Talk:Israel/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

RfC on Taiwan's stated recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital

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.

---

Is the statement in the "Jerusalem" footnote of the article's infobox that Taiwan recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital adequately supported by sources? Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Do not name all minor countries. There was also some noise that Guatemala recognized this. However when such recognition, or lack of recognition, is based on passing remarks by some official... These things simply change and are close to impossible to talky reliably. Embassy locations are hard facts. The currents opinions of officials and whether such opinions are official... Are not, unless this is a POTUS caliber official. We should not attempt to build a list of exceptions here, and we should stick to mostly.Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I slightly changed the RfC header text to better explain what this RfC specifically about, namely whether or not Taiwan can be said to have recognized it in the infobox's footnote. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• I do not think we should name any country who is not "deeply involved" - offhand remarks by officials (or even semi thought out planned ones) that can change whichever which way on a whim - are hard to follow and source properly. An embassy being located in Jerusalem - is something that is easy to source. The last stmt on the matter (for each country) from the foreign minister (and in some cases - conflicted stmts by undersecretaries / ambassadors) - are very hard to source properly. In regards to Taiwan - we can probably say they at some point supported this and apparently flip-flopped back - and this was in a week this was "in the news", so it got some coverage. Most countries do not really have a "set in stone" official position on these matters (wider far away world issues - not just Israel) - they "go with the flow" of their alliance or immediate need - trying to determine their current support status based on stmts (that looking ahead) will be months and years old - is OR. RSes covering the issue do almost always do not do a tally covering the last position of island nations (or Taiwan, which is more significant, but far away).Icewhiz (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Per title. In short: We have 2-3 sources on either side, seemingly contradicting one another. All were directly sourced to or released by the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), and the 4 article sources all attributed their statements. For the original discussion between me and WarKosign, see the section above. Though I have a clear opinion, I summarized the arguments and related sources in a neutral manner below:
Suggests yes:

• Andrew Lee said on 7 December: "We acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital." (reported by Taipei Times). More from article: "Taiwan does not intend to move its representative office in Israel from Tel Aviv, although it acknowledges Jerusalem as the capital, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) said yesterday."
• Lee further said on 7 December: "... on the MOFA website, and in government documents Jerusalem is noted as the capital of Israel, ..." (reported by Taiwan News). Lee is talking about this page on the MOFA website.

Suggests no:

• Chen Chun-shen was asked on 13 December if Taiwan recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and:

• According to Taipei Times (different article), Chen responded: "Taiwan does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as the Israeli claim is contentious in the international community." More from article: "The government does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials said yesterday."
• According to Focus Taiwan (Taiwanese state-owned media), Chen responded with a "No," and added that the representative office in Israel remained in Tel Aviv. More from article: "Taiwan has no plan to follow the United States' lead and recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and does not intend to move its representative office in Israel from Tel Aviv, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official said Wednesday."

• Chen further said (regarding the above-mentioned MOFA page) on 13 December: "... MOFA's website states that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital but notes that this is disputed." (reported by same Focus Taiwan source)

Possible solutions: conclude that sources indicate Taiwan does or doesn't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, or decide it's simply too unclear. Note that the current hotness of the topic creates a real danger of circular reporting. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

All the conflicting sources above are secondary sources, describing statements made by Taiwanese officials and quoting MOFA website. MOFA website itself, a primary source, says that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, noting that this is not widely recognized. “WarKosign” 18:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That page was already included under "Suggests yes". I consider Chen's comment to have clarified that this page reflects Israel's rather than Taiwan's view. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

