Talk:Israel: Difference between revisions

Old archives
Israel and the Occupied Territories Jerusalem as capital

Outdated info on Wikipedia

I know Hebrew very well so I entered the "Hebrew Wikipedia" and there it said the population is 7,465,000‏‏‏ as of december 31st 2008 So just letting you know, trying to make wikipedia more accurate. Turns out, they calculated the data from the webpage and added a little of their own, saying that the report did not include the population without the israeli Identity document. They said that the number of people living in Israel without Identity documents is about 270,000.. Since the page is locked, I cannot edit it, but, accoding to this link, there are 7.4 million people living in israel (or 7,465,000‏‏‏ to be accurate)

I don't understand your point. No one added anything, they just took the number from the webpage. The footnote there explains what that number includes. Anyway, that source is slightly out of date, as is ours. I'll update it. okedem (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Angela Merkel and Iran

This site: [Iran] is from an Israeli newspaper and talks about what Angela Merkel thinks about Iran.Agre22 (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Currency

do we have any sort of currency in the initial info on the right hand side table? Melara... (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

Science and education in Israel

I think that, while the disparity between Arabs and Jews is a very important aspect of the educational system - perhaps the most defining aspect - this subject is perhaps a bit detailed for the overview page. As Okedem says, it could be expanded on the Education in Israel page. However, it can't be completely ignored here. Can we agree on a reduced version? Arikk (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The version I restored devotes two sentences to the topic. How much more can it be reduced? Tiamut^talk 19:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There's something to that. Okedem, can we leave those two sentences in? Arikk (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of latent discrimination in budget allocation are universal; in Israel, for example, they are made regarding pretty much every group, including the majority group. So the sentences are banal and uninformative. Additionally, there's a reliability problem - they seem to be sourced to Electronic Intifada, and a potential WP:UNDUE problem, as opposing views aren't cited. I could change my mind if I were shown examples of other country articles where this kind of stuff is mentioned. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Which countries are you thinking of that have or had de facto segregation in their education systems that have been addressed by the highest court of their judicial branch ? I'm struggling to know where to look for analogues in other articles (and I assume you aren't thinking of South Africa under apartheid). If the sentences are banal and uninformative then we should be able to improve them. I don't think anyone is suggested more than a sentence or two. That seems reasonable for an issue that a) affects a large percentage of the children of Israeli citizens b) has been addressed by the highest court in the land and c) is reported on quite frequently. Regarding EI as a source, see this somewhat surprising info but I assume that source can be replaced easily (e.g. US State Department's 2008 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories which says 'The government maintained unequal educational systems for Arab and Jewish students.'). Regarding Okedem's reasoning in his edit summary 'the sup court addresses thousands of cases; we're not gonna discuss them all here. this might be relevant for Education in Israel, but definitely not here'. Is that accurate ? Are there thousands of cases addressed by the Supreme Court with national scope ? One of the main issues faced by Israeli society and addressed by the Supreme Court is terrorism and I think the number of rulings related to terrorism is in the tens rather than the thousands. You can access the 3 published collections via this link. Are there opposing views that in fact there is no budget disparity and that the government is not required by the Supreme Court to eliminate certain aspects of discriminatory funding ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The sentences are banal and uninformative not because of the way they're written but because of their content. For comparison I was thinking cases like of African-Americans in the United States or Roma in Central European countries, but if you insist on countries with different languages of instruction ("de facto segregation", as you call it), then check out, say, Canada, Switzerland and Belgium. In any case, the minute Electronic Intifada was used as a source for information about Israel, someone should have stopped and said "actually, that's not how encyclopedia articles are written". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The supreme court addressed thousands of cases. Sitting as the High Court of Justice, many of its decisions have national scope.

Your use of the word "segregation" is simply wrong. Israel operates an Arabic language school system out of respect to its Arab citizens - Israel doesn't want or try to make them study in Hebrew. In the Arab schools they study in their own language, studying their own culture. Regardless, parents are free to send their children to whichever school system they choose - if they want their kid to go to a Hebrew-language school, they can (and sometimes do). To call this "segregation" is simply inflammatory and absurd.

If you want to mention budget disparities, try mentioning that a significant part of the education system's budget, especially for enrichment activities, comes from the municipal authorities. Arabs are generally poorer, and so a fair comparison would be to Jewish towns of the same socio-economic levels, and not the state average; but beyond that - Arabs simply pay less municipal taxes. The percentage of people who bother paying these taxes in Arab towns is much lower than in Jewish towns, and the municipal authorities don't bother collecting the money, perhaps due to their own corruption. Much of the funding coming from the Ministry of Education is matched with municipal funding (50-50) - if the residents don't bother paying their taxes, they can't operate these programs. So any discussion of claims of discrimination should contain these facts, as well.

