Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion

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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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^talk 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)

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 ^{♪ talk ♪} 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 ^{♪ talk ♪} 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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In cases where the majority of respondents voice an opinion that goes against Wikipedia 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 ^{♪ talk ♪} 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 Wikipedia'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 ^{♪ talk ♪} 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 ^{♪ talk ♪} 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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Step two statements

First off in this step I would like you to leave a statement. The procedure for this is pretty much the same as for the previous round of statements - please try and keep your statements short (preferably under 400 words), and don't reply in each others' sections. There will be time for discussion later. In your statements please answer the following question:

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. How do you think the RfC should be structured so as to stand the best chance of finding a consensus on these issues? Please bear in mind the points above about what is and isn't included as a part of this step.

Thanks in advance for your responses, and as always if you have any questions or comments about the process, please feel free to get in touch with me on my talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just to let everyone know that I'm in the process of summarising all the different positions that people have expressed, and drafting the next discussion point. I'll probably be finished some time tomorrow, so if you haven't yet left a statement you have until then to post it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ClaudeReigns

When considering the scope of the RfC, I thought it less helpful to bring up the general consideration of resilience, as any number of solutions large or small may be written well and endure; but when it comes to the structure of the RfC, the particular notion of the endurance and tenure of a piece of encyclopedia writing comes directly into play when we go about creating the structure of the RfC. That which we include in the article's lead as decided content should have a draft, and that draft should be well-referenced, and care should be given to expose the particular NPOV concerns which have made statements troublesome or untenable in the past. Likewise, a new draft may have other concerns not limited to current concerns.

If I should write even something small and inconsequential about someone and want my writing to endure, I take these pains to ensure that such statements are presented with the sourcing and voice to rise above disputes from all sides. A living person will have his admirers and detractors, and I must present what is stated in reliable sources with the weight due to its representation collectively therein. While cities are seldom as controversial as people, I find that in this particular instance, our very best practices are in order. Therefore, each draft should be presented with its sources, and all editors should go about presenting the hard questions about that draft in the voice of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The questions of concern, yes or no questions, not open-ended, should be presented to the community as well, in reference to each draft.

A draft, having already endured such scrutiny, is worthy of mandatory inclusion for some several years to come. Nothing less seems to suffice. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dailycare

On the Talk:Jerusalem page we discussed a two-step procedure that I think would be applicable here. It would consist of an intial yes/no question asking whether the current wording is OK. This would be very conductive to finding a consensus. For the eventuality that the first question is closed with a "no", the second question would then have a few options for an alternative wording. I think this would work. Now that the scope is agreed to also involve the Palestinian aspect, we could have a question three which would present, along the lines of question two, a few options on how to describe Jerusalem as Palestine's capital, declared/proclaimed/foreseen capital or whatnot. Advantages of this approach would include a high potential for consensus on question one (yes/no on the present wording of the first sentence), and this approach wouldn't present the current wording as automatically doomed since editors can opine "yes" in the first question. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mor2

Currently I have no inclination toward either structure and will reserve comments until discussion in the next step.(I'll appreciate any reference to previous RFCs that use both, so that we could contrast and see which way will fit us best).

On a little unrelated note. I agree with ClaudeReigns statement, if we choose a draft, obviously it should be fleshed out, well-referenced and comply with other WPs; so that it will be worthy for inclusion for some several years. Although I doubt that over the past several years, participants of previous RFC(some of them participate here as well), in which similar wordings were supported, operated under different assumptions. So just as we should avoid leading questions, it would be best to avoid any presumption for the outcome of this RFC. --Mor2 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sepsis

This RFC would be utterly pointless without the gathering of evidence. If we do not go to sources for facts we will be going back to the level of talk page discussions where editors kept repeating false statements to back the addition of false statements to the article. We need to gather sources to be able to determine what facts can be stated. After we determine what facts can be stated, we can begin forming prose. Sepsis II (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I'll support any approach that minimizes the opportunity for anyone to express their opinion about anything other than how the evidence, reliably sourced statements about Jerusalem, should be handled according to policy to produce a summarized statement. I think the best way to achieve a genuine WP:CONSENSUS that incorporates "all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms" (my bolding) and avoids repeating earlier failures is to have near-zero degrees of freedom i.e. keep the focus on what sources say about Jerusalem. I'm therefore inclined to start with the evidence and build drafts from it rather than doing it the other way around, writing drafts and searching for evidence that support them. If any participants make a value judgement that isn't evident from the reliably sourced statements about Jerusalem (e.g. x is more important than y) we will know that the RfC is in trouble. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

Perfect accord with S.Hoyland above. No blather, just high quality sources, preferably academic, to support each formulation.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by formerip

The trouble with the "just do what the sources say" approach is that the nature of the dispute is NPOV. The current version and all the serious alternatives can undoubtedly be more than adequately sourced. So, once we've presented our well-sourced options, it's still about editor preference (basically, the balance of opinion as to how NPOV is applicable to the case, which is something you can't decide just by meditating on the sources).

I think I favour the approach suggested by Dailycare, and I also get the impression from recent discussions that this has most support among involved editors. Formerip (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ravpapa

My position in this matter has already been thoroughly discussed, and pretty roundly rejected, so I have little new to say. But, rather than take my marbles and go home, I will do my best:

• The RFC should definitely include questions. Drafts I'm not so sure, as drafts tend to push the combatants back into their old positions. The questions should be surprising: they should cast the dispute in a new light, and certainly emphasize the readers rather than the editors (What is the reader likely to understand from specific versions of the lead?).
• Compiling a list of sources is always a good idea, but is unlikely to advance the cause of compromise. As others have pointed out, there are reliable sources to support every one of the positions in this dispute. In the end, we have to make a choice based not on reliable sources that are themselves conflicted, but on our own senses of fairness and on what we agree that we want the reader to understand --Ravpapa (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC).

Statement by Dlv999

My understanding is that the core of the dispute is whether it is consistent with NPOV policy to state as fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in light of what has been published in RS on the topic. I would like so see a question included to resolve this issue (which should be addressed on the basis of source evidence and wikipedia policy). As long as this question is resolved I am fairly open minded on how the final draft(s) are assembled and selected. Dlv999 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hertz1888

At this point I want to share some misgivings that I alluded to briefly in my introductory statement. I believe the present statement pertains more to this step (two) than to the next one, but please let me know if I am mistaken. In what follows I will try to mention content only to the extent necessary to provide context.

We are dealing with a peculiar situation, because it involves mega-discussions about what may be fundamentally a very simple concept, the essence of which can readily be overlooked in a sea of obfuscation. There is a straightforward, commonplace definition, found in dictionaries, of what makes a capital a capital. Basically, a country designates a city as its capital, and if that city serves as the seat of government, then it is the capital (no modifiers needed). Nothing said about requiring approval or recognition by any outside party, but that and other conditions, such as undisputed sovereignty, have repeatedly been brought into the discussions, and attempts made to attach these conditions to the much-disputed statement or use them to disqualify it. A number of editors have insisted on reliable sourcing for calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel as a statement of fact. It can easily be seen and shown that Jerusalem is the designated capital and serves as the seat of government, but as the discussions have raged on, that never seems to be enough to gain a durable consensus. It has instead been denounced as POV.

It seems to me that if countries designate their own capitals, not subject to outside approval, then the only truly reliable source is the country itself. This is a matter of word usage. I am concerned that any formulation or option offered in the RfC that relies on other sourcing, or attaches irrelevant conditions, could have potentially far-reaching, serious consequences for Wikipedia by setting a bad precedent, and would overstep our constraints. I don’t believe we, as WP editors, are allowed to redefine words at will. Even dictionary editors lack complete freedom to concoct or change a word definition. I believe the wording of the RfC should strive to avoid the pitfalls of straying from the dictionary meaning. Otherwise the result could be immediately challenged, and we would be encouraging a continuation of the current impasse.

The principle involved here applies evenhandedly to all countries and is not invoked to favor any one in particular.

The editor who wrote this (requires scrolling down) apparently shares these qualms about using words other than per their ordinary definitions, particularly where he/she says, "My point is that encyclopedias should use language consistently, and (typos excepted) 'correctly'. By 'natural' I simply mean following the normal rules of the language rather than manufacturing exceptions to them…" Hertz1888 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by BritishWatcher

I believe we should try to come up with draft proposals that can be put to people in the RFC rather than general questions which may not resolve the situation adequately. Each of the different draft proposals should be backed up with some sources either inline as they would be within the article, or after each proposal list the sources that back up the proposal.

I believe there should be a limited number of draft proposals, probably around 5 but no more than 10. That should allow us to have different proposed wording that cover all the main methods people favour. I would present the RFC in the following order..

RFC – summary of the reason for the RFC, summary of the history of the way it has been handled in the intro (how long it has said it’s the capital of Israel, when that changed to capital of Israel but not internationally recognised as such etc.), explanation about people being able to choose which proposal they believe is best way of handling the situation.

