Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for comment/Jerusalem: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:09, 22 May 2013 editTariqabjotu (talk | contribs)Administrators36,354 edits →My edit: + reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:32, 26 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(47 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==General note== == Note ==
Looks interesting. thanks for all your work on this. --] (]) 15:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for all your efforts. --] (]) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
== My edit ==
:I only just noticed this here in all the excitement. Thank you! — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 11:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


== Scope ==
I agree that looks poor, but what was there before was gave extreme undue weight to the source"s" and only showed one example (disguised as "many souces") from one side, and nothing from the other side. ] (]) 18:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
:I'm opposed to that change although I understand your concern about statements without evidence, but I think that statement was always meant to be a summary of a large number of sources that have been looked at over the years. Having said that, your concern there appears to be somewhat asymmetric given that you didn't alter 'In prose, objective sources...'. I think what the original statement is intended to convey is that some sources (I'm not sure of the extent and probably tertiary) say "Capital: Jerusalem" in their equivalent of infoboxes (when there is little room for nuance) but in prose, even in the same sources, they elaborate. My concerns aren't quite the same as yours. I don't think the 'consider it correct to ' should be there or perhaps the 'objective' either but we are so close to the RfC that I would rather leave the original wording than mess with it if there is a risk of starting a fire. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


], in one of his comments, because it would change a substantial amount of the lead, which would then be binding for three years. If those changes would take place outside the RfC, it would not have the same binding status.
::I would also support the change to 'objective'. If someone wants to they can add more sources to make 'many sources' a true statement though I would then add more sources that leave the capital of Israel as blank to keep as far as I know, the real life occurance in balance. ] (]) 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


I'm wondering if this is indeed the case, and whether the intro to the RfC should perhaps be reworded to make this clear. The user's comments suggest that there may be a ] at work here. -- ] (]) 03:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
::I agree that ''consider it correct to'' and ''objective'' are superfluous and should be removed. -- ''']''' 23:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


:I don't think ]'s comment was intended to suggest an incentive of any kind. I do however think that they made a very important point that everyone else, including me, appears to have missed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 03:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
:Yeah, this isn't going to work for me. Alongside your addition of a statement that was removed, this looks bad.


::Actually (though it embarrasses me to note this) I had raised this point earlier , saying ‘I take Arbcom’s remit literally’ (28 May). I was replying to several worries over drafts that preceded mine which were more ambitious than a narrow reading of the remit might allow.
:You keep re-adding the statement ''No news agency with a guideline for neutral reporting allows Jerusalem to be reported as the capital of Israel.'', even though it was removed in accordance with Step 3, Question 2. Why is that back in the RfC, at the top no less? It seems like a very generous summary of the sources it references and it misses the problems with relying on news sources (which have been raised multiple times).


::] took this up three days later in his on my proposal. Here he only quoted the section of the moderator's presentation at the top of the page which singles out the Jerusalem status issue, and, in my view, overlooked the broad scope of the remit certainly explicitly raised in the moderator’s remarks. So
:As for this other summary you keep editing, no other summary resorts to such ridiculous levels of precision. Heck, even the second half of your proposed rewording doesn't. You feel the need to specify what the Government of Canada (a source you unilaterally introduced) and the CIA do specifically. But, you're okay with saying that objective sources "often use qualifiers" in prose with just one source to back that up. Interesting.