We have news articles quoting two MOFA Director-Generals giving two contradicting statements. Assuming the news reports are correct, there are two apparently equally ranking officials making opposite statements. Therefore, theese sources cancel each other out and we are forced to look into MOFA website. Per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:ABOUTSELF it's a good source for MOFA's position. It unambiguously states that Jerusalem is the capital. It does note that Jerusalem hasn't been widely recognized as the capital by international community but does not say that Taiwan agrees or disagrees with this position. This leaves us with a single relevant fact: Taiwan considers Jerusalem to be capital of Israel. “WarKosign” 22:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not how things work, conflicting sources do not "cancel each other out". You cant put in something as a "fact" when reliable sources directly dispute that, that is literally the point of WP:NPOV. Besides, why does Taiwan's position even need to be noted? They dont even have diplomatic relations with Israel. nableezy - 23:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would have been worth mentioning: Taiwan does not have diplomatic relations with either Israel or Palestine (direct quote). WarKosign, it's a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies and explanatory supplements to claim primary sources are better than secondary sources. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:ABOUTSELF both say primary sources can be used, not that they should be used. I've argued that the MOFA page is not sufficient as a primary source because it can be interpreted in different ways. Chen's "interpretation"—that it simply reflects what Israel claims, and specifically not what Taiwan believes—is recorded in a secondary source and directly contradicts the interpretation that is currently used. To quote WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." So we're not going to write off the four articles. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There are contradicting equally reliable secondary sources. You can't choose to use only the ones that suit your POV or to disregard a perfectly valid primary source just because it doesn't suit your POV. There is no need to interpret the primary source, the site represents Taiwan MOFA position and explicitly says that Jerusalem is the capital in Taiwan MOFA's. “WarKosign” 08:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That's an unreasonable accusation. I specifically documented each of these sources equally, representing them fairly and asking other editors to contribute their conclusions. I never disregarded the primary source, I've argued that two of our other, non-primary reliable sources dispute your interpretation of and assigned significance to it. You can't say it's "explicit" or that "there is no need to interpret the primary source" when Chen's reliably sourced statement describes the web page's implication as something that runs contrary to yours. I repeat: "... MOFA's website states that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital but notes that this is disputed." So there is more than one interpretation. And put bluntly, the interpretation of a Wikipedia editor is of no value when compared to the "interpretation" of the Secretary-General of MOFA's Department of West Asian (this includes Israel) and African Affairs. I think he knows what he's talking about. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The categorical language (""No," Chen answered categorically.") used by Chen sounds like he is correcting the earlier statement by Lee that Taiwan "acknowledges" Jerusalem as a capital. Lee's statement was issued just a day or two after Trump spoke, which suggests the Taiwanese hadn't yet formalized their statements on the issue. As to the ministry info page on Israel, that doesn't state Jerusalem is Israel's capital. If we look at the comparable page on France, we can see the Taiwanese ministry has an info field named "Capital". In Israel's "Capital" field, it's stated Israel has declared Jerusalem as the capital, but this is not recognized. That page does not state Taiwan recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital. And since Chen emphatically denies they do, the case is clear in that they don't. However, one way or another, Taiwan's view should be placed in Positions on Jerusalem, not here. --Dailycare (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Edit: see what Chen himself says of the MOFA website: "Chen said that MOFA's website states that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital but notes that this is disputed". What the Taiwanese themselves say of what their website says should be taken into account when interpreting the website.--Dailycare (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I quite agree with you and User:Icewhiz that it shouldn't be mentioned here either way, but note: the claim is currently included in a footnote in the infobox (after "Jerusalem"). I previously removed Taiwan from the note after I started an earlier section above to explain my edit, but WarKosign reverted me and we weren't able to resolve it together. This RfC is specifically about whether or not Taiwan can be said to have recognized it in that footnote, or anywhere else in the article. I changed the original post to explain this a bit better because it wasn't too clear. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

nableezy and Dailycare: in the survey part, would you support the current inclusion of Taiwan or oppose it (and so vote to remove it from the article)—or something else entirely? Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

57 Muslim countries + Venezuela, North Korea etc all recognized all of Jerusalem as belonging to Palestine + East Jerusalem as Palestine capital [1]. Moreover, Abbas even very recently claimed all of Jerusalem al-Quds is Palestine’s eternal capital.[2] Per Wikipedia Due and undue weight policy,[3] Palestine clearly wins. With one or two recognitions, there's hardly any weight on Israel's side. Also Russia, China recognize East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital. I believe all these info should be added to the note after excluding Taiwan.--Pailsdell (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

But this RfC isn't about that. This is specifically about whether or not Taiwan should be said to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: Yet another from Taipei Times: "US President Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, ... Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Taiwan will not follow suit, that with the exception of the US, no other country in the world recognizes Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and that Taiwan would adhere to the majority opinion of the international community. ... Antonio Chen, director-general of the ministry’s Department of West Asian and African Affairs, answered that Taiwan would not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, and that the status of Jerusalem is controversial. At present, Chen said, with the exception of the US, only the Czech Republic and Russia have indicated they recognize West Jerusalem, the part Israel owned prior to the Six Day War, as the capital of Israel, but still consider the status of Jerusalem overall to be unresolved. Therefore, the Republic of China’s representative office in Israel would remain in Tel Aviv." Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

To clarify my earlier comment, I don't think Taiwan's view should be placed even in the footnote, and instead of the footnote, it would be much clearer to have just "internationally not recognized", which links to Positions on Jerusalem. --Dailycare (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Wait based on WP:RECENT. this situation is way too volatile to accept anything other than formally documented declarations on the subject. Any quote from a public verifiable figure or source can be included in the article if widely notable and likely to have lasting impact, but (excuse the repeated emphasis) not as a source supporting the formal recognition of one state's affairs by another, when it is not backed by significant documentation of public declarations which carry legal weight. Edaham (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that is true. According to international public law, statements made by relevant ministers or head of state are acceptable as clarifying a nation's offical point of view. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand that, that is why I advised "wait" rather than "no include". At this present time it is possible and likely that a number of statements might be made by representatives of nation states. If these conflict then the information we include may be deemed contentious or false. If we attribute positions to specific persons for the time being and then rely on more uptodate sources later our article will remain accurate. I don't think attribution as suggested above will in any way detract from the information we impart to our readers and therefore strongly recommend that this approach be taken. My caveat in this case is if a nation makes some kind of formal declaration, follows suit by moving their own embassy, or sends representatives to an embassy which has been moved to Jerusalem. Any of these things would be pretty conclusive, although would still require some context in addition to simply stating "x recognizes that J is the capital of I" for example. We are an encyclopedia so the important thing for us to do here is to make sure our readers get accurate information. In potentially contentious articles, this means giving clear context rather than snap statements which may appear to be taking advantage of a current issue to cement a point of view. Edaham (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2017 (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.