Proposal 1 (basic summary of the proposal, full proposed wording, sources)

Proposal 2 (basic summary of the proposal, full proposed wording, sources)

And repeat for each of the proposals. It is true that this process may take a bit longer than asking just general questions, but the extra time in the build up to the RFC is time saved from after the RFC as we will have a far better idea of the change needed, rather than having to debate the general approach people want us to take. If it is not possible to agree on specific draft proposals then i think the best way would be to do a similar thing as i mentioned but just with the basic summary of the proposal, without the specific wording. (Eg. "Proposal 1 - state Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine in the first sentence without distinction"./ "Proposal 2 - state Jerusalem is Israels capital in the first sentence, say Palestinians claim it as their future capital in the second sentence)" BritishWatcher (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Step two discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thank you all very much for your statements, and sorry that this is coming later than I said it would. Because we have already spent a week gathering statements for step two, it looks likely that we will take longer than the upper end of my 5-10 day estimate. If enough people think that we are taking too long over this process, then I can impose a stricter deadline for the next sub-steps of step two so that we can speed things up. The speed we go at will be a trade-off; the faster we do things the more likely we are to have to progress without fully hearing everyone's opinion. There is something to be said for going quickly, as the real place to hear everyone's opinions will be in the RfC itself, but at the same time I do not want anyone to feel disenfranchised. Please ask me on my talk page if you would like me to do something like this, and I can bring it up here with everyone if necessary.

Now, on to everyone's statements. I've had a go at summarising everyone’s opinions, both from the step two statements, and from the preliminary statements of editors who didn’t make a step two statement (if they made a comment relevant to the general RfC structure). Though I have phrased some of these opinions as "should be" statements for simplicity, none of these points are my opinion; they are all taken from one or more participants here. Some of the opinions contradict each other, and some of them are more detailed than others. I have tried to structure this summary in a way that is easy to understand, but there may be parts that don't flow very well together due to the diversity of opinions expressed. So, without further ado, here is the summary.

Summary of views expressed in the statements

There were two general proposals for the RfC structure:

• Have a three-step structure. (This was discussed on Talk:Jerusalem as a “two-step” structure, but has developed a third step due to the inclusion of Palestine in the RfC scope.) First, include a question about whether the current wording of the first sentence is compatible with Wikipedia policy. Then have a second question to decide an alternative wording if the answer to the first question is "no", and have a third question to decide the wording of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine in the lead.
• Present a series of drafts of the first sentence and/or the part of the lead dealing with Jerusalem as capital of Palestine. Do not include any general questions.

Participants expressed the following opinions on leading questions:

• We should avoid asking any leading questions in the RfC.
• We should not automatically discount the current wording of the first sentence.
• We should be careful to phrase questions and drafts in a way that implies being a capital depends on outside recognition

On evidence:

• We should gather evidence, as evidence is necessary to determine whether the drafts we write and the claims we include in them are compliant with Wikipedia policy.
• The RfC should, as much as is possible, restrict respondents to focusing on how the sources describe Jerusalem.

On drafts versus questions:

• General questions may be able to indicate a way forward even if any one draft fails to find a consensus.
• Drafts can lead to a lasting resolution, whereas general questions may not. Once a draft is decided and is binding, then there is no more scope for disagreement.
• General questions can help find a win-win solution or a compromise, but drafts tend to polarise discussion.

On drafts:

• We should have at least one draft.
• There should be between 5 and 10 drafts.
• All of the main points of view on the issue of Jerusalem as capital of Israel and Palestine can be sourced to reliable sources. Therefore, merely including sources in drafts won't solve the problem of whether those drafts satisfy the neutral point of view policy.
• As all the main points of view can be reliably sourced, the question of how the neutral point of view policy applies to this case is a matter of editor preference.
• We should derive drafts from the evidence, rather than write the drafts first and then try and decide which best fits the evidence.
• All drafts should be presented with sources.

About general questions:

• The RfC should include general questions.
• We should include at least one question which asks whether it is consistent with Wikipedia policies to state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
• If we can't agree on a specific wording for any drafts, we might be able to agree on a meta-wording, e.g. "Proposal 1 - state Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine in the first sentence without distinction" and other similarly-worded proposals.
• We should decide whether we want to mention Jerusalem's status as a capital at all in the lead.
• We should decide whether we want to mention Jerusalem's status as a capital at all in the first sentence.

My analysis

There have been a wide variety of opinions expressed in the statements, and we still have quite a bit of discussion to do before we find a consensus on how to structure the RfC. The only thing I see a strong consensus for so far is that we should not ask any leading questions in the RfC. We could debate all of the opinions expressed above, but to start with I want to deal with the most essential matters. Here is my take of the most important points we need to decide about the RfC structure:

1. Whether we use drafts, questions, or both.
2. Whether either of the full proposals for the RfC are compatible with the opinions others have expressed on drafts and general questions.
3. How many drafts to have, if any.
4. How any drafts should be presented. Whether we should include sources; whether we should use meta-drafts instead of drafts, or as well as them; and what process we should go through to make them.
5. How we will use evidence in the RfC. Do we present evidence directly to respondents, do we use the evidence to create any drafts, or both? Or is evidence not so important because of the NPOV nature of the dispute?

Looking at this list, the approach we take to points two to five all seem to depend on what we decide for point one. For example, if we decide to only include general questions, then the question of how many drafts to include would become moot. Therefore, I would first like us to decide whether to use drafts, general questions, or both, and I will ask a question to that effect below.

I welcome any feedback about my summary, my analysis, and the discussion question. If I have missed something out, misread someone’s opinion, or otherwise made a mistake, please make a post on my talk page about it, and I will fix things. Similarly, if you think of a new idea that you would like me to include in the summary, then just ask and I will add it unless there’s a good reason that I shouldn’t. And as usual, you are welcome to post any other questions or comments relating to the RfC discussion on my talk page too. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question one: drafts or questions

As I have outlined in the summary of everyone’s statements above, some participants in this discussion thought that we should use drafts, as if one draft gains consensus there is no more scope for disagreement. Other participants thought that we should use general questions, as questions can show a way forward even if any one draft fails to gain consensus. Also, they thought that questions can help participants find common ground, whereas drafts tend to polarise discussion. Still others thought that we should use both questions and drafts, for example in the “three-step” proposal of asking a general question about the current wording of the first sentence, and then presenting alternative drafts of the first sentence or the parts of the lead dealing with Jerusalem as capital of Palestine. Due to the differences of opinion on drafts and questions, I would like everyone to discuss the following:

Should the RfC contain drafts only, general questions only, or a combination of both? Would including a combination of both drafts and general questions be a good compromise between editors who prefer only drafts and editors who prefer only questions? Or is there a reason that it may make it harder to find a consensus in the RfC itself? Do you agree with the rationales of editors who prefer drafts only or questions only?

Thank you in advance for your comments. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

---

I think the "three-step" approach would offer several advantages, including 1) singling out the current text as a possible solution (some editors were worried the RFC might present the current version as just one option among many), 2) provide a high likelihood of at least some consensus, namely concerning the yes/no question, and 3) lead into a discussion on a specific long-term solution with the drafts. Even if only the first question is closed with consensus, the RFC will have accomplished a lot in terms of addressing the multi-year NPOV dispute. Concerning the leading questions issue, I frankly don't see the problem with having a "leading question" as the RFC question. Since we're inviting comments, we do want to lead the discussion to the specific issue we want comments on. I'm not aware of any policy according to which RFCs can't have leading questions (loaded questions are a different issue). In fact WP:RFC has as an example question "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?", which seems to be a leading question. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Dailycare. Asking at the outset whether the current lead is acceptable or consistent with policy will (Redacted) end with no consensus. I believe a much more promising approach would be to ask a general question which cuts across party lines, such as "what message do we want to give the reader in the lead?" or (my already rejected) "How do we want the issue of controversy (generally or specifically the Israel-Palestinian conflict) to be treated in the lead?" These are questions which, since they have not been posed in this general way, are more likely to generate original thought and discussion among participants (Redacted). --Ravpapa (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(Redacted) Dlv999 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the initial yes/no question on whether the first sentence complies with WP:NPOV is likely to end in consensus since it's in essence a question of fact that turns on what the sources say. Unlike on the talkpage, this time we have experienced editors to close the discussion and they can ignore arguments that aren't persuasive. The arguments that make sense will decide, one way or another. "What message do we want to give" is a broad question that may not give editors much of a clue as to what we're inviting comments on, and why the RFC was started. That question also runs the risk, I'm afraid, that the RFC wouldn't give an answer to the actual years-old content dispute on whether "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is OK. --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The current version is just one option among many. Sorry, but it's true. No sentiment which prevents a possible improvement to the encyclopedia should receive any weight, whether supported by a rule or not. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This has been a semantic discussion from the beginning, and now that we've gotten to the way we want to structure the debate, we start to find ourselves lacking definitive ways forward. Not surprised. Perhaps if we sought expert opinions on what a capital is, and what a leading question is, and perhaps generated some agreement on other definitions of general turns of phrases, it would help. I think an agreed approach which Ravpapa is looking to discover for lead treatment is a good holistic process, a refinement which could narrow the discussion in meaningful ways. I know the thought of a Reader's Digest approach has not sat well with me (not sure if there is wide consensus against it) but that my own thoughts on lead have been assessed as a kind of "taxi driver" version of things. I know that this is not the core disagreement. But it may boil down to a meta-disagreement which keeps things from resolving textually. A question on whether or not the article lead should say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel seems very precise as well, but does not seem to be the end-all-be-all, either. My original problem wasn't with whether or not we define capital semantically, but how we treat the disagreement about it. I think it's a chief concern, and that we should represent the disagreement. But a concise and clear representation of the disagreement about Jerusalem is different than a concise and clear representation about the disagreement among Wikipedia editors. More precise questioning might lead us to greater discussion and clearer answers. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Another idea that occurs to me - maybe without asking the community, but just among ourselves, we should present the kinds of questions we are thinking about the article lead.