:: that his reference to the remit cites only one of two passages, ignoring the the other. The moderator’s introduction has these two indications:
:If the problem truly is that the there aren't enough sources to back the statement "many" (an understandable concern), I would gladly furnish some more (like the ] that take the same approach). But butchering the wording to obfuscate the central point of the statement is not acceptable.
:<blockquote>'This is a discussion to '''decide the content of the lead section''' of the Jerusalem article.'</blockquote>
:<blockquote>'The dispute '''focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel'''.'</blockquote>
::As far as I understand English, these two points are not in conflict, there is a broad, and a narrow remit. The first is to decide what to write in the lead, the second to resolve a specific item in the lead that has proven particularly vexatious. ] (]) 09:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
:::In any case, let's not forget the ].
:::I think that the team of contributors who worked on this RfC did a good job in order to move forward on the "issues" of the lead. Many points of views and minds were given. The team may have missed a technical point but the "spirit" of the mission was fully respected. As a proof, important consensus have cristallized around at least 2 proposals.
:::The 3 contributors that the ArbCom mandated to close this RfC will solve this issue. ] (]) 10:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
::::So, I take my car to the garage and I say: "I'd like you to sort my car out. The horn isn't working, and I'd like you to rectify that". I come back the next day, and I'm presented with a bill for a new horn, a complete service and a re-spray. Am I entitled to be surprised, or would you expect me to simply say: "Ah! I see you've gone for the broad remit"?
::::But I don't think it's even necessary to analyse the language. Dispute resolution is for resolving disputes, and its focus is always, naturally, intended to be precisely as broad as the dispute. There's never been a dispute on the article talk pages about whether Jerusalem is a "nestled" city, whether or not paganism counts as a type of religion, whether it is a city "divided in time" etc. So, those things simply do not qualify for dispute resolution.
::::Apart from the principle that it is a bad thing to bind the hands of the community unnecessarily, we're looking here at a potentially unstable outcome. Trying to keep such a large chunk of text nailed down for three years is not going to work. The community will want to modify it. So the question will be where the line is between acceptable and unacceptable modification. How would we handle that? Would we have a special ArbCom process? ] (]) 11:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::The community has been requested to make up its mind, over several weeks, after almost a decade of bickering, what to do about the lead. It's had 10 years to arrive at a solution, and has failed. (b) Your analogy is very forced because unnatural. No one with a specific problem goes to a mechanic saying 'I need my car fixed', uh, I mean 'fix the horn'. (c) the proposed draft incorporates the most favoured solution to the specific remit. Note that draft 7 has an opening sentence . . . .and a closing sentence. You're okay with fixing this, but then say leave the meat out of the sandwich, so the 'community' can decide what to stuff parenthetically inside the two. That's an open invitation to edit war because the population/biggest city and its phrasing rephrases the contentions over where it is, in Israel or not. The forseeable outcome of your open-ended solution will be, to employ an analogy, a bespoke jacket draped over a skeleton, and everybody arguing over what kind of flesh and undergarments would be best suited to fill out the frame. Basically, you appear to be reading this as an infringement of editors' liberties. I stress editors' obligations to fulfil their obligations to contribute to the writing of encyclopedic articles, and here, we have been given several weeks, with no one from the community excluded, to do just that with simply one opening paragraph. It is a totally democratic open process, with ample time, to resolve the most contentious issue on the page. As for 'nestle', well, that's no problem: 'located on a plateau in the Judean mountains, it lies on the cusp of two climatic zones, the Mediterranean sea to the east, and the arid desert hinterland westerwards' etc. These solutions are not troublesome, and if, under community purview, they pass muster, it is not denying editors their rights to proceed with the rest of the article, which is what almost everyone neglects.] (]) 13:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
FormerIP, my view is that as much a part of the wording used for the capital is how and where it is used. Should it be the first sentence or should Jerusalem be introduced some other way? Should be before its holiness to several religions, or later? Those questions, and more, are as much a part of the purpose of the RFC as what exact wording should be used. And so the drafts that dont introduce the city with the capital status use what they feel should be placed before that issue, and the authors of the drafts do so rightfully in my view. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)</small>
:Draft seven, for example, manages this without needing to drag in a a kilobyte of extraneous text, though. ] (]) 16:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
::Draft 7 as it stands, as I note below, has two sentences joined by punctuation indicating the empty space that editors can work on after this discussion has ended. Technically it leaves a gap to shove in a kilobyte or more of extraneous text. If we approve it as it stands, the lead problems will return in force, and bulk in the parenthetical void.] (]) 17:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