If you wanna talk discrimination, we can talk about the ultra-orthodox schools, that get enough funding to operate really small classes (10-15 students, vs. 30-40 in secular schools), and don't even bother teaching the state curriculum. All fascinating things, really, but not for this article. Way too in-depth.

I'm deleting both these claims, and the "Hand in Hand" - both aren't important enough. okedem (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I said de facto segregation which I think is an accurate description. I'm not making any moral or ethical judgments. I just saw an NPOV issue. What I think the article should mention (in one or two sentences) is information from reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, there's de facto partial separation, not segregation, which is a very loaded word, with a strong political meaning. No one is being forced to do anything - most Arab parents want their children to study in their own language and culture. It's basically a no win situation - if Israel had only one monolithic school system, it would be lambasted for forcing Arabs to forsake their language and heritage. It has two, so you call it segregation. Great.

Just having a reliable source (EI isn't one, but whatever) isn't enough. This article can't discuss everything, and for a fair discussion of the condition of the Arab education system, you gotta have more details than what you wrote. There isn't room for that here. In such a high level article, you simply can't delve into details like this, which is why I also removed the information about the relatively little known bilingual schools. okedem (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware that Wikipedia policy is to remove well sourced and relevant information just because you feel it is too detailed for the article. Perhaps the fact that the bilingual schools are little known is a good reason for having them mentioned. Similarly, the disparity in education (not segregation, nor separation) is a central issue in Science and Education in Israel. It is not appropriate to remove it, as long as it is presented in a NPOV. Arikk (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So, in your view, all of our articles can become 5GB repositories of every piece of information ever written.

Well, that's not what an encyclopedia is. Within the five paragraphs devoted to science and education, there's simply no room for such detailed claims, especially when a fair discussion would take up at least a paragraph. It isn't a central issue, but just another issue, along with the preferential funding the ultra-orthodox Jews get, and other issues. This is why we have top level articles, like this one, and specific articles, like Education in Israel. You can't write everything in the top-level article, or even in the specific article. Editorial judgment must be exercised, or we're doomed to become a database, instead of an encyclopedia. This doesn't require any specific policy to spell this out for you. okedem (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

5Gb? We're talking about two sentences. And two sentences about the preferential funding of haredi schools would be appropriate too. What I have a problem with is that people added well sourced and relevant content, so you should have a very good reason for removing it. That's how to avoid edit wars. Arikk (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, by your rational, we'll get to 5GB soon enough. You claim: "I'm not aware that Wikipedia policy is to remove well sourced and relevant information just because you feel it is too detailed for the article" - so any piece of information, no matter how specific and detailed, can be placed in the article, if it comes from an RS. That's what you claimed. You don't seem to accept the very idea of top-level articles, and specific articles; of editorial discretion, notability, and undue weight.

Claims and counter claims of discrimination are simply too detailed. I've explained above one of the reasons for under-funding in the Arab system, and you can't place the discrimination claim without presenting this reason, so the discussion quickly expands. Simply too detailed.

Oh, and the reason should be for including the material, not for removing it, especially as we've gone for years without it, and the change is the insertion, not the removal. Oh, and anything by "Electronic Intifada" does not qualify as "well sourced". okedem (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your position, I think you removed material inappropriately: particularly the information on the bilingual schools, which didn't seem to bother you when they were first entered, only after the discussion on "discrimination" became heated. Please don't remove other peoples contributions without consensus, as long as they are (1) NPOV, (2) relevant, (3) well sourced and (4) in good faith. I have replaced the reference from EI with a direct reference to the HRW report, so I don't believe that there can be a serious objection to the sourcing. Arikk (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is required for the addition of new material, if it is in dispute. Don't edit-war this into the article.

I removed the bilingual bit after Tiamut's comment on the subject (in the edit summary).