• Should we state in the article lead that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?
• What style of article lead are we writing?
• With what weight should the article lead treat various aspects of the dispute about Jerusalem?

If any of these questions being answered would not help, I'd please like to know why. I think they'd be very helpful and I don't think this is necessarily an exhaustive list. Feel free to add. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue of what a capital is and isnt certainly is something that should be taken into account in the RFC. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Whilst i would prefer a method of using drafts for people to choose from, i am not entirely against a certain question being asked first, but that question has to absolutely be fair and reflect the situation fairly. It should not be misleading by just saying "Does the article saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" comply with NPOV". That clearly misses off the whole sentence, which mentions the lack of recognition for balance. But even just saying the whole sentence, is not entirely fair either. That one sentence cannot be taken out of context of the wider introduction. If there was to be a starter question on does the status quo comply with NPOV, there should be a summary of what the introduction actually says... it does not just currently say Jerusalem is the capital, we go into a lot of detail in other paragraphs explaining the lack of international recognition and the whole history / constitutional status of the whole issue. If there is agreement the current version is ok, then clearly no further action is needed. But if the majority dont agree then it would have to go to peoples position on the different drafts. If we are talking about a range of questions then they would have to reflect and take into account the introduction as a whole, not just the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to presenting drafts in the full context of the article lead if we stay within the decided scope. I don't even have any objections of exceeding the decided scope. I think the lead can be written better no matter how small the scope or how contrived the agenda. I'm dying for the chance for one of us or all of us to show that we can write something better. So just name the terms so long as there is a point in the process where the current lead is forced to face some competition. I think anyone who thinks the current lead can get off the hook by having a referendum showing the current lead without markup and asking, "Now that wasn't so bad, was it?" has another thing coming. There are some extremely fine content-producing editors among us and their competence is not to be dismissed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If we seek "expert opinions on what a capital is" or "the issue of what a capital is" is taken into account in the RfC you can count me out and we may as well cancel the RfC. Those matters are only relevant to people who are allowed to carry out original research and synthesis while performing the task of deciding whether something is a capital. Since that isn't our task and policy doesn't allow us to do that, we can't do it. Our task is just to construct a string of words, preferably in a sensible order that makes sense to the reader, that has a high degree of consistency with the various strings of words in reliable sources that directly address the subject, Jerusalem. Those reliable sources are written by people who are allowed to do what Wikipedia calls original research and synthesis and we rely on them to select appropriate words based on their assessments of what those words mean, and the various pertinent facts and opinions. One of the reasons this has gone on for 10 years is that it has not been possible to prevent people from misidentifying themselves as secondary reliable sources and engaging in original research and synthesis during discussions. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur on this. Whatever drafts or questions are made, there should be no scope for questions that intrinsically raise WP:OR discussions about what a capital city is. If we were to replace Jerusalem with Ghajar, the problem would be immediately apparent. It lies on either side of the border, and therefore cannot be called a village in or of Israel or Lebanon, without POV spinning.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think we may have missed a step in this process. The Arbitration Committee motion Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions explicitly states "The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect." Making sure everyone has a common understanding of what constitutes "disrupting the process" is a prerequisite. I think we have missed that step. I've already seen several statements in this RfC that I regard as disruptive because they include personal opinions about the status of Jerusalem and advocate the use of decision procedures that policy prohibits. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

so far there has been absolutely no disruption to the process, people have stated their opinions in statements, which was what people were asked to do. No where do i see rules stating every point in a statement must be sourced and pass a test of neutrality that would apply to the article itself. Censorship of comments what ever view people have, and moving to a position where this process means we are extremely restricted in what we can or cant say, will not help the process. It will merely drive people away and result in them feeling the process has been flawed no matter what the outcome. Unless there is a constant back and forth between individuals who start arguing, comments are not going to disrupting the process. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That confirms that there isn't a common understanding of what constitutes "disrupting the process". People's opinions about the real world issue don't matter, they're completely irrelevant, a distraction, a disruption, something that has resulted in people walking away from attempts to resolve this issue countless times before. No one should have to spend any time reading someone else's personal opinions about this issue unless they choose to do so. There are places for personal opinions about the world, user talk pages for example, not here. Having to wade through irrelevant personal opinion shouldn't be imposed on editors because they have elected to participate in an RfC. It's a cost that participants (or anyone in ARBPIA because the problem is systemic) shouldn't have to pay. Editors should feel highly restricted in what they can say and do here because this is about generating content based on what sources and policy say. Editors aren't sources. The more restrictions placed on us to keep us focused on sources and policy, the more likely we are to address this issue the way we are required to address it and resolve the issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Then where is our evidence? If we are not to draw upon guidance, we must draw upon sources themselves to avoid contriving a statement found nowhere else. At some point, though, I think the use of abductive reasoning plays a part in forming accurate statements about the world around us. Views are a driver for this process. At the point where views conflict, it soon becomes apparent which views are inaccurate through observation. Science works that way - and an encyclopedia works that way when viewed critically by the reader. Statements are made with evidence presented, and if the statements are questioned, the sources provide the proof. With multiple examples of the same assessment, the reader can examine each with its evidence and ascertain not only the accuracy, but which is more whole and complete. Lacking this process, examination creeps into the mix on its own. That's what we have here.

Whichever process we use should be more comprehensive that what we've done in the past. That shouldn't be difficult. I am not beholden to the idea of a step one question. I think the use of a step one question has been supported and opposed on the sole basis of further participation by certain editors. I may have missed something. So let's leave personal opinion out of it entirely. Among controversial RfCs, which RfC structure has been most likely to produce a lasting consensus? ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really, to any extent, a scientific process, though. No source contains any proof about what is, only information about what the view contained in the source is. By looking at a certain number of sources, it is possible to establish that different forms of words can be used when describing Jerusalem in relation to Israel. But, beyond that, evidence of any kind serves no purpose in getting us closer to the facts. Because this is only about opinions and, whatever we do, at the end of the day all we are working on is a question for people to vote on according to their prejudices, misconceptions and misunderstandings. There's a way in which that's unsatisfactory, but we have nothing better at our disposal. The very best we could do is appropriately highlight sourcing issues and policy considerations and hope that at least some voters take note. Formerip (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but proof is still possible and necessary to establish who views what. The sources show what has been said of Jerusalem and establish that we aren't making this up as we go along. Some people simply have a prejudice against unsupported statements. I remember a particularly sticky lead section assertion about the views of journalists, academics and so forth in another article that was likely to be challenged, but valid nonetheless. So it was supported by five citations. :) Some thought the citations excessive, but the statement stood nonetheless. It still stands. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sean, I agree that the current advice on the conduct that I expect from participants is a little bit vague, and recent discussions have convinced me that it needs updating. I'm not yet sure exactly what form these should take yet, but I will work something out in the next day or so. In the meantime, discussion about the discussion process itself should probably go on my talk page, as it could distract from the main question of whether we should use drafts, general questions, or both. Also, if you feel another participant is being disruptive, and you would like to draw my attention to specific behaviour in the form of diffs, then I recommend you contact me by email. You can also post things like this to my talk page if you don't want to communicate off-wiki, but using email is probably better. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

IMO, all that really matters is that there's a clear, simple question dealing with the opening sentence and NPOV. I don't see that any additional questions or drafts are necessary, but I wouldn't necessarily care enough to oppose them. The two-step/three-step proposals seem OK to me. Formerip (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Some comments:

• A way of introducing the RFC while avoiding making leading questions or statements would be to stick to making factual statements about what we have been asked to do and what the initial step carrying out that process is, i.e. a discussion of the first sentence of the Lead.
• One aspect of compliance that hasn't been mentioned yet is whether the Lead summarises the body of the article properly (and it's worth remembering that what the body of the article says about the status of Jerusalem hasn't been the cause of any significant contention).
• Rather than diving straight into producing drafts, perhaps it would be worth taking the intermediate step of producing lists of source-derived facts about the status of Jerusalem, one of simple facts, assertions that sources don't dispute, and one of facts about points of view, assertions that sources do dispute? To that end, the Positions on Jerusalem article is there for assistance.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I find myself very persuaded by several points here. Unchallenged sources already present in Wikipedia concerning Jerusalem provide us a strong pool of sources which not only do not require us to go fishing, but also limits us to doing with the lead which the lead should do - summarize. Personally, my problem has been that I do not feel the sources are not represented with proper weight and clarity. I'm still open to the possibility that I am wrong, and a proper RfC format would provide an opportunity to best summarize those sources. The lists of source-derived facts is also a quite meticulous step that I have undertaken in writing other articles. I can find nothing here with which I disagree. I endorse this format. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for my delay. I've been busy with work and mildly ill with a lingering case of flu. My view is that the RfC should contain both proposed drafts and questions, as I believe a question such as, "Does X wording present the facts in accordance with WP:NPOV?" is more likely to result in a consensus based on a firm understanding of policy than simply asking people to choose from a list of proposed wordings. In my view, the first question ought to be whether or not the current wording of the lead meets the requirements of WP:NPOV, as that seems to be the dispute that started this whole mess. If those stringent standards are already met, then people should have an opportunity to express that view above and beyond the context of a simple list of other drafts.

