No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 209: | Line 209: | ||
:::::::lol ... Well, there's always [[WP:BRD]]. [[User:Tiamut|<b><font color="#B93B8F">T</font><font color="#800000">i</font><font color="#B93B8F">a</font><font color="#800000">m</font><font color="#B93B8F">u</font><font color="#800000">t</font></b>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Tiamut|talk]]</sup> |
:::::::lol ... Well, there's always [[WP:BRD]]. [[User:Tiamut|<b><font color="#B93B8F">T</font><font color="#800000">i</font><font color="#B93B8F">a</font><font color="#800000">m</font><font color="#B93B8F">u</font><font color="#800000">t</font></b>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Tiamut|talk]]</sup> |
||
(out) We'll call it BRD even though you knew there's no consensus for that change.<br>So we have one source that says that the ''celebration'' was accepted by Palestine. Not very convincing. It's pretty obvious both from the previous sources posted here, as well, as similar things on the UNESCO site (such as this [http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/248/]) that the title it awarded to a city, not a state. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:50, 25 August 2009
Jerusalem, Israel
al quds is simply Arabic for Jerusalem, and this is english wikipeida, and the jerusalem article is called jerusalem. we're using the city, country here so we use Israel. if they specifically only said East Jerusalem, that could have been controversial, but that's the way it is... 216.165.3.253 (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you, same applies on almost all article about countries and capitals, all of those artilces are titled with the English name of the country, capital, or city. So it is not about Jerusalem (East and West) is an Arabic city or not, it is about using the English name for the city. Nevertheless, in this article we are talking about an event, this event is using the following title (Al Quds Capital of Culture) this is why Al Quds is used instead of Jerusalem. Wish this has made the issue more clear. --Yamanam (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not... if you want to use only the city, do so for every year, and erase all flags. The name is simply in arabic, and again this is english wikipedia. So the name of the event is translated to english, and has in fact been translated already for all the other city. For example, Damascus is the english name. Also you for some reason changed it to east jerusalem, although al quds again means jerusalem. Hope it's clear now... 216.165.3.29 (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- The name of the event as per the organizers is Alquds as you can see in their websites, while Damascus Arab Capital was named in English Damascus Arab Capital of Culture not Demmashq Arab Capital of Culutre. This is how we name articles at Wikipedia, not as per the translation. Yamanam (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not... if you want to use only the city, do so for every year, and erase all flags. The name is simply in arabic, and again this is english wikipedia. So the name of the event is translated to english, and has in fact been translated already for all the other city. For example, Damascus is the english name. Also you for some reason changed it to east jerusalem, although al quds again means jerusalem. Hope it's clear now... 216.165.3.29 (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Alquds
There are certain events taking place in Mar Elias refugee camp in Lebanon, does this mean that we should add the Lebanese flag? No. The organizers and the UNESCO have chosen Al-Quds - Palestinian Authority to be the Arab Capital of Culture for the year 2009, not israel. Moreover, most of the events were held in the West Bank, Gaza, and other Arab countries which means that the event is in Palestine. We don't need to impose political aspect to the article. Yamanam (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of what the organizers claim, Jerusalem is in Israel, and not in the PA (both East and West). Even if, sometime in the future, East Jerusalem is placed under the jurisdiction of the PA, it is not now the case, and the PA, established by force of the Oslo Accords, has absolutely no standing there. okedem (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, as per the International law East Jerusalem is being occupied by israel, which means it is not in israel. Only because israel has the upper hand here to control East Jerusalem doesn't mean it is in israel, you can review status of Jerusalem. --Yamanam (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Jerusalem, Palestine
This is the ARAB capital of culture, the ARAB world and Palestinians consider Jerusalem (Al Quds) to be the capital of Palestine INCLUDING those who organize the Arab Capital of Culture 2009 event. They see it as the Capital of Palestinians, not Israel, and therefor it should clearly be a Palestinian flag and say that it is in Palestine and the Palestinian capital = Jerusalem. --85.229.133.89 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
http://www.alquds2009.com/etemplate.php?id=5
Contact Us
1st Floor Palestine Red Crescent Society Jerusalem Road P.O.BOX: 3637 Al-Bireh, Palestine Tel.: +970 (2) 2402009
+970 (2) 2960277
Fax: +970 (2) 2960278
Mobile: 0598-092009 E-mail: info@alquds2009.org
--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have added a footnote similar to that in Israel summarising the existence of the dispute and linking the main article on the Status of Jerusalem.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Flag of Israel or PNA
