. (Oh, and in the end you seem to acknowledge: you get my point). -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nish, as far as wording goes, it's a question of what level of detail to go into and what level of precision is acceptable.
 * I've now read, or re-read, the articles by Lustick that you linked to. The Israeli legislation relating to East Jerusalem speaks in terms other than annexation or transferring sovereignty ... deliberately so: the Israeli government wanted to try to avoid provoking a strong reaction from the international community, particularly the Americans. So, it would be true to say that Israel didn't legislatively, officially or formally annexe East Jerusalem. However, that's not to say that wasn't the intention, unofficially or informally, of Israel's acts, that is, annexation in all but name. Lustick points out that that Israel's last official statement about Israel's 1967 legislation, was the one made at the UN by Eshkol, where he said that, despite the use of the word by members of the Knesset, Israel wasn't annexing East Jerusalem (It was actually Abba Eban who made the struck-out statement - 12:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)). The point of not mentioning annexation or transfer of sovereignty in the legislation was, though, to be able to officially deny that was what was being done. When the Golan Heights was 'annexed' in 1981, you'll notice that Begin responded: "You use the word annexation, but I am not using it." Significantly, Begin didn't say that the Golan Heights wasn't being annexed, just that annexation wasn't the way he was going to describe it. Lustick points out the problems that the ambiguity over East Jerusalem's status caused in the Israeli courts. You'll notice though, that in all the mentioned cases where the ambiguity was noted, the courts chose to act as though there was no ambiguity. You'll also note that, in one of the cases, the deputy attorney general argued that the imposition of Israeli law and administration on East Jerusalem was equivalent to annexation. So, a representative of the Israeli government was arguing that the effect of Israel's laws was equivalent to annexation! Lustick quotes the Netanyahu government: "Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, is one city, whole and united, and will remain forever under Israel's sovereignty .... The government will  thwart any attempt to undermine the unity of Jerusalem, and will prevent any action which is counter to Israel's exclusive sovereignty  over the city." Clearly, although the Israeli courts have interpretation problems because of the ambiguity of the laws, the Israeli government has no uncertainty about whether Israel has sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem. An argument that Lustick puts forward is that, if Israel had intended to annexe East Jerusalem, it would have given the Arab population Israeli citizenship. I'd say, that it's not clear that in order to annexe territory, you have to annexe its population along with it. Amirav, actually, writes that Eshkol had intended to give the Arab pupulation of East Jerusalem Israeli citizenship, as had happened after earlier annexations, but that he was opposed by Begin, Dayan and Kollek. Instead of Israelisation of the population, they supported Jordanisation of it, which later developed into Palestination. Begin wanted the territory without the Arabs. The other two didn't want the problems that integrating East Jerusalem's Arabs would bring.
 * As I've concluded that annexation was the effective intent of the Israeli government, even if the legislation didn't call it that and, in front of the UN, Eshkol denied that was being done ("not annexation 'legislatively speaking', but annexation in effect"), then I don't really have a problem with the article stating that Israel annexed East Jerusalem, especially given the weight of sources that say that was done and that the international community interpreted Israel's actions that way. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with it being noted that, despite what sources say happened, the Israeli legislation doesn't actually refer to annexation or transfer of sovereignty.
 * Please excuse the length everybody.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  19:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt that Israeli governments consistently act as if annexation took place, and have no argument with the way you synthesize those sections. If you have 'Israel annexed East Jerusalem' in the face of a strong RS (Lustick's whole working life as an academic has been dedicated to voluminous and lucid analyses of these issues in comparative perspective) that denies annexation ever took place ('the Eshkol government/Begin decided not to annex') you're (one is)opening a can of worms, because (a) the word is improperly used (b) it passes off what is an identifiably far rightwing rhetorical untruth/wish (Lustick) as a fact (c) presents a political POV as a fait accompli (d) flies in the face of perhaps the best authority on these complex technical issues in academia and (e) readers who use wikipedia, and see 'annex' will conclude -'What's with it with EJ Palestinians always bitching about the (Israel) government's legitimate applications of the law? It's the government of the land where they live: they're in Israel, and if they don't like it, they should move out', etc.


 * The good news is that, within a day or two, all this will be archived, and at least two sentences in one para of a four para lead will be sealed off from edit warring. The bad news is, good questions have been raised, but rather late in the piece, and probably the edit warriors will be tempted to shift the game a para or two down. :)Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

East Jerusalem
The topic of East Jerusalem is handled weird, I say. Nowhere in the proposals (or in their background) it gets any prevalence. I'd expect the article to have a high level section on this. That is: the borders and their history, the "municipal" borders as stated and changed by occupying Israel, and especially the EJ-WJ border (the section will open with a main sure). Yes not all in the lead, but sure the lead should reflect that section. The lead very strangely spends a lot on (religious) background, but not on actual (mainly political) situation.