People would still have the option not to answer that question, of course, but I think at least asking it will be enormously helpful. If we can't establish a consensus to the effect that the current wording of the lead is non-neutral, then replacing it with another purportedly neutral one would seem to be pointless. Asking that question encourages discussion and debate, and reminds people, before delving into the balance of the RfC, that we are here to answer the questions based on reliable sources and Wikipedia policy, and not on our own personal feelings on the matter. I am confident that everyone here understands that, but I am also confident that many of those who will show up for the RfC will not. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Evan on questions and drafts. I'd also like to remind everyone that we're at this point only discussing whether to have questions, drafts, or both. The wording of any questions and drafts are to be discussed in a subsequent stage. --Dailycare (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The current wording is disputed, therefore it deserves to be favored? Completely illogical. Sentimental baloney, and a gamble that the uninformed will not be able to discern the nuances lost in a vacuous bubble outside of sourcing. Anyone so beholden to the current wording should have to double down and present it alongside other drafts. But since that would risk the chance to be able to foul up a different draft, it's an unacceptable risk. How can one even pretend to understand neutrality with such obvious investment? ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to prophesy: If we ask (one way or another) if the current lead is consistent with policy, the following will happen: editors who have been involved in this issue will repeat positions they have adhered to up to now. New participants in the discussion will respond variously, but my guess is that a preponderance will say that it is not inconsistent with policy. There will not be enough editors on either side to reach a consensus, and the RFC will end in failure.

Those who believe that a recital of sources or a reliance on policy will lead to a consensual end to this dispute are wrong. Because the sources are themselves divided and policy is not capable nor is it intended to replace fairness and judgement on the part of editors.

The only hope of resolving the dispute is by looking at it from a new perspective, one which puts the readers, rather than the editors, in front. Have I said that before? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion discussion of sources and policy is the only thing that is relevant to consensus. Discussion not related to sources and policy has no bearing on consensus and should not be taken into account in deciding article content.

WP:NPOV dictates that we:

• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Now it is a simple matter of analyzing the sources to decide whether WP:Reliable Sources present "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" as (a) an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion" or (b) "reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter".

I would be strongly opposed to any process that is not based on Wikipedia policy and Reliable sources. What is the point in having this RFC if it is not to ensure the content in question is compliant with our core policy? Ravpapa states that because the sources are divided policy is not relevant, but that is not right, policy tells us exactly what we must do if sources are divided. Dlv999 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Your conviction in your position is admirable. But you should take into account that others - including uninvolved editors who may join this RFC - may see things differently. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to come out on the wrong side of an RFC so long as it is grounded in policy and sources. But I can't understand the reasoning of editors who say that policy and sources are not important. Dlv999 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What sources, let's call it evidence, can do, is allow people to see whether and to what extent a statement that summarizes the evidence is consistent with the evidence. A statement of fact like "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is really no different from a statement of fact like "0.8768 fm is the proton's charge radius". It can be tested against the sources. In the latter's case it can be shown to be an incomplete description that is somewhat inconsistent with the evidence. Hence the proton lead says "The internationally-accepted value of the proton's charge radius is 0.8768 fm" and mentions a significant alternative value. Not only are the sources divided for a variety of reasons, with many sources presenting the CODATA value 0.8768 as a fact, but the data itself is contradictory. And yet it is handled quite well without incident because the editors are looking at the sources and, despite the confusion and contradiction, summarizing what they say according to policy. Charge radius of the proton, capital status of Jerusalem, same thing, apart from the former is orders of magnitude more complicated. I think it's a bad idea to rely on the fairness and judgement of editors on this issue without being able to measure their fairness and judgement against what sources say. As for a consensual end to this dispute, it depends what is meant by "consensual". When the statement about Jerusalem can be shown to be reasonably consistent with the way sources present this information, taking into account the diversity and contradictions, there won't be anything of substance left to legitimately argue about and Wikipedia's version of WP:CONSENSUS should follow. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Now it is a simple matter of analyzing the sources to decide whether WP:Reliable Sources present "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" as (a) an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion" or (b) "reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter".

If it was so simple, we wouldn't be here. And among the reasons it's not simple is because people disagree about what constitutes a conflicting statement. For example, some people have stated that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and [Jerusalem is] not internationally recognized as [capital] -- i.e. the two halves of the opening sentence -- are contradictory and so the first sentence is equivalent to starting by saying X is true, then finishing by saying X is false. But there are certainly people, myself included, who do not believe those statements are contradictory and that they are addressing two different, mostly independent points: whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and whether Jerusalem is internationally recognized as the capital of Israel.

And I believe, because of different understandings of what constitutes a conflict (along with a variety of other differing interpretations), people should be prepared for respondents to draw different conclusions based on the evidence. No matter what framework we set up here, there will always be that human element of interpreting the interplay between policies and the ways (that's plural) various sources address this issue. That's unavoidable.

I am perfectly happy with one of several different approaches to this RfC, but I think any ideas that there is some magical approach that will obviously lead to a conclusion to this matter should be abandoned. We've been at this for years, and to suggest there was one obvious, surefire way to end this (wrongly) implies that there were editors intentionally trying to subvert them. -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:V provides useful guidance on this point, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". What editors believe about the statement, it's logical structure etc doesn't tell us anything useful about it's verifiability. What matters is the degree of consistency the statement has with statements in sources, which is something that can actually be measured. It's not a question of belief. The entire statement, parts of the statement, the individual words, the way it is constructed grammatically, can all be tested against sources to assess it's verifiability, and determine differences caused by either the presence or absence information that can impact on NPOV compliance. This has never been done. If someone asked me to estimate how much, between 0% and 100%, the current statement complies with WP:V or WP:NPOV, I wouldn't know. All I could do is tell you what I believe about the current statement, which doesn't matter at all. As far as I'm aware, no one has conducted a survey of a large sample of reliable sources to look at their statements about this issue. There has been some piecemeal surveying of tertiary sources, news articles, books etc along the way in this 10+ year journey, but nothing systematic/extensive. So I can't tell whether "If it was so simple, we wouldn't be here" is true. Perhaps we are here because we haven't done the work. Perhaps doing a large survey won't clarify anything, I don't know, but it might. Either way, I think we need to stop doing things we have done before and do something different. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have thought at times we're just here because the real-world debate shapes the content debate. I'm now seeing that nostalgia for consensus past is a symptom of our condition here. New structures which foster editorial distance and source-based discussion therefore seem superior. Thanks for raising the percentage question, though. It inspired an analysis which sounds in my head to be both witty and incisive, something I am just as happy not to present unless required by circumstance. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is no magic bullet. Any format which draws heavily upon the tools expressed in WP:NPOV to foster due diligence and editorial distance seems like a step in the right direction. There are some options on how to pursue this. I think to imply that one process is golden just as a sentence is golden recognizes no room for improvement. I endorsed a structure but by doing so, I do not imply that it could never be improved. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A thought which occurred to me on waking is the presumption that involved editors will be able to debate the RfC while it is in progress. Is this true? Is this necessary? It seems like by presenting sources and statements and then requiring involved editors to take a step back would be more conducive to agreement. This is why we focus on content. I'm not sure how presenting the core question of a protracted debate then exhibiting that debate leads to anything remotely resembling consensus. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Re SeanH's last comment. A great many sources that would qualify as reliable would yield 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel', both before 1967 and after 1967, while denoting different realities. The problem is that pre-1967, Jerusalem meant implicity 'Western Jerusalem', and after '1967' it came to refer explicitly to a unilaterally imposed 'united Jerusalem'. The problem is conceptual, unfortunately, as your excellent analogy re "0.8768 fm is the proton's charge radius" shows: a statement may be both true, and verifiable, but be at the same time incomplete, and requiring closer definition. Editors aren't to blame for the inadequacies of RS. But every one here, unless they are in bad faith, must allow that 'Jerusalem' lies in part outside of the official borders of the state of Israel, which means, a conceptual crux is thrust on us: part of the capital of Israel is not in Israel.