Israeli Human-rights Violation

There should be a mention on this page about the UN resolution condemning Israel and controversy over it. https://undocs.org/S/RES/2334(2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:318F:4750:8595:3DF5:4368:C752 (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Recognition of Jerusalem as captial

The lead says that Jerusalem is unrecognized internationally as Israel's capital, however the situation is more complex as evident from Positions on Jerusalem:

• Taiwan recognizes it [4]
• Russia arguably does [5]
• US passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act and might implement it some day
• Czech parlament recognized it [6]
• Vanuatu recognizes it [7].

Current statement that no state recognizes Jerusalem as the capital is false. The sources that support are of low quality or irrelevant: Kattan's paper was written for an Arab League conference of Jerusalem, BBC clearly counter-factual and quotation of UN and Ban's position does not prove anything about other countries.

I suggest changing the wording to "mostly unrecognized", "largely unrecognized" or something similar that would represent the situation more correctly and not contradict any of the sources. “WarKosign” 08:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Kattan in general is highly polemic - more of an activist than an authority (Victor Kattan at Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian policy network). The situation is indeed more complex - and has varied (e.g. prior to 1980 there were some 14 embassies in Jerusalem). Status is variable between western Jerusalem, status as capital, and eastern Jerusalem, more or less in this order.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the article contains another wrong statement about Jerusalem as Israel's capital city: "The United Nations and all member nations...maintain their embassies in other cities ". Actually, Greece and Costa Rica maintain their embassies in Jerusalem (Greece does that even in East Jerusalem). Further, the Israeli Foreign ministry has announced that today it received applications of two other countries (one of which is the Philippines, the other one being Czech republic) for moving their embassies to Jerusalem. 185.46.78.14 (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Several countries have Consulus General in Jerusalem, but do not officially consider them to be missions to Israel. According to this Bolivia and Paraguay have embassies near Jerusalem, at Mevaseret Zion. “WarKosign” 14:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The current phrasing in the info box "(internationally unrecognized)" is clearly not entirely accurate. However, it may be difficult to come up with a short statement for the infobox that accurately explains the situation, and a long explanation seems undesirable. OtterAM (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

How about something like "(unrecognized by most other countries)" or "(largely internationally unrecognized)", which is still the case. Eilidhmax (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The US now officially recognizes it. --Bellezzasolo (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Today, also Czech republic announced that, After US did. 185.46.78.14 (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The countries that don't "recognize" Jerusalem as the capital of Israel consider what other city to be the Capital? I'm not asking what city they put their embassies in but what city have the officially said they consider to be the capital of Israel? - Hoplon (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Tel Aviv. Decades ago, when I was in school, it was always Tel Aviv, nobody even mentioned Jerusalem. Today in schools it's still only Tel Aviv. I don't see that changing either. Outside of Israel and USA people mostly see Israel as occupying force. BTW, someone should make sure to remove incorrect statements about Finland and Czech Republic recognizing Jerusalem as the capital, it's factually incorrect. 77.71.183.19 (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but Tel Aviv has never been Israel's capital city. Foreigners cannot determine for a country what its capital city should be. Noduzuk (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I answered the question. Other countries recognize Tel Aviv as the capital and there is nothing you can do about it. This can change only if a settlement with the occupied people is reached and the UN recognizes Israel as a non-occupying force. Why is Catalonia not a country? If Taiwan, part of China, recognizes it, would it be recognized as a country but with a little note saying "only Taiwan recognizes it?". When it comes to internationally recognized facts, they actually need to be internationally recognized. You can claim anything you want in Israel. You can teach kids that whole Middle East is Israel. It doesn't matter. Wikipedia should not be taking that into account. Here is a question for all of you guys, who are claiming that it only matters what Israel says is their capital: what if Israel says that Paris is its capital? Should it be stated in Wikipedia that Paris is Israel's capital?46.11.207.43 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, almost all of your response to me (except for your second sentence) - was about Jerusalem, so it has missed my point, that was not about Jerusalem - but rather about Tel Aviv you had talked about before I gave you my previous response. Anyways, the fact that other countries recognize X as the capital city of Y, doesn't make X the capital city of Y, so long as Y itself doesn't recognize X as Y's own capital city. One could claim that Israel has no internationally recognized capital city, but nobody in Wikipedia is allowed to lie - saying that Israel's capital is any city whatever it is - while Israel doesn't accept that. Just like nobody may claim that my native language is Arabic, while actually it's Maltese. I don't say samak, but rather Ħut, so nobody can force me to say samak on any Arabic talk page, even though they can forbid me to say Ħut on that talk page.

Alternatively, your response (except for your second sentence) needs an urgent indent, to make sure it has nothing to do with my point.

