Talk:Arab Capital of Culture

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Jerusalem, Israel[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alquds[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Legitimately or not, Jerusalem is currently fully an Israeli city. But even more clearly, the PA has zero standing there, with no de-jure or de-facto control. okedem (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if it's not in Israel where is it? do you say, that Jerusalem is a city with no country? how foolish are you? You can't say that because an organization, which have no ruling at this area, or in any area,his opinion must be in wikipedia. de facto Jerusalem is in Israel. if I'll murder someone, I won't see a Palestinian judge. I will see an Israeli one;problem solved.84.228.90.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Jerusalem, Palestine[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Flag of Israel or PNA[edit]

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)[reply]

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. Tiamut^talk 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Tiamut^talk 21:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Tiamut^talk 21:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Tiamut^talk 22:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? Tiamut^talk 22:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Censor" and "Israeli nationalists" are generally not collaborative words. -- tariqabjotu 07:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is barging into a discussion to pick on the terminology used one side while ignoring the substance of the debate. But whatever. Tiamut^talk 14:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's a strange solution, but I can accept it, despite its inaccuracy. okedem (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tiamut^talk 14:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded, saying that I didn't see anything relevant there to specifying the city's location. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tiamut^talk 15:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Designations and aspirations are of little relevance. Palestinians want Jerusalem to be their capital, but it isn't. Maybe some day in the future, but not now. okedem (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That does not address any of the issues raised. nableezy - 18:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

due to irrelevant of the palestinaine authority in east jerusalem for 43 years, therefore it cannot be recognize as it is now. palestine had never had an indepencety, so therefore it might have some soverigine, but not ruling especially from the land that it want to have independecy from. 84.229.90.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

JRS is under Israeli rule and jurisdiction. This is also repeated in the main sources, both of which refer to Al-Quds as Jerusalem, not as some useful idiots mistranslate it to "east" when it obviously refers to the entire city. If the official site uses "east" in its English version, you'd have a leg to stand on, but they use just "Jerusalem"[1] in their English version (as would be expected). The note that the Palestinians are getting the award rather than Israel can be noted in the body of the article. End of story really. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but no. Multiple sources say this event was given to Palestine, not Israel. You are right about one thing, it was Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem. The "useful idiot" that changed that was Deanb (here). Watch your language, that is not even on the border of being a personal attack. The end of the story is that there is not one source that says the Arab Capital of Culture had anything to do with Israel. This was discussed too many times for you to just make a proclamation that it must have both flags. The footnote explains that Israel controls Jerusalem, that is all that is needed. This was given by ALESCO, the regional group of UNESCO for the Arab states, and awarded to a member of the Arab League (Palestine). Israel is not a member of ALESCO or the Arab League. Unless you can provide a source that this was awarded/accepted/whatever to/by Israel, the Israeli flag has no place here. And, if you'll indulge me, how exactly did you get to this article to oppose an edit I had made shortly after I made it? After multiple weeks away from Wikipedia the second article you edit is one that you had never been seen at before shortly after I edited it? Might raise some concerns. nableezy - 18:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a magnanimously bad edit, claiming Al-Quds==East Jerusalem so I fixed it. From that to "hounding", there's a long way. Anyways, you can't give an award to an Arab League member and cite the award to a Geographical region (or a non existing country). That's just poor logic. I fixed the issue and moved down the new source to the clarification note. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock, the edit you "saw" (noticed that you did not say where you saw it) was made by another user, though thank you for clarifying, unintentionally, who you meant by "useful idiot". And you did more than fix the error with "East", you reinserted the Israeli flag where it does not belong. And I think the link should read Palestine. nableezy - 19:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of middle eastern imagination -- being of middle eastern connections myself -- but no one called you anything and, wishful thinking aside, no non existing "State of Palestine" was awarded anything either for a territory that is Israeli. The article note is fairly clear and so are the sources. That the Arabs have a "Palestine" listed as an Arab League member doesn't mean that this is a country (Who's the Prime Minister? Haniyeh or Fayyad?). The link to the unilaterally declared "State of Palestine" was/is already on the article note, btw, but it does not belong in the location of awards as there is no viable State of Palestine accepting awards in Jerusalem.