== Let's think over it experimentally ==
:And the one source used to support the second half of the summary is not appropriate. The CIA Factbook does not use a ''qualifier'' when describing Israel's capital status. The CIA Factbook states:
:<blockquote>Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv.</blockquote>
:There is no qualifier there, where ''a word (as an adjective) or word group that limits or modifies the meaning of another word (as a noun) or word group''. ''Proclaimed'' is being used as a verb, not an adjective; the source says ''Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital'', not ''Jerusalem is Israel's proclaimed capital''. If we want to use the word ''qualifier'', I suggest someone find some sources that actually used qualifiers (e.g. a source that says the latter formulation) after briefly listing Jerusalem as the capital. This is probably difficult to find. So, instead, I feel the summary should be reworded to something like "''elaborate to say'' that the status as capital was achieved unilaterally", which I ultimately believe was the original intention of the statement anyway. -- ''']''' 23:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
::It was only kept out by Mr S. because he didn't like the absoluteness of "no", so I have come up with a suitable alternative to make that 'no' less absolute.
::I also removed the "the status as capital was achieved" bit because if the status of capital was achieved that would mean that the city is now the capital, an idea only shared by a very small minority. So I changed it to just say that sources elaborate on the city's status in prose. ] (]) 01:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Okay, first off, the change you made was not the change I was suggesting. I objected to the word ''qualifier'', so obviously I wanted that removed. Here is what I thought the phrase should say:
:::<blockquote>...in prose, objective sources often '''elaborate to say''' that the status as capital was achieved unilaterally.</blockquote>
:::Second, you should not be making these changes. As Mr. S noted in his remarks on everyone's talk pages, you should be discussing proposed changes that aren't minor and uncontroversial. At this stage, it might be reasonable to suspect that omitting ''consider it correct to'' and ''objective'' from the summary statement in question might be minor and uncontroversial given that we have three people (you, me, and Sean) agreeing to it, but it is clear there is no consensus on the remainder, and you should have raised your objections on the talk page here rather than simply implementing the changes you believe should have been made. You'd think after getting some comments in response to your initial changes, you'd tread more cautiously... but I'm dismayed to see you, in addition to not doing that, proceeding by making more undiscussed changes.
:::The opportunity to discuss these statements has already passed, and at this stage we should only be making small alterations, correcting oversights that don't alter the original meaning of the statement. So changing...


I've just popped this into a separate section to avoid disturbing the discussion on the scope. Let's look at the issue concretely.
:::<blockquote>Many sources consider it correct to list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when there is little room for nuance, but in prose, objective sources often use qualifiers which show that the status as capital was achieved unilaterally.</blockquote>
<blockquote>'''Draft 7'''Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam '''''' Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.</blockquote>


<blockquote>'''Draft 7 modified'''Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is considered holy by the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Both Israel and the State of Palestine claim the city as their capital, the former maintaining its primary governmental institutions there, while the Palestinian National Authority foresees Eastern Jerusalem as its seat of power. Neither claim is widely recognized internationally, and its ultimate status is to be determined by negotations.</blockquote>
:::...to...


The problem with draft 7 is that it leaves almost everything suspended, unresolved. The capital claim is addressed, but editors will be able to edit war in between the two phrases to get everything they like stuffed in, changing the $1 buck burger into a smorgasbord bigMac. The opening sentence and the last line remain invariable, but everything else is up for grabs, as we've seen in the past.
:::<blockquote>The CIA lists Jerusalem as the capital of Israel while the government of Canada leaves the capital of Israel blank when there was little room for nuance. In prose, sources often use qualifiers to elaborate on the city's status to the respective states.</blockquote>
*it is the biggest city '''in''' Israel, '''if''', a big if ''east Jerusalem'' is included.
*it is a corpus separatum etc.
*It was annexed by Israel in 1981 etc.
*It was unified by Israel, but in international law divided by a Green line.
*It combines ], and ], the former mostly Jewish, the latter predominantly Arab, etc.
*it has a population of 801,000 residents, '''if''' you count the Arabs of East Jerusalem
*It has an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi), '''if''' you calculate the area by adding the territories putatively annexed by Israel in 1981 and included into the Israeli version of the Jerusalem municipality.
I could go on. Boy, there's tons of stuff you can battle to get into that lacuna. It's an open invitation to hop in and large out. You think my draft 14 has a kb of extrneous text. But here the gate is sprung open to add a kb of text, as yet undetermined.