As an act of tolerance I suggest that no flag or entity will show next to the name of the city of Jerusalem. The other option is having both flags with the inscriptions Israel and PNA/Palestine next to it. Politics and disputes are well known to all, as well as the citizenship of the inhabitants of Esat Jerusalem, and who de facto controls it in the present. It is also known that the decision to declare the city as Arab Capital of Culture was taken by one side unilateraly, and for that reason there were no real events taking place. That said, a Palestinain flag disturbs some and the Israeli one disturbs others. Please accept my suggestion. Cheers Ori (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to disagree. All other entries have flags accompanying them. Palestine is a member state in the Arab League and has a right to have its flag displayed here alongside all others. Israel should not be listed here as it is not recognized as having an Arab capital either by the Arab League or UNESCO. Tiamuttalk 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Your claims are irrelevant to this. Jerusalem is under full Israeli control, with at least one part of the city widely recognized as belonging to Israel after any peace treaty; despite Palestinian aspirations, they have no control of Jerusalem - any part of it. UNESCO and the Arab League can use whatever flag and country designation they want - on their own websites. We will not mislead our readers into thinking the Jerusalem is under Palestinian control. We can go back to edit-warring between having the Israeli and the Palestinian flags, or you can accept this compromise, which is very accommodating to claims over the reality of this. okedem (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Your reversion out of the flag and the name Palestine from beside the Jerusalem listing is inappropriate. This is an article on the Arab Capital of Culture not the status of Jerusalem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The sources indicate that Jerusalem was designated the Arab Capital of Culture for 2009 under the sponsorship of Palestine, not Israel. We mention Israel in our footnote which is sufficient, given that this is a cultural article, not politics 101. Tiamuttalk 21:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again, irrelevant. We will not create the false impression that Jerusalem is in a Palestinian State, or under Palestinian control. Originally we argued to have the Israeli flag, and the name "Israel" next to the city, as is in reality. As a compromise, we agreed to not have any flag, despite Israel's full control of the city. This is more than fair to Palestinian claims. Disputes need to be solved by compromise, not by one side filibustering and pushing edits to get what they want. Do you want to go back to some users fighting to get the Israeli flag there, or do you want to keep the reasonable compromise we had? okedem (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, you have now reverted twice to your preferred version (it is not a consensus version, I see one comment here asking that flags not be added and no response, until mine, which was negative). You are also the editor who reverted most often in the edit wars over this that extended between May and July 2009 as the history shows. In your two reverts today, you erased the footnoted text I altered which was more accurate than the other text, since it is not the Palestinian Authority who claims Jerusalem for itself, it is the PLO and PLC who declared Jerusalem the capital of Palestine in 1988 and 2003 respectively. You are the one edit-warring to uphold your so-called "compromise". (I'm sure others simply fatigued from fighting you over this.) I've posted a notice at WP:IPCOLL about this article. I don't agree that we should ignore what the sources pertaining to this article say. Jerusalem was declared the Arab Capital of Culture of Palestine in 2009. That is a fact. I don't care if Israel controls Jerusalem and claims it for itself too. We can cover that in a footnote. This is a cultural article, not a place for you to fight off alternate claims to Jerusalem on Israel's behalf. Tiamuttalk 21:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- There were many reverts, to to main versions - one with an Israeli flag, the other with a Palestinian flag. All by users who are still very much active (at least three reverting to the Palestinian flag version). The last edit was by Ori, to the compromise version, a month ago. No one touched the article again until you did, today. One can only suppose that the other users found the compromise agreeable. (I very much doubt that three diligent users just gave up at the same time).
- Your reasoning is flawed and irrelevant. This isn't about who declared it, and exactly what they thought. We have a list of cities, saying where they are. Going by reality, there ought to be an Israeli flag there. But to avoid the edit-war, Ori came up with a good compromise. Just saying "Jerusalem" - we all know what and where it is, and there no need for the controversy here.
- But after a month of quiet, you come in, and decide to try and pull in your direction anyway. okedem (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tiamut, for proving that compromise is not the right way. That reasonable solutions are meaningless in your book, and that any article can be used to push your agenda. Fine. I guess we'll go back to getting the Israeli flag in there. Thanks for destroying a good compromise. okedem (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okedem, point me to the discussion on this page indicating that editors found this to be a good compromise. There is none.
- You have reverted more times than any other editor at this article. I checked the history and it shows. I suspect other editors simply tired of battling you.
- Given that Supreme Deliciousness just now restored my edit (after you reverted to your so-called compromise version twice) it seems that others were not satisfied with the compromise proposed. I did not know there was any such compromise. If there was one discussed on the talk page, I might have seen it and respected it. As it is, all I did was update the information in the footnote and restore the flag and word "Palestine" so that the entry for Jerusalem was in line with the other listings and the sources cited for this article. n
- This article is not the article on Jerusalem. There, you argued that the viewpoint of the world, that is their non-recognition of Israel's claim of Jerusalem as its capital, would be adequately represented in a footnote and that its placement at the top of the article was UNDUE. This is cultural article Okedem, about Arab Capitals of Culture and Israel's claim to Jerusalem can be adequately covered in a footnote. We don't have to avoid using the word Palestine because it might offend some people. Its a fact that Palestine is an Arab League member and that it is the sponsor of the Jerusalem celebrations. That fact won't be denied to our readers just because you can't stand the word. Tiamuttalk 22:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The flag and country name aren't for whoever claims the city, but for where it actually is. And it's in Israel. Even the Palestinians claim East Jerusalem, not all of it, and physically Israel controls the entire city. There's a very good case to having the Israeli flag there, and yet - that's not what I was arguing for, but for a compromise.