p.s. Sherlock? Are we going by personal nicknames now? I'll call you 'The Egyptian' or 'Egyptian' then and you can continue calling me Sherlock. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can call me whatever you like. Many states do not recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israeli (though many others recognize that western Jerusalem is Israeli territory), and nearly no state recognizes East Jerusalem as Israeli in any meaning other than Israeli-occupied. The State of Palestine does not have a prime minister as far as I am aware of, but it does have a designated President (the head of the PLO holds the title President of Palestine, currently Mahmoud Abbas who also holds the separate title of President of the Palestinian National Authority which is a different thing). And country != state, a state exists when other states say it exists and over 100 other states have said that a state of Palestine exists. I dont plan on arguing this point with a random person on the internet so if you wish to continue down this road I hope you will be amused discussing it with yourself. nableezy - 03:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arab capital of culture[edit]

Moved from User talk:Ori:

I am reverting to consensus version! Discuss on Talkpage first! Yazan (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus. I discussed in talk page xplaining exactly Ori (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a consensus! And you don't start an edit-war before we reach a new one, if this version doesn't suit you! Yazan (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who agreed it was a consensus? A month long version gave way to a new edit-war and a consensus. I can not accept that Ori (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_End Ori (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the section above. This was awarded to the Palestinian authority, not to Israel. nableezy - 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [2]; the planning commitee was a national Palestinian committee under the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Culture. nableezy - 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Tiamut^talk 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 Tiamut^talk 22:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See the section above, it was discussed. And agreed upon. nableezy - 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He does. Our issue is not with UNESCO. Our issue is with life. Get real nabulsi Ori (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Ori, Nableezy is an Egyptian-American. Don't show your anti-Palestinian bias by assuming he's from Nablus. Tiamut^talk 18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I thought nableezy was Palestinian O_O --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see!. Ori (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tiamut^talk 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it. Ori (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of yous? Ori (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never liked them flags anyways. They dumb things down. okedem (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

vote[edit]

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)[reply]

As you can see above, this has already been discussed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a discussion, but not a vote. Lets vote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Voting is not what we do. nableezy - 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not exactly, but we (I did say we, not us) dont vote. see WP:NOTVOTE. nableezy - 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good luck with that. nableezy - 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If it was possible to take you seriously I would. nableezy - 18:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some problems with the article[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, 20 and 200 are exactly the same. Silly me, what was I thinking? nableezy - 20:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the cutoff? 50? 100? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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 Tiamut^talk 19:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do any of those say it was awarded to the PNA? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exact word "awarded to" is not used. Reading what is written would be help. Tiamut^talk 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're enaged in highly selective reading if that's all you understood from the text. Try reading it again. If that doesn't help, we can o through it sentence by sentence. Tiamut^talk 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Tiamut^talk 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am bit more rash than you and I already did change it. nableezy - 21:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol ... Well, there's always WP:BRD. Tiamut^talk

(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 [3]) that the title is awarded to a city, not a state. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cant just say "BRD". The source provided clearly says "accepted by Palestine". On what grounds did you change it from the State of Palestine? The source says the celebration was debated, not that the celebration was accepted by Palestine. It is pretty clear it says the designation was accepted by Palestine. nableezy - 23:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Selective reading again No More Mr Nice Guy? Its awarded to the state representatives for the city. In the case of Jerusalem, that would be Palestine. Because this decision is made by members of ALESCO, the regional Arab League UNESCO body. And Israel is not a member of ALESCO, Palestine is. And it accepted the decision. End of story.