I'm removing this, again. If you want this in - you're going to have to address the actual issue, and you haven't even tried doing that yet, as you dispute the very idea of having any focus or specific level of detail in different articles. okedem (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut's edit summary said "agree with Sean.hoyland (and the IP) - Okedem, please explain on talk why you want to delete this relevant and reliably sourced material - certinaly more indicative of the reality of Israeli education that the Hand to Hand program mentioned as Israel". Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Tiamut drew my attention to that recently added bit - it's even less important for this article than the newest addition, so they should both be removed. okedem (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from this one place, I can't see any mention of any claimed systematic ethnic biases, not just Jews v Arabs. For example, I can't see any mention of the perceived domination of Ashkhenazim in politics and other high status professions, of complaints about low status of Felashas, etc. Perhaps in the demographics section there could be some mention of this whole complex of issues?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd object to that, I think. About 99% of these claims are pure bullshit. Many of them don't stand up to the most rudimentary scrutiny (lots of Mizrachis at top level government and politics). Many others are based of ridicules notions of "We deserve more". We should stick to facts, not political claims (the Mizrachi claim is most commonly made by the people who benefit from it politically - people like Shas, etc).

I'm not saying I'd object to any mention, but I'm worried that this will open a can of worms, with claims and counter-claims, that don't add anything to the reader. If there's anything specific you'd like to mention, perhaps we could find some neutral phrasing, but it might be detailed for this article. okedem (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The President of the USA is black, but so are too many of the prison population, grunts in the army etc. With regards to the issue in Israel, other people might know more on this. But isn't the decline of Labour associated with it being perceived as elitist? I thought a lot of Begin's success was based on his mobilising the Mizrahi vote?

There are many ways of looking at historical events. Marxism, for instance, tries to place everything in context of class war. Other theories use different perspectives. While Begin used the Mizrachi vote, and a lot of rhetoric, the Labour party's decline has a lot to do with its dysfunctional and corrupt politicians, rather than ethnicity. Sure, a discussion of the place these claims take in Israeli life and politics would be interesting (an important party, Shas, is completely built on them, regardless of veracity); I just think this article isn't the place. okedem (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

<- Jalapenos, had the US Supreme Court after eight years of hearings issued a unanimous decision by all judges ruling that the government's decision ".does not conform to the principle of equality, as it results in discrimination of members of the Arab" African-American "sector." then it would be a valid comparison. Regarding, 'the minute Electronic Intifada was used as a source for information about Israel, someone should have stopped and said "actually, that's not how encyclopedia articles are written". I disagree. What should happen is that editors should examine the information dispassionately and find further sources if the issue merits some research. It's no different from people finding info in JCPA or NGO Monitor and then exploring the issues raised and looking for alternative sources. In this case EI are simply reporting on HRW's Letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon which I'm sure they are quite capable of doing in a reliable way but as I've said alternative source are easy to find. Apart from the US State Department there are many, many sources that address this issue. Here's a random selection; a Jpost piece about the HCL ruling, the Haaretz piece, HRW of course, a paper by Counsel, Children’s Rights Division, HRW in the Journal of international law and politics, a recent article on low matriculation figures, I could go on at length.

Okedem we are talking about a ruling by the High Court Of Justice of national scope that addresses an educational issue that affects a significant proportion of Israeli citizens. They chose to highlight the issue so why aren't we ? This is not some bullshit attempt to demonize Israel (trust me, I live next to Myanmar). It's simply information that is very clearly significant within the context of the education system of Israel. Aren't we supposed to simply describe things as they are, warts and all based on reliable sources ? One or two sentences, details can go in the main education article. Seriously, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Arguments over whether it's separation, segregation, encouraging cultural diversity or whatever aren't relevant. What matters is that we are not informing our readers. Yes, "we've gone for years without it" despite it being a top level educational issue that was addressed by the top level court. Perhaps it's time to put that right with a sentence or two. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't care how people do their research, what I care about is what, in the end, they put into Wikipedia articles. This is like adopting CAMERA as the article's voice in the article on the Palestinian National Authority. You'd be up in arms about that, and rightly so. If the same info is taken from reliable sources, then obviously reliability isn't a problem. As for whether a Supreme Court decision makes this POV on this issue notable - I basically agree with okedem's position below. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

They chose to highlight it because they were petitioned with it. It's their job. We cannot possibly start reporting, in top-level articles, on everything the Supreme Court says. Don't underestimate their level of activity - they have lots and lots of rulings, with exciting text, on a large variety of subjects. Additionally - their opinion, respectable as it may be, is not the only one, and not the only one that matters.

