Talk:Jerusalem/capital

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Text taken from Talk:Israel and Talk:Jerusalem archives

[edit] Jerusalem's status as capital

According to my American Heritage Dictionary, a capital is "A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation". Jerusalem fits this definition in regard of the State of Israel. This is not a matter of dispute. It is a simple fact.

A state capital serves many roles - and the location of foreign diplomatic missions is just one of them - hardly the most important. In all other regards, Jerusalem is serving as the capital of Israel, both formally (by laws passed by the Knesset), and practically - all the branches of Israeli government (Presidential, Legislative, Judicial, and Administrative) are seated in Jerusalem.

The fact that nearly all foreign countries chose to base their embassies to Israel outside Jerusalem (along with the US position on placing its own embassy) is discussed in detail inside the article. This fact is not central to the status of Jerusalem as capital (which is mainly an internal Israeli matter) - and does not require a mention in the introduction paragraph.

uriber 09:59, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Uriber is correct. There is a confusion about what the issue is. Most countries do not recognise Israel's annexation of the east part of Jerusalem and that is the reason (in theory!) they don't site their embassies there. It is not specifically about the role of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, nor anything specifically about the right of a country to choose its own capital even though it looks like that sometimes. If the annexation was accepted then the role as capital would immediately become a non-issue. --zero 12:28, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well,GOOD LUCK in maintaining your language in the article.Wik deleted language I inserted yesterday THREE TIMES,after an earlier attempt to get the same issue mentioned in the "Tel Aviv" article was met not only with erasure but page-protection by jtdirl. The censors here are determined that there be no intimation that it is in any way unusual for countries to assert a right to decide what another country's capital is. I feel strongly enough about this that I have ceased to make contributions of any kind to Wikipedia,and if you look up my contributions(12.144.5.2) you'll see that I have a wide range of interests and knowledge. I refuse to be part of an entity that only tolerates distorted presentations of facts!

Louis Epstein/12.144.5.2/le@put.com

Please read the discustion of this topic at Talk:Israel/Archive 1. Most countries don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and it isn't really as unusual as it may seem for foriegn countries to make this distinction. - Efghij 19:18, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Since Wik reverted my changes without making any attempt to answer my arguments here, I will try to un-revert. I hope that the fact that zero agrees with me on this one will at least make Wik and his friends think twice. I had several disputes with him over the last couple of weeks - and while I found his positions to be sometimes very different than my own - I came to respect him as a Wikipedian which is strongly devoted to the facts and to NPOV.

To Efghij - as I explained above, the fact that "most countries don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital" (which, BTW, i'm not sure is true - the fact that they don't keep their embassies in Jerusalem does not amount to a statement about whether it is the capital) has nearly no effect on its status as capital of Israel. If most countries won't recognize the sea to be wet, it will still be wet.

uriber 19:32, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

99% of the world does not recognize Jerusalem as capital so it is obviously POV to state "it is the capital of Israel". If a city is a capital of a country, it implies that the city is part of the country, which is what is disputed, and therefore it's not an internal matter. So all you can say is that it is the de facto capital. --Wik 20:15, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

The point is,countries claiming a right to decide what another country's capital is is just about unheard of.No other instances of this are alluded to in the Talk-Israel-Archive page that Efghij referred me to,and I can only think of one...whether East Berlin could be capital of divided East Germany.(The Soviets,whose sector it was under the Four Power Treaty,said yes,the other three Powers said no,and wouldn't let West Berlin be capital of West Germany). To say that telling a country "Your capital is City A,regardless of your government being in City B" is international business as usual is highly misleading and biased.

L.E.(12.144.5.2)

Ahhh, but the United Nations, a world council of countries, is based in New York City. Many countries have consulates there. Thus, according to the logic of some folks, NYC is the capital of the world, since there is a regular body of global policy based there, and many countries have consulates there, which might as well be embassies, and thus they recognize NYC as the world capital, eh? Rickyrab 20:23, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC) LOL Let's face it, the government of Israel runs the country from Jeruselem. Thus, Jerusalem, not Telaviv, is the capital of Israel.

You are not listening. I repeat: 1) The problem is not specifically the capital status of Jerusalem, but the status of the city itself. If you say "it is the capital of Israel" you're saying "it is a city in Israel". But this is disputed. 2) The fact that the government runs the country from Jerusalem makes Jerusalem no more and no less than the de facto capital. --Wik 20:33, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

But who is disputing that the western parts of Jerusalem are in Israel? Probably Libya, Iran, Sudan, and their friends. Hey - but these countries actually dispute Israel's right to exist at all - so they equally dispute that Tel Aviv (or any other city) is the capital of Israel. The fact that the government runs the country from Jerusalem makes it the de facto capital. The fact that the government (and the parliament) officially proclaimed Jerusalem as the capital makes it the de jure capital. Hence - it is the capital both de facto and de jure, and there is no need to complicate the article with this distinction. -- uriber 20:51, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mind if I point out that Rome is the capital of Italy and the Vatican? (That's right, a city can be in more than one country and still be a capital. Moreover, Jerusalem is at least partly within the borders of Israel, as enforced by Israeli soldiers, and thus the countries delude themselves when they say that Israeli territory is not part of Israel!) Rickyrab 20:37, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

1) Rome is not capital of the Vatican City State; it just encloses that state, but that's just a geographic anomaly, the two are administratively distinct. 2) You still haven't grasped the difference between a de facto status enforced by soldiers and an internationally recognized de jure status (of course it's de jure according to Israeli law, but that's not the point). --Wik 21:02, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Well, Rome and Vatican City are parts of the same conurbation, which could, for all intents and purposes, be called "Rome". I stand by my statement that Rome is the capital of two countries, for, even though the administration of those parts is different, those parts are still parts of the same city. (If you want to differentiate conurbations from cities, be my guest.) Rickyrab 22:13, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The capital of Vatican City is Vatican City as it is a city state. Secretlondon 22:25, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Which is practically part of the metropolis of Rome. Rickyrab 22:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Personally,I think MY language that Wik censored is a good compromise between his and Rickyrab's.Continue to lead with the fact that the status is disputed,but admit that the idea of designating a city in another country's capital as that country's capital against that country's wishes is a very unusual practice.

L.E./12.144.5.2

If the sovereignty over a city is disputed, then of course any country's claims of capital status will be disputed. This consequence is not unusual at all. What's unusual is that a country claims a disputed territory as its capital in the first place. --Wik 21:02, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

You guys are being childish about this!

If the nation of Israel says Jerusalem is it's capital, lets say that! If others say it shouldn't be, lets say that too. At least part of Jerusalem has been inside Israel since 1948. DJ Clayworth 20:54, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

De facto, all of it is controlled by Israel. De jure, the status is not settled at all. The original UN plan was to internationalize the whole city. --Wik 21:02, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

"De jure" means "by law". By Israel's law, Yerushalayim is the capital of the country. Rickyrab 21:04, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't accept the "A says X, B says Y" solution. It's like if the Moon article will say "some people say the moon is made of green cheese, other say it is made of rock". This is simply not acceptable. The fact that Israel says Jerusalem is its capital (and acts accordingly) makes Jerusalem Israel's capital. Others might not like this, or might want this to change. However, their dislike of the facts does not change them. The moon is not made of green cheese even if all humanity really wants it to be. -- uriber 21:05, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Uri, The stuff the moon is made of is an empirical question that was settled when man landed there. The designation of capitals lies in the virtual realm. Jerusalem was declared by Israel as its capital. Most other countries decided otherwise. There is no way to "prove" either claim. I suggest you save your time and effort for worthier causes, rather than fight this lost one. Nahum 07:41, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the designated capital, and it's disputed. Wikipedia is here to record the facts. Lets record them, and move on. DJ Clayworth 21:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As long as it's among the facts recorded that it is highly unusual to assert a right to determine another country's capital.The other countries aren't just saying "it's not Jerusalem",they are declaring "it's Tel Aviv",on NO authority but their own. It is hideous bias to pretend that this is business as usual between countries. L.E./12.144.5.2

L.E. - do you know if any countries actually claim Tel Aviv to be the capital of Israel? I know the people who keep reverting the Tel Aviv article think so - but I don't remember ever hearing any diplomatic source actually referring to Tel Aviv as Israel's capital. uriber 21:19, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry - certain things are matters of fact, not of opinion. The moon is not made of green cheese, and Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Claims to the contrary can be acknowledged and presented - but this can be done only after clearly presenting the facts. -- uriber 21:15, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How about "Israel uses Jerusalem as its meeting-place for government and calls Jerusalem its capital, but other countries call Tel Aviv Israel's capital"? Rickyrab 21:21, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The comment of mine that Wik kept censoring was on the line where it said all but three countries regard Tel Aviv as capital...see also what jtdirl said on Talk:Tel Aviv. I am trying to have it admitted that the idea of a country picking a capital for another independent country on its own is a rather unusual practice,not business as usual...the local censors can not abide this. L.E./12.144.5.2

I thought it was all but two countries. Rickyrab 21:31, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well done, Anthere. That's a good statement. Let's leave it there. DJ Clayworth 21:43, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, everybody. I just edited a "protected" article. I didn't realize it had been locked for editing when I did that, so I plead innocence. Still, if anyone wants it reverted on the grounds that I've unfairly used my sysop status... I hereby agree-in-advance to a reversion :-) --Uncle Ed 21:54, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

bad boy tse tse

I would like it reverted. The thing has already been edited three times since "protecting" it.

three times ? Well...as you wish...let's make it four :-)

You'll get no argument from me. Please, some sysop other than me, revert my change. --Uncle Ed 22:00, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

interesting to note is that in other countries there are diplomatic representatives in cities other than the official capitol. Amsterdam or The Hague? Which is the capital of the Netherlands? Where are the embassies? Where is the seat of governement?

What this guy(the one writing above) fails to realize though is that the reason other countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the "capital city of Israel" is because the "israel" that many countries recognize(including the U.S & Britain)does not extend into the east side of Jerusalem thus making it divided, so in turn "Israel" cannot claim this to be their capital city if the most part of it is not even recognized by the world(who put them their in the first place might i add)

[edit] Capital of Israel

"Most foreign embassies are based in the Tel Aviv area, rather than in the capital Jerusalem, which is not internationally recognized."

Perhaps we'll have to say that Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital while being careful to emphasize that dozens (hundreds?) of other nations refused to recognize Jerusalem" as the capital.

Are foreign embassies typically hosted in a country's capital? I think this matters, because the act of locating, e.g., the Jamaican Embassy in Tel Aviv rather than in Jerusalem would seem a rather pointed statement that Jamaica did not accept Jerusalem as the capital. Whether that means they regarded Tel Aviv as the capital or not, I'm not so sure. It might just mean that "we have to put our embassy somewhere so it may as well be a big city where all the other embassies are". --Uncle Ed 22:06, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No argument from me. I already made my points. Rickyrab 22:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This could be handled with sensitivity by avoiding the word recognize altogther. Example: Israel delcared Jerusalem its capital in 1950, butmost other countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.

I know that the reason the UK Embassy is in Tel Aviv is because the UK doesn't recognise Jerusalem is the Israeli Capital. I understand that the arguments in the US re: the Congress voting to move the embassy to Jerusalem were connected with recognising Jerusalem as Capital. Secretlondon 22:12, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Moved here from Wikipedia:Protected page by Uncle Ed:

- *sigh* more twisting the facts. Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital. Diplomatically that is not internationally accepted by over 100 countries (2 or 3 accept it), who still recognise the previous capital in 1948, Tel Aviv as the de jure capital. This was explained in an NPOV manner in Israel and accepted by everyone months ago. (Even RK accepted the wording as OK!) Uriber and Rickrab suddenly decided now to wage POV edit wars in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to remove any mention of international controversy over the status of the two cities, even where it was carefully written in an NPOV manner so as not to state that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel or that Jerusalem is not. Anthere protected the pages to stop the farce. FearÉIREANN 22:49, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - Oh Jt; I just love your "Even RK accepted the wording as OK!". That is a reference !;-) Anthère
    - :-) RK is so hypersensitive he reads anti-semitism in the location of a comma. Yet even he (after calming down) understood the point (no pun intended!). FearÉIREANN 23:15, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      - LOLOLOL!!!!!!! Silly fool that guy is. Rickyrab 23:17, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - I was NOT waging the war to eliminate mention of controversy over the capital. I was waging the war to state that Israel's capital is Jerusalem, which is, after all, where the gov't is seated, and that other countries consider the capital to be Tel Aviv.Rickyrab 23:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC) By the way, I already made my points. Rickyrab 23:14, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dare we unprotect this page now? --Uncle Ed 01:14, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, do, I'm ready to paste a new revision up! Thanks!