It's a solid source, admit it.About the while Palestine/Palestinian Authority thing, whatever, if you want to ignore what the sources say on that ... well, I can't help you really. Tiamut^talk 00:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your UNESCO source also gives the country for each city. nableezy - 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that this title is awarded to a city, not a country. That's obvious even from 2 of the 3 sources you guys posted here on the talk page, and the 3rd doesn't contradict it.
The whole 3rd column should be removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is awarded as a capital of a state. Here Palestine. Please explain why you removed Palestine from the list. The source is clear. nableezy - 13:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for your claim that it's awarded as a capital of a state? Is Sharjah the capital of the UAE? Is Essen the capital of Germany?
You have yet to provide a source saying this is awarded to a country and not a city. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit, "accepted by Palestine" is as clear as can be. To use one of your regular arguments. IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for removal. Restoring sourced information. nableezy - 14:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At best it says the decision was accepted by Palestine. It doesn't say the title was awarded to Palestine, and neither does any of the other sources you provided here.
Also, I'm reminding you of the BRD. BRD is the word. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BRD means nothing when you ignore the sources and put in what you want. The source clearly says this was accepted by Palestine. Not the PNA. You have no cause for removing Palestine. Please show some or I will have to go to WP:AE. nableezy - 14:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD allowed for Nableezy to make the edit. Given that his edit was sourced and is relevant, I don't really understand No More Mr Nice Guy's reversion. But then, I rarely ever do understand his reversions, so nothing surprising there.