My '''draft 7 modification'''(not draft 14) responded to the various criticisms and reservations by changing Israelis and Palestinians into institutional actors. I also eliminated the gaping hole in draft one. The problem with my revision of only draft 7, adding nothing else, is simply that it violates ] because the Ist para will be nothing except a name, religion and then a long sentence regarding its contemporary political status. Draft 7 doesn't do this, but unlike my revision of its key sentences, it does invite everybody to start another battle in the lead para, with everyone tweaking and jostling to get due weight to their respective POVs. I think the larger remit is worded to allow us to strike while the iron is hot, and avoid that prospect.] (]) 17:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
:::...is not acceptable at this point.


== Coda for Mr. Stradivarius ==
:::Third, your interpretation of what is acceptable is not absolute. Mr. S's closure of Step 3, Question 2, Statement 12, said:
]
{{thank you}} again for creating this. It was very important, and I think we have had fair and reasonable discussion here. You deserve a lot of credit for this. ] (]) 19:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
:^^^^^^^ <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)</small>


Appreciation from me too. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 22:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
:::<blockquote>There was agreement that it is hard to justify the absolute use of "no", and no alternative wordings were produced. Because of this, I'm not including this statement, but with no prejudice against including a more softly worded version later if there is consensus for that.</blockquote>
::I don't read Arabic but I second Nableezy's remarks. The huge amount of work you put into following this for, what is it, almost a year, pouring over squabbling cavils from all quarters, is to be thoroughly commended. It's way beyond the call of duty. I can say that now that the discussion is closed, and we, editors and moderator, are out of whatever decision will be taken, and a long-overdue compliment your way can not be read, as it would have been by some earlier, as an attempt to brownnose. Full marks. You're a credit to the place.] (]) 09:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
:Thank you everyone! It was a long road coming here, and I know some parts of this process could have gone better, but thanks to all who participated we are now on the verge of being able to finally put this issue to rest. I've learned a lot from my experiences here, and I'll definitely put that knowledge to use in my next mediation project, whatever and whenever that happens to be. Your appreciation means a lot - thank you again. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 01:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
::I agree with my colleagues here above. ] (]) 10:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
::: Agree with the above, Mr. Stradivarius' willingness to both volunteer to the task and then to follow through to deliver what amounted to a significant effort are hallmarks of an exemplary Wikipedian. --] (]) 20:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
::::Yes, thank you. Possibly not an easy gig to take on. Fingers crossed for an orderly and thought-through close now. ] (]) 00:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::I want to add my thanks too. You have shown exemplary patience, tact and fairness throughout this long and difficult process. ] (]) 00:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


== Status of Jerusalem - a few more links ==
:::Let me repeat those last few words: ''if there is consensus for that''. There is currently no consensus for your refactored Statement 12. You have unilaterally proposed it and implemented it; therefore, it should not be added yet, and you should open discussion on your proposed rewording here.


:::Seeing as you didn't seem to understand the discuss-first idea, even when you were gently prodded about it, I'm reverting your modifications. Please discuss controversial changes here first. -- ''']''' 06:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
::::Sepsis, I have to agree with Tariq here. I didn't declare there to be no consensus to include the statement because of my personal views about it - my close was intended to reflect the views of all the editors that participated in that discussion. A consensus for inclusion would have to include at least some of the editors that participated in that discussion, and I can't see any evidence of that having happened. There might have been a chance to form such a consensus, say, a week ago, but with the RfC scheduled to start tomorrow, I'm afraid the train has left the station on this one. If you want to include your statement in the RfC, you will have to include it in the discussion section rather than the source summary. The same holds for the "Many sources consider it correct" statement - there simply isn't enough time any more for us to generate the new consensus that would be necessary to revise it. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 08:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


