Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Discussion archive/Jerusalem as capital

A full list of all archived discussions can be found at:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Discussion archive.

See also:


 * Talk:Jerusalem/capital

Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
The articles Israel and Jerusalem state in their leads that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". I don't believe it's factual to state this in the leads; the status of Jerusalem is highly debatable; most of the world countries (if not all) consider East Jerusalem to be occupied by Israel, whereas Israel announced that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel". IMO, the leads of the two article promote a minority view; the Israeli view. Imad marie (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The status of Jerusalem is indeed complex, and that complexity is conveyed in Positions on Jerusalem. However, can you find a reliable encyclopedia or atlas which states that the capital of Israel is not Jerusalem? -- Nudve (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument here is not claiming that "the capital of Israel is not Jerusalem", my argument is that the two articles (and any other article) must not tell the reader in their leads that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" as a fact, this is controversial, the articles must not assume and present facts judgments about that in the leads.
 * Please take a look at Jerusalem definition in britannica and encarta, both articles present the controversy before presenting any facts judgments, and I think this is fair. Imad marie (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Both articles have an endnote next to the statement, explaining the legal issue. -- Nudve (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be promoting minority views in the leading paragraphs and then explain the full context in endnotes where no one reads them. I think we must explain the full context in the lead, before we make any judgments. Imad marie (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On controversial topics, in particular, Wiki likely should not make that type of mental gymnastics necessary. If it is controversial, both/all sides should be in the lede with a 'see below' come-on.  That would be, imo, nearer NPOV.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While countries have chosen to locate their embassies elsewhere, and not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, that cannot change the basic fact of it being a capital. By the very definition of capital - "seat of government", Jerusalem is the de-facto capital - containing the parliament, government offices, supreme court, president's quarters, PM's quarters, etc; And by Israeli law it is the de-jure capital. It serves the function of capital in Israel, and is under Israel's control. Whether or not it should be is a different matter, and that is the subject of the dispute. International recognition is not, and has never been, a requirement for a capital. okedem (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okedem is right. The de-facto status should come first. I guess the editors didn't want the lead section to become a legal debate instead of a description of the city. Perhaps some rewording is possible, though. And we shouldn't assume nobody reads endnotes. -- Nudve (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Okedem, long time, no see. You are both correct from your pov, which must be addressed in the lede, as must others.  In this particular case, the key words we Wikipedians must grapple with are the ones upon which RSs are based; those must include 'claimed', 'recognized', 'de facto' and 'de jure', I believe, as well as any non-fringe others.  If anyone tries to hang too-tough, it is harder to have a collaborative effort.  Is that about right? CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Worth noting: First, Britannica's article on Israel states in the lead paragraph "Jerusalem is the capital and the seat of government". No ifs, buts, or any mention of controversy. Second, Talk:Jerusalem/capital. This issue has been discussed so many times, including via RfCs, every time with the conclusion being "no consensus" or "Jerusalem is the capital". I can't see this discussion concluding any differently.  Rami  R  14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has the potential to, at moments, be far better than Encylopedia Britannica. One of the strengths here is the representation of underrepresented facts. Why not just re-phrase okedem:
 * "By Israeli law, Jerusalem is the de-jure capital of Israel, de-facto containing the parliament, government offices, Supreme Court, President's quarters, and Prime Ministers's quarters. However Jerusalem has not been recognized internationally as the capital of Israel, and many countries that see Jerusalem as equally the capital of the future Palestinian state, or view the city as a shared international heritage site that should be governed by a range of stakeholders locally and worldwide, have chosen to locate their embassies in Tel Aviv."LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Well, it's good to see you're maintaining a positive, friendly attitude.
 * Jerusalem answers the definition of the word "capital", and so it is the capital. Both de-jure, and de-facto. International recognition has no bearing on the concept of capital. okedem (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (de-facto), and consensus has been reached about that (de-facto) !!
 * Okedem, about your repeated argument that the seat of government is in Jerusalem, and that's why it is the capital by definition. Please note that the seat of government is in West Jerusalem, and that makes a big difference; East Jerusalem is occupied, and no logic can define it as the capital of Israel. Imad marie (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Imad, the capital of a country is chosen by that country only, and other countries, as Okedem said, have absolutely no say in it. Israeli law does not differentiate 'west' Jerusalem from 'east' Jerusalem. Instead, the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem are well-defined and represent the Israeli capital. The international dispute, as has been stated above, is well-documented on Wikipedia, in many footnotes and refs, as well as its very own article - Positions on Jerusalem. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no city called "West Jerusalem"; no such an entity. Israeli law holds for both sides of the city, and there's no difference between them in that respect. The entire city functions as the capital. The last international plan for Jerusalem called for a corpus seperatum, international control of the entire city, for 10 years. Afterwards the residents would decide its fate, via a referendum. (By the way, as Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 19th century, we can guess the results of such a referendum). In 1948, as the Arabs rejected the partition plan and were moving to capture the city, so did the Jews. Jordan's control over East Jerusalem was no more "legal" than Israel's control of it now. East Jerusalem is not claimed by any country other than Israel (Jordan dropped its claims a long way back), and so the only sovereign of East Jerusalem is the de-facto one, Israel. The whole dispute is of whether this should be so, what should be done. But the current facts cannot be changed. Whatever happens with Jerusalem in the future, cannot change its current function as capital. okedem (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to add, in reply to those who affirm okedem that the de facto status should come first (I agree with his point) that I added the info about the ambassies, SEcond, and it was instantly deleted. So even when someone does not argue with the de facto status, it seems that people are unwilling to see the other points of view represented in conjunction - the approach seems to marginalize the controversey in a way which is misleading.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the edit history it was instantly deleted because there was a prior consensus on the current structure of the lead sentence, see Talk:Jerusalem/capital. Although consensus can change it requires discussion on the talk page to determine whether consensus has changed and how. Apart from that, your edit was imprecise and unsourced, it's not asked to much to spend at least a bit of effort when editing a featured article (or any article, for that matter). Novidmarana (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem has been the center of dispute for a very long time, and the center of deadly wars and long peace negotiations. Both britannica and encarta don't define Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied by the international community. Jerusalem is not recognized by the world countries as Israel's capital. Are we going to ignore all that and just say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" just because Israel has de-facto control of it? Maybe we need WP:POLL here to see if we really have consensus that the leads should state that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Imad marie (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Both britannica and encarta don't define Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." - clearly you have not read my comment above about Britannica's article on Israel.  Rami  R  12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read Consensus as the relevant guideline - WP:POLL has been rejected by the community. And yes, we should ignore all this and state Jerusalem is the capital plus a footnote with additional explanations. We should deal with facts, and fact is that Jerusalem as the seat of the government is the de-facto capital, and with the Jerusalem law it is also the offical capital. As there is no concept of a capital and hence international recognition of a capital saying something like the international community does not accept Jerusalem as Israels capital is imprecise and misleading. What the international community does not accept is that East Jerusalem is part of Israel, what is not the same. So in abscence of a legal definition capital we should go with the dictionary, and according to the dictionary definition Jerusalem is the capital. Novidmarana (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