I'd like to see the text here reflect what the many sources (we were badgered into producing more and more) say. Given that it is Palestine who is represented as an Arab League Member, and Palestine who accepted the decision of the Arab ministers, the entry should read Palestine. Is there a valid counterargument that disputes this? Tiamut^talk 14:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out)The reason is still the same. You have no source saying this title is awarded to a state in general, nor that it was awarded to Palestine in particular.
I'll just go ahead and remove the 3rd column from the table and solve this problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wont. You see an established consensus for the current formulation and you are engaged in disruptive editing by continually changing sourced information. Give me a reason, please, to bring this to WP:AE. nableezy - 15:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the kind of consensus where half the editors objected. My last edit addressed exactly the stuff they were objecting to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except I showed you where every single editor accepted it. nableezy - 15:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. The diffs you provided and the current discussion show that at least two of the editors (hint: not you or Tiamut) objected to the "states awarded" column. See the "Arab capital of culture" section on this page for example. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. Two editors objected to the use of the Palestinian flag, but not the states awarded column. You are alone in that objection. Tiamut^talk 15:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's tariq calling it an "innovation", and here's okedem agreeing it's inaccurate.
You seem to be confusing "consensus" with "wearing people down until they don't feel like arguing anymore". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Because in both those diffs they say they accept the change. I think the current formulation is okay and but I can accept it. Try again. nableezy - 15:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do YOU have problems with reading comprehension? They both say it's problematic. My edit was fixing that problem. I guess we'll have to wait for them to come back and explain themselves. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic but acceptable. Everybody accepted this formulation. Go be annoying somewhere else as you clearly are not at this article to try and improve anything. nableezy - 16:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your (NMMNG) edit was provocative. It also ignores what the sources (which were provided in response to your requests for more sources) have to say. At wikipedia, what people feel about things is rather irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources have to say. Reliable sources agree that Jerusalem was declared the Arab Capital of Culture in 2009 and that the country organizing the events is Palestine. If that makes you uncomfortable, that's not really our problem. Tiamut^talk 16:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources say that Jerusalem was declared the Arab Capital of Culture in 2009 and that the PNA (which is not exactly "a country called Palestine", but never mind) is organizing the events. The sources do not say that anything was awarded to Palestine, however. You can keep saying that a certain reading of the sources might allude that it was, but as you pointed out, what you feel about things is irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Palestine accepted the Arab ministers decisions, it was accepting their decision to make Jerusalem the Arab capital of 2009. Call it an award, a decision, a declaration, whatever. That's irrelevant. If you want to propose that we change the wording of the final column to read "Organized by" I can live with that. What I cannot accept is semantic niggling used as an excuse to delete a third of the article's content. That was provocative and an indication of a lack of good faith collaboration. Tiamut^talk 16:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact they accepted the decision doesn't mean it was awarded to them. The rest of the Arab League countries also accepted the decision, as far as I can tell.
I certainly did not remove "a third of the article's content". I removed an unsourced column from a table. The essence of the article, which is which city was awarded the title in which year, remained intact.
I think the correct solution in accordance with WP:V would be that the table had no third column but had a footnote next to Jerusalem explaining its disputed nature and that the PNA was the one organizing all the festivities. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being purposefully dishonest with your reading of the sources: "The rest of the Arab League countries also accepted the decision", no they made the decision, and the Egyptian government link also shows that it was awarded as the capital of Palestine. Jerusalem was declared the Arab Capital of Culture as the capital of the state of Palestine. You have been presented sources that are unambiguous about this, yet you continue to waste our time. I'll remove the word "awarded" and just leave it as country if that single word is the issue here. nableezy - 16:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Given that the article is made up three columns, removing one = equals a third of the article's content. I won't agree to removing the country column. Where sources are currently missing, they exist, the information can be easily verified, and can be attached. I would like to suggest that we spend more energy on developing the article and less on trying to delete information that other readers will find useful. Tiamut^talk 16:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one being dishonest and engaging in SYNTH to boot. It's obvious both from the sources Tiamut provided, and from other similar UNESCO initiatives that the title is awarded to a city, not a country. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of giving random collection of letters you think means something, go read WP:SYNTH and tell me how I am engaged in synthesis of material? Also, your UNESCO links, as I pointed out above, consistently give the country with the city, so I dont see how you think you can prove anything with that. It just pisses you off that we put Jerusalem with Palestine, which I can understand, though I cannot tolerate it. Per Peter below and because you are harping on the word "awarded" I will make the column say "State party". nableezy - 17:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you did is SYNTH. You took several sources that said different things and tried to come up with a conclusion that is not supported by the sources, namely that a title that is awarded to a city was awarded in this specific case to a country. What I think pissed you off is that you can't just get away with trying to shape wikipedia to your world view. That doesn't mean you have to be uncivil, but I guess you can't help it.
I don't think you have consensus for changing the column to "state party". I disagree with that for several reasons. For starters, you don't have a source that says it about Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the single source that says "accepted by Palestine" do you not understand? nableezy - 17:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it perfectly. It means they agree with the decision, as in "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". It doesn't mean anything was awarded to them rather than the city. Now you're engaging in OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that argument. It is as dumb as it is false. nableezy - 17:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The words of a man who doesn't have a counter-argument. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the words of a man who realizes his opponent is just wasting his time and has yet to provide a substantive argument so sees no need to counter. (at least now you arent making the slightly more inane argument that the source says the celebration was accepted by Palestine as you had originally. Kudos for saying something less dumb than that) nableezy - 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you aren't making the argument that the title is awarded as a capital of a state anymore either, I see.
Let he who is without sin... No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am. Jerusalem is the declared capital of the state of Palestine, and the Egyptian government release shows it was awarded the status of Arab Capital of Culture as the capital of Palestine. nableezy - 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you noticed quite what you said back there, but this is starting to bore me. Get your last word in and lets move on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At their regular meeting, in November 2007, the ministers of culture of the League of Arab States declared Jerusalem the Capital of Arab Culture for 2009, a title awarded annually to an Arab capital city. Any other rebuttals of your "ideas" needed? nableezy - 22:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Unesco material refers to "state party". I've spotted it in a link above to do with the European City of Culture programme.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State party[edit]