- Yes, I didn't say everyone supported the compromise suggested. But it was implemented, and no one touched the article for a month, after a long time of daily reverting. Is that a coincidence?
- Do you want to go back to fighting over the flag? Fine, that's what you'll get. okedem (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want to fight period. What I want is for us to treat Palestine the way we treat all other participants in the Arab Capital of Culture. That is, I want the listing to read Jerusalem (Palestine) and for there to be a flag like every other entry. I'm not against a footnote explaining that Israel claims Jerusalem as its own. But I don't see why we should censor the word Palestine out and remove the Palestinian flag simply because some Israeli nationalists have a problem sharing their claim to Jerusalem - even in a cultural article that probably no one even reads anyway. Give me a break Okedem. Is it so important that you had to revert 25 times over the last couple of months? Tiamuttalk 22:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Censor" and "Israeli nationalists" are generally not collaborative words. -- tariqabjotu 07:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Tiamut, this isn't about claims - Israel doesn't just "claim Jerusalem as its own", but actually controls the entire city. Like it or not, it's an Israeli city now. Might change in the future, but that's what it currently is.
- We're not discussing me here, so I won't bother engaging you with that. I'll just say - once again you prove the futility of compromise. Any compromise, even one that everyone respects for an entire month after a long edit war, is just the basis for more changes to your direction. I'll remember that in the future. okedem (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- This event wasawarded to a Palestinian organising committee. Obviously the status of Jerusalem is disputed, but when it comes to the issue of whose event it is, it is the PA's and not Israel's.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Although I imagine the "State awarded" might be a bit of our innovation, I think the current formulation is okay. -- tariqabjotu 07:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm okay with the formulation too - however, I would just like to note that the organizing committee is not made up of just people from the PA. There are PLO members and representatives of the State of Palestine as well. Jerusalem is considered by Palestinians to be the capital of Palestine, not of the Palestinian authority (which is not a place, but an interim adminsitrative body). This link explains more about who is involved. I'm okay with listing it as Palestinian Authority in the graph, if people cannot accept Palestine there. But I do think we should mention that Jerusalem has been designated the capital of the State of Palestine by the PLO in the 1998 declaration and by the PLC in 2003 in the Basic Law. I tried to add those to the footnote when I restored the flag before, but they were reverted. I asked Hertz1888 to restore at least the footnote, but he did not respond. I'd appreciate someone taking a look at what I was trying to add and incorporating what is relevant. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 14:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I didn't see your response. But I do think that information on who designated Jerusalem the capital of Palestine is relevant to this article, (and it was not the PA). We have included information on Israel's designation of its capital as Jerusalem and its control over the city in the footnote so properly representing the Palestinian side would be in line with NPOV. Tiamuttalk 15:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- JRS is under Israeli rule and jurisdiction. Palestinians may think as they may. This is not a make believe article. There were no events in JRS as Israeli police did not enable them. No PNA or any other entity had any standing about it. Ori (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- That does not address any of the issues raised. nableezy - 18:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Arab capital of culture
Moved from User talk:Ori:
- I am reverting to consensus version! Discuss on Talkpage first! Yazan (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
End Ori (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- See the section above. This was awarded to the Palestinian authority, not to Israel. nableezy - 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again, this isn't the "capital of culture" website, but Wikipedia. Despite Palestinian wishes, Jerusalem is not their capital, but Israel's. The PNA has no control over Jerusalem, so this makes about as much sense as giving France an award for Berlin. okedem (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Then your issue is with UNESCO not Wikipedia. And I note you said this was acceptable to you, I hope you dont change your mind now. nableezy - 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't the UNESCO website, and we are under no obligations to follow their ideas.
- "I can accept it" - means it's acceptable if I see my view lacks support - doesn't mean I think it's good, or accurate, or anything. Just means I'm not going to war over it. As I've said on this page before - not having a flag there was enough of a compromise, given that Israel's fully controls the city, and the Palestinians only have aspirations. The problem is, compromises here tend to migrate in one direction only. okedem (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, actually, I've been meaning to ask you - you keep saying it was "awarded to the Palestinian authority, not to Israel." - where's the source for that? Is there an UNESCO website for this? Why isn't it linked here? okedem (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- First, one would hope that "I can accept it" means that the user will not re-argue the point once "backup" arrives. As far as compromises, this is much more fair than the "compromise" on the Jerusalem page relegating a crucial point to a footnote. And for sources, sure [1]; the planning commitee was a national Palestinian committee under the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Culture. nableezy - 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize, I should have been clearer - I very intentionally said "accept" instead of "support" - like when a user withdraws an RfC or something when they see they're in the minority. I'll try to be clearer in the future.
