Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:58, 8 March 2013

Archives

/Archive 1 - preliminaries and step one /Archive 2 - step two

This page hosts the moderated discussion, mandated by ArbCom, that will lead to an RfC about the lead section of the Jerusalem article. If you are interested in taking part, please ask Mr. Stradivarius.

Discussion overview

List of participants

Please leave your signature below, by using four tildes (~~~~)

1. Ravpapa (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Evanh2008  10:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Dailycare (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Formerip (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
6. The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
7. -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
8. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
9. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
10. Zero 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
11. Nableezy 15:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
12. Mor2 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
13. Sepsis II (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
14. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
15. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
16. PerDaniel (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
17. Dlv999 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
18. ZScarpia   18:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
19. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Schedule

This is a rough schedule for the moderated discussion. This is by no means a finalised version of what will happen, and the steps may be shortened, lengthened, swapped around, or changed completely as the need arises.

• Preliminaries: participants provide opening statements. Scheduled length: 6 days.
• Step one: decide RfC scope. Scheduled length: 5-10 days.
• Step two: decide general RfC structure. Scheduled length: 5-10 days.
• Step three: decide the details of questions and/or drafts. Scheduled length: TBA.
• Step four: finalise implementation details. Scheduled length: TBA.
• Step five: RfC goes live. Scheduled length: 30 days.
• Step six: breakdown of RfC results. Scheduled length: TBA.

As you can see, the schedule moves from the general to the specific. It starts off with what exactly the focus of the RfC should be, moving on to the decision about the broad structure of the RfC (questions, drafts, or both? etc.). Only then will we get onto the details of what questions should be asked and/or what drafts should be written (plus whatever else we find appropriate to include). Then we will discuss the fine details of implementation, such as where to advertise the RfC, how to deal with potential problems such as votestacking, etc.

This is designed to eliminate the need for back-tracking. The idea is that once we have decided to do something a certain way, it should stay decided, and not be influenced by further discussion. The steps are structured in such a way that the prior steps may influence how we approach the later steps, but that discussions we have during later steps shouldn't influence the decisions we have made during prior steps. If you're aware of something that I have scheduled for, say, step four that might affect how we go about discussing steps one to three, then please do let me know. It will be a lot better to talk about this kind of thing now than to deal with the frustration that comes from having to back-track over issues that have already been discussed. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What participants can expect from this process

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

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

RfC basics

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

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

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

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

What I expect from the participants

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

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

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

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

Update: A number of participants have asked me to clarify what would count as disruption of the discussion process. This is a tough thing to decide, as disruption is not a black and white thing; it is shades of grey. What counts as disruption to one person may seem harmless to another. Nevertheless, there are certain things that aren't helpful when working together and which I would like you to avoid. These include, but are not limited to:

• Comments that focus on other editors, rather than on the issues being discussed. Please remember to always comment on content, rather than on contributors.
• Comments that group editors by perceived position, e.g. "pro-Israel editors" or "anti-capital editors". Each individual has his or her own opinion, and this opinion may be slightly different than that of other editors. Grouping editors together like this may not accurately reflect the opinions of all the individuals concerned, and tends to make editors assume that compromise is less possible. Instead please consider commenting on facts, e.g. "six different editors opposed suggestion X", or keeping comments about the positions of individual editors.
• Comments that make assumptions about editors' motivations. It is hard to know what another editor's motivations are, especially through the text-only medium that is Misplaced Pages, and if we try we are quite likely to get it wrong. The best thing to do is to not talk about the motivation of other editors at all. Instead, talk about their positions, or use a direct quote, e.g. "X editor said 'I could never accept position b'".
• Comments that go off-topic. It is not really helpful to comment on matters that aren't directly under discussion at a given time. If a thread goes off topic, it makes the consensus of the thread harder to judge, and it can have the effect of wasting editors' time on conversations that won't make much difference in the long term.

Please be aware that I reserve the right to refactor, redact, collapse, archive, or delete, without prior notice, comments that do not adhere to these standards. I will not blindly enforce these standards in the same way for all such comments, however; I may use different approaches in different situations depending on what action I think is most prudent and will most help the discussion. If you have any questions about my enforcement of these standards, or if you are aware of a comment that I may have missed that you think needs my attention, please ask me on my talk page, or preferably, by email.

Finally, it has been suggested that comments not based in Misplaced Pages policy might be considered disruptive. While I don't think it would be tenable to base any RfC questions or drafts on things not permitted by policy, I do not think that comments could be considered disruptive just because they misinterpret policy. Such comments might be a genuine misunderstanding of policy, and participants should not be criticized for not having a 100% knowledge of all of Misplaced Pages's rules, which can be very complicated at times. A misinterpretation of policy is a reason for educating users, not for punishing them. However, if repeated patient explanations of policy are not successful in helping an editor understand policy, it may reach the point where it becomes a form of "I didn't hear that" disruption. If we all keep an open mind and assume good faith on the part of the other participants, avoiding problems like this should be easy enough. If you think that another editor might be exhibiting behavioural signs like this, again please contact me on my talk page, or preferably, by email. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous steps

• Preliminaries - the discussion introduction and the statements from the participants have been archived to Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive 1.
• Step one: RfC scope - the step one discussion has also been archived to Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive 1.
• Step two: general RfC structure - this step is still ongoing, but part has been archived to Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive 2.