There is no source that calls any of these states a "state party" in this context. But I think you guys knew that when you put it in there. Twice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather it just say "State"? nableezy - 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first and foremost I'd like it to say something in line with WP:V which I'm pretty sure you know "state party" is not.
I think we both know that if we say "state" there's going to be an argument about which state Jerusalem belongs to, like in the sections above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Participating state" or "Arab League member country"? Does it even really matter? Tiam<font="#B93B8F">ut^talk 22:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter if wikipedia uses accurate terminology? Are you kidding? Anyway, either of those is better than the way it is now or "state awarded". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Participating state". Tiamut^talk 11:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Participating state' is not accurate either, and certainly not 'state party'. States 'participate' in the Olympics or science competitions. 'State party' sounds like a mistranslation from another language perhaps. It would be a good idea to avoid creating a new wheel and simply go to another other list on WP about an event that changes location annually. City, country. If this argument is about Jerusalem, then until a Palestine state/country is created, and it is unclear which section of Jerusalem has been awarded the honour, Israel should appear, or an asterisk which would lead to a footnote explaining the issue. --Shuki (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, multiple noes. A Palestinian state has been created, and it has declared Jerusalem its capital. Also, this was carried out by the PNA with Israel actively attempting to stop the celebrations, and multiple sources saying it was awarded/accepted/appointed as the capital of Palestine. Not the capital of Israel. And a footnote does explain the issue. nableezy - 00:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we're missing here is the lead stating that this title is awarded by the Arab League. I'm not sure what UNESCO's level of participation in this is, but now it's implying that UNESCO gave the title, and that makes it seem like it's taking a stand on the issue of who Jerusalem belongs to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hows this? nableezy - 00:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that looks better. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you find yourself arguing against... basically everyone else in the world, who say that a Palestinian State will be created in the future - it doesn't exist now. Here's Salam Fayyad saying that: [4].

And here are a few others:

[5] - Mahmoud Abbas: "We will not alter our demand to end the occupation in full and to establish a Palestinian, with east Jerusalem as its capital, on all of our national land."
[6] - Saudi king: "I can honestly tell you, brothers, that even if the whole world joins to found a Palestinian independent state, and if we have full support for that, this state would not be established as long as the Palestinians are divided."
[7] - Khaled Meshal: "We will accept a Palestinian state within 1967 lines"
[8] - "Speaking at Khan Younis mosque, Hamas' prime minister in Gaza says 'we won't serve as an obstacle to the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders'"
[9] - Improving conditions for West Bank Palestinians shows that a Palestinian state can be "built from the bottom up while it's being negotiated from the top down," Quartet Mideast envoy Tony Blair said Tuesday.
[10] - "Turkish President Abdullah Gul Friday cast doubt on a European Union call for a deadline for the creation of a Palestinian state, warning such a move could be counter-productive."

It's nice that you believe such a state already exist, but these nice people disagree, and their opinion matters more. okedem (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okedem, we have been through this argument before at the State of Palestine page. There are many different opinions as to the status of Palestinian statehood. The opinion of the Arab League (which is the body that declared Jerusalem the Arab Capital of 2009), is that Palestine is a state member of its organization. That its statehood is limited, in statu nascendi, whatever, is irrelevant here. All that's relevant is that Palestine is the Arab League member that is organizing these events in Jerusalem. We covered the politics in the footnote. If you want to add more detail there, I'm all for that. My own attempts to explain things were removed. Tiamut^talk 09:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut, the Arab league is the minority, not consensus view on WP. There is currently no State of Palestine. This looks strikingly familiar to Jews and Christians using the Judea and Samaria term which is otherwise frowned upon. The page is not owned by the Arab league and on top of that, the lead does imply that UNESCO is behind the vote, so that should be altered as well. If one wants to use the term 'State of Palestine' it should come in the direct context of the party making the statement. --Shuki (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, its ALESCO that makes the decision (the regional UNESCO body made up of Arab states), so there is nothng misleading about the lead.

This is not at all similr to Judea and Samaria, so I don't know why you would bring that up.