* (''Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war.That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory.'')
:::::Well, then by that standard, changing ''use qualifiers which show that'' to ''elaborate to say that'' or ''elaborate to show that'' may be too much of a change to request at this point. But I would like to make the case that the current wording is just wrong: every definition (e.g. ) of ''qualifier'' I've found (, for example, goes into great detail about what a qualifier is) suggests that no qualifier is used in the referring source (i.e. the CIA World Factbook), as nothing is modifying the word capital. This looks simply to be the case of a incorrect word being used. I'd alternately be okay with ''qualify the statement to show that'' if a form of the word ''qualify'' is preferred to not change the intended meaning. Either way, I don't feel the change I suggested goes against the intention of the summary statement; it merely replaces a word that is demonstrably incorrect in the case.
*
* ('Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said in response: "Jerusalem is Israel's capital. It is the right of every sovereign state to determine which city will be its capital. If this is not accepted by everyone today, I am confident it will be in the future."')
* (' "Jerusalem is Israel's capital and will remain as such," he said, stating an Israeli position not recognised by world powers and contested by Palestinians who want to establish a state with Jerusalem as its capital.')
*
*
*
* (''One such misconception is the mistaken claim, asserted by many, including Dore Gold in his 1995 publication on Jerusalem, that the Levi Eshkol government "annexed" East Jerusalem by the legal and administrative measures it implemented in 1967. In fact, this did not occur. As I shall show, even the Eshkol government itself, in the last such official announcement ever made by an Israeli government on the subject, declared that the measures taken to expand the jurisdiction of the Israeli municipality of Jerusalem did not entail annexation of the 71 square kilometers involved and were only implemented as an administrative convenience for the city's Arab inhabitants and in order to protect the holy places.'')
*
* ("We do not support any action that predetermines the final status of Jerusalem. Pending agreement, we recognise de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem and consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory. We recognise no sovereignty over the city.")
* (''There are two very different aspects to the American approach to the question of Jerusalem. One has to distinguish between Jerusalem as a subject of formal policy, and Jerusalem as a subject of internal American politics.'')
* Report from a Palestine Center briefing by Stephen Zunes, 2001.
*
*
*
*
*
*
* (''Most countries of the world do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Many do not recognize it as a city that is properly Israel's.'') (''In the Palestine Liberation Organization's Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988, Jerusalem is stated to be the capital of the State of Palestine. In 2000 the Palestinian Authority passed a law designating the city as such, and in 2002 this law was ratified by Chairman Arafat.'')
*
*
*, December 9, 1949: ''The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.''
*, 2009.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*Haaretz - , 23 July 2013.


Perhaps they'll be useful at some later date. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 14:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (amended - 13:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC))
:::::That being said, if this doesn't get changed in time, I'm not going to lose sleep over it; participants may not be able to detect the difference anyway, just as I hadn't noticed it until now. There's also only one draft here (Draft 5) that actually includes a qualifier, so the incorrect use of ''qualifiers'' may not have a noticeable effect. May not. -- ''']''' 14:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::Instead of changing the wording, how about adding a source that does use a qualifier such as the encyclopaedia Britanica which goes with: "Jerusalem is the seat of government and the proclaimed capital, although the latter status has not received wide international recognition." ] (]) 17:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Well, it's unclear what that summary means. If the intention was to say two independent points -- that some sources list Jerusalem as the capital on its own when it's in a constricted space and some sources (''not necessarily the same ones'') used qualifiers in prose -- then, yes, an alternative source for the second half of the sentence could very easily be found. I'm not sure why those two ideas would be combined into a single sentence, but I suppose that's possible.


:::::::However, I read the summary as saying that some sources will ''both'' list Jerusalem as the capital on its own when in a constricted space and then ''in the same sources'', if there's room, elaborate to clarify that the status was unilaterally attained. Re-reading ] upon proposing this summary, unfortunately, doesn't clarify matters. However, the use of just a single source (the CIA Factbook) suggested to me that the latter interpretation was the intended one and the one most relevant to our situation here (as we have both a constricted space -- the infobox -- and then the lead and footnotes, where we are permitted to elaborate).