As for the Paris example: I think Paris has nothing to do with Jerusalem, because of three reasons: First, Paris has never been claimed by Israel to be its capital city, so how can it be Israel's capital city? Secondly, Paris is already a capital city of another country, and had been the capital city of that country - long before Israel was created, so how can it be now Israel's capital city? On the other hand, Jerusalem has never been a capital city of any other country (yet it had been King David's Jewish capital city three thousand years ago). Thirdly, Paris has never been controlled by Israel, so how can it be Israel's capital city? On the other hand, Jerusalem was controlled by the Jewish nation, twice during history: Three thousand years ago - for more than four centuries, and also afterwards - since 1967. By the way, the very word "Jerusalem" we use here in English Wikipedia does not derive from Arabic, nor from any other currently spoken language, except for one language - being the official language of the country currently controlling Jerusalem. Indeed, I don't claim that those facts justify Jerusalem's being a capital city of any country, yet I do claim that those facts make your Paris example irrelevant to the Jerusalem case. Noduzuk (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Czechia recognizes Jerusalem as both the capital of Israel and the future state of Palestine. They specify 'West Jerusalem' and it might be better to use the MFA release. I'd edit it myself but still have a few more edits to go before editing protected/locked pages JuliusRT (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

References

People keep bringing up Tel Aviv, yet I haven't seen a single source for a single country claiming Tel Aviv to be Israel's capital. Most of the embassies are around Tel Aviv, but it is irrelevant. “WarKosign” 19:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

People, here's the information from UN data. An official site of the UN. The capital of Israel is Jerusalem.--Noavic (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a comment, right next to it: "Designation and data provided by Israel. The position of the United Nations on Jerusalem is stated in A/RES/181 (II) and subsequent General Assembly and Security Council resolutions." No change in policy. Also, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL you would need a much better quality source than a single web page. “WarKosign” 08:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of 'internationally unrecognized'

@Rantemario: the phrase in parentheses noting the international status of Jerusalem has been there for a while, the burden of justification lies upon you for removing it. Swazzo (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There is recognition by some states recently - so 'internationally unrecognized' is inaccurate.Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Icewhiz. And since having a sentence like "although lacking wide recognition of the international community as of recently recognized by some countries" is a tad long for an infobox, therefore I think that the most elegant resolution is a footnote. As a second option I'd replace "internationally unrecognized" by "see footnote for international recognition". Debresser (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"see footnote for international recognition" is ok, but a bit long.

Another option is simply "disputed", again with the detail in the footnote.

One thing's for sure, we need something there in line and not hidden in the footnote, else it sticks out to an average reader as if we’re taking sides. Many readers don’t go down to the notes, and nor do they understand the nuances we’ve been arguing about over the last couple of weeks such as who decides on a city's status.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The proposal "limited recognition" given above seems like a good compromise, with the added benefit that it is accurate while "unrecognized" is clearly not. By the way, the parenthetical tag has changed quite a lot, starting out a footnote with a more complex description, then has changed frequently since then. So, I don't think that the version Swazzo mentions is the consensus version. OtterAM (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with limited recognition - and BOLDly added it.Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Well done. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I Support this too.
(Btw, someone removed your edit even though consensus is reached.) Dank Chicken (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple threads on the same subject, including one that is supposed to be an RfC but never functioned as such. My impression is that there is consensus for "limited recognition" (I support it, btw) but I'm not in the position make the call. Do we add this as an option to the RfC, cancel it and begin a new one or do something else ? “WarKosign” 16:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I say we just make the change again. I doubt anyone will revert this time. Dank Chicken (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This would be against WP:BRD. A bold edit was reverted, now it's time to discuss. I have not seen a compelling argument presented by Seraphim System, but let's give them some time. “WarKosign” 18:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of a single clean and clear RFC on this question. It would likely ensure that a lot of the current threads find firm resolution. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a open RfC on this article right now, continuing to edit war it in while the RfC is open would be disruptive. I agree that it might be a good idea to discuss a community wide consensus at another venue before it escalates into something like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria but I don't know how we would do that.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: @Debresser: On which page is this RfC located? It is relevant to this article, but I don't see it in the discussion above. OtterAM (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: @Icewhiz: Also, when was the RfC opened? The phrase "limited recognition" (which is more factual and representative of both sides in a NPOV than the absolutist "unrecognized") had been around for a few days, which is an eternity in an article like this, and seemed to have the acquiescence of most editors. If the RfC was created recently, I think that "limited recognition" should be considered the consensus version.OtterAM (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I am usure regarding where there is a RfC. There is one here on Taiwan, which I think was tòo down in the weeds. Not sure regarding phrasing.Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is the supposed RfC. It was opened before "limited recognition" was proposed as an option, contrary to the rfc policy is not worded neutrally, and did not yield any structured !votes. Per WP:RFCEND we can agree to end it and start a new, proper one. “WarKosign” 14:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I object to the removal of "internationally unrecognized" because 99% of all nations do not recognize Jerusalem as Israels capital. 1% of nations with a different opinion does not change that its "internationally unrecognized"--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That's what limited recognition means. For it to be internationally unrecognized, it would mean that no country recognized it, which isn't the case. Dank Chicken (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

1% is so insignificant that it doesn't need to be changed, its still "internationally unrecognized". It would be like refusing to call this car "White" because the back lights are red:[8], you dont call it "limited white, red and black"... no you just call it "white" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

When that 1% includes the US it becomes very important. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: why the US specifically? Is it because of its relatively large stature internationally? Its permanent seat on the Security Council, or something to that end? In that case, what do we make of polities like Transnistria, whose only major supporter-cum-recognizer is Russia? Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Russia is not the major country it was once, especially internationally speaking. In any case, I don't care on this talkpage about other cases. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment – parenthetical comment on the status of Jerusalem in the infobox for Israel

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Limited Recognition appears to be the consensus, with some !voting for something else essentially having it as a second choice/arguing against internationally unrecognized. However, since the RfC did not have "largely unrecognised" or thereabouts as a choice, and there was some support for it, it is possible for a second rfc to decide to change to that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

---

In the infobox for Israel, the entry for capital city includes a parenthetical comment about the status of Jerusalem. The question for this RfC is what this comment should say. Here are five possibilities:

1. (internationally unrecognized)
2. (limited recognition)
3. (Contested)
4. Only a footnote is needed (e.g. [9]).
5. No information about other countries' views is necessary.