No one is denying the fact that the Arab system has lower achievements, and lower funding - there's some disparity between the systems. But whether this is due to discrimination, or things like low investment by the Arab municipalities themselves - is up for discussion, and if we want to do justice to this topic - we cannot delve into this discussion in the limited space of this article. okedem (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about school segregation in Israel or human rights groups? It has been deleted from the article. If segregation of Arabs and Israel students does exist, why should it be hidden from people reading the article? {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)}

Not only Arabs are discriminated in education in Israel but also Beta Jews. Xenophobia in Israel, Ethiopian Jews in Isarel, Ethiopean Jews and racial discourse. There is a real problem with the human right to education in Israel.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 22:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it was awareness of those sorts of issues that made me mention the lack of broad coverage of the issue of discrimination anywhere in the article. Rather than just focussing on education or a small number of ethnicities, is it better to have all this in one short section with a link to a main article on the whole complex of debates? Okedem suggested above that I propose something but other people may be more in touch with the range of claims and coubter claims than I am.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you present other country articles that have a section, or even a discussion, about discrimination? I couldn't find anything in the United States article, nor in France (where Muslim claim there's discrimination; where there's also lots of antisemitic incidents against the Jews), United Kingdom with large populations of Indian and Pakistani origin; Australia with the aborigines, New Zealand with the Maori, or even India with its Caste system.

So why should Israel's article have a discussion of this, when others don't? There's nothing special about the ethnic problems Israel has - every country with minorities has claims of discrimination, and sometimes they're true. There's also some discrimination in Israel, but there's no point in discussing it here. okedem (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Imperfections in other articles isn't an excuse for an imperfection in this (WP:OTHERCRAP.) However, the one of these articles that I've checked has the following paragraph "Indigenous Australians experience higher than average rates of imprisonment and unemployment, lower levels of education, and life expectancies for males and females that are 11–17 years lower than those of non-indigenous Australians.[79][95][96] Some remote Indigenous communities have been described as having "failed state"-like conditions.[97][citation needed]". That's the sort of thing that would be appropriate in this article.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

They're not necessarily "imperfections", but simply editorial choices regarding the level of detail appropriate for the article. If most, or all, articles of the same type have a certain level of detail, this requires special explanation as to why this article should be different - why should Israel by treated any differently than others. Again, as I've said - if you have something specific in mind, do propose it, but I'm not sure we should even delve into this. At most, we can mention facts (higher poverty, for instance), but not causes, which are a matter of debate (paying less taxes? less of a culture of learning? discrimination?). okedem (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

<-Okay folks, this isn't going anywhere. How about this ? We re-focus all of these issues/discussions and the associated edits on the main Education in Israel article and build the content over there over time. Israel like every country in the world has a complicated and imperfect education system. Key issues can be described over there. If some of those are of sufficient import to be incorporated into the lead in that article per WP:LEAD then so be it. The education section in this article, the Israel article should be dependent on that article. This article is the slave and the main article is the master. Sound reasonable ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. If that article is comprehensive and fair, its summary ought to be the education section in this article. That's the normal way of doing things. In the Education article we can actually present the relevant facts and positions on the subject. Once we have a good article there, there shouldn't be any problem with this one. okedem (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the United States article and have tried to put in a study that showed the U.S. is resegregating in education. It was deleted from the Article. Civil rights does seem to be a sensative issue. In the U.S. section it does say "protest politics" rather then civil rights, with a link to African American civil rights. I suppose that is where Wikipedia is either a blog or an encyclopedia. At least this article mentions that Arabs send their children to Arab speaking schools. Is this manditory? {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)}

No, it's not mandatory. See, this is why I tried to put in the link to the Hand in Hand bilingual schools, so as to avoid this kind of misconception. Arikk (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If the segregation is by choice, then the statement could be changed to "Arabs choose to send". {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)}

New Israeli Shekel

{{editsemiprotected}}

Since January 1, 2008 the New Israel Shekel is one of 17 freely convertible currencies according to the CLS list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukov (talk • contribs) 10:15, 10 November 2009

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. Please use a 'Change X to Y' level of detail when requesting an edit. I looked, but I could not see an obvious place to insert this fact. Also, this fact should have a reference. Celestra (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I thought it would fit at the end of the first paragraph of Economics. It really should be: Subsequently the New Israeli Shekel was announced as one of 17 freely convertible currencies according to the CLS list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukov (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Celestra (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

F-35

This site: [Haaretz] has an article about the purchase of F-35 by Israel.Agre22 (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Israel top patent producer in the world

This site: [Ynet 1] tells that Israel is top patent producer in all the world.Agre22 (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

No it doesn't. It says that in 2003 the US Patent Office approved more patents to Israeli inventors than they approved for applicants from G-7 countries. If you are interested in patents/inventiveness you can have a look at the World Intellectual Property Indicators that are published each year. The 2009 report is here and pages 18 and 38 give a nice overview. As usual Japan leads the way. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

HUJI or HUJ

Editors -- A minor point, but annoying all the same: My wife and I are both graduates of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (I also worked there) and I have never seen the university's name abbreviated as Huji or Huj (except as part of a web address). I have seen HUJ which is most common. I suggest all instances of Huji and Huj be replaced in this article by the more familiar HUJ. Is there someone who can do that? Thanks, - EMB (Nov 29, 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.214.6 (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Where Does Israel Get Oil?