- Regarding the source - I don't see that anything was "awarded" to the PNA or the Palestinians. Only that the Arab ministers voted for Jerusalem as the "2009 Arab capital of culture". Jerusalem has some 40% Arabs and a lot of Arab culture, so I don't really see the part of Palestinians in this - it seems it could be just as relevant for Jerusalem as an Israeli city. The organizing committee was formed after this (after the city was chosen), right? So it's not part of the election process. What if Israel had decided to organize some events in honor of this? Was the city nominated by the PNA? Can we see the text of the decision itself? Is there a press release or something? Please correct me if anything I said here is wrong - I really don't know. okedem (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Every year, Arab ministers of culture, in collaboration with the Arab League’s Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organisation, choose a different city as the Arab Capital of Culture. Sharjah was the capital of culture for 1998. Is Israel a member of the Arab League? No. Palestine is though. And it is Palestine among those states which is the only one declaring Jerusalem as its capital. (Jordan gave up its claims in 1988.)
- I think its clear that Israel has nothing to do with this decision; they are in fact actively opposing the carrying out of events in the city by the Palestinian organizers. If you want a primary source document from UNESCO or the Arab League or one of the affiliated bodies documenting the taking of the decision and its "awarding" to Palestine, I can go digging around for one. But I think that's unnecessary. And a side issue to the main one. Tiamuttalk 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Tiamut, obviously, I never said Israel had anything to do with this decision; that's not the issue.
- Yes, I'd like a real source saying this was "awarded" to the PNA or Palestine. I know that the Arab League ministers vote, but that doesn't mean they "awarded" anything to "Palestine" specifically. Who has the right to vote doesn't mean the choice, once made, is affiliated with any country. For instance, the Nobel awards are decided upon by a small number of Swedish scientists, etc. People are nominated for the award by various bodies, like universities. But once the person has won, we don't say "The committee decided to make Mr. X the Nobel Laureate, awarding it to Y University (or X's country of origin)", even if the university nominated him, and his country organized events celebrating the event. So - I want a source showing the clear association of this designation to the PNA or Palestine, not conjecture based on who can vote, or that this is the Arab League. okedem (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- First, one would hope that "I can accept it" means that the user will not re-argue the point once "backup" arrives. As far as compromises, this is much more fair than the "compromise" on the Jerusalem page relegating a crucial point to a footnote. And for sources, sure [1]; the planning commitee was a national Palestinian committee under the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Culture. nableezy - 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Then your issue is with UNESCO not Wikipedia. And I note you said this was acceptable to you, I hope you dont change your mind now. nableezy - 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again, this isn't the "capital of culture" website, but Wikipedia. Despite Palestinian wishes, Jerusalem is not their capital, but Israel's. The PNA has no control over Jerusalem, so this makes about as much sense as giving France an award for Berlin. okedem (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)
- "Arab culture ministers issued a joint resolution in mid-November 2006 anointing Jerusalem the Arab cultural capital of 2009. The goal of the resolution was to “foster cultural activity within and beyond Jerusalem to support its resolve, strengthen its Arab and cultural identity, and develop aspects of its daily life in all cultural, social, media, and economic arenas, in additionto intensifying Arab participation in support of the city.” [...] The resolution was [subsequently] made in Oman’s capital, Muscat. Present was Attallah Abul Subih, culture minister in the government created by Hamas after its 2006 elections upset, leading the cultural affairs delegation from the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip. According to its resolution, this decision was made as a response to continual Israeli attempts to erase Jerusalem’s history and culture, to alter its landmarks, and to Judaize it. The celebrations are a shared venture between all Arab states and its activities are to be divided – financially and logistically – between them, Jerusalem, and the rest of the Palestinian territories.