A variety of references related to the history of the city and various countries' views about the status the city can be found in this article. OtterAM (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Tally

1. 4
2. 16
3. 0
4. 5
5. 2
6. Unclear or alternative choices: OtterAM; Telaviv1; Pincrete; Onceinawhile; 198.84.253.202

Comments

• Support Limited Recognition
  I vote 2 as most favourable option, and 3 as an acceptable option. 1 is factually incorrect, and 4 doesn't provide enough information.
  Dank Chicken (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Limited Recognition. Any description that can be interpreted as full recognition or full lack of recognition contradicts the sources, so from the 4 proposed option this is the only acceptable one. “WarKosign” 15:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• 2 = limited recognition, in the infobox itself, not in a footnote. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment(Summoned by bot) there is a related RfC on the Jerusalem page. Does it make sense to 'hold our fire' on this one? Also would "not (widely) recognised internationally" or similar be a viable additional choice? Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

That RfC is very different in scope and slightly different in content. That one deals with a major political question which will be difficult to solve on Wikipedia, while this one deals with how to present information. I will add your suggestion as a new possibility. OtterAM (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support (Internationally unrecognized), 99% of the international community don't recognize Jerusalem as Israels capital. 1% that does is so insignificant that it doesn't need to be changed to "limited", its still "internationally unrecognized". It would be like refusing to call this car "White" because the back lights are red:[10], you don't call it "limited white, red and black"... no you just call it "white". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

US has 5.5% of world's population, and normally lights are not considered part of the car color, so your proposal is like calling this white-and-red car just white.“WarKosign” 18:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The US is one country out of 195. So that is about 0.5%. If you want to count population than do you really think Trump represents the views of every single American? "Only 36% of respondents to CNN survey favor moving US embassy to holy city" [11], and the US has about 5% of the world population:[12] oh so it was around 1,6%... my bad. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

One country out of 195, if you consider US to be as important as some tiny island nations. It only happens to be the single most influential country in the world. If you are into guesstimating general world's population support for recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, at least do it right. According to the article you quoted US population is about equally divided between support and objection, so we have 2.5% of world's population in US alone. In the countries that did not recognize Jerusalem as the capital yet some percent of the population must be in favor, so whatever the number is - it is much higher than your 1.6%, probably at least 10-20%. A minority, but a significant one. “WarKosign” 08:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion 5. (not widely recognized internationally) – new suggestion from the comments above. OtterAM (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion #5 reads "No information about other countries' views is necessary". You choose #5 but then also propose #2, i.e. "limited recognition" (exactly the same as "not widely recognized internationally"). Which is it, OtterAM? Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Limited Recognition. Five states recognize. That is more than for Northern Cyprus or Karabakh or South Ossetia's independence. This is not ambiguous. "Limited recognition" is factually correct for Jerusalem. --Calthinus (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Only a footnote is needed (stating limited recognition) Support Limited Recognition. At least one major superpower (Russia's status being questionable) + a smattering of minor states (that are hard to keep track of - as evidenced by our own confusion in the RfC above on "RfC on Taiwan's stated recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital"). That's the definition of limited recognition. Anything more nuanced - will have us reevaluating the next time some minor state leader says something about Jerusalem in his morning statement.Icewhiz (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC) On reflection - international recognition is only a minor aspect of a capital city (and for most capitals we don't even know if and how much they are recognized) - actual governance and control of the city, seats of government, etc. are much more important than international recognition. It would be UNDUE to state in the infobox "limited recognition" while not stating that this is the seat of government, controlled by Israel, and functioning as the capital. The footnote should state limited recognition while briefly expanding on the topic.Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Limited Recognition- As some states did recognize it I think we should change our wording too--Shrike (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Limited Recognition. More accurate description that points out the fact that there is some recognition (even if minor), while "internationally unrecognized" may mislead and give the wrong impression that there is none. Infantom (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Suggestion 6. (Contested) - suggested by Telaviv1 (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Instead of saying "limited recognition" say "Contested" and put in the footnote: "Due to controversy over the status of the Old City of Jerusalem, most countries keep their embasssies in Tel-Aviv. Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem, is usually not disputed." Telaviv1 (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Such a footnote would be factually incorrect. These countries didn't put their embassies in the western half of Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied the eastern half of the city (where the Old City is located), so the status of the Old City isn't the issue. I recommend you read about the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and the corpus separatum. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Telaviv1: You already voted for a footnote, above. Now you seem to also choose #3, i.e. "Contested", but then you again return to a suggestion for a different footnote wording. I took the liberty of putting in the tally your choice as being for #4 (a footnote) but this is quite confusing. Care to clarify if you stand for #4 (a footnote with some suggested wording) or for #3 (status is "contested") or for some new suggestion outside the 5 offered in the RfC? I'm just trying to help keep things tidy. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support
  That's correct since the UN recognized Israel's post-war borders (including West Jerusalem) in 1949.[13]
  Dank Chicken (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep dreaming, Dank Chicken. Keep dreaming. The UN has never recognized Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem, including the western half of the city. I recommend you read about the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and the corpus separatum. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