* .
:::::::So, in order to find a source that satisfies that summary, we'd need one that fulfills both criterion, something which is probably hard to find. I'd be fine with your interpretation as well, but I still believe the word "qualifier" should be dropped as just saying that the prose "qualifies the statement" or "elaborates" or something of that nature, includes those that use qualifiers as well as those that use other approaches to state the point about unilateral achievement. -- ''']''' 19:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
* , Victor Kattan, The Arab League Conference on Jerusalem.
<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 18:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


==RfC Closure==
== Link to ] ==
Thanks to all the closers for all your hard work.
May I suggest that "Seas" probably needs to be capitalized grammatically? Thank you. ] (]) 19:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
:{{Done}}, you're right. --] (]) 06:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Thank you. As long as I'm pushing my luck&mdash;and I'll admit this one is not quite as black and white: Grammatically, I would take that last sentence and break it into two sentences at the semicolon. As it stands, that sentence has two independent clauses and two dependent clauses, making it long and difficult. I don't think splitting it changes the meaning at all, but the construction is cleaner. ] (]) 14:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


== RfC feedback ==
Sm8900 to Misplaced Pages's article ]. I reverted it because it hadn't been discussed and the statement was signed. However, as none of us have so far made any strides to write the introduction (as noted by Mr. S), I don't think it would be too much to ask that a link to that article be incorporated somewhere in the intro to this RfC. The link (which has probably been reasonably vetted due to its hotly contested nature) would provide more background information for participants who are not familiar with this conflict -- and also let participants know that that article exists. -- ''']''' 15:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


If anyone is interested, I have now opened ] of the moderated discussion that led to this RfC. This is a chance to give feedback about the moderated discussion and about the RfC itself. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 10:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
== Draft numbering ==

I have no problem with the randomization. However, I feel the current version (Draft 3, at present) should be the first draft. I'm fine not explicitly pointing out that it's the current draft (as I don't believe ''no consensus, default to status quo'' is an acceptable result), but I do believe it should take the standard first slot. -- ''']''' 15:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:32, 26 March 2022

Note

Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for all your efforts. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I only just noticed this here in all the excitement. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius 11:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Scope

User:FormerIP, in one of his comments, opposed a draft because it would change a substantial amount of the lead, which would then be binding for three years. If those changes would take place outside the RfC, it would not have the same binding status.

I'm wondering if this is indeed the case, and whether the intro to the RfC should perhaps be reworded to make this clear. The user's comments suggest that there may be a perverse incentive at work here. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think User:FormerIP's comment was intended to suggest an incentive of any kind. I do however think that they made a very important point that everyone else, including me, appears to have missed. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually (though it embarrasses me to note this) I had raised this point earlier here, saying ‘I take Arbcom’s remit literally’ (28 May). I was replying to several worries over drafts that preceded mine which were more ambitious than a narrow reading of the remit might allow.
User:FormerIP took this up three days later in his nay vote on my proposal. Here he only quoted the section of the moderator's presentation at the top of the page which singles out the Jerusalem status issue, and, in my view, overlooked the broad scope of the remit certainly explicitly raised in the moderator’s remarks. So
In reply I noted that his reference to the remit cites only one of two passages, ignoring the the other. The moderator’s introduction has these two indications:

'This is a discussion to decide the content of the lead section of the Jerusalem article.'

'The dispute focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.'