The Palestinian Authority subsequently issued a presidential decree on 26 July, 2007 that established a national preparatory committee consisting of 47 members. Its presiding member is President Mahmoud Abbas himself, and its head was Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish until he excused himself from the role, leaving the committee’s leadership entirely to President Abbas. Rafiq al-Husseini is the vice-chair of the committee, and its defacto head due to Abbas’s preoccupation with the political situation. On 15 October, 2007, another presidential decree established an executive office to oversee preparations, and an administrative committee of 15 members to follow up on the activities of the executive office. Five months later, on 2 January 2008, Bassem al-Masri was appointed to head the executive office."Jerusalem Quarterly
- On November 9, the Israeli Minister of Internal Security issued an order cancelling a cultural event entitled "Jerusalem: Arab Cultural Capital 2009" sponsored by the Palestinian National Theater, a non‐profit organization based in East Jerusalem. The title of the event, which was previously cancelled on March 28, stems from the city's designation as Arab Cultural Capital for 2009 by the 22‐member League of Arab States in concert with UNESCO's Cultural Capital Program. Negotiations Unit of the PLO Tiamuttalk 22:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, not exactly a secondary source but gives us information on those who made the choice, The Arab and international Celebration of "Jerusalem: Capital of Arab Culture 2009" comes to confirm its being part and parcel of the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. It also accentuates its political dimension as a Capital of the independent Palestinian State. nableezy - 23:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- We know that and we do not accept that. A palestinian flag will not show over an Israeli conyroled city - culture, eduction, nature or whatever. I believe my suggestion was good enough. I see no condensus above and I revert to a version that lasted a full mont till a day ago. If you do not wish to accept it, we will discuss the matter again Ori (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- See the section above, it was discussed. And agreed upon. nableezy - 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- He does. Our issue is not with UNESCO. Our issue is with life. Get real nabulsi Ori (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please Ori, Nableezy is an Egyptian-American. Don't show your anti-Palestinian bias by assuming he's from Nablus. Tiamuttalk 18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK Nableezy, in my two eyes, I love you as my own brother almost :-), but there will be no flags at all or both of them. Now choose, Ori (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Biased? Understanding some arabic I made a mistake and thought he was from Nablus. Where is the bias here? Ori (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I thought nableezy was Palestinian O_O --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- You see!. Ori (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good, fine. We all love each other. Not back to the matter at hand. This is not a page on Jerusalem and its status under international law or who exercises sovereignty over the city de facto or de jure. Its about the Arab Capital of Culture and the different cities that were designated an Arab Capital of Culture over the years. In 2009, Jerusalem was designated an Arab Capital of Culture. This designation was granted to the representative for Palestine, and not to Israel, which is not a participating member in this programme. Every other entry in this list has a flag. If you want to remove the flag for Palestine, you should remove it for all of them. That's a compromise I'm willing to accept. I'm not willing to have Palestine singled out, as though it doesn't have a flag, or is not a real place. It is. So that's my proposal. If everyone agrees to no flags for any country, I'm in. Otherwise, the flag stays. Tiamuttalk 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take it. Ori (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I never liked them flags anyways. They dumb things down. okedem (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- This was a decision of the Arab ministers of culture that designated Jerusalem as the Arab Capital of Culture for the year under the UNESCO program and the events were planned by PNA authorities. The table doesnt even say Jerusalem is in Palestine, it says that the event was awarded to the PNA. That is a factual statement and this crying about Jerusalem being Israeli so any mention of Jerusalem must be accompanied by an Israeli flag is nonsense. The reason I put the table together like that was to completely avoid any arguments about where is Jerusalem, the table does not say it is in Israel or the Palestinian territories. Why this formulation that was acceptable to everybody earlier is again the subject of an edit war is beyond me. nableezy - 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- And I think the flags should stay because there are no other images on the page. But this page should be expanded with a section on each year with pictures of the cities. Then the table or list could be removed and this issue need not ever be spoken of again. nableezy - 20:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good, fine. We all love each other. Not back to the matter at hand. This is not a page on Jerusalem and its status under international law or who exercises sovereignty over the city de facto or de jure. Its about the Arab Capital of Culture and the different cities that were designated an Arab Capital of Culture over the years. In 2009, Jerusalem was designated an Arab Capital of Culture. This designation was granted to the representative for Palestine, and not to Israel, which is not a participating member in this programme. Every other entry in this list has a flag. If you want to remove the flag for Palestine, you should remove it for all of them. That's a compromise I'm willing to accept. I'm not willing to have Palestine singled out, as though it doesn't have a flag, or is not a real place. It is. So that's my proposal. If everyone agrees to no flags for any country, I'm in. Otherwise, the flag stays. Tiamuttalk 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- You see!. Ori (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I thought nableezy was Palestinian O_O --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Biased? Understanding some arabic I made a mistake and thought he was from Nablus. Where is the bias here? Ori (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- He does. Our issue is not with UNESCO. Our issue is with life. Get real nabulsi Ori (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- See the section above, it was discussed. And agreed upon. nableezy - 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- We know that and we do not accept that. A palestinian flag will not show over an Israeli conyroled city - culture, eduction, nature or whatever. I