For this reason, I would prefer or at least hope that eventually, this conceptual issue be addressed. Some formulation that neatly sets forth the crux, and requires each contributor to the discussion to discuss it not in terms of opinion, or trawled sources, but analytically. Conceptual analysis gets to the heart of issues that are not resolvable by RS tallies. Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The current wording in the lead should be given favored status in the RfC because it is the most recently agreed-upon wording. At this point, we don't even have a consensus that it needs to be changed, and if we don't establish that then this whole business is pointless. At any rate, putting it up for vote without qualification in a manner no different from the other options seems silly and unnecessarily confusing, especially when someone !voting in the RfC clicks onto the article and sees that version in place. We are not giving an RfC to effect change for change's sake. We are giving an RfC to determine consensus on how best to comply with neutrality and verifiability policies in a highly contentious article. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please try and keep comments on the issues at hand, rather than on other contributors, and try not to make assumptions about other editors' motives. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Recent has little to do with it. Defending a past consensus is not improving the encyclopedia. New suggestions anywhere else in Wikipedia do not require a consensus that something needs to be changed before presentation. This is simply a form of I like it, and I don't hear that with regards to the views that it could be improved. As silly as presenting statements with their sources might sound, and as confusing as linking statements with actual citations evidently appears to you, this is the way critical thinkers actually begin to evaluate the balance of weight. This sentiment, this conviction, this bias should require more courage. Are you prepared to step away from the process if the community does not decisively concur the current statement cannot be improved? Such are the stakes you wish to impose on the disputing editors. ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Um... what? Did you even read what I wrote, or have you just decided to go berserk at the first hint of someone not agreeing with you? As far as your "citations" non sequitur goes, I haven't even mentioned citations on this page, so I don't know where or how you cooked up the idea that I am somehow opposed to the use of reliable sources... I was going to reply some more, but I can't figure out how any of your comment is supposed to relate to what I said. When you're prepared to respond to what I wrote, and not to your baffling misinterpretation of what I wrote, please let me know. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If we are to have a default RfC result that has favored status, perhaps it should be for the lead to say nothing about this issue. If we can't find consensus for the presence of a statement then we could default to the absence of a statement, a kind of null result. The dispute would go away and the lead would reflect the current state of affairs with respect to consensus i.e. it doesn't exist. I suppose the validity of that approach depends on other aspects of the RfC, the nature of the questions and what role the current wording plays in those questions, but the objective of the RfC is meant to be to resolve this issue one way or another. An advantage of the default being the absence of a statement is that it ensures that everyone has to make their case here in this RfC rather than rely on events that took place is a less structured decision making environment and it might encourage people to take a different approach in the long term to find a solution, perhaps Ravpapa's approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If we cant find a consensus the article should not be stripped of something from the introduction that has been in place many years. The fall back position must be the status quo and i totally oppose any RFC wording that seeks to favour a change to the status quo as that appeared to suggest. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a perspective I don't really understand. If the outcome is that there is no consensus as to whether a piece of information complies with mandatory policy, why would the default position be to retain the information ? As I said, I think the default depends on nature of the questions and what role the current wording plays in those questions. If it was about change vs no change, whether the current statement should be retained or removed, without asking people specifically to consider whether the statement complies with policy, I can understand why a default position would be to retain because there was no consensus for removal. But I think when it comes to an assessment of policy compliance, it's a bit different, at least to me. What if this were about a different aspect of policy compliance, the reliability of a source that had been present in an article for many years, and the outcome was that there was no consensus as to whether the source met Wikipedia's mandatory RS criteria in the particular context in which it was being used ? Should the fall back position be the status quo, leaving the source in the article ? If so, why ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's called WP:NOCONSENSUS. That's policy. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Let the wikilawyering commence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. As it says "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." That is an observation of what normally happens, not an instruction. We can do anything we want to do in the RfC as long as it stays within the constraints of policy. We need to decide what we want to do and why. Understanding why someone thinks one action is better than another is important to that process. Whatever we decide to do though, the text of the RfC should include information that makes it clear to respondents what will happen in the event of each possible outcome. If we decide that no consensus means that current text is retained (or removed), that needs to be made clear to respondents. We shouldn't make assumptions about people's assumptions. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ravpapa's last stand

I see I am in a minority of one here. Not the first time for me. Is it some character flaw, or perhaps, as Hamlet said, bad dreams? Never mind. I will here make my last attempt to convince you all.

Sean, your analogy of the lead of this article to "0.8768 fm is the proton's charge radius" is clever, but misleading. A better analogy would be to the statement, "Love is a many-splendored thing!" Is love a many-splendored thing? Depends which TV show you watched last. The proton's charge radius is not debated in parliaments, and is not a subject of demonstrations and civil revolt. You can't mix sulphuric acid and potash particles in an alembic and come up with an answer to whether Jerusalem is a capital or not. It is a completely different sort of question. Nor will a search of reliable sources resolve this quandary. Many highly reliable sources call Jerusalem the capital, not because they have debated the issue, weighed the arguments, and come to a studied conclusion, but because that was the handiest word to use at the time.

Here is the practical dilemma: the question whether the current lead is consistent with policy and RS has been debated ad nauseum by the 10 or 15 editors of this page over the last two years. My experience with RFCs is that they usually attract another 5 to 10 outside editors; let's be optimistic and say 15. In all likelihood, those editors, like us, will be divided on the question. The result will be: no consensus.

The only way for us to break this deadlock is to break out of our editor-centric viewpoint. The debate over policy, and over the weight of different sources, is one that puts the editor in the center. We need to break out of this viewpoint, and put the readers in the center. What do we want them to understand from the lead? What issues do we consider it important to impress upon them at the outset, what questions do we want to raise in their minds that will draw them into the article to explore further? What will confuse them, and what will enlighten them?

Finally, I must say that, personally, I will be disappointed if the RFC debates the issue of whether the lead is consistent with sources and meets our policy of neutrality. Because I will be forced to take the position that it is consistent with sources and is not inconsistent with policy. And, as you all know, I despise this lead, and want it down. But not because it is inaccurate or non-neutral, but because the reader, presented in the first sentence with a polemic that only half a page of footnotes can explain, simply turns to Encarta or Britannica and reads from there. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've said it before. Your solution is the best one, and I think several others have agreed. The solution mooted is like that negotiated by, I think, Norwegian peace specialists when Peru and Ecuador where on a war footing over the borderlands of the Cordillera del Condor. Just, they said, turn it into a nature reserve where no one has exclusive sovereignty. I.e. each side must suspend the technical obsession with law that made a resolution all but impossible. That helped, but an Ecuadorian friend told me the other day that geologists have found "gold in them thair hills", and that's the end to it. The only time commonsense prevailed over national interests in recent times was when England abolished the slave trade, to the known detriment of its GNP.Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the proton example is in fact quite accurate. The whole thing, of course, turns on sources. Wikipedia editors aren't going to experimentally study protons, rather they use sources which is exactly what we'll do for Jerusalem. Even in the unlikely case where zero new editors participate and the involved editors just present their views, there will be a consensus on the yes/no question since the issue is so simple. Any arguments that aren't based on policy and sources will be ignored, this isn't an excercise in counting "votes" one way or another. And concerning the idea of putting the reader in the center, that's interesting and laudable, but not in the center of the content issue that spawned this binding RFC. So in my view, even if we went with that, we'd need to have something like the yes/no question on the first sentence in order to have a shot at resolving the root cause of this RFC. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note on numbers - there are no guarantees of how many editors will comment, but this will be quite a well-publicised RfC, and I think 50 editors would be a reasonable low estimate. If we are lucky we might get 100 or more. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Would including an initial question about whether the current text is Okay necessarily rule out the sort of approach Ravpapa is advocating? It is my understanding that the approach is based on the current situation, i.e that we have a longstanding dispute with no consensus over whether the current text is okay or not. There are three possible outcomes to asking the initial question. (i) There is a consensus in favour of the current language. Irrespective of my own opinion on content, this would be a positive result in terms of the RFC: We would have a consensus in support of the current text, and editors who do not like it (for whatever reason) would just have to accept that. (ii) There is a consensus that the current text is not okay, in which case we move on to the next stages of the RFC in a better position than we are now in that we have a positive consensus that change is needed. (iii) No consensus, in which case we are in the same position that we are in at the moment, there is nothing stopping us moving on to the next stage of the RFC to find a solution that can be supported by consensus. Of the three outcomes (i) resolves the dispute, (ii) Makes the next stages of the RFC easier because we have a positive consensus for change (iii) leaves us no worse of than we are now, having not asked the question.

Maybe I have overlooked something, but what are the "costs" of asking this initial question? Dlv999 (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"You can't mix sulphuric acid and potash particles in an alembic and come up with an answer to whether Jerusalem is a capital or not. It is a completely different sort of question. Nor will a search of reliable sources resolve this quandary." That makes it sound as though we are trying to resolve the question of whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital of Israel, which is not the way I, at least, view the situation. Isn't what we are trying to do, or should be trying to do, just to reflect what sources say on the subject? As I hope has been made apparent, the difficulty I have with the Lead is that I think that the upshot of what sources say is that the status of Jerusalem is disputed and so the article should be presenting it in terms of positions without making a judgement that one of them is correct.

"The result will be: no consensus." Since the first part of the RFC process raises questions about policy compliance, and deliberating on questions of policy compliance is one of the functions of administrators, I think that best resolution method for it would be to ask non-involved administrators, of which we already have three waiting in the wings, to adjudicate which of the positions being advocated interprets policy best. In fact, I think that the debate over the wording of the Lead could have been resolved a long time ago by invoking authoritative outside opinions, which is, of course, what the failed request for arbitration amounted to. I hope that the first part of the RFC isn't resolved by holding a show of hands. Without very wide community involvement in the RFC, I think that'd be pretty unsatisfactory.