As far as I understand English, these two points are not in conflict, there is a broad, and a narrow remit. The first is to decide what to write in the lead, the second to resolve a specific item in the lead that has proven particularly vexatious. Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
In any case, let's not forget the 5th pillar of wikipedia.
I think that the team of contributors who worked on this RfC did a good job in order to move forward on the "issues" of the lead. Many points of views and minds were given. The team may have missed a technical point but the "spirit" of the mission was fully respected. As a proof, important consensus have cristallized around at least 2 proposals.
The 3 contributors that the ArbCom mandated to close this RfC will solve this issue. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
So, I take my car to the garage and I say: "I'd like you to sort my car out. The horn isn't working, and I'd like you to rectify that". I come back the next day, and I'm presented with a bill for a new horn, a complete service and a re-spray. Am I entitled to be surprised, or would you expect me to simply say: "Ah! I see you've gone for the broad remit"?
But I don't think it's even necessary to analyse the language. Dispute resolution is for resolving disputes, and its focus is always, naturally, intended to be precisely as broad as the dispute. There's never been a dispute on the article talk pages about whether Jerusalem is a "nestled" city, whether or not paganism counts as a type of religion, whether it is a city "divided in time" etc. So, those things simply do not qualify for dispute resolution.
Apart from the principle that it is a bad thing to bind the hands of the community unnecessarily, we're looking here at a potentially unstable outcome. Trying to keep such a large chunk of text nailed down for three years is not going to work. The community will want to modify it. So the question will be where the line is between acceptable and unacceptable modification. How would we handle that? Would we have a special ArbCom process? Formerip (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The community has been requested to make up its mind, over several weeks, after almost a decade of bickering, what to do about the lead. It's had 10 years to arrive at a solution, and has failed. (b) Your analogy is very forced because unnatural. No one with a specific problem goes to a mechanic saying 'I need my car fixed', uh, I mean 'fix the horn'. (c) the proposed draft incorporates the most favoured solution to the specific remit. Note that draft 7 has an opening sentence . . . .and a closing sentence. You're okay with fixing this, but then say leave the meat out of the sandwich, so the 'community' can decide what to stuff parenthetically inside the two. That's an open invitation to edit war because the population/biggest city and its phrasing rephrases the contentions over where it is, in Israel or not. The forseeable outcome of your open-ended solution will be, to employ an analogy, a bespoke jacket draped over a skeleton, and everybody arguing over what kind of flesh and undergarments would be best suited to fill out the frame. Basically, you appear to be reading this as an infringement of editors' liberties. I stress editors' obligations to fulfil their obligations to contribute to the writing of encyclopedic articles, and here, we have been given several weeks, with no one from the community excluded, to do just that with simply one opening paragraph. It is a totally democratic open process, with ample time, to resolve the most contentious issue on the page. As for 'nestle', well, that's no problem: 'located on a plateau in the Judean mountains, it lies on the cusp of two climatic zones, the Mediterranean sea to the east, and the arid desert hinterland westerwards' etc. These solutions are not troublesome, and if, under community purview, they pass muster, it is not denying editors their rights to proceed with the rest of the article, which is what almost everyone neglects.Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

FormerIP, my view is that as much a part of the wording used for the capital is how and where it is used. Should it be the first sentence or should Jerusalem be introduced some other way? Should be before its holiness to several religions, or later? Those questions, and more, are as much a part of the purpose of the RFC as what exact wording should be used. And so the drafts that dont introduce the city with the capital status use what they feel should be placed before that issue, and the authors of the drafts do so rightfully in my view. nableezy - 16:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft seven, for example, manages this without needing to drag in a a kilobyte of extraneous text, though. Formerip (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Draft 7 as it stands, as I note below, has two sentences joined by punctuation indicating the empty space that editors can work on after this discussion has ended. Technically it leaves a gap to shove in a kilobyte or more of extraneous text. If we approve it as it stands, the lead problems will return in force, and bulk in the parenthetical void.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's think over it experimentally

I've just popped this into a separate section to avoid disturbing the discussion on the scope. Let's look at the issue concretely.

Draft 7Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.

Draft 7 modifiedJerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is considered holy by the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Both Israel and the State of Palestine claim the city as their capital, the former maintaining its primary governmental institutions there, while the Palestinian National Authority foresees Eastern Jerusalem as its seat of power. Neither claim is widely recognized internationally, and its ultimate status is to be determined by negotations.