believe my suggestion was good enough. I see no condensus above and I revert to a version that lasted a full mont till a day ago. If you do not wish to accept it, we will discuss the matter again Ori (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. To begin with, given the way today's discussion evolved, your complaint against me was not a sport. But OK. Back to the point - A flag IS a statement! The flag says where JRS is. This is the reason you want it in, and this is the reason I find it disturbing. I did suggest a compromise which was very tolerant, and I was extreeeemely disappointed to find, after a month of silence, that you do not accept it. I believe that agreeing to show no flags at all, is a step of mutual respect and sensitivity. I do wish you'd think it over. Cheers Ori (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- You had 6 reverts, including 1 after I gave you the notice. I could have reported you right away but didnt. You kept reverting, what would you have me do? But to the point, the flag as it currently stands does not say Jerusalem is in Palestine. It says that the Palestinian authority was awarded this event. The flag is by Palestinian National Authority, not beside Jerusalem. Please dont make assumptions as to my motives. nableezy - 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am rather new to English wikipedia (except for IW), and my contributions show it. Back home we have other rules that apply. Yet to the point - what is now shown is that Jerusalem is in one line with a palestinian flag (go figure...). Two states would be great. But this is not what is going on right now. Ori (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- That isnt addressing the argument. The flag is not in the column for city, it is in the column for state awarded. This isnt about Jerusalem's status, this is about what national committee was awarded the event. Here it was the PNA committee. (and you have over 1000 edits since 2007, not exactly a newbie) nableezy - 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Come on now, N., this excuse sounds like a bad microsoft security patch... How would you feel, if next to your capital's name, on behalf of some cultural organization, some body would place the flag of a diffent entity, which is not even a state, let alone not realy freindly with yours? Almost alledits are Hebrew interwikis where I am an administrator. I will not mislead you and tell you I never heard the expession 3R. It came up once when somebody offered it for HE wiki, but I never realy gave it much thought and did not know how it works. One of you called me a vandalist which I found very offending. Once I realized I was on the path for edit war, I did what we do at HE wiki, i.e. returning to last permanenet undisputed version. In HE wiki this is being done in case of edit wars, and is NOT considered part of it. Ori (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fine, I accept your explanation, but we did have consensus for this version with all the users agreeing. Now to your points. Palestine is actually a state that has been recognized by over 100 countries, and it has declared Jerusalem as its capital. It does not control any part of Jerusalem and so cannot make that the de-facto capital. E. Jerusalem is considered occupied Palestinian territory by much of the world. But none of that matters here. What matters here is that the entity that was awarded the event was the PNA. If the Arab ministers of culture had decided to declare Chicago the Arab Capital of Culture for 2009 and awarded it to me as a representative of Egypt I would put in the table the city is Chicago with the state awarded Egypt. That is what matters on this page, not who controls Jerusalem or what state it is or is not in or whether Palestine does or does not exist. nableezy - 22:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Come on now, N., this excuse sounds like a bad microsoft security patch... How would you feel, if next to your capital's name, on behalf of some cultural organization, some body would place the flag of a diffent entity, which is not even a state, let alone not realy freindly with yours? Almost alledits are Hebrew interwikis where I am an administrator. I will not mislead you and tell you I never heard the expession 3R. It came up once when somebody offered it for HE wiki, but I never realy gave it much thought and did not know how it works. One of you called me a vandalist which I found very offending. Once I realized I was on the path for edit war, I did what we do at HE wiki, i.e. returning to last permanenet undisputed version. In HE wiki this is being done in case of edit wars, and is NOT considered part of it. Ori (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- That isnt addressing the argument. The flag is not in the column for city, it is in the column for state awarded. This isnt about Jerusalem's status, this is about what national committee was awarded the event. Here it was the PNA committee. (and you have over 1000 edits since 2007, not exactly a newbie) nableezy - 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am rather new to English wikipedia (except for IW), and my contributions show it. Back home we have other rules that apply. Yet to the point - what is now shown is that Jerusalem is in one line with a palestinian flag (go figure...). Two states would be great. But this is not what is going on right now. Ori (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- You had 6 reverts, including 1 after I gave you the notice. I could have reported you right away but didnt. You kept reverting, what would you have me do? But to the point, the flag as it currently stands does not say Jerusalem is in Palestine. It says that the Palestinian authority was awarded this event. The flag is by Palestinian National Authority, not beside Jerusalem. Please dont make assumptions as to my motives. nableezy - 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know. I need to sleep on it. And sleep in general. Please think of T's offer too. Good night, Ori (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
vote
Could someone with the know-how put this up for a vote?
It's absurd that this article implies that Jerusalem is the capital of the PNA when the article about Jerusalem says it's the capital of Israel.
Lets vote and see what most people think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- As you can see above, this has already been discussed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see a discussion, but not a vote. Lets vote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy. Voting is not what we do. nableezy - 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I know what you do. But to avoid that I'd like to get some kind of idea of the consensus around here.
Are you afraid of a vote? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)- Not exactly, but we (I did say we, not us) dont vote. see WP:NOTVOTE. nableezy - 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there has been a discussion that has not reached consensus. To check if there is a consensus wider than the 3-4 people taking part in the discussion, we can have a vote.