Uncle Ed, if it's going to be awhile, do you mind if I enter a list of typoes and spelling errors here for you to take care of? Our current old version has a few.... Pakaran 01:21, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

'Tis unprotected. Good luck all :) --Camembert

Thanks :). Ignore the above, though - most of the things I saw were fixed by admins during the locked period. --Pakaran 01:28, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

borders

Many European maps show much of Jerusalem being in Palestine, and list Tel Aviv as the capital.

[edit] I Thought We'd Made Peace?

It seemed yesterday that all sides had accepted Anthere's version (last stable version), which retained my text noting that to declare a city in another country to be that country's capital against that country's wishes is highly unusual.Yet after the protection was lifted,someone snipped it out again.

If you can't show that this is remotely normal,don't let it pass as if it is!!

L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

As I said before, it is perfectly normal that the world does not recognize a capital in a disputed area. --Wik 15:08, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

could you please discuss the topic here before going on a cycle of rv again ? ~:-) Anthère

It has all been discussed before. Also, Anthère didn't revert to the last stable version (which should be the rule when protecting a page) but to the version that sparked the edit war. I will continue to revert 12.144's bizarre text which gives the impression that the world is acting in an unusual way towards Israel, when in fact it's Israel's action that is unusual. --Wik 15:26, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

The "world" action is essentially without precedent.Name ANY other case in which a right to designate a city in another country as that country's capital,against that country's wishes,has been asserted! There is no excuse for treating this as a normal course of behavior.What excuse there may be for denying that Jerusalem is Israel's capital,does NOT automatically extend to allowing specifying someplace else as Israel's capital,and that at least has never been known in any other case.

L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

It appears that the bane of this dispute is over the words "though the competence of other countries to decide what a given country's capital is has almost never been asserted elsewhere. " It is getting tiresome watching you two quibble over these words, it's very tempted to ask someone with admin rights to protect this article until you two start talking to each other & come to an agreement over this point. -- llywrch 01:33, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes,that is exactly the issue.He refuses to allow it to be said that REGARDLESS of the issue of whether or not Jerusalem is (wholly or partly) disputed,the idea of countries designating a city in another country as that country's capital is highly unusual. I am unaware of any instance that such a thing has ever happened elsewhere...it is a statement that needs to be made to make clear that this "co-ordinated diplomatic snub" (as jtdirl called in justifying erasing such a reference from the "Tel Aviv" article) is something that is far from business as usual between nations. Exact wording has varied in my attempts to get this across,but it is outrageous bias to just let it stand that other countries "regard Tel Aviv as the capital" without making clear that this is something very unusual.

L.E./12.244.5.2/le@put.com

Whilst nations refusing to recognise other nation's claims of a particular city being their capaital is unnusual, it is equally if nor more unnusual for a country to claim a capital in disputed territory. Northern Cyprus claim Nicosia as their capital, as does the south. But as no nation other than Turkey recognises Northern Cyprus, and consequently no-one recognises the capital of the north. Mintguy 01:52, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes,but if other countries DID recognize the Northern-Cypriot state,but declared its capital to be Kyrenia or Rizokarpaso,that would be the analogy.The countries who deny Israel exists aren't concerned with where its capital is. You can't cite any other cases where the international community is telling a country that it has a capital other than the city its government is in.

L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

I thought the discussion was about diplomatic recognition of the status of Jerusalem; who said anything about "countries who deny Israel exists"? If you are saying that any country who don't have embassies in Jerusalem want to deny Israel exists (which appears to be what you are saying above), then you are arguing from a logical fallacy.

AFAIK, every nation gets criticized for one act or another by every other nation, & this criticism is often expressed in symbolic acts (e.g., the US would often assign high-level African-American diplomats to South Africa). If you can't accept that Israel is being criticized for their placement of their capital, then I suspect you will be having a hard time understanding other people's POV here on Wikipedia.

(P.S., the US also gets criticized thru symbolic acts. Because I don't obsess over them, I'm unable to recall any specific one off the top of my head.) -- llywrch 18:55, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Which city is Israel's recognized capital?

This sentence might not be true:

All other states with diplomatic relations to Israel continue to regard Tel Aviv as the Israeli capital...a gesture virtually unique in diplomatic history.

Let's separate out fact from interpretation:

It is true that all other states with diplomatic relations to Israel maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.
It is an interpretation that the placement of the embassy in a city = regarding that city as the nation's capital

Pending any documentation that even ONE country calls Tel Aviv the capital of Israel, this sentence is best omitted from the article. --Uncle Ed 18:52, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Israel article has the minumum which needs to be in a Jerusalem article:

"1 Jerusalem is Israel's officially designated capital, and the location of its presidential residence and parliament. However, most countries do not recognize this designation, considering the status of Jerusalem an unresolved issue due to what they perceive as illegal Israeli actions in both designating the city to be its capital and in its seizure of Arab East Jerusalem. They believe that the final issue of the status of Jerusalem will be determined in future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations; these states instead recognize Tel Aviv, the original capital for a time in 1948, as the continuous legitimate capital, and as a result keep their embassies there. See the article on Jerusalem for more."

And given the more undertaking, the issue needs to be more fully explained in this article. That includes noting the official UN position that the whole Jerusalem area is not part of Israel but is an international zone not part of either the Israeli or Arab states established by General Assembly resolution 181(11). See the UN Cartographic unit statement on the matter. Note that it both describes it as the captial and notes that it is disputed. Israel isn't supposed to like the UN Resolutions any more than Iraq or South Africa under Apartheid did. JamesDay 20:28, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Jerusalem article certainly looks better without the sentence than with the version Wik would not permit to be amended.

In the Talk page for the Tel Aviv article,jtdirl does mention the "co-ordinated diplomatic snub" of other countries regarding Tel Aviv as Israel's capital.So that IS an intended subtext of the embassy placement,though I note that embassies to Saudi Arabia are generally in Jidda,not Riyadh where the government is.This I think is the Saudi government's preference,not a slap at them.The idea of telling another country what its capital is is however highly unusual...and if this action is discussed,that it is unusual should at least be mentioned.

L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2

I have made a couple of factual corrections, notably:

the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not accepted by most states, all of whom base their diplomatic representatives in Tel Aviv (The US only accepted Jerusalem in 2002!) I have put both side by side with a footnote explaining how most of the world regards one city as the valid Israeli capital, while the Israeli state regards another city. Accepting either city without mentioning the long running dispute is POV. This way, both the view of Israel and of most of the rest of the world are respected and explained in a NPOV manner;
Lest some people be confused and try to change what they think is an error, I have put in a footnote to explain that for a short period, Israeli prime ministers used to be directly elected, but that innovation had since been abandoned, having been seen as unsuccessful.
a list of additional external links covering everything from relations with the European Union, the possibility of EU membership, the EU's attitude towards Israeli government policy, a link to a report about the US accepting Jerusalem as the Israeli capital in late 2002 and to the allegations of ethnic cleansing made by Arabs against Israel. Proper links should allow a reader to find a variety of sources, both pro- and contra-. The previous links were all universally supportive one one viewpoint and so POV.
a neutrally worded few lines explaining in a non-judgment way the divergence between Israeli and Arab opinions on whether the Arabs displaced in 1948 left or were forced to leave, and how this divergence in analysis is central to the modern Israeli-Palestinian dispute. FearÉIREANN 23:18 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is a terrible idea to start up all of these disagreements all over again. All of these issues are already discussed in great detail, in many other articles on Israel, all of which link here. Why are you proposing that we do all this arguing again? RK

Because without them the article is biased and POV. FearÉIREANN 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Capital of Israel

I think modification of the footnote by RK was more POV than Jtdirl's original. Yes, I do think Tel Aviv should be left out of the template. However, the fact that most embassies are located in Tel Aviv makes it function in the diplomatic sense like a capital. Saying "Israel regards..." is more NPOV. Otherwise, you're just spurning all those states who don't recognize Jerusalem. Now isn't that taking sides? I vote to revert (except the template). --Jiang 00:46 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. JT's wording seemed to be far more professional and at least a bit more NPOV. --mav

Huh? It is grossly anti-Zionist and pro-Arab. How is lying about Israel's capital, and stating falsehoods, "professional"?

That is very interesting! Please integrate that into the text. --mav

I've made a first stab at it; correct as necessary. The article on Jerusalem has a lot more information. --Delirium 01:03 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your text Stored version Line 73: Line 73:

Because without them the article is biased and POV. FearÉIREANN 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC) Because without them the article is biased and POV. FearÉIREANN 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nonsense. You aren;' even looking in the correct article. Please read our many articles on these subjects. You can't claim that other articles (such as this one) are biased because the same damn arguments aren't repeated yet again. The topics you mention are already covered so extensively in Wikipedia that to claim we are leaving out is silly. We only need links to them. RK 01:04 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Capital of Israel

Actually I think all of this is somewhat misleading -- Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and this has been recognized for decades by nearly all countries. In fact, nearly all countries (including the US and most EU countries) had their embassies in Jerusalem until the early 1980s, and this was not controversial in the least. What happened was that Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and some surrounding areas in the early 1980s, and the United Nations passed a resolution opposing the annexation and requesting its member states to move their embassies to Tel Aviv in protest; nearly all countries, including the US, did so (the US did not vote for the resolution, but did not veto it either, and followed its request). This resolution did not state the Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel though -- only that the unilateral expansion of its municipal boundary was unacceptable. So, while Tel Aviv functions as the diplomatic center for many nations, they still recognize Jerusalem as the capital. --Delirium 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC) Actually I think all of this is somewhat misleading -- Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and this has been recognized for decades by nearly all countries. In fact, nearly all countries (including the US and most EU countries) had their embassies in Jerusalem until the early 1980s, and this was not controversial in the least. What happened was that Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and some surrounding areas in the early 1980s, and the United Nations passed a resolution opposing the annexation and requesting its member states to move their embassies to Tel Aviv in protest; nearly all countries, including the US, did so (the US did not vote for the resolution, but did not veto it either, and followed its request). This resolution did not state the Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel though -- only that the unilateral expansion of its municipal boundary was unacceptable. So, while Tel Aviv functions as the diplomatic center for many nations, they still recognize Jerusalem as the capital. --Delirium 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That is very interesting! Please integrate that into the text. --mav

Followup: so the comment Most states refuse to accept that designation in the footnote is factually incorrect. What most states refuse to accept is Israel's definition of the boundary of Jerusalem, not its being the capital. --Delirium 00:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC) : Followup: so the comment Most states refuse to accept that designation in the footnote is factually incorrect. What most states refuse to accept is Israel's definition of the boundary of Jerusalem, not its being the capital. --Delirium 00:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me that no one, other than Israelis, have any say in this matter. The capital of any nation is what its citizens say it is, period. That is not POV or an opinion, that is an indisputable fact. Since when do non-Israelis have any say over what the capital of Israel is? How would Catholic Italians like it if all the Jews and Muslims in the world united and claimed that Rome was not the capital of Italy? Besides being anti-Catholic and anti-Italian, it would also be false. Facts cannot be created by popular vote. We can say that most nations do not respect Israel's choice of capital, because that is a fact. But to claim that any other city is Israel's capital is a deliberate fiction, and totally unsupportable. RK 01:04 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If many of the functions normally carried out in a capital are carried out somewhere else then we need to report that. --mav 01:08 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully. The footnote never claimed that Jerusalem was not the capital and Tel Aviv was. It only stated "Israel regards" Jerusalem as the capital while other states do not. We didn't come out and say "Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel." How clearer can that be? We have to simply regard the truth--who regards what. Trying to ignore opinions and positions with undenably exist by labelling them "anti-Semetic" doesn't cut it. Now it is cleared out. --Jiang

The refusal to accept Jerusalem as the capital predates the takeover of Arab East Jerusalem. The international stance was that Jerusalem lacked the clarity of acceptance required in diplomatic protocol to be accepted as a capital. Its boundaries were questionable, its unified status illegal and its symbolism provocative. Thus from the foundation of the state, international states refused point blank to accept any right by Israel to claim a disputed city as its capital. When Israel contrary to international law took over the whole city, that enflamed those convictions further. Old copies of World Book, for example, stated that the capital of Israel was Tel Aviv. Diplomatic documents unambiguously listed the capital as Tel Aviv. Ambassadors were accredited to Tel Aviv, diplomatic compounds opened in Tel Aviv. Some opened consular missions, some embassies physically in Jerusalem while saying that did not mean recognition. And most of those ones pulled out when Israel took over Aran East Jerusalem contrary to international law.