Step two: general RfC structure

Welcome to step two! In step one we decided that the RfC will focus on how to treat, in the article lead, the issues of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine and Jerusalem as capital of Israel. In step two we will refine this scope, and decide the general structure of the RfC. First, I had better define what I mean by "general structure". In step two I would like us to decide:

• Whether we will use questions, drafts, a combination of the two, or something else.
• Whether we should assemble evidence in the form of sources for any of the questions or drafts, and roughly how we should present the evidence if we do.
• How many different questions or drafts there should be.
• The rough layout of the drafts and/or questions on the page.

Things I would like to leave until further steps to decide include:

• The specific wording of questions or drafts. It is fine to discuss the general focus that questions and drafts might have, but only as far as necessary to decide the four points above.
• Individual items of evidence.
• Introductory text, such as the background to the dispute. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question nine: tertiary sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would people think about an approach like this one? — Mr. Stradivarius 18:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding "evidence," I imagine the only question remaining to be decided is, what evidence are we going to introduce that isn't already cited in the article, and how are we going to use it in a sensible fashion that doesn't contradict the spirit of WP:LEADCITE? Your idea above is the most reasonable answer to that question I've seen so far. It is important, of course, that we do our best to cover a broad range of tertiary sources, if that is what we decide to do, but in principle I agree wholeheartedly with this idea. Evanh2008  19:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if tertiary sources as such make good "meta-sources", rather I understand meta-sources as secondary sources that are reliable for statements on the prevalence of certain viewpoints. Another kind of meta-source could be a source that states that "our editorial policy in this matter is X", such as this one. The point about YESPOV is interesting, but doesn't involve the entirety of YESPOV. Personally I find the first element of YESPOV to be even more relevant here: "Avoid stating opinions as facts". If one group of sources says "J is C" is a fact, and another group says that it's only an opinion that "J is C", then that's something we can discuss. --Dailycare (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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

any item which is backed up by a reliable source as being a fact, should be eligible for inclusion. any item which says the exact opposite as a fact, and which is also backed up by a reliable source, should also be eligible for inclusion as well. finding some compromise language, in which both are presented as alternate or competing views of the same issue, is, in my opinion, a way to find a solution to this set of issues. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Per my comment below, this is the correct logic for the body of the article, but not necessarily for the lead. Formerip (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This approach doesn't really make sense to me. You start off by quoting FormerIP's statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" are compatible -- and they are -- and then suggest we use the prevalence of the latter statement as support for changing the article from including the former? I don't follow that logic.

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

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

There's sense in this, to the extent that we can't expect voters to look at the sources, get out their abacuses and - hey presto! - come up with a clear, objective answer to whatever question we end up putting to them. We shouldn't be trying to formulate an RfC that will clarify for people how they should think, although I don't actually believe that is what is going on here - I think it is much closer to the process you suggest than you appreciate. I don't, though, agree that we are here because the sources are inconclusive (indeed, I think it's a fairly significant moment to hear someone who has supported the status quo accepting that they are).

You ought to know by now that there are a great many contradicting sources on this question, which have been repeatedly presented - please let go of that fiction. But these are not the point. They operate for the ATTRIBUTEPOV model which would be appropriate for the body of the article, rather than the lead. A solution of the form "My dad says Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but my mum disagrees, my sister's not sure and I have a cousin who thinks its Cleethorpes" has rarely if ever been proposed for the lead.

The alternative neutral model is to identify what is beyond dispute and to stick scrupulously to that. My view is that this model is preferable (and, naturally, preferable to the status quo). The point of the RfC is to find out if the community agrees or, if not, what it does agree with. From that perspective, the idea of presenting "meta-sources", while it has drawbacks, does get to the nub of the thing. Because we will see that a number of high-quality sources follow my model and a number do not. The job of the community is then to give a view, sans abacus, which, AFAICT, meets what you say you want out of the RfC (?). Formerip (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't, though, agree that we are here because the sources are inconclusive (indeed, I think it's a fairly significant moment to hear someone who has supported the status quo accepting that they are)

Don't patronize me.

You ought to know by now that there are a great many contradicting sources on this question, which have been repeatedly presented - please let go of that fiction.