That was in 1947. My link is from 1949. I win! :) Dank Chicken (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It is factually correct that the United Nations maintain Resolutions 242, 446, and 2334 still in full force. These as well as other resolutions essentially demand that Israel abandons the whole area of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. That is the extent of the UN's position on the matter; recent developments have only amplified the UN stance.-The Gnome (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not (widely) recognised internationally or "largely unrecognised internationally".(Summoned by bot) This is a "is the glass almost empty or is it partly full?" question. 'Limited recognition' places the emphasis on 'partly full', whereas the more accurate picture is 'very limited', though that would be clumsy phrasing. If we ignore very minor states on both sides of the argument, it remains true that the vast majority of 'major players' do not recognise. This is not only more accurate IMO, but also more informative, the status is one of the most deeply contested arguments on earth and it would be misleading to imply otherwise. Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

"largely unrecognised internationally"- or "Widely unrecognized internationally" is an acceptable alternative. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• How about - "Due to controversy over the status of Jerusalem, most countries keep their embasssies in Tel-Aviv, for more information see Positions on Jerusalem." Telaviv1 (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

That should count as a vote for a footnote, i.e. #4. -The Gnome (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Limited Recognition - Accurate, short and precise. Along with the infobox note about its status that seems reasonable. Yandanta (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Limited Recognition This is the most accurate statement. Billhpike (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Internationally unrecognized: "Limited recognition" implies >10ish from 200ish countries, which is not really the case. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Says who? 1 or 2 is also "limited" in my book, especially if one of them is the United States! Debresser (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, how many are "many" and how many are "few"? The old, familiar conundrum!.. :-) The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Mostly unrecognized. The point here is that most of the world have made a point about not recognizing the city’s capital-of-Israel status, which is unusual in both the non-recognition and the fact that it is an explicit issue. “Limited recogition” could mean either “small” or “has an upper limit”; I suspect technically Paris has “limited recognition” as the capital of France, in that most countries don’t bother to state a view - putting your embassy there is not technically recognition in itself. The issue here is the explicit non-recognition. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Mostly unrecognized" is not among the options offered in this RfC. It cannot be counted in the tally. Should your vote be cast as being for limited recognition? This is the closest your choice comes to one of the offered options, Onceinawhile. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome: it is a middle ground between “limited recognition” and “internationally unrecognized”, which solves the concerns which others have raised. It’s a shame it wasn’t proposed as an option by the nominator. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Onceinawhile. Two remarks: 1st, how do we handle this now that the RfC is many dayls old? 2nd, "limited recognition" reads essentially the same as "mostly unrecognized" in my view. "Limited" clearly denotes "way below half" have recogized; "mostly" reads the same, only from the point of view of how many have not recognized it, i.e. "way above half" have not recognized. What do you think? (Also, you Pincrete?) -The Gnome (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• (limited recognition). It's not our job to say whether something is 'mostly' or 'mostly not'. 'Mostly unrecognized' feels a lot like POV. Israel claims their capital is Jerusalem, the U.S. agreed, and frankly for all intents and purposes Jerusalem is an Israeli city, so the fact they claim it as their capital is pretty significant in itself. My opinion. Cheers. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Limited Recognition. Working by number of member states, while it may be the way the UN itself operates, isn't reflective of the actual global situation - one of the reasons I personally believe the UN needs reform. Many member states that don't recognise Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem are not democratic, so could be construed as the opinion of only the individuals composing the Oligarchy (e.g. China), with the rest of the population's opinion unknown. This isn't the picture either, but suggests that Wikipedia must not treat the UN picture as sacrosanct. Another metric would be the security council, where you have 1/15. Yet, the USA is the most influential country in the world. However, with several states in the UNGA now recognising Jerusalem, I believe that Limited Recognition is the correct wording. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support limited recognition The phrase "limited recognition is the closest to reality. Jerusalem, in whole or in part, is recognized as the capital of Israel by "the Czech Republic, the United States, Guatemala, and Vanuatu." This means that there is some support for this political position, but it is limited. The phrase "internationally unrecognized" implies that the position has zero support, which is not factual. The comment is needed as a general summary of the situation. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: Can you please tell me on what you based on that the czech republic recognize that jerusalem is the capital of israel? because the offcial statement of the MOFA said "The Czech Republic together with other EU member states, following the EU Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions, considers Jerusalem to be future capital of both states, meaning the State of Israel and the future State of Palestine. " here,here and here, so what you said is not completely true. --Elbasyouny (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Elbasyouny: The Hill refers to that exact statement, in May Czech lawmakers voted in favour ynet ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