There may be good reasons why Jerusalem should be the capital (I am not taking sides on that) but the fact is that some states say it is, most say it isn't, and no state has the unfettered freedom to designate a city as its capital. 99 times out of 100, the choice is so uncontroversial that they know there will be no problem. But if there is a problem once you are a member of the diplomatic community you are supposed to work on a protocol level with everyone else, including trying to smooth any problems that may arise over the designation of a capital. Listing either Jerusalem or Tel Aviv in isolation would be POV. Listing both, with a footnote explaining that Israel regards 'x' as its capital, most of the world regards 'y', is strict down the line neutrality, the NPOV that is at the heart of wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 01:15 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering what countries do recognize Jerusalem as the capital, here is a complete list:

Costa Rica
El Salvador
United States

- Efghij

The question, I think, is one between de-jure and de-facto status. It has already been proven that the great majority of diplomatic functions are carried out in Tel Aviv. But that is only one function that a capital plays; more important is its role in the ruling of its nation. So where is the government of Israel based? Where does the Prime Minister have his office? I'm pretty sure the answer is Jerusalem.

Having just Jerusalem in the table with a footnote ref seems to be enough but I am slightly in favor of listing both since there are notable capital-like functions carried out in Tel Aviv and many nations do only recognize Tel Aviv. In short I can live with both options so long as the footnote stays in. --mav

More info: Tel Aviv was named as the provisional capital in 1948. It was intended by the international community to be the capital of Israel, with Jerusalem an international city. Israel's unilateral move to turn Jerusalem into its capital was viewed by the international community as a breach of the rules and agreements under which Israel was set up and was universally rejected as illegal, its non-capital status being one of the fundamental rules laid down at the start, because of the belief that making it the jewish capital would be an affront to other faiths (christians, muslims) who also saw Jerusalem as their city. The UN agreement on Jerusalem was on the basis that it would be in effect an open city, without any side assuming symbolic political control. In the last fifty years few states have accepted Jerusalem as Israel's capital. There was signs of some movement in the 1960s, but the seizure of Arab East Jerusalem reinforced the determination of the world community not to accept what it continues to regard as Israel's illegally declared new capital. In the US, for example Israeli groups have campaigned for decades to get Jerusalem accepted, on the basis that if the US accepted it, its NATO allies would and that would create a situation where it would get overwhelming international support. Though the US did finally accept Jerusalem in 2002 (something G.W. Bush supported in his 2000 campaign) other states have not followed suit and remain adamant that Tel Aviv is the legal capital as agreed when Israel was founded, with the capitalisation of Jerusalem a breach of law. FearÉIREANN 01:47 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

While this may be moving more into the range of political debate than wiki-debate, I'm not sure how anyone could claim that Israel making Jerusalem a capital is a breach of law. It is agreed by nearly all sides that West Jerusalem is part of Israel proper, as it's behind the 1967 "Green Line" that all but the most radical groups accept as the minimum boundaries of Israel proper. So, given that it's part of the country, and given that countries are allowed to choose the location of their own capitals, I don't see the problem. Claiming Jerusalem as an "undivided" capital of Israel -- as Israel has done -- is certainly problematic though. But that doesn't mean it'd be illegal to stick government buildings serving capital functions in West Jerusalem. --Delirium 01:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

To resolve this issue I think some more research is needed. At the very least, does anyone know the following: which countries had their embassies in Jerusalem up until 1981, and only moved them to Tel Aviv following the UN resolution, vs. which countries have always had their embasses in Tel Aviv. --Delirium 01:56 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Alright, well I'm still researching, but as far as I can tell the following are (some of) the facts. Originally Jerusalem was supposed to be an open city, under neither Israeli nor Arab sovereignty. However, in the 1948 war both sides violated this, Israel occupying the West portion, and Jordan occupying the East portion (and both sides expelled some of the other side's population). I'm not sure what the diplomatic status of Jerusalem was 1948-1967 -- whether there were embassies there or not, and whether Israel's government was located primarily there. In 1967 Israel occupied East Jerusalem. In the ensuing decade they began de facto integrating it into the City of Jerusalem as one municipality, and making it the country's capital; but this was all unofficial. I believe there may have been several embassies there, but I'm unable as of yet to find a list. In 1980 the Knesset officially annexed East Jerusalem (and surrounding areas), declaring Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel, despite Security Council warnings not to do so; so in 1981 the Security Council condemned the attempt to change the status and character of Jerusalem (by a vote of 14-0-1, US abstaining), declared the action void, and requested all member states to withdraw diplomatic missions from the city as a punitive measure. This is when the US embassy moved to Tel Aviv; I don't know which other embassies moved at this time as well, but I was under the impression that it was at least several, and possibly many.

The upshot of all this is: we need to find out whether other countries recognized West Jerusalem as capital in the period 1948-1967 and then in the period 1967-1980. Most today do not, but was this a punitive measure following the 1981 SC resolution, or has this always been the case?

In any case, in light of more information I'll change my original position. However, rather than "Jerusalem/Tel Aviv¹", I think we should put "Jerusalem (disputed)¹" with the explanation in the footnote. --Delirium 02:12 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I really like that solution. --mav

I would avoid (disputed) if possible. a) it is provocative, and I can see people queueing up with an 'no now it is not, oh yes it is' barney. and b) it isn't so much that one city is disputed, rather that two cities are endorsed by different groups. Putting them both in with a footnote is more NPOV than one either one would be with (disputed),

The boundaries of the original Israel as agreed when the state was founded were changed dramatically when Israel came into being, unilaterally by Israel. One of those areas whose status was changed unilaterally was Jerusalem, and that is separate to making its capital. Israel's effective seizure of Jerusalem and making it its capital was a breach of an internationally registered treaty and thus, like the breaking of any internationally registered treaty, illegal. While Israel could probably have secured eventual agreement on Jerusalem had in waited for a few years, its illegal assumption of it as its capital effectively pissed off the international community. By the 1960s, it could perhap have gained acceptance for West Jerusalem as its capital, but for its illegal seizure of East Jerusalem. The annexation of East Jerusalem further hardened most of the international community against accepting Jerusalem as the capital.

Re Efghi's complete list of those accepting Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, I knew the list was small, but 3 countries! Yikes! If Efghi is correct and only Costa Rica, El Salvador, United States accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital, that means in or around 150 don't, in which case we cannot possibly put down Jerusalem on its own as the capital. Even World Book, notorious as the most right encyclopædia, and the most pro-Israeli, used to list Tel Aviv not merely as one of the capitals, but the only one. That clearly would be wrong here (after all, since those days, the list of those accepting Jerusalem has grown from 2 to 3!) but both should be in, with the footnote explaining how the state of Israel insists on one city, and the diplomatic world bar 3 on another. FearÉIREANN 02:20 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, the boundaries weren't exactly changed unilaterally by Israel -- the Arab states refused to accept the 1948 Partition Plan, and invaded Israel. Israel came out on top in the war, but they hardly started it. Not that their actions since then have been exactly noble, but they don't deserve blame for failure of the original partition plan -- Jordan, Syria, and Egypt primarily do. --Delirium 02:24 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. But the result was that Israel got control of territory that it was not suppose to have. I can understand why and how, but it did sour relations with what it then did in Jerusalem. FearÉIREANN 02:27 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have made a couple of minor changes to tighten up and NPOV the footnote. Saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is clearly POV since some people think so, others don't. I've put that in as the more NPOV "Jerusalem is Israel's officially designated capital." Other slight adaptions were made to avoid taking sides in the debate and leave it up to the reader to decide, not the writer to tell them what to decide. FearÉIREANN 02:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good to me. I think this issue should be handed somewhat similarly to the issue at Republic of Macedonia -- the UN, along with most of the world, does not recognize the name of that country, due to objections from several sources (but mainly Greece, which claims the name "Macedonia" as its own), but we still list the country under that name because it's the one they officially designate. Similarly, I think we should list Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel, despite others disagreeing (but should of course note those disagreements). --Delirium 03:41 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)~

Out of curiousity, how is Macedonia referred to in the US? In Europe it is known as the FYRM - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Re how to refer to Jerusalem - if the US still had its pre-2002 stance of recognising Tel Aviv as the capital, then wiki could use Jerusalem without any problems. But given that the US now regards Jerusalem as the capital, that makes it complicated for wiki, namely that the impression might be given that wiki is doing what it does because most of its contributors are American, it reflecting US viewpoints even when that US viewpoint is as in this case very much a minority viewpoint worldwide. I have no problem whether to list Jerusalem or Jerusalem/Tel Aviv (though I would marginally prefer J/T - and not just because it my initials!) but if wiki chooses the former, it would help if it could find some way of showing (as is the case) that its stance is based objectively on an overall wiki policy and is not reflecting either the American stance on Jerusalem or the internationally perceived American bias towards Israel.

Perhaps a general wiki disclaimer could be constructed, to cover places like Macedonia/FYRM, Northern Ireland (where you have Derry/Londonderry debates), here with Jerusalem vs Jerusalem/Tel Aviv, saying in effect where a dispute exists as to names to use, wikipedia's policy is use the official designation given by the relevant local authority. That should not be taken to indicate that wikipedia is expessing an opinion on the dispute in question ie, attention greeks, using Macedonia does not mean wiki is taking sides in the 'what to call Macedonia' debate, using Derry or Londonderry does not mean we are siding with either the nationalists or unionists. And using Jerusalem does not mean wiki is endorsing the Israeli viewpoint or siding with Israel, the US, El Salvador and Costa Rica against the rest of the world. It is simply following a standard wiki approach universally applied. Such a disclaimer might not seem important, but Macedonia is a massive issue for Greeks. If they were to think that wiki was "anti-Greek" wiki could kiss goodbye to having many friends in Greece. And putting in Jerusalem and so apparently endorsing the Israel stance in the face of worldwide opposition would hardly do wiki a hell of a lot of good in the Arab world. (Though it would make RK's millennium!) It is in our interests on these touchy issues (and lots more will arise) if we have to take a stance to minimise the danger of two much being read into it, with wiki unless it is cearly explained, being seen as biased in some way. FearÉIREANN 04:56 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Capital: the first phrase

I checked my dictionary again, and it still says that a capital is "A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation."[1] Since Jerusalem is a city, and is the official seat of the government of Israel (which is a state), it fits the definition perfectly.

Moreover, the fact that a city is the capital of a state is usually mentioned on Wikipedia in the first paragraph of the article on the city (see for example Paris or Rome). I see no reason why the same practice should not be followed in this case.

Wik, or the Arab world, or the UN, or every single person on the face of this earth might not like the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, might consider it "illegal", "immoral", "annoying" or anything else. Nothing of that changes the fact that it is the capital of Israel.

This is a very important issue to me. If Wikipedia fails to note simple, streightforward, facts (like this encyclopedia or this lexical databse do), just because someone is unhappy with them or "does not officially recognize them", then Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia but a political pamphlet.

I see this a somewhat of a test case. If I can't trust Wikipedia on simple issues such as this, I'll be forced to look elsewhere for my information (and I'll certainly be less enthusiastic in contributing to Wikipedia). I'm sure lots of you won't miss me.

-- uriber 21:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The current wording is like answering the question "what is the capital of Israel?" with "uh.. difficult question...". First and foremost WP is about to educate and I do believe it is of general interest for readers to know that most believe Jerusalem is Israel's capital. To be educative and understandable is more important than 100% NPOV accuracy IMHO. Wouldn't it be enough with "Jerusalem, capital of Israel (see not below)"? The "ancient capital of the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah" however, does not belong in the first sentence because of obvious reasons. BL 22:51, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Uriber, I would not like to see you leave but threatening to leave is probably a useless gesture. Anyway, to address this topic, I wonder if you would accept a diplomatic wording like "Israel's official capital" in the first sentence. It isn't quite as direct a statement as "the capital of Israel" but it would have the advantage of being more readily defended against attacks like Wik is mounting. On the second point, I agree with BL that the "ancient capital" part should not be in the first sentence. It is too much like "it was Jewish before the Jews were kicked out, then nothing happened for 2000 years, then it was Jewish again". It is strongly POV like that. --Zero 00:19, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Although I'm not thrilled with either of the suggestions above ("see note below" and "Israel's official capital"), I find them both acceptable (Zero's suggestion flows better with the text, I think). I agree that "ancient capital of the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah" does not belong in the intro paragraph.