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

So, while you are free to continue to hold the opinion that non-recognition is a contradiction, please don't use your opinion, in a discussion where there are so many, to suggest that I am holding on to a fiction. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tariqabjotu's insightful comment which has been stated here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so certain that I've seen every piece of sourcing, even as narrowly as it is defined here. Which makes me certain not every editor in the community-at-large has either. It seems very important to me that the discussion, no matter how much yardage has been covered over the years, not be separated from sources. Others have been careful and correct to temper my optimism since I joined the conversation; nonetheless, I still hold out some hope that sourcing can help keep the conversation grounded. If what you say is true, at least the inconclusive nature of the sources as you represent them will help any hypothetical editor with no formed opinion (the process assumes they exist) understand our dilemma better. A summary of tertiary sources dispassionately done would be a fine point of reference for anyone going back to see what we've decided as a community to begin to understand our decision. This isn't mathematics but we should show our work for transparency. In short, transparency, relying on the participation of some editors who will form an opinion during discussion, and proving assertions are all positive goals reinforced by policy and the way things get accomplished satisfactorily elsewhere. I can't imagine doing things differently and still calling this a decision of the Misplaced Pages community. If consensus is just a vote, then I may have bought into a load of crap. I actually believe that our way is a real way and a good way for handling things. I seem to have noticed some irritation at me in the past that I'm forever 'arguing from the pillars' but to me that stuff is good meaty stuff to think on that has changed the way I look at the world around me. I don't know how else to make myself understood in this regard. Our way just makes a lot of sense to me. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I am happy with the approach. The evidence, and ways of sorting it out, seem well defined. It doesn't seem like any interpretation of the sources would likely be suppressed, nor any approach to solving any decided problems would fall by the wayside. There is ample opportunity for a course correction from community input before anything is set in stone. There is ample opportunity for the community to assert with evidence the reason for its final decision. I see the potential for a resilient resolution that would stand alone on the thoroughness of its process regardless of the mandatory nature of the final decision's decided shelf life. It may be too much to hope that the argument never presents itself again, but should it, the decision we make should ideally inform and refine future debate. I don't see why we can't accomplish all these things with the proposed process. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Step two, question ten: placement of capital status

It occurred to me as I was writing the text for question nine that if we were to compile a list of tertiary sources, we might be able to use them to guide us on the neutrality of aspects of the lead other than the neutrality of the first sentence. In particular, we could use them to judge where in the lead we mentioned the various aspects of the Jerusalem capital issue. In WP:WEIGHT we find, "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." So there does seem to be a basis in policy for using external sources to help judge content placement in articles. For example, if we were to find that most sources placed more emphasis on describing Jerusalem's history than on describing its status as capital in their leads/opening pages, then it may indicate that we should also make our history content more prominent than the capital issues in the lead. Would anyone be interested in taking an approach like this, and possibly asking a third general question about it? — Mr. Stradivarius 18:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, I would say that this approach might simply lead to more conflict, in greater degrees of intensity and greater degrees of complexity on each of these issues. that's just my opinion on this question. thanks for your help on this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, this answers to some extent the approach dilemma with less injection of arbitrary opinion and more of a basis in solid sourcing. I have been wont to argue this point from opinion or preference. It would make so much more sense to link this to the sources themselves and avoid personal preference. Like ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

General comments section

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

Comment by Sm8900

I have to say that I think I agree with Ravpapa's general statement, in the section for introductions, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

also, you're not supposed to keep looking for NPOV when there is no objective NPOV view. you're supposed to try to work out a compromise, when there are two divergent views which are both advocated by good-faith editors. but no one here is trying to pursue an actual resolution. ah well. we used to try to work out resolutions and compromises all the time, when I-P editing issues might arise. ah well. whichever. :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Steve, and thanks for posting here. I see that you've also added your name to the list of participants, so I assume that you would like to join the discussion until we have made the RfC. That's great, and welcome on board - I just ask that you read all of the archives and all of this page before you begin commenting, so that you are fully up to speed. Also, please watch out for language that makes assumptions about people's motivations - I'm sure others here will disagree with your statement that "no one here is trying to pursue an actual resolution". It's better to avoid judging people like this, and to concentrate on facts in your comments. Please leave me a message on my talk page if you are unsure about what I am getting at here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 21:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Mr. Stradivarius. I really appreciate your helpful reply and input. Thanks for your valuable insight. Ok, fair enough. I will try to modify my comment, and simply discuss the actions here, rather than any possible motivations. I feel that wrangling over the weight of various sources will not lead to an effective resolution. the reason we have convened here in the first place is because there are a number of good-faith editors disputing this issue, all with their own approach to editing this article, and almost all with some valid sources. what we really have here is a dispute in need of resolution. the best way to do so imho is to try to find a path which can encompass the concerns on both sides of this dispute. thanks. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, I really appreciate your helpful replies recently, elsewhere on this page. I think I will simply sit back for a bit, and let the discussion proceed. Obviously, we can assume that other people will be appearing here to chime in. I still have the same opinion as I have expressed here on this page. I would like to try to make sure to present my views here constructively, by participating as new views and comments come up. thanks very much for your helpful input in this process.Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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