"The only way for us to break this deadlock is to break out of our editor-centric viewpoint." I think we're supposed to assume that readers resort here in search of high-quality encyclopaedic information, meaning an accurate and neutral compendium of what sources say on particular subjects which is written in the appropriate style. Since policy is designed to ensure that is what is achieved, debates about whether policy is being followed are fairly inevitable and, in fact, may be beneficial. Similarly, given the nature of what we are trying to achieve, debates about sources are inevitable. In trying to put the reader at the centre, perhaps questions about what we want them to understand, what issues do we want to impress on them and what questions do we want to raise in their minds and not the right ones to ask?

    ←   ZScarpia   12:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is fair that we take an entirely different approach because the outcome of the RFC might be no consensus and the status quo remaining. It would seem like this whole process is merely designed to get the current wording changed if we deem "no consensus so maintain status quo" as an unacceptable option. I do not like the sound of several uninvolved administrators decreeing a result, wikipedia is meant to work on a consensus basis and unless there is a very clear and strong reason for going against a consensus or not maintaining the long standing status quo when there is no consensus, i think we should respect the outcome of the community RFC. The important issue here is does the current introduction comply with wikipedia policies and if it does not what changes are needed. As i said before what ever process is decided, i dont oppose a straight forward first question about the current wording and if it is compliant, provided it is put into the appropriate context. The WHOLE of the first sentence, not just "is it fair to say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", and the whole of the introduction, explaining that the Palestinian dispute is explained in more detail in other parts of the introduction. This situation makes me think about British Isles article in a way. There are a number of editors (no one here) who rigorously oppose the name "British Isles" and have conducted a campaign to remove it from wikipedia with article changes regularly spotted across wikipedia relating to it. The first sentence and first paragraph of that article make no reference to the controversy but it is handled in detail in the final paragraph of the introduction which ensures a balanced and neutral introduction compliant with wikipedia policies. Its important we take the whole introduction into account of the jerusalem article, the "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but not internationally recognised as such", is merely the first basic point, the dispute is handled in much more detail further in the introduction and this should not be overlooked in the first question of a RFC. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If we find the status quo to be in breach of policy/false/a fringe view than it must go. Consensus is little more than a popularity contest, uninvolved admins can decide what is best based on the strength of the arguments presented. Even if there was no consensus, than plurality should dictate the result not status quo. Sepsis II (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point we're just discussing whether to have the question, I think, not yet how it ought to be worded in detail. --Dailycare (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

if the RFC finds that the current introduction is not in compliance with NPOV then of course it must change, i never claimed otherwise. My point was if there is clearly no consensus, then the status quo should stand as default... rather than as some seem to be suggesting above there should be positive discrimination in favour of change.. which is not fair and would make the entire process one sided. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question one close

Hello everyone, and thank you for your comments. It is finally time for me to wrap up this discussion section; my apologies for not doing so sooner. The discussion has been wide-ranging, and has strayed a bit from the question I set. I will deal with this by providing a close of the discussion on the question that I set, and by asking you some more questions on the other matters that we have discussed, judging the consensus where possible.

For the initial question of whether we should use drafts, questions, or both, there weren't any strong opinions expressed for either drafts only or questions only. Several editors were strongly in favour of having some form of general question about the first sentence of the lead, although there was some disagreement about exactly what form such a question should take. No editors were completely against including drafts in the RfC, although some thought the drafts were secondary to having a question about the first sentence.

The main argument for including a general question was that such a question would lead to at least some degree of consensus on the issue of how to deal with Jerusalem's capital status. It was also argued that a general question would provide a good lead into a discussion on drafts. The main argument against using a general question was that asking such a question would result in no consensus, as the arguments expressed in the RfC would be the same as have been debated at length on Talk:Jerusalem and subpages. However, this argument was mitigated somewhat by two argument: first, that a no consensus result may be avoided due to the fact that the consensus from such a question would be judged by its adherence to policy, rather than by counting heads; and second, that we might structure the question using evidence in a way that has not been tried before, and that a fresh approach like this may provide a result that previous discussion has not.

There was less call among editors for the RfC to contain drafts than there was for it to contain a general question. However, there was no serious opposition to including drafts, and several editors supported their inclusion. The arguments for including drafts were that there should be a fair chance for alternative wordings of the lead to be considered, and that drafts can provide a long-term consensus in a way that general questions can't.

Putting all these factors together, I have come to the conclusion that the RfC should contain both drafts and general questions. For discussion, please see below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Step two, question two: order of drafts and questions

The only proposal for a general structure that came up in the discussion was the "two-step" or "three-step" structure, where a general question would be followed by specific drafts. This was backed up by the argument that a general question or questions would lead well into a question about specific drafts of the lead. No alternative suggestions have been suggested so far, apart from the "drafts only" approach which has been ruled out by the close of step two question one. So, I propose the following:

We should structure the RfC with general question(s) first, and question(s) about specific drafts second.

Please let me know if you think this would be a good idea or not, and why you think so. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we could have a general question (on the first sentence) first, with drafts after it as Mr. Stradivarius proposes. While I don't see the order as hugely important, having the question first could convey the thinking behind the RFC and illuminate the underlying content/NPOV dispute quite effectively. The question would lead naturally into evaluating the drafts that follow, and a "yes" result on the question would remove the need to close at least one of the competing-drafts questions, which would potentially save a lot of work for the admins.--Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This could go any number of directions. Such a format could consist of specific questions about the policy compliance of the statements in the lead section. Another way forward is presenting the drafts with a question about policy compliance, such as "Which of these drafts best...?" ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this would largely depend upon what those questions are, but questions first and drafts second seems to be a reasonable general rule to lay down. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I support this proposal provided the first general question is balanced and not strictly about the the first half of the sentence or just the whole sentence. The opening sentence cannot be taken in isolation to the wider introduction which goes into more detail, including about the Palestinian claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question three: capital question

As I mentioned in the close of question one above, there has been some disagreement about what exactly a general question about the capital status of Jerusalem might ask. Some editors think that it should just be about whether the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" satisfies WP:NPOV. Other editors think that such a question should ask about the entire first sentence, including the text "but is not internationally recognised as such". Hence question number three:

There is a rough consensus to have a question in the RfC about the capital status of Jerusalem. But should such a question deal purely with the issue of whether "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" satisfies WP:NPOV? Or should the question ask about the whole of the first sentence? Why? Also, would you be willing to accept some kind of compromise solution, for example asking two separate questions?

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is what the content/NPOV dispute is about so asking about that would be sufficient. I'm not strongly opposed to having the whole first sentence in the question as the discussion will still turn on the first part, the latter part is amply sourced and non-controversial. --Dailycare (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Part two of that sentence is passively voiced, relegates its actors to an adverb, and their intent to a footnote. It's weasel meat. There are plenty of better phrasings which actually appear in sources and say what is meant without starting a war. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your opinion, and you are free to state it during the actual RfC. But we should not structure the RfC around one's position on the matter. -- tariqabjotu 23:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not even sure why this half-sentence suggestion has been given credence. The RfC obviously should ask about the whole sentence, because that's what's written. The article previously said "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" on its own before the October 2010 compromise (or whatever we're calling that now) appended the second half of the sentence. That's what was decided then; the previous formulation was discarded. So I see no reason the pre-October 2010 version has any relevance today. And I would accept zero compromise on this. -- tariqabjotu 20:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A reason a reductionist approach like that could be given credence is because the existing sentence is a compound statement that can be broken down into its component parts. It's usually helpful and it might be helpful here given that the dispute is focused on the first "half-sentence" and much less on the second "half-sentence".

The first "half-sentence" is a statement of fact in the unattributed neutral narrative voice of one of the most popular web sites on the internet in an article that gets thousands of hits every single day. It can't be wrong. It has to be an absolutely 100% factually correct statement where ~100% of sources agree that it as a fact. If that first "half-sentence" doesn't comply with policy because there are a significant number of sources that do not present it as a fact or there are sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel or there are sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of something else (=> a contradiction), things that can only be determined by actually comparing it with sources, the entire compound sentence doesn't comply with policy, no matter what the rest of the sentence says (unless the rest of the sentence happens to modify the statement of fact into a statement consistent with the sources). So, I think breaking the statement down into its parts and asking respondents to address each part, particularly the statement of fact in the encyclopedia's voice, is probably a better approach. However, I don't think people should be asked to evaluate the policy compliance of existing half-sentences without the RfC also presenting the entire existing sentence in it's present form and asking them to evaluate the policy compliance of the entire statement by comparing it with evidence.

Having said all that, there's no good reason for the drafts we present in the RfC to be based on the existing wording. The existing wording has been created through a process more akin to genetic drift than sampling and reflecting sources based on policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

And these are all issues participants should decide for themselves. You, obviously, feel the first half of the sentence is not supported by sources, and that this means the entire sentence is unacceptable. But there may be people who feel the first half is unacceptable, but that, in conjunction with the second half of the sentence, the whole sentence is fine. And, of course, there may be people who feel the first half (and the second half) is acceptable. That's for the participant to decide, and we should not force a conclusion based on an assumption that is not universally held. That point also goes along with the idea that a source suggesting Jerusalem is the capital of something else (presumably Palestine) constitutes a contradiction. This is not a universally held position, and we should not generate the RfC around this point. -- tariqabjotu 23:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that it is relevant to investigate whether sources say that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, but when I posed a similar request in December, you were completely uninterested, saying:

Regarding "if we take the stance that it is not correct or accurate to say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, we leave ourselves with some important questions. Namely, if Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, what is?", I disagree. That isn't relevant at all. Also "you're going to have to elaborate on what you believe -- sorry, what the sources say -- Israel's actual capital is, or whether it has one at all." No, no one has to do that, nor should they. If anyone is stupid enough to do that, they probably need to be article banned or at least have a nap.