I'm sorry if what I said was interpreted as a threat. As I said, I didn't really expect anyone to get excited or worried about it. I did, in fact take a two-months leave from Wikipedia in October, when Wik's version was protected, and I returned when I noticed that it was corrected - both without making any announcements or "threats". -- uriber 10:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am concerned that Wik has returned to push his POV once again, even though I thought a compromise was achieved back in October. (Did the language change significantly since then? If so, that should have been pointed out on this Talk: page.) As I understand the facts that this disagreement keeps chasing round & round are:

Jerusalem was annexed following the 1968 War, unlike other territories it conquered. (And many of which have since been either returned to the original countries, or are acknowledged to be part of a Palestinian state.)
Israel then made Jerusalem its official capital.
This act was objected to by Arab nations, as well as a number of European nations, who expressed their displeasure by keeping their embassies in Tel Aviv.
Israelis believe this is meddling in their internal affairs.
Only the US & a few countries under US influence have relocated their embassies in Jerusalem.

As a result, although Jerusalem is the de jure capital of Israel, this act is not recognized by the majority of other nations.

Is there a way to focus on the facts of the dispute, & stop asserting whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital? -- llywrch 19:21, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your first two points are factually wrong: The first only applies to the eastern part of Jerusalem (which was annexed following the 1967 war). Jerusalem was made capital way before that, in 1950.

I misspoke about East Jerusalem & the Old Town. However, this is the first I had heard that the capital had been moved so early. -- llywrch

Read Wikipedia - it's a pretty good source for such things :-) -- uriber 17:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem is both the de jure capital of Israel (as officially stated by Israeli law), and the de facto capital (it is the seat of the Parliament, Prisident's residence, Prime Minister's office, supreme court, etc.). Hence it is easier simply to say that it is the capital of Israel.

Have they been in East Jerusalem since 1950, & was the Old City incorporated into that municipality in 1967? -- llywrch

They haven't been in "East Jerusalem" in since 1950, and they're not there now. The Old City became part of Israeli Jerusalem when it was annexed following the Six-day war (in 1968, I think). -- uriber 17:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Location of embassies, and the recognition of Jerusalem as capital by foreign nations (which I'm not even sure is a real thing. I never heard of the concept of a nation recognizing (or not recognizing) another nation's capital, except in this case) - those issues are important enough to be mentioned in the article, but not important enough, IMO, to be mentioned in the first paragraph.

It's a diplomatic snub, as I said some months back. But I would be willing to agree to your point about not needing to mention this dispute explicitly in the first paragraph, as long as there is something like "(See further below)" next to it. -- llywrch

It's pretty common to give the basic facts in the intro paragraph, and to expand on them "below". I don't see a specific reason to say "see below" in this case, although if that's what it takes to reach an agreement, I'll accept it. -- uriber 17:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Jerusalem", not "Disputes regarding Jerusalem". Therefore, the focus has to be first and foremost on facts about Jerusalem (such as it being the capital), and only then on the dispute. -- uriber 19:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And we have (I just looked) an extensive section on the history of the city, therefore shouldn't this be moved to "History of Jerusalem"? The argument is the same for both; & the article is very long & in need of breaking up. -- llywrch

I'm not sure what exactly you're proposing to move to "History of Jerusalem". Certainly the fact that it's the capital should appear in the main article. -- uriber 17:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and your last point is factually wrong as well, of course. the United States keeps its embassy in Tel-Aviv. I'm not sure how much Costa Rica and El Salvador are "under US influence". As far as I know, the reason that Costa Rica has its embassy in Jerusalem is that there is an article in Costa Rican law saying something like "Costa Rica shall locate its embassies at the capitals of countries". And since Costa Rica abides by its own laws, its embassy is located at Jerusalem, which is the capital. Other countries do not have similar laws, and therefore can, when it is politically convinient for them, locate their embassies at cities other than the capital, such as Tel-Aviv. -- uriber 19:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Everything I have heard points to Costa Rica and El Salvador locating their embassies there entirely at the persuasion of the US. And this is the first that I have heard the US's ambassidor was not in Jerusalem; the fact the embassy was moved to Jerusalem is a point of contention within the US. -- llywrch 00:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Uriber is correct on all points. Sorry you are wrong, llywrch. The facts are very easy to check, all one needs is NPOV:

Humus sapiens 01:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just for comparsion, Britannica's versions of Paris and Jerusalem. May I suggest that we outright steal Britannica's Jerusalem article's first two sentences (not illegal)? Just to end the silly conflict. BL 21:34, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Excellent idea, BL. Here it is for convenience, reworded just enough to make it into sentences:

Jerusalem <multilanguage stuff> is an ancient city of the Middle East that since 1967 has been wholly in the possession of Israel. In 1949 the city was proclaimed its capital by Israel.

Does anyone object to these two sentences becoming the first paragraph of the article? Wik, please reply! --Zero 01:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's OK. --Wik 03:16, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

This is not much better than the current bad wording. I am against this Britannica's phrase on Jerusalem. BTW, the Paris text is OK by me, and also in favor of the compromise proposed by Zero earlier. This "silly conflict" is a part of consistent campaign to delegitimize Israel. Humus sapiens 03:12, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Content-wise, that seems fine with me, but how is that not a copyright violation? As to delegitimizing Israel, it is part of a campaign, perhaps, to delegitimize Israel's possession of Jerusalem. I don't know that one can say it is a campaign to delegitimize Israel as a whole. john 04:27, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It takes more than a few bland sentences to violate copyright. Anyway, here is another option that incorporates my wording suggested before.

Jerusalem <multilanguage stuff> is an ancient city of the Middle East, Israel's official capital since 1949.

How about that for the entire first paragraph? --Zero 05:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. I don't see how that is preferable to the present version. --Wik 05:58, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

The present version is not stable as you know. Sooner or later someone will add "the capital of Israel" into the first sentence and the reversion war will begin again. My suggestion is a compromise that states a plain fact about Jerusalem without indicating approval or disapproval of it. --Zero 06:21, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That will not be any more stable, because I will revert it. "Official capital" makes it sound even more legitimate than simply "capital". It is not a fact. I think the fact that it is disputed territory should be mentioned first, and then the fact that Israel declared it its capital, although this is not recognized by the rest of the world. --Wik 07:24, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

This is much better: short and neutral fact, no modal verbs. --Humus sapiens 07:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Sorry, missed this before when scanning changes). Yes - sounds OK to me (although I don't really see what the word "official" adds. Is there such a thing as an "unofficial capital"?) -- uriber 22:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On a question of facts, I think 1949 is more accurate than 1950. The first Knesset was officially opened in Jerusalem in Feb 1949 but the sessions were held near Tel-Aviv (supposedly because the facilities were inadequate in Jerusalem). In Dec 1949, Ben-Gurion told the Knesset that the Kneset would be returned to Jerusalem which "has always been and always will be [the] capital". This period involves the genesis of the dispute over the siting of the capital, since the UN Trusteeship Council was still trying to make Jerusalem into an international enclave at the same time as Israel was moving more and more government functions there. --Zero 05:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Knesset moved to Jerusalem in December 1949, but the definite proclamation was made January 23, 1950. --Wik 05:58, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

But the 1950 proclamation didn't state that Jerusalem was the capital from that moment on, but rather that it was the capital already. It was claimed to be an affirmation of the status quo rather than the creation of a new status. --Zero 06:21, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, that was just rhetoric, since before that date this claim was not explicitly made. --Wik 07:24, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. I quoted such an explicit claim just above and there were others like it. I can also produce UN documents from 1949 in which Israel claims Jerusalem as the capital. --Zero 08:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ben-Gurion's words weren't the law. There was nothing official, otherwise there would have been no need for the 1950 declaration. --Wik 19:02, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well, assuming copyright is not violated, the Britannica version seems fine. At any rate, I think anything which reeks of "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" with no qualification is to be avoided. Beyond that, there's probably various acceptable formulations. I wonder, is there any other example of a country whose capital is disputed in this way? Hopefully one which is rather less fraught with emotional baggage? What about East Berlin as capital of the German Democratic Republic? Surely there were similar issues involved with that, weren't there? john 07:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to say "no" to the Britanninca version (I agreed to two previous proposals, so I hope this won't be considered stubbornness). No argument was presented in favor of this version (except for "that's what Britannica says"). In fact, I haven't heard any real counter-argument to my original argument (Jerusalem fits the definition of "capital"). What people are saying is basically "you are correct, but putting this into the article will piss off many people, so let's find some way to weasel out of it". I'm reluctant to accept this reasoning, but I was willing to go with it a little bit. The "Britannica version" goes too far. We should also remember that Britannica is a commercial enterprise - they have to sell their encycloedia, and therefore "keep people happy" might be a legitimate consideration for them. I don't think it is for us.

Notwithstanding the above, if I'm out-voted and the "Britannica version" is accepted (once again - I very much hope this does not happen), I'd like to point out that Britannica does not mention anything about "not recognized internationally" or "most embassies are in Tel-Aviv" in the two opening paragraphs. Therefore "accepting the Britannica approach" should also mean removing these statements from our opening paragraphs.

(and I apologize for taking time to respond. I do have a job, and I also have to sleep from time to time)

-- uriber 17:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have refuted all of this back in October and I will not get into this again. --Wik 19:02, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem does not fit the definition of capital because many countries do not recognize Jerusalem to be a part of Israel. Certainly the Israeli government's position that all of Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not accepted. Again, does anybody know anything about the way the question of East Berlin, as capital of East Germany, was treated at the time? Since, presumably, whatever emotional issues attached to the question of East Berlin have largely settled down since 1989, this might prove a useful model, since Berlin was, I think, officially considered to still be under four power control for much of the DDR's existence. john 19:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any definition saying that a capital of a state has to be "recognized by all (or some) countries to be part of that state". Please provide a reference to such a definition, if there is one. The question whether part or all of Jerusalem being capital of Israel is "accepted" or not is separate from the question whether Jerusalem is, or isn't the capital. What's debated here is the latter. -- uriber 21:14, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, so if, say, the government of Zimbabwe transferred operations to the Zimbabwean consulate in Vladivostok and declared that to be its capital, we should just say that Vladivostok is the capital of Zimbabwe? Obviously an extreme case, much more so than that of Jerusalem, but the basic fact is that this is a complicated issue, and I don't see why some kind of explanation of the situation, rather than a direct statement that is sure to offend people, is inappropriate. john 02:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, if they would regularly hold sessions of the Zimbabwean parliament in Vladivostok, move the president's office there, move the supreme court there, accept official letters of credence from foreign ambassadors there, and generally govern the country from there, I would be inclined to say that Vladivostok is the capital of Zimbabwe (even if most foreign embassies are still in Harare). I would perhaps hesitate a bit in this very contrived and unrealistic example, since Vladivostok is not actually in Zimbabwe. Jerusalem, on the other hand, is a city in Israel - so saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" does not cause the same uneasy feeling as saying "Vladivostok is the capital of Zimbabwe" in your imaginary example. If you need me to explain why Jerusalem is in Israel (in spite of "many nations not recognizing", etc.), please ask and I'll explain. -- uriber 18:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ironically, John's example applies, but not where he intended. Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital for over 3,300 years. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanakh, 0 times in the Koran. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. In the search of historical precedents, try to find another nation which was expelled from their homeland for almost 2 millenia but never abandoned it and their capital. --Humus sapiens 21:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm with Wik on this. You can't just say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel while being neutral. Rather say something like they treat it as their capital. -- Dissident 20:22, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, you're entitled to your opinion. However, since this is a discussion, not a vote, it would be more productive if you give reasons for your opinion, rather than just state it. Specifically:

Do you think that "you can't just say Jerusalem is the capital" because it is not actually the capital, or is it despite the fact that it is actually the capital?
If the former is correct, what definition of "capital" are you using, and in what way does Jerusalem not fit it?
If it's the latter, what would be the reason for omitting this fact from the first paragraph in an article about Jerusalem?

I'm eagerly expecting your answers (although I'll probably be able to see them only about a day from now). -- uriber 21:24, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I saw Wik's comment: (3 Zionist POV pushers is not "nearly everyone") - The first, and quite possibly last, time I have seen Zero0000 described as Zionist... Martin 21:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem does not necessarily fit the definition because no other country in the world recognizes East Jerusalem to even be a part of Israel. To call "Jerusalem" (as opposed to "West Jerusalem") the capital of Israel is to acknowledge Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. Similarly, East Berlin, and not Berlin, was the capital of the German Democratic Republic. (And, analogously, even East Berlin is a dubious case, because Berlin remained under four power control, at least theoretically, throughout much of the 2 Germanies period. Similarly, many countries never recognized West Jerusalem as a rightful part of Israel, which is why they put their embassies in Tel Aviv to begin with). At any rate, my point in the Zimbabwe example was that the reason for the dispute is that many people don't recognize Jerusalem (or, at the very least, all of Jerusalem) to be a part of Israel, which is why it's problematic to say it's the capital. Vladivostok as theoretical capital of Zimbabwe is similarly problematic, due to that city's not being a part of Zimbabwe, in spite of it being declared the capital. Also, how to deal with governments in exile? Were the capitals of Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, etc. etc. etc. in London during the Second World War? At any rate, the issue is complicated, and we shouldn't simply say the one thing. The very fact that there are many users saying that we shouldn't just say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel suggests that to say so would be POV, and that we need a less controversial formulation. john 23:18, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When you say "the definition" - what definition do you mean? The one I provided doesn't say anything about "other countries recognizing parts of the city to be part of the country", and as far as I know, no other definition was suggested.