This site: [Oil to Israel] tells where does Israel get its oil.Agre22 (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

International Airports

"Israel is served by one international airport, Ben Gurion International Airport,"

Ovda Airport (Hebrew: נמל התעופה עובדה‎, Nemal HaTe'ufa Uvda) (IATA: VDA, ICAO: LLOV), is Israel's second international airport, located in the south of the country about 60 km (40 miles) north of the city of Eilat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.225.229 (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Fixed, thanks. okedem (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Capital

This article should not be a featured article. It is not written from a NPOV and rather is written with a blatently Zionist agenda. The capital of Israel is disputed and this should not be hidden in a footnote. The vast majority of countries consider Tel Aviv the capital of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.198.81 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What other countries think has zero impact over the reality of a capital. A capital city is, as any dictionary will tell you, "a country's seat of government". Jerusalem is home to Israel parliament, government offices, PM office, president quarters, the supreme court, etc., so it definitely fulfills that definition. While other countries might think Jerusalem shouldn't be the capital, they can't change the fact that it is. okedem (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. --Shuki (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There are UN resolutions against israel being allowed to have jerusalem as its capital. i don't know about the opinioons of the hardcore orthodox zionists, but as far as i know most regular israelis seem to consider tel aviv as the "capital" capital. whatever the case, any future peace process will probably not incorporate jerusalem as the capital, so why keep the capital as such on wikipedia if it's just going to be changed anyway? ;) avoid the hassle and just put tel aviv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.1.66 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, cite your source on Israelis not considering Jerusalem the capital. I'm not orthodox to speak of, let alone hardcore anything, and myself and every Jew I know in the US certainly considers Jerusalem the capital. Second, while there are UN resolutions on the subject, there are also UN resolutions saying that North Korea can't have nukes. They still do, and Wikipedia should report on that reality. Third, it is not the job of Wikipedia to play crystal ball and predict the future, and then write articles based on that prediction. The possibility of the status of Jerusalem changing in a peace settlement exists, but that status has not changed right now, and we don't even know when or if that status will change. Therefore, it makes no sense, and violates Wikipedia policy, to change the capital now just so we won't have to later. We're reporting the present, not a possible future. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would second OuroborosCobra's point regarding Israeli's views of Jerusalem as capital. I am individual who was born and raised in Haifa, though I would not describe myself as a Zionist (let alone an "orthodox" one). And yet, never have I heard anyone in Israel refer to Tel Aviv as the capitol. Moreover, whenever someone uses the expression "HaBirah" (הבירה), i.e. "the capital", it is inferred that the speaker is referring to Jerusalem. -- imaizlin 14:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be neutral to say Tel Aviv is the capital in the infobox, because it isn't. It's only treated as the capital in international diplomacy which is only a small part of a capital city's function. I think the only two options regarding the infobox would be to put either Jerusalem or "see below" in the capital city section, and then include a paragraph in the main text describing the situation.--Ptolion (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Is New York City the capital of the US? Because most of the world seems to act that way. There are in fact many embassies in D.C., but many more consulates and foreign government offices and delegations in NYC. Is that what this whole issue is about. I think that Toronto/Ottawa is also similar in Canada. --Shuki (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

<- We could change it to 'Jerusalem (proclaimed)' as per Britannica. Would that help ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have shown enough times in the past, the status of capital has little to do with proclamation, and international recognition of a capital is nice, but meaningless. Capital = seat of government. That's true for Jerusalem and Israel, and we cannot compromise accuracy for political reasons. okedem (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see where the compromise would be. I don't think Britannica has compromised accuracy for political reasons so if we were to take the same position as them we wouldn't be either. Since truth is irrelevant here accuracy means the degree to which something matchs the sources. If we just use Britannica we are being 100% accurate based on a reliable uncontroversial source. That seems okay to me and it has the added benefit of people knowing where the terminology came from. Complex arguments about what makes a city a capital are opaque from the WP:V compliance (and therefore wiki-accuracy) persepctive. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)