I don't see anything different about what you suggested here and what I suggested there. I was trying to find a more direct and clearer way to substantiate the perception among some editors here that there are sources that do not believe Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. As years of discussion have shown, we are never going to agree on whether recognition makes and breaks capital status. Similarly, we are unlikely to come to an agreement that Jerusalem being the capital of Palestine prevents it from being the capital of Israel (although this is my first time seeing that posited). And while unattributed statements to Jerusalem not being the capital of Israel would be an obvious contradiction to the statement currently in the article, those are unlikely to exist (just as you're unlikely to see sources that explicitly say Birmingham is not the capital of the UK). Instead, contradicting sources would more likely be ones that say that some other city is the capital of Israel or that Israel has no capital at all.

But you thought that exercise was a waste of time. Why? I don't know. My best guess at the time was that doing so was going to be a futile task, as such contradicting sources are, from what I can tell, few and far between. The best would be those that say Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. However, the idea of standing behind the "Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel" statement has never gained traction. Either way, if you're going to stand behind your oft-repeated suggestion of comparing X to the sources, we need to be clear about what is widely understood to be a contradiction. That means recognition, ownership, legality, and the relationship to Palestine are off the table. And despite realizing that leaves little wiggling room and a difficult task for those who want to insist that the current formulation is a blatant violation of policy, I am willing to accept that what may be an acceptable formulation may not necessarily be the best. -- tariqabjotu 23:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

For my part, I've never objected to the second part of the sentence being considered in the RfC. While I think the simple statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is the main cause of contention, I see no problem with dealing with both statements. Of course I am willing to accept compromise, and to be honest, I'm not sure what the alternative to that would look like. I'm not going to be declaring war on anyone. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, the point is that Israel has no undisputed capital and we shouldn't be representing it otherwise, nor trying to argue that one position or the other is "correct". We can indicate that there is a dispute, describe the different positions, outline the arguments (which include what one particular dictionary definition is and a claimed right that countries get to choose their own capitals) and so on, but that's all. I think that was the substance of what Sean was saying, and I totally agree with him. The question of what is the capital of Israel is irrelevant. We don't have to answer the question, nor should we be trying to. Sources dispute the answer, therefore, that's how we should be representing the situation.     ←   ZScarpia   14:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit too far off-track -- I was only responding because Sean brought it up -- but this will be a point that I will likely re-raise when the RfC begins. That point I was trying to make is that there is little agreement about what statement would constitute a contradiction or a dispute. The only ones I consider contradictions of the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" are "Israel has no capital", "[Another city] is the capital of Israel", and, of course, "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". But, Sean expressly presented "Jerusalem is the capital of [another country]" as a contradiction -- but I don't think that's one. Based on previous discussions, a number of people believe "Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel" is a contradiction, but, of course, many people, myself included, don't agree that that is (hence, why we're here, after all).

And so when we do this presenting of sources, we need to be careful about leading people toward conclusions. I don't know how the presentation of sources is going to be structured, though; if we can make signed comments about the sources, then it would be acceptable to bring up your interpretation of them, as it will be okay to bring up mine. But I understand my use of "interpretation" in this sense has been vilified, so perhaps it's just best to let sources speak for themselves. But, in that case, we should not say matter-of-factly that a source contradicts "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" because it, for example, states that Jerusalem is not widely recognized by other countries as Israel's capital.

Bringing that back to the question here, it's why I also believe the first sentence should be presented in full. Prior to this discussion, there was a bit of discussion about this concept of an "identity statement". Some, particularly Ubikwit, argued that the first half of the sentence was an untrue "identity statement". That discussion seemed to center around the concept that, like in the example I gave above, the lack of recognition [i.e. the second half of the first sentence] contradicts "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" [i.e. the first half of the first sentence], and for that reason it doesn't make sense to present two supposedly contradictory statements as one continuous statement. But, while that may seem logical from the position of someone who believes recognition invalidates capital status, it does not seem logical to someone who doesn't believe that is the case. There is no strong evidence that either interpretation of the importance of recognition is actually correct, and so we shouldn't structure an RfC question around either angle. In other words, we should present the sentence in full and allow participants to decide for themselves whether they believe the first sentence is unacceptable as a clause followed by a contradicting clause or whether it consists of two independent statements. -- tariqabjotu 17:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to avoid straying too much into detail which, properly, belongs to the RFC itself.

Answering your last paragraph and responding directly to the question posed by Mr. Stradivarius in this section, I would agree that, since the position of one group of editors is that the first sentence of the Lead, taken as a whole, is policy compliant, then we need to examine the whole sentence rather just one clause of it.

I'm hoping that you would broadly agree with the following. We have reached a point where the majority of editors have become entrenched in two opposing positions, which dispute the policy compliance of the Lead. Nobody would argue that one position presented in sources is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. One group of editors (let's call it Group A) is claiming that an alternative position, that Jerusalem is not the capital, is also presented (which is the third item in your list of contradictions to the statement ''"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"). Some editors in the opposing camp (Group B) appear to accept that that's the case while others don't. One task for the Group A editors to accomplish is, therefore, to demonstrate (or re-demonstrate) that their claim about an alternative position is true. In any case, the Group B editors maintain that it is a fact, unchanged by opposing views, that Jerusalem is the capital and neutral to present it that way. In contrast, the Group A editors maintain that, due to the nature of what constitutes a fact on Wikipedia and the rules on how to handle assertions which sources dispute, it is contrary to policy to state, as the article currently does, that Jerusalem is Israel's capital and that Jerusalem's status should either be stated in terms of points of view or, alternatively, in terms of statements about Jerusalem's status which are not disputed.

    ←   ZScarpia   23:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. No, I don't agree with that summary.

In any case, the Group B editors maintain that it is a fact, unchanged by opposing views, that Jerusalem is the capital and neutral to present it that way.

Your characterization of Group B suggests a willful disregard for policy, whereas I believe the central issue here is a disagreement that the contradicting view has been demonstrated. Disagreeing with the existence of the evidence is substantially less nefarious than accepting the evidence and ignoring policy. I really don't want to elaborate on this further, as I've explained this many times, to you personally, broadly, here in this section, before on Talk:Jerusalem, etc. There really is no point, and explaining it to you again is going to have no effect on the trajectory of this RfC. -- tariqabjotu 00:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well. Thanks for your reply, it's helped me make more sense of what you were saying in your previous comment. Let's see how re-presenting the evidence to once again try to demonstrate the existence of a counter-view goes.     ←   ZScarpia   01:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe just asking is "Jerusalem the capital of Israel" compliant with NPOV would be biased, misleading and not something i can support. It should be the whole first sentence, but A compromise where by it is split in two questions is something i would support. With the first question asking about is just saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" ok, the second asking, is the whole sentence compliant when including "though this is not internationally..." etc. I believe this is a sensible way forward. Whilst i would support these two questions focused on part and then the whole of the first sentence, i do still feel the RFC introduction must reinforce the point, that the sentence must be put into the context of the overall introduction where more information is given on the Palestinian claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question four: other general questions

We have talked briefly in step one about other general questions that we might want to ask in the RfC. Ravpapa's proposal that we ask how the article in general should deal with conflict didn't find consensus, but that does not preclude us from asking a similar question that would fit within the scope we decided in step one. Also, Ravpapa has suggested that we ask how we want readers to experience the lead, which we could work in as a general question. There may be other questions that other participants would like to ask as well, so I would like you to discuss the possibility of having other questions here.

Should we have any other general questions apart from the question(s) about the capital status of Jerusalem alluded to in the section above? Why or why not? And if we should, what should those questions be?

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of any. If anyone else does, I'll see what I think. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question five: evidence

There were conflicting opinions in the question one discussion on how we should use evidence. One opinion was that presenting sources and relying on policy would not create a consensus in the RfC, and that instead editorial judgement should be used. However, I regard this as a weak argument, as policy must take precedence in our decisions both in this discussion, and in the RfC itself. Our core content policies of WP:V and WP:NOR are clear that we should not decide content based on the personal opinions of editors, and the core content policy of WP:NPOV makes it clear that neutrality should be achieved by reflecting what is written in reliable sources. It is beyond our mandate to challenge such policies, and they must be factored into our decisions.

Another opinion on this matter was, unsurprisingly, that we should present evidence in the form of sources in the RfC. This position has the support of policy, and so is a much stronger argument than the one of using editorial judgement. However, a good counterargument was made that we should not simply engage in source-counting but that we need to critically evaluate any sources that we use. The example given in the discussion was that many pre-1967 sources and post-1967 sources call Jerusalem the capital of Israel, but that these are referring to different entities. Given the argument for using evidence, and the counterargument, I would like you to answer the following questions:

How should we use evidence in the RfC? Should we present evidence as part of the general question(s), the drafts, or both? What is the best way to present sources in the RfC so that their content is accurately represented?