"West Jerusalem" is a historic concept (somewhat like "West Berlin"). There currently does not exist an entity called "West Jerusalem", and therefore, it cannot be the capital of either Israel or any other country.

Once again, I don't see how the fact that "many people don't recognize Jerusalem (or part of it) to be a part of Israel" is relevant to the question whether it is capital or not. It's like saying that because at ancient times most people did not recognize the Earth to be nearly spherical, it actually wasn't.

London was never officially proclaimed capital of any of the countries you mention, so it clearly does not fit the definition. I don't think the comparison is relevant at all.

The issue is really not so complicated, and the fact that simple issues are often presented in a complicated way just to make everybody happy, is, IMO, one of the greatest weaknesses of Wikipedia in general.

That "many people say we shouldn't be saying something" proves absolutely nothing. I bet there are a lot of people which would say that about most of the evolution article, for example. Would you suggest to delete it? Wikipedia is here in order to provide readers with information, not in order to be "uncontroversial".

And finally: Suppose that, in addition to being the seat of Zimbabwean government and officially proclaimed capital, Vladivostok would also be populated mostly by Zimbabweans; that Zimbabwean police would be directing traffic there according to Zimbabwean traffic regulations, and arresting people breaking Zimbabwean law; and that those people would be brought before Zimbabwean courts and, if found guilty, would serve terms in Zimbabwean prisons; and that on Zimbabwean festivals Zimbabwean flags would be flown all over town by the city council (headed by a Zimbabwean mayor); and that one would not be required to carry a passport (or to pay customs) when traveling between Vladivostok and Harare; and furthermore, suppose that Vladivostok were't located thousands of miles away from the Zimbabwean mainland, but instead would be contiguous with it. And that the majority of its inhabitants, and actually, most of the world, wouldn't even call it by it's Russian name "Vladivostok", but instead call it by it's Zimbabwean name - let's say it was "Bulawayo". Would you still hesitate to say that Bulawayo (I mean, Vladivostok) is the capital of Zimbabwe? -- uriber 18:32, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Look, again, you're missing the point. The possession of "Jerusalem" as a single entity is disputed - no other country in the world recognizes there to be only a single "Jerusalem". I agree that it would make no sense to say "West Jerusalem" is the capital of Israel. But on the other hand, to say that "Jerusalem" is the capital of Israel implies that the whole city is part of Israel, which, again, implies things about the status of East Jerusalem that no other country in the world has recognized. Here, let me reverse it for you. Let's say in the 1967 war Israel had lost, and Jordan had taken control of all of the city of Jerusalem. West Jerusalem was annexed to Jordan, and King Hussein decided to move the government of Jordan to Jerusalem, and to proclaim Jerusalem the capital of Jordan. No other country in the world recognizes the annexation, and they all continue to have their embassies in Amman. Would you be willing to accept Wikipedia saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Jordan, with no qualification, at that point? john 20:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The 1st paragraph discussion, continued

Can anyone tell me what the problem is with the first paragraph as it is now (22:11, 29 Feb 2004 . . Wik (rv))? -- Dissident 22:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It fails to clearly note the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. -- uriber 22:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's not a neutral formulation as it implies that Jerusalem is a part of Israel. -- Dissident 23:14, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It does not imply that.
Jerusalem is a part of Israel.

-- uriber 16:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some definitions of capital call it the "the chief city or town in a country" (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary) and in some languages it literally means that, the German "Hauptstadt" for example.
That part is actually internationally disputed, so we can be quick about that. I've got the impression from lots of countries that they would be willing to forego the international status of Jerusalem and accept West-Jerusalem as part of Israel if it on its turn accepts East-Jerusalem as part of a future Palestinian state.

Dissident 18:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The part about "some languages" is irrelevant - this is the English Wikipedia. In addition to the Americam Heritage Dictionary definition I quoted above, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary says a capital (sense 3a) is "a city serving as a seat of government"[2].
The whole discussion of what "lots of countries" would be able to "forego" under some hypothetical circumstances is completely irrelevant to this question. I live in Jerusalem, and my everyday life experience tells me it is in Israel. Israeli cars with Israeli license plates driven by Israeli drivers, Israeli police on the streets, Israeli flags on holidays, my contract with my Israeli employer is subject to Israeli law, no passport required when I travel to Tel-Aviv - should I continue? All in all, nothing to suggest that Jerusalem is not in Israel. -- uriber 20:18, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I now also see that you (conveniently) ommitted the first part of Webster's definition that you quoted: "The seat of government" [3]. So Jerusalem fulfils this definition as well - even if you insist on not accepting that it is in Israel -- uriber 20:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hold it right there. The fact that the meaning is ambiguous strengthens my case rather than weakens it. -- Dissident 20:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see how "the meaning is ambiguous" strengthens your case that "saying that Jerusalem is capital implies it is in Israel". If the meaning was unambiguously "the chief town in a country" (as you tried to present it) - that would strengthen your case (on this specific point, regardless of the other one, of course). If the definition is really ambiguous, it means we can say "Jerusalem is the capital" without fear of being wrong (it will at least fit some - or in this case, nearly all - definitions of the word).

And here's another definition (by WordNet): "a seat of government" [4]. -- uriber 21:46, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would you be willing to accept the current formulation as a compromise (23:14, 3 Mar 2004 . . Dissident)? -- Dissident 23:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Jerusalem is not the capital only in the sense that "it is the location of its presidential residence and parliament" (and PM office, and supreme court, etc.), but also in the sense that "it is the official seat of government" (as stated in Israeli law), and in, short, in any reasonable sense by which Rome or Paris are capitals.

The word "currently" you added isn't really helpful either. Why doesn't the article on Rome say that it is "currently the capital city of Italy"? The only reason for introducing that word would be implying that Jerusalem's status is temporary in some way - which is either POV or pure speculation.

Also, I don't see why stating that Jerusalem is the capital should be pushed off to the third sentence. Compare, again, with Rome - another very ancient city, which became the capital of modern Italy only relatively recently in its history. Still - the first sentence in the article on Rome states that it is the capital. Everything else (location, history, etc.) is discussed later.

In short, I don't see why I should compromise on factual issues. Nevertheless, I did (very reluctantly) agree to three different compromises suggested here previously. They were all rejected (or, actually, just reverted) by Wik. -- uriber 16:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uriber, in the first place, Wik has also agreed to several different formulae. In the second place, other than you and Humus Sapiens, most people here seem to agree that there needs to be some form of qualification on the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That no country in the world is willing to recognize that half of Jerusalem is even part of Israel makes the whole issue very problematic. In the third place, I notice you have not answered my earlier query regarding a theoretical Jordanian takeover of all of Jerusalem in 1967 followed by a move of Jordan's official capital there. Would you in that case be fighting as hard to say that "Jerusalem is the capital of Jordan" as you are now to say that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"? I would agree, however, with your statement that Israel's present status should come in the first sentence. A further question. Would a phrase like "Designated capital" or some such, be acceptable to you? (And to Wik, for that matter) john 17:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Most people seem to agree" - if this was a vote, I would surely lose. However, in Wikipedia, unlike in the UN, things are not usually decided by a vote. Instead we are having a discussion, trying to bring convincing arguments for our positions. Until now, I have only seen two arguments against saying that Jerusalem is capital. One is Dissident's - "saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel implies that it is in Israel, which is wrong". I think I have pretty much refuted both sides of this argument (certainly the first one) in the discussion above.

The only other argument I'm seeing is your argument - "most people are saying we shouldn't say that, so we shouldn't say that". And the reason those people are giving? Simple - "most people say it". This is a cyclic argument, which is impossible to refute - but, on the other hand, it has no real merit - because the questions we're dealing with here are about Jerusalem, not about what most people say about Jerusalem (which is also important - but not important enough to appear in the first few sentences of the article).

Regarding your hypothetical question - I haven't answered it before because it's more of a personal question than a question about the topic at hand. However, if you insist - here's my answer: I would not be fighting as hard in that case to so say that "Jerusalem is the capital of Jordan" (I'm allowed to pick my fights). However, I also wouldn't fight against saying that.

The phrase "Designated capital" is not acceptable, because it implies that Jerusalem is not the actual capital. It would have been proper if Israel had officially designated Jerusalem as capital, while in practice the government had been operating from a different place. However this is not the case, as Jerusalem is both the officially designated capital, and the capital in practice.

I'm not in any kind of competition with Wik on who accepts more compromises. Actually, I'm a bit sorry I accepted those that I did (although I won't take it back). Keeping the article accurate should be more important than keeping some people (or even most people) happy. -- uriber 22:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I partly agree with Uriber, but only partly. I do not know of any principle in international law that denies a country the right to specify where its capital is. Therefore, the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a simple fact, and saying it does not indicate approval or disapproval. I don't believe it even implies that Jerusalem is in Israel. On the other hand, sovereignty is a matter which is subject to the most stringent principles of law, so in that case one cannot state "Jerusalem is in Israel" as a fact but only as a claim made by Israel. In this case it does not matter how much Jerusalem appears to be in Israel. Actually East Jerusalem is not in Israel according to the overwhelming legal consensus including the UN Security Council. I believe that a correct and neutral statement that could start the article would be "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is accepted by few countries or international bodies.". In this regard, I believe that the matter of sovereignty in East Jerusalem, and not the matter of where the capital is, is the main reason most countries don't site their embassies in Jerusalem. --Zero 11:18, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I incorporated this suggestion (with minor modifications - I hope my parentheses aren't considered POV) into a new intro paragraph. Let's see what happens. -- uriber 12:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Two minutes! I think this is a record even for Wik. -- uriber 12:14, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I'm willing to accept the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, if its intended meaning is immediately elaborated in the rest of the same sentence. -- Dissident 01:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The wording "Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس, al-Quds) is an ancient city which lies on the border between Israel and the West Bank. It is one of the most disputed territories in the world. Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950, and it is the location of its presidential residence and parliament, but this status is not internationally recognized and most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv" is fine so far as I'm concerned, though it should at some point be noted that the western side of the city is territory occupied by Israel in the war of independence and not yet a politically resolved matter between the concerned parties. Jamesday 05:17, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How sweet, we are moving backwards. Instead of trying to reconcile the text regarding East Jerusalem, by this new definition the "territory occupied by Israel in the war of independence and not yet a politically resolved matter between the concerned parties" would possibly include entire Israel from Naharia to Eilat. Why can't those pesky Jews just roll over and die? --Humus sapiens Talk 10:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're spouting off abusive language again! This time no less you're suggesting somebody is a genocidal maniac! Desist or I WILL report this! -- Dissident 02:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This time I'll ignore the ad-hom attack to prove that my goal is to improve the article, instead of bickering here. BTW, "spouting off" is duly noted. To the point: according to the twisted logic of the gentlemen above, it is somehow Israel's fault to have won the aggressive 1948 Arab-Israeli War waged by Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon and Transjordan with openly stated goal to annihilate the Jewish state. "Consider "Bigotry-finder rule 101": Take a situation, change the race, religion, sexual orientation, or other aspect of the players' identities, and see if the same results apply... Listen to the criticism of any other country: It is always a political party, a program, a policy, or a person that is criticized, never the legitimacy of a society. Except for Israel." [5] --Humus sapiens Talk 07:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I explained (several times) why it's not fine as far as I'm concerned, and unless you can explain why my arguments are invalid, irrelevant, POV, or whatever, instead of just "voting" for the current text, I'll simply ignore your POV. As for the last part of your comment - Humus put it nicely. -- uriber 15:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that Uriber has made his point very clear, though on some points of detail, I disagree. By saying that Jeruzalem was Israëls capital around 1272 B.C. is for me not a valid argument: they lost it to many conquerers like the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines and then the many Muslims (First indeed the Arabs and then the Turks) and indeed the Muslims lost it in 1967, actually they lost it in 1948 from the emerging state of Israël! More than one million Arab soldiers, trained by Brittish and equiped by Europeans, where unable to beat approx 400 thousand Jewish fighters..... if they failed then, they'll continue to fail so cut the bullshit and start living together! Israël cannot destroy the Palestinians because that should be genocide, the Palestinians cannot beat Israël because they are too weak! Then they should live together! Jeruzalem can be both the capital for Israël and Palestine, if necessary with a wall to divide them (worked with Berlin too for 50 years!) --Irsjad 18:33, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] March 16 edit war

Before making changes to the 1st paragraph, please explain what is factually wrong with the language below. --Humus sapiens Talk 19:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس, al-Quds) is the capital city of Israel (although Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is accepted by few countries or international bodies). It is one of the most ancient cities in the world, and has a long history of wars and controversy.