''(Hi. I'm wondering if this conversation would be more suitable to the Jerusalem or Positions article Talk page. Alternatively, since this is an issue that does cut across various articles and template(s), perhaps it would be fruitful to focus less on the debate itself right now, and think about how/where the question can be tackled. How can IPCOLL contribute to this question? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Well I suggest that one benefit of IP COLL might be that some of the discussions here can occur on some of the same topics as those at regaular talk pages, but that they would theoretically be pursued by different people; ie, those who have joined IP COLL, or those who have some commitment or interest in making a project like this succeed. so i would tentatively suggest that discussions like this can proceed forward here, but only with certain considerations in mind; for instance, that the goal here is to find common ground between two viewpoints and/or communities. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one problem, this discussion pops up everywhere (at the moment at Israel, Jerusalem). Another problem is that this is discussed again and again. Whenever it seem settled, and consensus has been achieved, it is almost guaranteed that a few weeks/months later the discussion starts again. While consensus can change, I don't see why this has to be discussed anew on an almost monthly basis. Novidmarana (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way novidmarana and okedem are right. jerusalem is the capital. what the article can say is that various nations refuse to recognize it as such. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh... this again. Does Israel consider Jerusalem its capital? Yes. Is its executive branch headed there? Yes. Judicial branch? Yes. Legislative branch? Yes. Most governmental services? Yes. I don't know guys, but that sounds like a capital to me. It doesn't matter how many countries don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and claim it should be Tel Aviv or New York or Abu Dhabi. The fact is that Jerusalem is considered by Israel as its capital and functions as such. This is not one country's "point-of-view"; it's clear fact. Look up the word capital in any dictionary and you will find that recognition from a quorum of countries is not necessary for a city to be one. Jeez. People, on and (more importantly) off Wikipedia, need to quit harping on trivial issues like this one, get over this decades-long conflict, and move on with their lives already. --  tariq abjotu  19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How's this, as a way to keep topics from reoccuring? We could create archive files, with the topic in the title. such as: /Discussion archive/Jerusalem as capital, /Discussion archive. We could then list such archive pages, so that everyone could look up the consensus arrived at there. this might also be a good way to record various article compromises. does that sound good? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is done already, sort of on the Jerusalem talk page, the link above the main body and below the wikiproject boxes. Apparently this is ignored by most, as discussion start on this topic start again and again, whenever a new editor arrives who thinks that his personal POV is not well represented. Novidmarana (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a resource for editors, I think it would be useful for IPCOLL to set up a list of key disputed terms (etc) and where they have been discussed. On Jerusalem, for instance, we could mention Template talk:Asian capitals. The disputed terms could be listed on the main project page, with a link to a subpage(s) that contains all the discussion links. My 2 cents. Be well, HG | Talk 06:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From the exchanges above I understand that only stating that 'Jerusalem is the capital' in unbalanced. We could comply to NPOV by adding 'competing views' wherever 'Jerusalem is the capital' is mentioned. For example either we state competing facts in lead or we state none (optionnaly to be replaced by 'West Jerusalem is the biggest city' or something avoiding the 'capital' word). Winetype (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "unbalanced". It's a fact, and it's indisputable. Whether it should be capital is in debate, but cannot change the reality. This is not a question of 'competing views', but of fact. okedem (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)