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence can be in the RFC question or editors may present their evidence when they enter their submissions. I think it would be sufficient if editors presented their own evidence, but if we choose to have evidence in the question, maybe a single piece of evidence per question answer or draft version would suffice. We'd have to select them beforehand. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument. I'd like to hear more. I don't know what kind of a job we want to try to engage the community in undertaking as they review sources. Typically the level of evidence needs to be commensurate with the boldness of the claim. In a draft, we simply cite the evidence for a claim. But an ideal draft should encompass the scope of the sources comprehensively. We should first figure out which sources we're summarizing so that the drafts can reflect these. As for the final presentation, I am not sure whether presenting a list of sources and asking which draft best summarizes, or presenting drafts with a variety of sourcing is more likely to produce consensus. My guess is the former rather than the latter. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This question is a little problematic, in my view. The very first job of a lead is to summarize the article and comply with all relevant guidelines. If the article is neutral, it logically follows that the lead will be as well. Any "evidence" presented should not take the form of external links or quotations of outside sources. Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are not supposed to be included in the lead, and I see no reason to bring them into this discussion. The statements in the article are sourced already, and this isn't an RfC about sources. It's an RfC about WP:NPOV and the current lead of the article. The only evidence we should need ought to be arguments in favor and opposed to proposed drafts. (Keep in mind that that is my view at the moment; there may be a substantially convincing argument to the contrary that I haven't yet heard that may convince me that we need to ignore guidelines on citations in leads for this particular situation.) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two: statement on "no consensus" outcomes

There were quite a few comments in the discussion about what would happen in the event of a "no consensus" outcome. We won't be doing anything special here; we will just follow what the policy on consensus says. In particular, WP:NOCONSENSUS says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." So in the event that the RfC closes with no consensus for any particular outcome, the article will remain as it is currently.

There was a suggestion that there was no consensus that the current wording needs to be changed, and that therefore it should be given preference to other versions. I think this is looking too deeply into the consensus-building process, however, and that in reality the policy is simpler. In a nutshell: if there is significant enough disagreement with any content, and the disagreements do not contradict policy, then there is no consensus for that content to be there. However, the content stays like it is until there is a consensus, at which point the content is changed to the consensus version. I'm not aware of any policy that requires a consensus to change content before it can be changed, although please point it out to me if I am wrong.

Also, there was a suggestion that if the RfC ended in a "no consensus" outcome that we should default to having no statement about the capital status of Jerusalem at all. However, I can't see any policy-based reason to default to anything but the current version in this case. We could change the lead to a version which has no statement about Jerusalem's capital statement if that version gains consensus; but I'm not aware of any policy-based reason to do otherwise. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong on this point.

You may discuss this statement here if you wish, but it is not a question as such. It does, however, lead on to the next two questions about drafts. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

While I see the usefulness (keeping discussions shorter so editors will move on to be productive elsewhere) of keeping the status quo when there is no consensus for smaller matters, I feel that in large cases like this, the plurality winner should be found in case of no consensus. This is because the plurality winner (which of course could also be the status quo), is by definition the one with the most support. I think the failure of this statusquo policy could be easily seen if one were to apply it to Israeli elections - the nation would still be ruled by a party which received a minority of the vote over half a century ago! Sepsis II (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify about my statement on giving the current version "favored" status, as I think that's what you're referencing above. The statement did not mean that I want the current version to be given preferential treatment somehow, or for !voters to somehow be led into supporting it. It simply means that, to me, logic dictates that the question of its neutrality should be first and foremost in the RfC. Prospective article content is not on the same level of importance as current article content. In the event that !voters choose one of the other drafts without explicitly condemning the current version, we would of course go with the preferred wording. I just think it should be clear to those taking part in the RfC that there is a current wording of the article, that it was arrived at by consensus, and that there has been no agreement so far that it needs to go. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that if there is no consensus the status quo should remain which is based on a previous compromise that had majority support BritishWatcher (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question six: scope of drafts

The fact that we have agreed that the RfC should cover Jerusalem as capital of Palestine and of Israel has some implications for how we present the drafts. For example, we could have a series of drafts of the first sentence, dealing with the capital status regarding Israel, and we could have a series of drafts of a later section in the lead dealing with the capital status regarding Palestine. Or we could have a series of drafts that included passages about the capital status regarding both Israel and Palestine. Or maybe something else.

Given that we have agreed that the RfC should cover Jerusalem as capital of both Israel and Palestine, how should we structure the drafts that we present?

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My preference would be to keep things as simple as possible to concentrate minds on the primary aspect of the RFC. I'd support having a limited number of drafts for the first sentence, and to mirror that a similar number of draft sentences, of roughly the same length, on the Palestinian claim to the city. --Dailycare (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think concerns over context were adroit and I think I should suggest presentation of changes in a first paragraph context, unless it is decided that Palestine's view of Jerusalem-as-capital does not merit first paragraph mention. A single paragraph would provide some necessary context. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is not something that we should commit to firmly at this point. Once we start on the actual drafts we can see what approach is going to be needed. Most of the drafts are going to be focused strictly on the first sentence, but there is no reason why some drafts should not include the first two sentences or whole paragraph (if we wanted the Palestinian claim handled in that second sentence / first paragraph). At the time i can see the benefit of a smaller number of drafts going outside of the first paragraph of the introduction, but that obviously will get more complex and take up a lot more space. So the primary focus should be first sentence drafts initially, with the possibility of a second sentence draft for some or even the whole first paragraph. With the potential if agreed and seen as necessary for including of a draft proposal that merely alters another part of the introduction (Such as keep the first paragraph the same, but in another paragraph make the following change... etc), which could be seen as a compromise position for some. Whilst i want the introduction of the RFC to make explicitly clear that people should take into account the whole of the introduction to put things in context, for drafts that just alter the first sentence i dont think it would be needed to put the whole first paragraph in the draft, which would take up more space and be unnecessary duplication BritishWatcher (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question seven: number of drafts

In the close of question one, I said that there wasn't much objection to including drafts, and that many editors supported doing so. However, there hasn't been much discussion at all about how many drafts there should be, and roughly what they should cover. The statement in the previous section has implications for this question, in that we might consider including some drafts on a procedural basis. For example, we might consider including the current version as a draft to make sure that it is given due consideration (indeed, a few editors have already suggested that we shouldn't discount the current wording). Similarly, we might also make a draft, or drafts, that do not mention Jerusalem's capital status at all, in order to sidestep the issue or to delay its treatment until further in the lead. Bearing this in mind, please answer the following questions:

How many drafts should we include in the RfC? Should we include some drafts on a procedural basis? What, roughly, should those drafts contain? Of the none-procedural drafts, how many would be appropriate? How should the number of drafts relate to the scope of the drafts mentioned in question six?

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the number of drafts depends on the number of ways that sources have expressed the idea in genuinely different ways. This depends on the sources, overall the number of drafts could be similar for both "drafts" questions, and the smaller the number the easier it is to close. Three would IMO be enough, eight would be too many. --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe there are going to need to be alot more than just 3 drafts, which is far too restrictive. I would say the aim should be a limit of about no more than 10, with a hope that it will be slightly less. I cant support less than 5 though. 3 seems impossible in my opinion. That might just give us 1 draft saying the status quo, 1 draft saying Israel and palestine is the capital, and 1 draft not mentioning its the capital at all. That is not enough choice and if we are going to be so restrictive in the number of options, then it would be better to just have a small set of general approaches for people to choose from, rather than specific draft wording. I think 5-10 drafts is the best number to aim for, that will then give us enough to focus on just the first sentence, one or two about the second sentence, 1 or 2 potentially about the first paragraph, with room for the possibility of 1 or 2 proposals on alterations to other parts of the introduction instead of the first sentences. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question eight: feedback

Finally, I would like some feedback on the close of question one. Specifically:

Is there anything in my close of step two, question one, that you disagree with? Additionally, are there any other discussion questions that you would like to be asked that haven't been asked as part of the questions above?

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think your work here has been very commendable and even-handed. --Dailycare (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dailycare, i believe the process is going well and we are heading in the right direction which will see a RFC that is accepted by all sides. Mr. Stradivarius is doing a great job and i would also like to praise the time scale of the procedure so far, some of us sadly do not have the amount of time we would like to be able to respond sooner, so i think the time the different questions have remained open so far has been appropriate and allowed for more contributions to be made. As i said before, this is a dispute that has lasted for many years and the result will last for years. Taking time to allow as many people to contribute at each stage as possible can only be a good thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I do have one question/issue. Now it is clear we are having a general question on the first sentence (or split in two), followed by draft proposals. Im unclear what happens in a number of scenarios, for example of there is majority view that the first sentence is fine, is the draft section of the RFC basically ignored, or if there is a "bigger consensus" on the draft, does it basically overall the initial question? Will these sorts of matters be handled in stage four? if so that is fine, i just want to clarify because its the one thing im not clear on with regards the questions/drafts plan. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)