Just because something is factually correct doesn't mean it is the best way to present it in an encyclopedia. Explain what is factually wrong with this language: Anthony DiPierro 19:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس, al-Quds) is an ancient city which lies on the border between Israel and the West Bank. It is one of the most disputed territories in the world. Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950.

(I hope Humus won't mind if I answer this:) The text you are proposing fails to mention a central fact about Jerusalem: that it is the capital of Israel. Factual accuracy is as much as in what you don't say is it is in what you say. Would you accept an article about Rome which does not say "Rome is the capital of Italy" as factually correct? -- uriber 19:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It clearly says that "Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950." What other requirement is there to be a capital that I'm missing? Anthony DiPierro 19:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That Israel has since then (1950) never declared another city as capital, or revoked the 1950 declaration; that Jerusalem is the seat of Israeli parliament; that it is the location of the Prime Minister's office and nearly all other ministry headquarters; that it is the seat of Israeli Supreme Court; that it is the seat of Israel's national bank, etc., etc. All this information can easily be implied by the simple, factually correct, statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Refraining to do so and insisting on lenghty formulations just to avoid doing so is an introduction of POV. -- uriber 19:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950" is hardly a lengthy formulation. I'm saying this as someone who personally accepts the Israeli government's claim (I think a nation gets to decide what its own capital is) -- to be NPOV, we have to be clear in stating the Israeli government's position (Anthony is doing that) and in stating the reactions of foreign governments. That is a neutral point of view. Saying "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" isn't neutral....you and I can believe it is correct, but it's not neutral. Jwrosenzweig 19:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not lenghty, but on its own it is very lacking. To make it complete, you will have to also state everything I wrote in the above paragraph - which would make it lenghty. Also, the first sentence in an article should describe the current status of the city, not just mention some fact related to its history (the 1950 declaration in this case). Why is saying "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" not neutral? -- uriber 20:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's no need to explain every little detail in the first paragraph. "Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950" is sufficient. Anthony DiPierro 18:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But those (other than the first) are not requirements of a capital. Perhaps they would be inferred, perhaps not. I wouldn't personally infer those things without reading more. In fact, I wouldn't even infer that Israel even had any of those things without reading more. Anthony DiPierro 19:47, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They are not requirements, but they are things to be expected, as they constitute the essence of being a "seat of government", i.e., a capital. On the other hand, the text you are supporting implies that Israel's declarations was just that - a ceremonial declaration, and that Jerusalem is not the capital in practice. Now that I've answered some of your questions, would you mind telling me why you oppose the statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"? -- uriber 19:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's POV. It's not a statement that every Wikipedian would agree with. Anthony DiPierro 19:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that the definition of NPOV is something that "every Wikipedian would agree with". In any event, it's not a matter of agreement. It's a matter of fact. Jerusalem matches the definition of "capital". If someone disagrees, he can read the dictionary definition, and then research the facts, and he will notice (unless his logic is clouded by his POV) that the facts match the definition.

I must leave now. I'll be happy to continue the discussion tomorrow. -- uriber 20:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem matches your definition of "capital". Must all Wikipedians agree? No, but that's the goal. A fact is "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." There is a serious dispute as to the capital of Israel, so presenting it this way violates NPOV.

For determining whether something is fact or opinion in this sense, it does not matter what the actual truth of the matter is; there can at least in theory be "false facts" (things that everybody agrees upon, but which are, in fact, false), and there are very often "true opinions," though necessarily, it seems, there are more false ones. - Wikipedia:NPOV

Anthony DiPierro 20:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem does not match my definition of "capital". It matches the definition of "capital" from at least four respectable English dictionaries (see above). Do you know of a definition of "capital" (from a well-established authority) that Jerusalem does not match? Also - you say ther is a dispute. However, I didn't see anyone in this discussion saying that "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" (not even you). Maybe there's no real dispute about this fact? -- uriber 17:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Try doing a little googling. I think you'll see that there is a lot of dispute of whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. As for the definition, whether it's yours or that of a "respectable" dictionary, it's still irrelevant. Anthony DiPierro 18:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I won't do your research for you. You say it's disputed - prove it. And anyway, it's not even a matter of opinion, it's a fact. "The definition [...] is irrelevant"? Huh? So now we'll just use words however we like, regardless of what they mean? And why did you bother to emphasize the word your when you said "your definition", if you think definitions don't matter at all? Just to waste my time in explaining to you that it's not my definition? -- uriber 18:51, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's the definition you choose to use, therefore it's your definition. As for proving that it is disputed, I don't have to do that. It's absolutely obvious to anyone who has done the most basic of research into this issue. Anthony DiPierro 19:22, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing the factual accuracy of the text you are trying to remove.
- I did no such thing. Actually, whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel isn't even a fact, it's an opinion, more specifically, it's semantics. Anthony DiPierro 18:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"semantics [...] is traditionally defined as the study of meaning" (Wikipedia). When there is a dispute about the meaning of a word (i.e., about semantics), the proper way to resolve it is by consulting an authority on meanings of words - that is, dictionary (or several dictionaries). This is exactly what I did in this case - and at least as far as semantics go, the case is closed. -- uriber 19:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When there is a dispute about the meaning of a word, the proper way to resolve it is to rephrase the sentence in a way such that there is no dispute. There is no "authority on meanings of words." Dictionaries try their best to reflect common usage, but they are by no means vested with any authority to do so.

The Anthony's text suggests that it is somehow illegal for Israel to have its capital in Jerusalem. It doesn't mention that the dispute is only about East Jerusalem. To me, there is not much difference between this position and of those who delegitimize Israel right to Tel Aviv. See the discussion above.
- Well, it's not "my" text. As for your point, I'll address it below. Anthony DiPierro 18:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"the border between Israel and the West Bank" is being disputed and currently is the 1949 armistice line. It is not a border, nor was it meant to be. I don't think it is worth being mentioned in the 1st phrase, unless (see #2).
- Good point, this should be fixed. Anthony DiPierro 18:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am not going to waste my time on silly edit wars. Unfortunately for WP, this is typical fate of almost every article related to Jews and Israel. Check for yourself. --Humus sapiens Talk 21:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] UK, Shm-UK

Jerusulem is not recognised by the UK government as the capital - see [6]. Secretlondon 18:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The page you linked does not even mention the word "capital" - so it is irrelevant. Anyway I never claimed that Jerusulem is recognised by the UK government as the capital. All I said is that Jerusalem is the capital, which is still true regardless of what the UK government recognizes. -- uriber 19:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You never claimed that Jerusulem is recognized by the UK government as the capital, however, you also claimed there was "no real dispute about this fact [the "fact" that Jerusulem is the capital]." Anthony DiPierro 19:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a big difference between not "officially recognizing" Jerusalem as capital (which is a matter of politics), and between saying that "Jerusalem is not the capital" (which is a matter of fact). Of course there's a political dispute about Jerusalem. I just said I don't think there is dispute about the facts. -- uriber 19:11, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it's just the opposite. Whether or not Jerusalem is officially recognized as the capital is a fact (at least, it can be, barring strange circumstances such as the United States where Congress passed a bill saying that Jerusalem is the capital but the President declared the bill Unconstitutional). Whether or not it is the capital is an opinion. Anthony DiPierro 19:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The UK is irrelevant here. If Israel does not recognize London as the UK capital, would it cease to be one? Prove why such dependency is important. BTW, the UK was one of only two countries (another was Pakistan) which _recognized_ Jordan's illegal annexation of the West Bank and E-Jlem in 1949 until it was liberated in 1967. Did it make it any more legal? We don't want to talk about Britain's long story of colluding with the Arabs, mismanaging the Mandate and shutting down Jewish immigration in the 30s and 40s, do we? --Humus sapiens Talk 19:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If Israel does not recognize London as the UK capital, then it would cease to be NPOV to call it one. Anthony DiPierro 19:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is your POV. I respectfully disagree and think it is irrelevant. None of dictionaries mention the "recognition" requirement. Being asked repeatedly, you were unable to prove it is important. At this point, we are arguing over POV, not facts. Should we strive for NPOV, though? --Humus sapiens Talk 19:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, think the dictionaries are irrelevant. If the dictionaries call London the capital of the UK, but Israel disagrees, then it is POV to call London the UK capital, because that is in dispute. Recognition is exactly what NPOV is all about. If something is not universally recognized as being true, then it is POV to assert that it is without attribution, regardless of what some dictionary may say. Anthony DiPierro 20:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to what you say, the articles on London, Rome, Paris, etc., should all be fixed, because they are now claiming as a fact something that is merely a POV (that these cities are capitals) - whereas none of these articles even mention the facts - by which countries these capitals are "recognized". I think you have a lot of work to do in order to make these articles (and about 200 others) NPOV. Good luck. -- uriber 19:32, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:NPOV again. I even quoted the relevant paragraph. By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." There is no serious dispute to the capital status of London, Rome, or Paris. Anthony DiPierro 19:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And BTW, which president declaired that bill Unconstitutional? I'm curious. Anyway, as far as I know it's not in the president's authority to declare bills "unconstitutional". -- uriber 19:32, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The President was Bush. [7] And any President can declare anything whatever he wants. Anthony DiPierro 19:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh - you are confusing your acts here. Bush's statement (which does not mention the word "unconstitutional", BTW) is regarding several clauses in the 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The act in which congress recognized Jerusalem as capital of Israel was the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, of which no president ever said it was unconstitutional. -- uriber 19:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

He may not use the word "unconsitutional", but he says that the act "impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs." As for the content of the act itself, it "obligates the US to identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in federally funded documents." [8]

Once again, the very fact that reasonable people are disputing this means that it is not NPOV to say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." Clearly, the situation is absolutely not analogous to the situation of Rome or Paris, where there is no basis to say that those cities are not the capital. Jerusalem, on the other hand, is not recognized as a part of the State of Israel by many countries. As I've said before, the only analogous example I can think of is East Berlin as the capital of the German Democratic Republic. I think that it would be similarly problematic to say "East Berlin was the capital of the German Democratic Republic," since a) the East Germans themselves called "Berlin" their capital; and b) Berlin was officially under four power control, and thus not a part of either German state (at least until the 70s...) What is needed here is to have some statement which says that Israel has its capital in Jerusalem without saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." This wouldn't be hard to do, I think, except that there's a lot of people here saying "We won't except anything except saying 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.'" That makes this essentially intractable. john 20:11, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Previously I suggested we write "Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel". I repeat that suggestion. The word "official" introduces some intentional ambiguity, in the time-honored fashion of diplomatic documents. Uriber didn't like this idea too much, but Wik was the one who reverted it. This relative symmetry of dislike suggests that it is close to the mark. --Zero 22:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If the word "official" is designed to confuse, it worked for me. Still, this is better than "Israel declared", as if they don't deserve it. In addition, we have agreed upon the NPOV disclaimer about Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem is recognized by few countries or international bodies. Other than accepting the Israel's right to exist, what's wrong with this phrase? --Humus sapiens Talk 05:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a dialect thing, but "official" seems even worse. It implies that not only is Israel the capital, but this is true by international law, or some other "official" acceptance. Not sounding like they deserve it is the intent, because whether they deserve it is POV. "Declared capital" is acceptable. Anthony DiPierro 11:21, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Like I said on Zero0000's Talk page, my vote goes to "de facto". -- Dissident 20:51, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about "official and de facto"? That would cover both aspects, and would be fine with me (much better than either of the adjectives by itself). -- uriber 21:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well if we're going to start combining adjectives, then I'll add Anthony's one instead: "declared and de facto". -- Dissident 21:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Official is POV. Adding other words doesn't resolve that. At least, unless those words modify official (declared to be official, for instance, which is obviously not the right words to use). Anthony DiPierro 22:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Wikipedia:NPOV

I'm going to repeat a quote from Wikipedia:NPOV, because people seem to be missing it (and not reading it for themselves).

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the nonbias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves. By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By "opinion," on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There's bound to be meta:borderline cases where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express opinions. That God exists is an opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band is an opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opinion.