The problem with draft 7 is that it leaves almost everything suspended, unresolved. The capital claim is addressed, but editors will be able to edit war in between the two phrases to get everything they like stuffed in, changing the $1 buck burger into a smorgasbord bigMac. The opening sentence and the last line remain invariable, but everything else is up for grabs, as we've seen in the past.

  • it is the biggest city in Israel, if, a big if east Jerusalem is included.
  • it is a corpus separatum etc.
  • It was annexed by Israel in 1981 etc.
  • It was unified by Israel, but in international law divided by a Green line.
  • It combines West Jerusalem, and East Jerusalem, the former mostly Jewish, the latter predominantly Arab, etc.
  • it has a population of 801,000 residents, if you count the Arabs of East Jerusalem
  • It has an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi), if you calculate the area by adding the territories putatively annexed by Israel in 1981 and included into the Israeli version of the Jerusalem municipality.

I could go on. Boy, there's tons of stuff you can battle to get into that lacuna. It's an open invitation to hop in and large out. You think my draft 14 has a kb of extrneous text. But here the gate is sprung open to add a kb of text, as yet undetermined.

My draft 7 modification(not draft 14) responded to the various criticisms and reservations by changing Israelis and Palestinians into institutional actors. I also eliminated the gaping hole in draft one. The problem with my revision of only draft 7, adding nothing else, is simply that it violates WP:Undue because the Ist para will be nothing except a name, religion and then a long sentence regarding its contemporary political status. Draft 7 doesn't do this, but unlike my revision of its key sentences, it does invite everybody to start another battle in the lead para, with everyone tweaking and jostling to get due weight to their respective POVs. I think the larger remit is worded to allow us to strike while the iron is hot, and avoid that prospect.Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Coda for Mr. Stradivarius

Thank you again for creating this. It was very important, and I think we have had fair and reasonable discussion here. You deserve a lot of credit for this. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

^^^^^^^ nableezy - 21:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation from me too.     ←   ZScarpia   22:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't read Arabic but I second Nableezy's remarks. The huge amount of work you put into following this for, what is it, almost a year, pouring over squabbling cavils from all quarters, is to be thoroughly commended. It's way beyond the call of duty. I can say that now that the discussion is closed, and we, editors and moderator, are out of whatever decision will be taken, and a long-overdue compliment your way can not be read, as it would have been by some earlier, as an attempt to brownnose. Full marks. You're a credit to the place.Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you everyone! It was a long road coming here, and I know some parts of this process could have gone better, but thanks to all who participated we are now on the verge of being able to finally put this issue to rest. I've learned a lot from my experiences here, and I'll definitely put that knowledge to use in my next mediation project, whatever and whenever that happens to be. Your appreciation means a lot - thank you again. — Mr. Stradivarius 01:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with my colleagues here above. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the above, Mr. Stradivarius' willingness to both volunteer to the task and then to follow through to deliver what amounted to a significant effort are hallmarks of an exemplary Wikipedian. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Possibly not an easy gig to take on. Fingers crossed for an orderly and thought-through close now. Formerip (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I want to add my thanks too. You have shown exemplary patience, tact and fairness throughout this long and difficult process. Neljack (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Status of Jerusalem - a few more links

Perhaps they'll be useful at some later date.     ←   ZScarpia   14:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (amended - 13:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC))


    ←   ZScarpia   18:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC Closure

Thanks to all the closers for all your hard work. May I suggest that "Seas" probably needs to be capitalized grammatically? Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done, you're right. --Pgallert (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. As long as I'm pushing my luck—and I'll admit this one is not quite as black and white: Grammatically, I would take that last sentence and break it into two sentences at the semicolon. As it stands, that sentence has two independent clauses and two dependent clauses, making it long and difficult. I don't think splitting it changes the meaning at all, but the construction is cleaner. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC feedback

If anyone is interested, I have now opened step six of the moderated discussion that led to this RfC. This is a chance to give feedback about the moderated discussion and about the RfC itself. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)