I've seen these votes before, prehaps I'm using the wrong term and you're pretending not to understand what I mean. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)- Good luck with that. nableezy - 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- My input is in the preceding sections (you know, where we actually discussed and got almost everybodys agreement), while yours is jumping up and down shouting about the absurdities of the world. But again, good luck with the vote. Let me know when the primaries are scheduled, I want to make sure I get in line bright and early. nableezy - 15:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- And the discussion actually did reach a consensus. Two sections above everybody agreed, the section above one person disagreed and then apparently conceded. So consensus was in fact achieved. nableezy - 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- You mean the one that ends with you saying "That does not address any of the issues raised."? That's the one with a consensus? Donno how I missed that.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to spell out what this consensus that everyone agreed to is? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)- The current page, with taqriqabjotu, okedem, Tiamut and myself agreeing to it, then later Ori, a holdout who came a bit later, apparently conceding that this is fine (silence is consent). nableezy - 16:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- To make this clear to you, after this edit (which I put in so obviously I agree), tariq consented, as did okedem and Tiamut. nableezy - 16:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that kind of consensus. I think it's time to reopen some of the issues. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- As opposed to what kind of consensus? One where everybody doesnt agree? You can reopen what you like, but you need to have consensus to change what is currently in the article. Besides that, do what you want. And again, good luck with the vote. You didnt tell me my polling place yet. nableezy - 17:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do some more election jokes. Some people might not notice I used the wrong term when you only repeat your joke twice in a couple of hours. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it was possible to take you seriously I would. nableezy - 18:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do some more election jokes. Some people might not notice I used the wrong term when you only repeat your joke twice in a couple of hours. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- As opposed to what kind of consensus? One where everybody doesnt agree? You can reopen what you like, but you need to have consensus to change what is currently in the article. Besides that, do what you want. And again, good luck with the vote. You didnt tell me my polling place yet. nableezy - 17:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that kind of consensus. I think it's time to reopen some of the issues. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- You mean the one that ends with you saying "That does not address any of the issues raised."? That's the one with a consensus? Donno how I missed that.
- Thanks for your input. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck with that. nableezy - 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there has been a discussion that has not reached consensus. To check if there is a consensus wider than the 3-4 people taking part in the discussion, we can have a vote.
- Not exactly, but we (I did say we, not us) dont vote. see WP:NOTVOTE. nableezy - 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I know what you do. But to avoid that I'd like to get some kind of idea of the consensus around here.
- Wikipedia is not a democracy. Voting is not what we do. nableezy - 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see a discussion, but not a vote. Lets vote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
some problems with the article
- There are only two cities in this list which have an RS saying they got this status. We don't even have a reliable source that says this program existed after 1999.
- The table has a column titled "state awarded to". We don't have a source saying this is awarded to states rather than cities.
- The PNA is not a state. And even if it was, it's not a member of UNESCO. So even if this was awarded to states, the PNA couldn't be it.
I suggest removing the "state awarded to" column altogether, and finding sources for the rest of the list or removing the unsourced years. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. There are plenty of sources saying this awarded to the PNA. There are also sources on Palestine being a state, but that isnt important here. This was awarded by the Arab ministers of culture under a UNESCO program, and the entry you take issue with was awarded by that group to the PNA. nableezy - 18:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- There are three references in this article. Which of the three says this was awarded to the PNA? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- On this page, I've seen sources regarding the PNA organizing committee, but I've yet to see any source saying anything was "awarded" to the PNA. I've requested such a source above, but the ones that were provided didn't support that. Maybe I missed one - can you please cite a source that supports that, and including a quote of the relevant sentence or paragraph? Thanks, okedem (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Arab and international Celebration of "Jerusalem: Capital of Arab Culture 2009" comes to confirm its being part and parcel of the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. It also accentuates its political dimension as a Capital of the independent Palestinian State. It was awarded as the capital of Palestine (like Tiamut I think it should actually be listed as State of Palestine for the state awarded part) nableezy - 18:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is an anonymous opinion on a gov.eg site supposed to be a RS? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- It isnt an opinion, it is part of the group that selected Jerusalem as the Arab Capital of culture. You really have no idea what you are talking about here so try and stay with me. This was the decision of the Ministers of Culture of the Arab countries in UNESCO. They designated Jerusalem as the Arab capital of culture as the capital of Palestine. Providing a document from the government of one of those members shows that they did so. There isnt a question of the reliability of the source, it is a primary source intended to demonstrate what city the Arab Ministers of Culture awarded the title to and what state they awarded the title to. nableezy - 19:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- As a primary source for what the Egyptian government thinks, it's fine. But, and try to stay with me here, this is not the body that designated Jerusalem as the Arab capital of culture. To put this in terms you might find easier to relate to, using your logic I can use a .gov.il site to describe UN General Assembly resolutions since Israel participates in the body the makes them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) It was part of the body that designated Jerusalem the Arab Capital of Culture. This wasn't a UNESCO decision, this was the decision of the Arab Ministers of Culture, in fact UNESCO released a statement saying they could not overrule the Arab Ministers even if they wanted to. That isnt exactly equivalent to saying using an Israeli position for the UN general assembly. nableezy - 19:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's exactly the same. The fact Egypt is one of 20 odd countries that participate in the body that made the decision doesn't mean Egypt is a spokesperson for that body. Egypt can say what the Egyptian government thinks.
The press release Tiamut provided below is good. I don't see where it says anything was awarded to the PNA though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)- Yeah, 20 and 200 are exactly the same. Silly me, what was I thinking? nableezy - 20:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- What's the cutoff? 50? 100? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. They are speaking on behalf of the group. But whatever, more sources below. nableezy - 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- What's the cutoff? 50? 100? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, 20 and 200 are exactly the same. Silly me, what was I thinking? nableezy - 20:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's exactly the same. The fact Egypt is one of 20 odd countries that participate in the body that made the decision doesn't mean Egypt is a spokesperson for that body. Egypt can say what the Egyptian government thinks.