I'm not even going to bold the part that applies ("it does not matter what the actual truth of the matter is"). Read this whole thing, or better yet, read Wikipedia:NPOV. Anthony DiPierro 20:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What do other sources say?

Je·ru·sa·lem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j-rs-lm, -z-) The capital of Israel... (Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
Jerusalem \Je*ru"sa*lem\, n. [Gr. ?, fr. Heb. Y?r?sh[=a]laim.] The chief city of Palestine, intimately associated with the glory of the Jewish nation... (Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)
Jerusalem n : capital and largest city of the modern state of Israel... (Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University)
Main Entry: Je·ru·sa·lem Pronunciation: j&-'rü-s(&-)l&m, -'rü-z(&-)l&m Variant(s): or ancient Hi·ero·sol·y·ma /"hI-(&-)rO-'sä-l&-m&/ Usage: geographical name; city central Palestine NW of Dead Sea; divided 1948-67 between Jordan (old city) & Israel (new city) capital of Israel since 1950 & formerly capital of ancient kingdoms of Israel & Judah; old city under Israeli control since 1967 population 544,200 (Source: Merriam-Webster online)
Jerusalem Related: Israel Geography (jeroo´selem, -zelem) , Heb. Yerushalayim, Arab. Al Quds, city (1994 pop. 578,800), capital of Israel.... (Source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/J/Jerusale.asp, http://www.infoplease.com, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. - The same contents)

Pls. see www.dictionary.com for refs. --Humus sapiens | Talk 22:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The current first paragraph seems to be neutral, factual and correct. So I would stick with it. Current is of course: Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس, al-Quds) is the capital city of Israel (although Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is accepted by few countries or international bodies). It is one of the most ancient cities in the world, and has a long history of wars and controversy. -Marduk

Reading this, I'm at a bit of a loss why this is even up for debate. Israel says its capital is Jerusalem. Its legislative functions are there. Its laws say that its capital of Jerusalem. Officially and functionally, it is the capital of Israel. Heck, the dictionary says that its the capital of Israel. Isn't this enough to define the place as the capital? And for those on the other side - if Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel, what is, and what evidence is there to support that? Ambivalenthysteria 10:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel. Just that its status as capital is problematic enough that the capital information should not be stated as though it is an uncontroversial fact. Certainly one might argue that West Jerusalem, and not Jerusalem, is the capital of Israel. john 17:35, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] From PenguiN42

Sorry for jumping in to the conversation, but has discussion about this reached a stalemate? No one has posted a major contribution to the discussion in a few days.... Unless it's going on somewhere else and I'm missing it. Anyway, I had some questions: a previous version was posted by Uriber that was worded "Jerusalem (Hebrew: #1497;רושלים Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس, al-Quds) is an ancient city of the Middle East, Israel's official capital since 1949. Jerusalem's status as capital is not internationally recognized, and most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv." [9] -- it was reverted by Wik, who objected to calling the city "Israel's official capital." My first question is for Wik: why isn't saying "status as capital is not internationally recognized" an acceptable qualification? Secondly, for Uriber, why is it an acceptable qualification, while stating "Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950" [10] is not? PenguiN42 22:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I stopped commenting here a few days ago because I felt I have said everything I have to say on the subject, and repeating myself over and over is a waste of my time an Wikipedia's disk space. However, since you're new to the discussion, I'll try to answer your questions. As to why saying "Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950" is not acceptable, see my reply to Anthony DiPierro dated 19:42, 16 Mar 2004. -- uriber 22:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your feeling of frustration, and that you've "said everything you have to say." However, if no one reaches a consensus about this issue (or at least an agreement not to revert a certain change), then the page will never stabilize and will be locked forever... And I think a locked page about such an important issue is much worse for wikipedia in the long run than some disk space being used up by talking :) PenguiN42 02:24, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the page

Secondly, I feel that the fact that there *is* so much dispute here over whether to explicitly state that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" proves that it's a POV statement -- that is, a statement whose truth is under serious dispute. Facts that are not in dispute are the fact that Israel declared Jerusalem to be its capital, and the fact that much of its government is run out of Jerusalem. These are the facts of the matter -- "jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a conclusion drawn from those facts. And it's obvious that there's some dispute over whether that conclusion is 100% unquestionable. Whether Jerusalem actuallyis the capital of Israel or not is irrelevant, as clearly stated in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Therefore, I would argue for placing the undisputed facts listed above in the article, instead of the disputed conclusion. Some have argued that saying "Israel declared Jerusalem its capital" implies that Israel's declaration isn't legitimate -- I argue that it says nothing either way about the declaration, but leaves it up to the reader to decide. However, saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" pretty clearly states that Israel's declaration is legitimate (therefore being less NPOV than possibly implying that it might not be, even though the previous statement doesn't imply this) -- and, more importantly, it implies to most people that Israel has sovereignty over all of Jerusalem -- a point which is clearly in dispute. PenguiN42 22:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I said this several times before, but I'll try to say this even more clearly. The fact that there is a dispute over whether "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is NPOV or not does not prove that it is not NPOV. (The idea that one can win an argument simply by stating his position is quite absurd). If there were a dispute over whether Jerusalem is the capital or not - that might have made the statement non-NPOV. However, nobody seriously claimed, during this entire discussion, that "Jerusalem is not the capital". So there's no evidence that saying "Jerusalem is the capital" is not NPOV. Just a few people claiming it to be non-NPOV, with no convincing arguments to back them up.

It is not obvious that there's some dispute over whether Jerusalem is capital is 100% unquestionable. And saying that it's obvious does not prove it is obvious. It doesn't even constitute an argument.

Saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" does not state that Israel's declaration is legitimate. How can a factual comment bare a "legal" meaning? Does saying "Bill is dead" state that "Joe's killing of Bill was legitimate"?

About sovereignty - you are claiming that most people understand the word "capital" very differently than the way it is defined in four different dictionaries. This is a very strong claim - do you have any data to back it up? -- uriber 22:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure if this made it more clear for me. First I'd like to respond to "It is not obvious that there's some dispute over whether Jerusalem is capital is 100% unquestionable. And saying that it's obvious does not prove it is obvious. It doesn't even constitute an argument." -- I think you misunderstand me, because what i meant was that everything that's being argued in here is "dispute over whether 'Jerusalem is capital' is 100% unquestionable" -- that is, we're arguing over whether 'Jerusalem is capital' is all fact (ie, 100% unquestionable), or whether it contains or implies POV. The fact that this argument exists makes it obvious that there's a dispute. Please read this carefully, as the wording is tricky, and I don't want to have to explain myself several times. As for the other points, I'll try to split up the different implications you seem to be making (here and elsewhere), paraphrased as to my understanding, and respond to each in turn:

Agreed. There is some kind of dispute going on here. However, after so many kilobytes of arguments, I don't see how noting this obvious fact contributes to the discussion in any way. -- uriber 09:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That there's a dispute over whether or not the statement is NPOV does not mean that there's a dispute over the truth of the statement itself -- yeah, I see now that I made a logical error in stating this. You're right on this count. Consider my assertions to this effect retracted.
Nobody seriously claimed, during this discussion, that Jerusalem is not the capital, therefore there is no serious dispute over whether Jerusalem is the capital. -- Just because no one in this discussion has seriously claimed that jerusalem is not the capital doesn't mean there's no serious dispute somewhere in the world. So the question then becomes, is there serious dispute somewhere in the world? Two points have been raised to support that there is: First, some countries don't "officially recognize" Jerusalem as the capital; and Second, not all of Jerusalem is indisputably recognized as part of Israel, and some claim that this means it can't be Israel's indisputable capital. I'll address these points further below.
The fact that Israel calls Jerusalem its capital, and treats the city like a capital, means it's the capital. Other countries' recognition of Israel as the capital aren't relevant to this fact -- I think we need to clear up some ambiguities, here. Because it seems to me that a country refusing to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is tantamount to disputing the fact that Jerusalem is the captial of Israel. How can this be interpreted any other way? Likewise, how can Israel's declaration that Jerusalem is the capital be "Illegitimate" if Jerusalem is Israel's capital? You imply that "legitimacy" is a legal definition, and has no bearing on the facts. I think this is not a very clear concept, and needs some more elaboration. Remember, POV is not concerned with what the actual truth is, but rather whether that fact is in dispute. Why don't legal definitions count towards disputes of a fact? Why do only dictionary definitions count? Why don't peoples own interpretations of words (which may carry connotations that the dictionary doesn't specify) count? Is it possible for someone to both believe that Jerusalem is not the legitimate capital of Israel and believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? It seems like a contradiction to me. I guess the problem is -- what exactly does "legitimate" mean? I don't think it's only a legal definition, and I bet your four dictionaries would agree with me.
Whether or not Israel owns/controls/has sovereignty over Jerusalem isn't relevant to the fact -- you back this up by showing that dictionary definitions don't require that the captial has to be part of the country in order for it to be the capital. I would argue, however, that dictionaries don't always include every necessary defining element of a word. Also, peoples usage and understanding of a word don't always match what the dictionary says. Regardless, you're right that the burden of proof is on me to show that "most people understand the word "capital" very differently than the way it is defined in four different dictionaries." And I'm really not sure how I would be able to "prove" this as it is an inductive claim -- "most people." However, I think an easier claim (though more subjective) would be a "significant number of people." And I think polling is a good way to gather evidence for such a claim. So how about it? Would anyone care to vote for whether the captial of a country has to be completely a part of that country?

I'll start off by voting for myself, that yes, the capital as to be completely a part of the country. PenguiN42

As a final point, I contend that saying that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" implies, to, say, a person who knows nothing about Jerusalem, that the whole of Jerusalem is a part of Israel and that Israel has sovereignty over it. However, saying that "Israel declared Jerusalem to be its capital," to a person who knows nothing about Jerusalem, does *not* imply that the declaration wasn't valid. This is related to the above point about people's understanding of the word "capital," but it's not quite the same thing. This is more about people's interpretation of the context surrounding the word.

Anyway, that's it for now... I hope! PenguiN42 04:00, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So that's settled.
You are presenting an argument which I never argued, and then you argue with it. What I did say is that "'there's no evidence' that saying 'Jerusalem is the capital' is not NPOV". As for the "evidence" you are producing, see below.
I disagree that "a country refusing to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is tantamount to disputing the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". The matter of a country "recognizing" another country's capital is not well defined, and has no clear meaning. Generally, official statements made by countries do not necessarily reflect actual people's POVs about facts. Rather, they reflect what the officials making them consider to be the best thing to say in order to serve the political interests of the entity they are representing. That the UK says it does "not recognize Jerusalem as capital" is certainly not the same as saying that someone in the UK government actually believes that "Jerusalem is not the capital". It merely means that the UK government believes that "not recognizing Jerusalem as capital" serves best the diplomatic and political interests of the UK. In any event, I have previously supported a phrasing which makes it absolutely clear that Jerusalem's status is not politically recognized by other countries[11]. This was reverted by Wik, which refuses to discuss.

See, I would have agreed to the wording in that URL. I'm really not sure why Wik didn't. His assertion that "there is nothing "balanced" about saying it is the official capital when this is disputed by almost the entire rest of the world" doesn't even make sense since it clearly states in the next statement that it *is* disputed my much of the rest of the world. This makes it balanced in my opinion. And, to me, "official capital" means it's Israel's official capital, nothing more. Anyone know if Wik is still banned? If he is, I lean towards this wording, as long as no one else disagrees with it. PenguiN42 12:48, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, above, has expresses his disagreement to the word "official". I'm not happy with it either (exactly because of what you say - it implies that it is the "official capital and nothing more" - which is wrong: Jerusalem is also the de facto capital). I suggested "official and de facto", which Anthony rejected. The best thing as far as I'm concerned would be to drop the word altogether - but then you will probably disagree. Anyway, the reason I brought up this phrasing in this stage of the discussion is because of the following sentence - regarding international recognition. -- uriber 13:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree that "legitimate", in this context, is not a very clear concept, and therefore I suggest that the issue of legitimacy (which is a matter of POV) should not be handled in the introduction paragraph - which should be devoted to laying down the basic facts. So I propose that we keep the question of "legitimacy" out of this discussion as well. BTW, I did not check all of my four dictionaries, but the first one I did (AHD) says that "legitimate" means "Being in compliance with the law; lawful" (there are other definitions as well, of course, but that is the primary one).

Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopedia intended for the general English-speaking public - not a legal document, intended for lawyers - which is why definitions from English dictionaries count, whereas legal definitions do not.