These for instance - [14] [15] [16]. The foriegn minister (who ranks lower than the president) did join the EU-wide statement you are referring to - however one does not actually contradict the other.Icewhiz (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: this was a resolution not an official law (the resolution does not force the government). @Icewhiz: The sources said that the Czech recognizes the west Jerusalem only (not all of the city). --Elbasyouny (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The beauty of the phrase "limited recognition" is that the word "limited" can also apply to what parts of Jerusalem are recognized as Israel's capital. That covers the nuances of each countries' positions, including Czech's as well as the U.S.' position. The actual positions on Jerusalem contain all the arguments, as does the lead section of the Israel article. For a parenthetical comment, "limited recognition" is justified and adequate. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: Do you want to consider the recognition of part of the city as recognition of the whole city? absolutely not, there's a big difference. the Czech Republic should be removed from the note. --Elbasyouny (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Czech Republic recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in a limited manner, namely part of the city. The phrase "limited recognition" encompasses that detail; limiting recognition of Israel's capital to West Jerusalem is by definition limited recognition. It is also far more than many other countries go on this manner. Removing the Czech Republic from the list implies that the Czech Republic does not recognize Jerusalem, all or part, as the capital of Israel. That is far more materially inaccurate than including the Czech Republic in the list. The main article that the comment links to, positions on Jerusalem, does a far better job of describing positions than a single comment can. That is where the reader can go for more details on the matter. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support "limited recognition" as it seems the only factual, WP:NPOV option. The arguments some users have used against it above are in fact among the best evidences that other options give in to a certain POV. Jeppiz (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support "limited recognition" as this appears to be the real world position. 9 nations in addition to the United States supported this change. I would define that as 'limited recognition'. Malik, I think your points regarding the 1947 plan and the corpus separatum were fine in 1947. However, the illegal Arab invasions the following year of the newly recognised state of Israel (recognised by the U.N) make those resolutions and plans you mention relics of history. It is arguable that the pre-independence Israeli administration would have least considered them. The invasions made them moot. In any event, in the context of final status agreements, at least the western part of Jerusalem will be recognised internationally (by those nations who accept Israel's right to exist) as Israel's capital, where the Knesset, and the organs of the Israeli Government are presently located anyway. Final point. 65 nations either voted against, abstained, or did not show up for the recent vote. This would indicate a large minority of nation states have given tacit consent to the concept of Jerusalem as being Israel's capital, or are at least provisionally sitting on the fence. Simon. Irondome (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In 1980, the UN Security Council reaffirmed its belief that Jerusalem was not part of Israel, which prompted those states that had embassies there to move them to Tel Aviv. There may be more recent resolutions as well. This isn't ancient history, nor is it the case that the world is pretending that Israel's government isn't located in Jerusalem. The view of the international community is that Jerusalem is not part of Israel. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • UNSC 478 only refers to East Jerusalem specifically. While many countries moved their embassies, that wasn't a rejection of Israeli sovereignty over the West of the city, and the fact that several embassies had been there prior suggests more of a protest, rather than a rejection of the 1949 armistice lines. As a further point, UN resolutions preceding 1991 are heavily influenced by the cold war. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
      • And UN resolutions since 1991 are heavily influenced by global warming. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• No information about other countries' views is necessary. The capital of Israel is where it is and does not require recognition. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Not recognized All due respect to Nauru, Palau and Togo, but the United States has not recognized Jerusalem within the boundaries Israel claims, so without a final status agreement it is still disputed and most nations, including the United States, are still committed to the two-state solution". Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The RfC (and Trump's declaration) are not about boundaries or two-state solution, but about whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital. “WarKosign” 08:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the RfC is not at all about that! Rest assured, the world is not holding its breath waiting for us to decide "whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital" - that is something for others to decide. We are here simply to discuss how the currently extant situation, as reflected in yer ol' reliable sources, should be denoted in the article. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• No information about other countries' views is necessary. Jerusalem is Palestinian territory.-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

We are quite specifically here not to promote our own, personal views and ideas. We are here to reflect the outside world. (Yeah, I know! Good luck with that in a discussion about the Middle East. But I'm trying.) -The Gnome (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Largely unrecognized - the statement needs, per WP:NPOV, to prioritize the most commonly held opinion (in the same way the article on evolution doesn't treat creationism as a widely-held-equally-valid opinion). "Limited recognition" instead puts the emphasis on the minority viewpoint (10 countries out of 200, or 1/15 of the security council, which certainly don't have 50% of global population...). Also, WP needs to maintain a global point of view. The US may be a major player, but they're certainly not the only one. Also, per Onceinawhile, the fact that most of the world hasn't recognized it is unusual and should not be dismissed simply because the US President (who most certainly does not represent the opinion of the whole country, and is known for posting oft ill-advised posts on social media) decided by himself that suddenly, in a move that even other US presidents wouldn't do (and the US is Israel's biggest ally, so that means something) that he would suddenly recognize the (contested) claim on Jerusalem. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Limited recognition - Several countries, including the biggest superpower in the world, officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (more countries could do it in the future). Current version is incorrect and miselading. "Largely unrecognized" seems POV and original research, since most countries don't recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem, not necessarily the fact that Jerusalem is the capital.--Leokrujer (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