Very, very strange is the  pre-conclusion here, that states: "East Jerusalem, which our article treats as part of Jerusalem, is ...". That is a POV statement by the OP (Original Post = RfC post). -DePiep (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is simply because (a) WP:Lede demands a summary style; WP:Recentism disallows as WP:Undue sentences on one 46 year controversy in Jerusalem's 5,000 years of existence (c) The first paragraph gives the most general overview, the two or three remaining lead paragraphs have space for that, and indeed the 4th paragraph, as noted by Scarpia and discussed by Dlv, covers it.Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes a summary style. Not tucked away. The first mentioning of EJ is without introduction or description. As for Recenticism: already there is a paragraph (one of four) starting with "Today". You mean to say a whole paragraph for this is overdue wrt 5000 years? And anyway, the "controversy" (which are mere facts for an encyclopedia) is from 1948 of course, not 1967. Such a mistake is one more reason to add that to the introduction. Also, erasing the border / green line from the lead is an Israeli POV (from the "unified" political statement).
 * I note that you did not address my point against the Source summary. The statement I quotes is OR (amid "sources"!).
 * To be clear: the EJ/WJ existence and its border/green line should be well-described, explicit in the lead. -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (a) No one delegated me to address each and every point raised by contributors.
 * (b)You write:'the "controversy" (which are mere facts for an encyclopedia) is from 1948 of course, not 1967.'
 * Wrong, and in anycase, trying to correct me there is to ignore that the date should be 1947, as I said in an earlier edit, addressing User:ZScarpia's concerns, which you appear to have missed.
 * "Palestinians and Arabs have challenged the city’s status since 1947, etc.'"
 * The source I had in mind when using that date was Shlomo Slonim 's Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy, 1947-1996, ‎Martinus Nijhoff 1999, pp.15-17,p.67
 * (c) It interests me up to a certain point that everyone seems to have a thorough command of the politics of Jerusalem, they most differ as to what is being neglected. Yet the numerous errors, both in the lead, and elsewhere, or sheer sloppiness, are ignored. Take one instance from the lead. I've tagged it cn in the past, but that necessary tag keeps getting removed. It's comic book stuff and yet apparently it's not sufficiently political (in fact the error is profoundly POV in establishing Judaism's claim to Jerusalem a half a millenium before the late drafters of the Old Testament/Tanakh ever began formulating the basis for classical Judaism, or Jerusalem's role in it. Let me clarify.
 * "'Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Jewish tradition since, according to the Hebrew Bible, King David of Israel first established it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel in c. 1000 BCE.'"
 * That is almost assuredly completely false, and off-the-planet fiction, though some RS, none of them by competent historians of antiquity, repeat the fantasy. David's inferred date is ca.1000 BCE. The formation of the conception of Jerusalem's holiness arose in post-exilic times some four or five centuries after the age in which David is said to have conquered the city. Yerushalayim 'ir haqodesh occurs at Isaiah (52.1:'O Jerusalem, the holy city' (KJV)), i.e. is the work of the anonymous hand behind the deutero-Isaiah, writing in the second half of the 6th century BCE in Babylon; Judaism, in the form we know it, was a religious culture that took shape between the 6th century BCE and the composition of the Bavli, a millenium later. That is, this totally unencyclopedic assertion of a popular myth anticipates a Jewish sacrality to the city not attested until at the earliest 5 centuries after David's putative reign, and which only consolidated at the heart of the central symbolism of Judaism from that late date through to the 4th century CE; the 'United Kingdom' is a historical hypothesis, doubted by many, based solely on late religious texts that rewrote old traditions to establish an orthodoxy; that David established a 'capital' in Jerusalem, or earlier in Hebron, is itself subject to serious historical doubt. This is one of the most political statements in the lead, and no one appears to notice it, because it doesn't, I guess, deal with the recent conflict. It ain't sexy.
 * I.e., the lead is a mess, and will remain so despite our efforts here, because despite numerous attempts to bring quality and precision, this kind of nonsense keeps popping back in, though it is palpable POV fiction. Whatever version of the lead is approved, there's a huge amount of work to be done to it, and the first para. will never solve the problems any editor might like to worry to death for their political nuances. Political problems are solved, if they ever are, by getting their history right, and one grabs the wrong end of the stick if one thinks history can be 'fixed' by getting the politics right (or left). Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)