Is it possible for someone to both believe that Jerusalem is not the legitimate capital of Israel and believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?. Yes, it is - for the same reason that it possible for someone to both believe that Bill was not legitimately killed, and yet believe that Bill is dead.

As I said above - I'm not sure what was your point in bringing the whole issue of "legitimacy" into the discussion. It seems to be counter-productive to introduce yet another not-clearly-defined, probably disputed, element into an already long and complicated discussion.

Do you also think it is a problem to say that "Rome is the capital of Italy"? As far as I know, part of Rome is not under Italian sovereignty - and that is not even disputed. Anyway, just in case some people might (correctly or wrongly) assume that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" implies that there is no dispute about any part of Jerusalem being under Israeli sovereignty, I previously actively supported the phrasing Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel (although Israeli sovereignty over east Jerusalem is accepted by few countries or international bodies) [12]. This should fully address your concerns of a possible implications of the word "capital" as understood by some people. It also supplies context to the statement about Jerusalem being capital. However, this was reverted by both Wik and Anthony.

-- uriber 09:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That the UK says it does "not recognize Jerusalem as capital" is certainly not the same as saying that someone in the UK government actually believes that "Jerusalem is not the capital". It merely means that the UK government believes that "not recognizing Jerusalem as capital" serves best the diplomatic and political interests of the UK.

This is true, however, I believe that the UK says it does "not recognize Jerusalem as capital" does imply that someone must believe that "Jerusalem is not the capital". Otherwise, why would it serve best the diplomatic and political interests of the UK? anthony 11:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are basically two explanations. One is regarding the past of the city. Specifically, some people believe that Jerusalem became the capital of Israel as a result of "illegitimate", "illegal", "unjust", or otherwise condemnable actions. Those who hold these beliefs probably feel that "officially recognizing" Jerusalem as capital somehow rewards those actions. It is not necessarily that the UK government itself (as an example) actually holds such beliefs - but more likely, the UK has an interest in maintaining good relations with forces which do hold them.

The other explanation has to do with the future of the city - which, unlike its present status, really is disputed. There are many who, for various reasons, wish to change the status of Jerusalem - by re-dividing it, internationalizing it, or taking it out of Israeli control in some other way. This goal would be more difficult to achieve if Jerusalem is internationally recognized as Israel's capital. Once again, changing the status of Jerusalem in this manner might not be a direct interest of the UK, but maintaining good relations with those supporting such change certainly is. Making official statements about the present status of the city has implications on its future, and therefore, such statements are made, regardless of the city's true current status.

Neither explanation requires the assumption that anybody actually disputes the city's present status as capital. -- uriber 13:01, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

how about something like "Jerusalem is currently Israel's capital, although not all countries recognize its status as such." .. or something? PenguiN42 13:34, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why the word "currently" is necessary. By default, facts stated in the present tense in Wikipedia describe the current situation. Adding the word "currently" implies (or at least might be understood as implying) that Jerusalem's status is somehow temporary - which is an introduction of POV. Other than that - it's fine. -- uriber 13:46, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think "not all" is a little weasely: I would prefer "Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but only the United States formally recognises it as such". Assuming that that is correct, of course. Martin 20:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is very unusual for any country to formally recognise a city as another country's capital. The usual thing is to recognise the country itself then to accept by default whatever city that other country says its capital is. So the "not all" formulation is less misleading than the "only the US" formulation. --Zero 23:58, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Zero. Also, "only the US" is not factually correct. Four other countries base their embassis in Jerusalem or its suburbs - which I think implies recognizing Jerusalem as capital. Other countries, not basing their embassy in Jerusalem, do not necessarily not recognize Jerusalem - as the US example shows. According to what Zero says, by default we should assume that any country recognizing Israel also recognizes whatever capital Israel has chosen (that is, Jerusalem) unless it specifically declared otherwise (which I'm not sure how many countries did). -- uriber 19:33, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More sources

This is from the CIA World Factbook:

Jerusalem; note - Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like nearly all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv

~~Is that source comprehensive enough for you people? ugen64 23:44, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)~~

Nonetheless, dictionary.com does define capital city differently:

A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation

So obviously, a country can decide where its own capital city is, and therefore it's NPOV that Jerusalem is Israel's capital (because it's a fact). ugen64 23:47, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

There are legitimate disputes to the statement. Therefore it's not NPOV (because it's not a wikipedia:fact). anthony 23:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions from Martin

Folks here may be interested in UN Security Council Resolution 478 - it sounds like you're all experts on the subject. Martin 00:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would "working capital" be a useful phrase? Martin 17:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would it be useful for Paris or London? I guess not. And not useful here either, from the same reasons. -- uriber 19:38, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is Jerusalem Paris or London? I guess not.

Jerusalem is not Paris or London, but it is is the capital of Israel in the same sense that London is the capital of the UK, aad Paris is that of France - hence the analogy. -- uriber 18:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uriber, if you were to reject anything that isn't a mirror image of Paris, then we're not going to get a solution that makes you and everyone else happy. However, I've already seen you accept compromises ("see note below", "official", etc) in the talk page archives, so I know that you are willing to give a little to get a little.

I'm not interested is a solution that makes me and everyone else happy. I'm imterested in a solution which is factually correct and NPOV - no matter how many people would be unhappy about it. I'm willing to give a little when it comes to phrasing - as long as the phrasing still accurately conveys the facts. I originally agreed to "official" because I saw it as just an extra word, having no effect on the overall meaning (since all capitals are "official"). I later realized that it could be understood as somehow limiting the sense in which Jerusalem is capital (as if this was only a formal, official, status - with no practical consequnces) - so I withdrew my acceptance of "official capital", and replaced it by accepting "official and de-facto capital", which to me means more or less the same thing as "capital" (but is awkwardly phrased). -- uriber 18:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, I hadn't spotted your acceptance of "official and de facto capital". This sounds acceptable to me, though I would prefer to be specific about the manner in which it is official (IE, declared under Israeli law). Martin 23:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, what makes "working capital" so much worse than "official capital"? If you tell us why you consider one OK, and the other not OK, then it's going to be easier to resolve the issue. Martin 22:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "working capital" means. To me it sounds somewhat like "de-facto capital", which leaves out an important aspect of Jerusalem's status - that is, its official status as capital in Israeli law. Also "working" seems to hint something temporary. If you can point out to me which of the definitions of "working" (e.g., from here) you are referring to, I might be able to re-consider and give you a more specific answer. -- uriber 18:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying about it being ambiguous. By "working capital", I personally meant that Jerusalem works as Israel's capital, but I can see why others might interpret it differently.

How about "de facto capital and capital under Israeli law"? We can leave out the stuff about it not being the capital in the eyes of the United Nations till later in the article. Martin 23:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Getting specific

I don't see what these links (posted here by Anthony) add to the discussion, except for proving the fact that some people don't like seeing the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" published anywhere - a fact which is already pretty obvious given that this discussion is even taking place. -- uriber 19:41, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

People suggested that there was no serious dispute to the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." While I agree it's obvious that there is a dispute, some people said that merely saying that it was obvious was not enough. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 23:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

I think uriber is right that there is a difference between saying "Capital: None", and simply not having a "Capital" line. The former would be more convincing (to me) than the latter. Martin 22:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

To be honest, given the extremely detailed account of Jerusalem's present status in the article, the current formulation doesn't really seem worth fighting over. john 05:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dawn of the dead

I thought this issue was already settled. Dead. Buried. Why has it risen to haunt us again? I had even used it as an example in the NPOV tutorial Eloquence asked me to write. *sigh*

Why can't we just say this:

Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital; and
No other country except X, Y and Z accept (or recognize?) this designation.

--Uncle Ed 22:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have explained many, many times in the discussion above (now partially archived) why we can't (just) say that. Have you read the entire discussion? If you have, and still do not see why what you propose is unacceptable, I'll try to explain (again). -- uriber 22:36, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To summarise for Ed: merely describing Jerusalem as the "proclaimed capital" misses the fact that it also acts as a capital. IE: seat of government, etc.

Hmm, so how about "Jerusalem is Isreal's seat of government and declared capital". More wordy than "de facto and official", but more precise. Martin 23:10, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I timed out a bunch of protections, including this one. I've made a few edits, but I'm off to bed now. After I grab something to eat... Martin 23:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I object to the mention of 1950 in the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph should describe the current status of the city. I don't think 1950 is especially important here. I also replaced "declared" by "official" - once again to put the focus on the current situation, not some declaration in the past.

I would like to emphasize that in the entire very long discussion above, I have not seen any valid argument for why "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is non-NPOV (except for the concern that it may imply that "Jerusalem is completely within Israel" - which is disputed. I agreed to address this concern by adding aanother full sentence clarifying the situation). Therefore, the current wording (after my latest edit), is the most drastic compromise I'm willing to accept (unless someone convinces me that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is non-NPOV). -- uriber 09:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, another factual and neutral formulation I can think of is: "Israel (declared and) treats Jerusalem as its capital... -- Dissident 01:22, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] internationally recognised

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

[edit] According to Israeli law...

As according to Israeli law, Jerusalem is treated by Israel as its capital;

I think this is wrong. The Israeli laws don't say "Israel will treat Jerusalem as its capital". Rather, they say "Jerusalem is Israel's capital". So I think this phrasing is misleading.

I don't think it's really misleading; it's just a weaker statement. -- Dissident 14:29, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since the stronger statement is also true and NPOV, what benefit do we get from using the weaker statement? Martin 14:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I guess it all goes back to the question of what it means for a city to be some country's capital. -- Dissident 14:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

I changed According to Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, to Jerusalem is the capital of Israel according to Israeli law. This is an important distinction: The first implies that Israeli law is just some POV on the subject ("According to Israeli law it is capital, according to someone else it isn't"). The corrected sentence makes it more clear that Isreali law is what makes Jerusalem the capital. -- uriber 16:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's clearly an important distinction to you. To me, the two sentences are effectively identical. So this is a good compromise, I think, since it makes you happy and doesn't make me unhappy. :) Martin 18:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy you're not unhappy, and I'm not unhappy about your change of "according to" to "under" either. Now we just have to hope that Wik is happy, or else we will all be quite unhappy soon. -- uriber 18:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War

Yes, I'm having an edit war with Wik. Yes, I know, edit wars are bad. Yet there is no other way to communicate with Wik, as he refuses to discuss on the talk page. So there's not much choice left to me - edit war or surrender. I'm fully aware that I could be brouggt to Quickpoll justice for this, and I'm willing to bear the consequnces. -- uriber 17:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, Wik's reverts in the last 14 hours:

12:05, 3 Apr 2004
12:16, 3 Apr 2004 (revert+wikify one word)
16:34, 3 Apr 2004
16:51, 3 Apr 2004

A sysop might judge that in violation of his parole. I'm not sure, myself.

The recent debate seems to be between "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel according to Israeli law" and "According to Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". I like the former, actually. I think "According to" could be "under", which would be better yet. Both are compact, but still put in the key qualiication that Wik's looking for. Martin 18:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Wikipedia:Designation of capitals

This Wikipedia page outlines agreed-upon policy for describing the capital cities of nation states.

In nearly every case, nation states designate a city as their "capital". Other nations typically post ambassadors who take up residence there and discuss matters of mutual concern. In most cases, they own or rent a building as an official "embassy", which his extraterritoriality (i.e., the embassy is considered "foreign soil" under international law).

How shall we Wikipedians describe Jerusalem? (Vote below, picking as many statements as you believe to be ACCURATE and NEUTRAL.)

As a matter of "fact", Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
Israel "regards" Jerusalem as its capital.
There is no dispute over whether Jerusalem is "really" Israel's capital.
A dispute exists over whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital.
Every nation has the undisputed and indisputable right to designate any city, anywhere in the world as its "capital".
No, silly! The city has to be entirely within the nation's borders.
Oh, so that means Israel calling Jerusalem its capital = Israel calling Jerusalem its "territory".

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/r/Talk%7EJerusalem_capital_5518.html"

Talk:Jerusalem/capital

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Jerusalem's status as capital

[edit] Capital of Israel

[edit] I Thought We'd Made Peace?

[edit] Which city is Israel's recognized capital?

[edit] Capital of Israel

[edit] Capital of Israel

[edit] Capital: the first phrase

[edit] The 1st paragraph discussion, continued

[edit] March 16 edit war

[edit] UK, Shm-UK

[edit] Wikipedia:NPOV

[edit] What do other sources say?

[edit] From PenguiN42

[edit] More sources

[edit] Suggestions from Martin

[edit] Getting specific

[edit] Dawn of the dead

[edit] internationally recognised

[edit] According to Israeli law...

[edit] Edit War

[edit] Moved from Wikipedia:Designation of capitals

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search