But WP requires a global overview of the matter. The US might be the biggest superpower, but they're not the only country with any significance (they're only one of the 5 permanent members of the SC) and changing it because of a recent decision by the US president appears US-centric. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Note, please, that the RfC is about how to denote Jerusalem in relation to its status as the ostensible "capital city of Israel". And the list of countries that have explicitly recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital is quite small, by any measure. We are supposed to go with what is the general consensus, with footnotes if necessary; but not what webelieve or want. -The Gnome (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Footnote is sufficient - Jerusalem is for all practical purposes the capital of Israel, and there is no need to overload infobox with details about its disputed status. All we need is a simple footnote with text roughly along the lines of: "Due to Jerusalem's disputed status the foreign embassies are located in Tel Aviv."--Staberinde (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If Jerusalem is indeed the capital of Israel, "for all practical purposes," where are the embassies of most countries in the world located in Israel? Not in Jerusalem. If there is a dispute about Jerusalem's status (and, evidently, there is), then there are no "practical purposes" that support your argument. -The Gnome (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Per Merriam-Webster a "capital" is defined as "being the seat of government" [17]. There is absolutely no doubt that Jerusalem is indeed for all practical purposes the seat of Israeli government. Embassies, while commonly located in capitals, aren't really required as even unrecognized countries with no formal diplomatic relations like Somaliland or Transnistria have capitals.--Staberinde (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There are no easy questions here. What happens when a country proclaims city XYZ to be its capital but no other country in the world recognizes that proclamation? (I know some countries already recognize Jerusalem. But this is not about arithmetic; in arithmetical terms, the Jerusalem claim loses.) What happens when an ethnic entity, such as the Palestinians, also proclaim XYZ as their capital, and the rest of the world officially accepts that claim? What happens when the city is divided, as far as the world is concerned? The Jewish people, at least since the birth of modern Zionism, have laid claim to a whole, undivided Jerusalem. (In folk tradition, of course, for an even longer period.) But should this be a factor in our considerations? And what about the de jure "observer state" but not (yet?) sovereign State of Palestine, with its own claims?

The guiding rule here, I believe, should be a combination of both what the only extant state (i.e. Israel) officially proclaims with what is the actual, evident situation on the ground in regards to recognition. Which is why I voted as above. And I remain open to persuasion otherwise. -The Gnome (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Limited recognition. Agree that details about this could be put in a footnote for brevity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Internationally unrecognized Anything else would be undue weight for the tiny, almost non-existent fraction of states which recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Elspamo4 (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Limited recognition is my 1st choice; and Internationally unrecognized the 2nd one (Amended according to argument made by PointsofNoReturn, i.e. that "internationally unrecognized" means zero recognition, something factually incorrect). -The Gnome (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Footnote is sufficient. Really I would prefer the "no international opinions are necessary" option, but in practice that would probably invite a lot of vandalism and lack of clarity. Footnotes are often used on Wikipedia to denote a fact that nevertheless some 3rd parties dispute. The reasoning behind my choice is the well-understood notion that a country does not need other countries' consent to decide on its capital, even more so when it has de facto control over that city. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Only a footnote is needed. Davidbena (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Internationally unrecognized. This is what the sources describe as the state of Israel's claim. Saying "limited recognition" would give WP:UNDUE weight to the Trump administration's views, which, furthermore, are WP:RECENT and may soon be history anyway. Saying "Internationally unrecognized" doesn't mean the same thing as "Internationally completely unrecognized", which would neglect to factor in Tramp's statement. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC) --Dailycare (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I voted for "limited recognition" as the preferred option and "int'lly unrecognized" as the 2nd one. Nonetheless, I'm moved by PointsofNoReturn's (obvious, really) point that the phrase "internationally unrecognized" implies that the position has zero support, something which is not factual. If we want to be as accurate as possible (and I do!) then #1 is by definition off the table. -The Gnome (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Footnote plus: Many thoughtful points have been made. In terms of fact, I believe that the location of Israel's national legislature, ministries, and judicial offices means that, regardless of what others think or want, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I believe a footnote is needed, perhaps including something like "Nearly all foreign embassies are located in or near Tel Aviv." But, I expect there would be a consensus that this is insufficient to display the international disagreement, so I would support words such as "limited international recognition" or "internationally disputed" or "internationally contested". It doesn't have to be any of those, but "internationally unrecognized" is incorrect since there is some international recognition. In summary, there should be a footnote and one to three words expressing the lack of acceptance on the part of much or most, but not all, of the rest of the world. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Internationally unrecognized. I agree with Dailycare and disagree with The Gnome's rebuttal; I read it as meaning that the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as a capital, which we all know. In my mind "limited recognition" would mean somewhere in the range of 20-50% of states give recognition, while "widely unrecognized" would mean 80-95% do not give recognition. At less than 5% recognition, I would say internationally unrecognized and add a footnote for the odd ones. Of 19 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Closure

Does anybody object to this RfC being closed? It's been a long one. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• I object mainly because more comments are coming in currently. I'd rather wait until the discussion dies down a bit before closing the RFC. Of course, if there is a RFC closure guideline I am not familiar with, please let me know. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Per WP:RFCEND, "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be." A bot will remove the {{rfc}} tag after 30 days (I think it was added 25 days ago), but that doesn't necessarily signal the end of the discussion, especially if it seems to be helpful. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I object, per Malik Shabazz's reasoning, above. -The Gnome (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

References

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.