- (ec) It was part of the body that designated Jerusalem the Arab Capital of Culture. This wasn't a UNESCO decision, this was the decision of the Arab Ministers of Culture, in fact UNESCO released a statement saying they could not overrule the Arab Ministers even if they wanted to. That isnt exactly equivalent to saying using an Israeli position for the UN general assembly. nableezy - 19:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- As a primary source for what the Egyptian government thinks, it's fine. But, and try to stay with me here, this is not the body that designated Jerusalem as the Arab capital of culture. To put this in terms you might find easier to relate to, using your logic I can use a .gov.il site to describe UN General Assembly resolutions since Israel participates in the body the makes them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- It isnt an opinion, it is part of the group that selected Jerusalem as the Arab Capital of culture. You really have no idea what you are talking about here so try and stay with me. This was the decision of the Ministers of Culture of the Arab countries in UNESCO. They designated Jerusalem as the Arab capital of culture as the capital of Palestine. Providing a document from the government of one of those members shows that they did so. There isnt a question of the reliability of the source, it is a primary source intended to demonstrate what city the Arab Ministers of Culture awarded the title to and what state they awarded the title to. nableezy - 19:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is an anonymous opinion on a gov.eg site supposed to be a RS? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Arab and international Celebration of "Jerusalem: Capital of Arab Culture 2009" comes to confirm its being part and parcel of the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. It also accentuates its political dimension as a Capital of the independent Palestinian State. It was awarded as the capital of Palestine (like Tiamut I think it should actually be listed as State of Palestine for the state awarded part) nableezy - 18:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Arab culture ministers issued a joint resolution in mid-November 2006 anointing Jerusalem the Arab cultural capital of 2009. The goal of the resolution was to “foster cultural activity within and beyond Jerusalem to support its resolve, strengthen its Arab and cultural identity, and develop aspects of its daily life in all cultural, social, media, and economic arenas, in addition to intensifying Arab participation in support of the city.” [...] The resolution was [subsequently] made in Oman’s capital, Muscat. Present was Attallah Abul Subih, culture minister in the government created by Hamas after its 2006 elections upset, leading the cultural affairs delegation from the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip. According to its resolution, this decision was made as a response to continual Israeli attempts to erase Jerusalem’s history and culture, to alter its landmarks, and to Judaize it. The celebrations are a shared venture between all Arab states and its activities are to be divided – financially and logistically – between them, Jerusalem, and the rest of the Palestinian territories.
The Palestinian Authority subsequently issued a presidential decree on 26 July, 2007 that established a national preparatory committee consisting of 47 members. Its presiding member is President Mahmoud Abbas himself, and its head was Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish until he excused himself from the role, leaving the committee’s leadership entirely to President Abbas. Rafiq al-Husseini is the vice-chair of the committee, and its defacto head due to Abbas’s preoccupation with the political situation. On 15 October, 2007, another presidential decree established an executive office to oversee preparations, and an administrative committee of 15 members to follow up on the activities of the executive office. Five months later, on 2 January 2008, Bassem al-Masri was appointed to head the executive office."Jerusalem Quarterly
- On November 9, the Israeli Minister of Internal Security issued an order cancelling a cultural event entitled "Jerusalem: Arab Cultural Capital 2009" sponsored by the Palestinian National Theater, a non‐profit organization based in East Jerusalem. The title of the event, which was previously cancelled on March 28, stems from the city's designation as Arab Cultural Capital for 2009 by the 22‐member League of Arab States in concert with UNESCO's Cultural Capital Program. Negotiations Unit of the PLO Tiamuttalk 19:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Where do any of those say it was awarded to the PNA? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The exact word "awarded to" is not used. Reading what is written would be help. Tiamuttalk 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't even imply they're awarding it to a specific country. In fact they're saying that it's a "shared venture between all Arab states". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The exact word "awarded to" is not used. Reading what is written would be help. Tiamuttalk 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The celebration of al-Quds Jerusalem as the 2009 Capital of Arab Culture has been debated ever since the decision was made by the Ministers of Arab Culture in 2006 and accepted by Palestine. You can see the "accepted by Palestine" part, right? Palestine. I know how much you love the word so one more time. Palestine. nableezy - 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I still think the listing should read Palestine and not the Palestinian Authority, but I won't do anything rash, like, oh say, change it to reflect what the sources say. Tiamuttalk 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am bit more rash than you and I already did change it. nableezy - 21:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I still think the listing should read Palestine and not the Palestinian Authority, but I won't do anything rash, like, oh say, change it to reflect what the sources say. Tiamuttalk 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) We'll call it BRD even though you knew there's no consensus for that change.
So we have one source that says that the celebration was accepted by Palestine. Not very convincing. It's pretty obvious both from the previous sources posted here, as well, as similar things on the UNESCO site (such as this [2]) that the title it awarded to a city, not a state. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)