I don't know if you noticed, but "State of Palestine" isn't actually used in the text. We write "Palestine" plain and simple, the way the ALESCO who made this decision does. Tiamut^talk 10:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the heading of that column should not be state, for NPOV. You might be right about the Judea and Samaria issue, since those are historical names. Sorry for that comparison. --Shuki (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but it's under the heading "Participating state", so let's not be coy. "ALESCO" can use whatever phrasing they want, but we're not quoting them here, but reporting using objective phrasings and words. And we can't claim "Palestine" is a state, when almost everyone says it isn't, including world leaders, and all major Palestinian leaders, from Fatah, Hamas, and the PNA in general. okedem (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but how about "Participating member"? Tiamut^talk 10:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short while ago, you or Nableezy presented links talking about the presence of ministers from the PNA, and that the PNA established an organizing committee for the events.

Changing it back to the PNA, and "Participating member", would be better.

By the way, here's another source that doesn't think it's a state - "...the Official Spokesman of the [Egyptian] Ministry of Foreign Affairs...said Israel's stance reflects that Israel does not really intend to resume the political settlement process to establish the Palestinian State. He added that Israel must understand that its repressive actions as an occupation force will never undermine the Palestinian and Arab just demand of making Eastern Jerusalem the Capital of the would-be Palestinian State." (my bold) - from [11], the site Nableezy presented to back the claims you made regarding "awarded to". Even that site doesn't think such a state exists! Better pick your sources more carefully next time... okedem (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "pick" sources, I bring all sources relevant to the page to the table. You are picking and choosing in your sources though. And you are ignoring that it is Palestine and not the Palestinian Authority which is a membe of the Arab League. I'm not going to revert you again right now, since it will never end (given you history of over 25 reverts on this page dealing only with this issue). Have fun distorting the sources to serve your purposes. Tiamut^talk 10:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted above "The Palestinian Authority subsequently issued a presidential decree..." to show it was "awarded" to the PNA. But sure, ignore all the sources I provide, which clearly show that no Palestinian State exists. And accuse me of distorting sources to "serve my purposes". Sure. It makes your argument that much stronger. okedem (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you know from exensive discussions we have had about this issue at State of Palestine, the PNA forms part of the transitional association that is Palestine, the other body being the PLO. But you can continue to ignore nuance and scholarship and what the sources actually have to say. Whatever you want Okedem. Tiamut^talk 11:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep ignoring the fact the everyone says no Palestinian state exists. You can have whatever opinion you want, but all the people who matter think differently from you. okedem (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you keep ignoring the fact that whether or not it exists in physical terms, the State of Palestine is recognized by more than 100 countries in the world. The nature of its existence is irrelevant to this article. What is relevant is that Palestine, a member of the Arab League, accepted the decision of the Arab ministers in ALESCO to designate Jerusalem the capital of Arab culture for 2009. Your political opinion as to whether or not Palestine exists is of no interest here. Tiamut^talk 11:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "state", especially when used next to entities like Egypt and Yemen, implies an actual state, rather than a political fantasy state. Do tell, though - who accepted this in "Palestine"'s name? I only saw people from the PNA - the same body whose heads, Fayyad and Abbas, claim no Palestinian State exists.

And again - it's not my opinion here - I've presented statements from enough people to establish the fact that no such state exists. My opinion, like yours, is of no importance here. okedem (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no political fantasy being discussed here besides your own. As usual, you refuse to distinguish between the recognition of the Palestinian declaration of statehood, and the implementation of that statehood on the ground. I don't have time to explain the basics to you all over again particularly when you show no inclination to listen. Tiamut^talk 12:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I, and others, have explained that to you in that other talk page - the current "State of Palestine" is nothing more than a symbolic entity, and recognition of it is just a show of support for the creation of a Palestinian State, but no such state exists, anywhere at all. It doesn't control any territory, doesn't have any institutions, doesn't have a capital, doesn't have anything, really. Not even an organizing committee for "Capital of Culture" events. So, it isn't really a state, and cannot be discussed as such, which is why everyone involved speaks of the need to create a Palestinian state, and doesn't try to pretend (like you) that one already exists. This is why the "State of Palestine" is nothing more than political fantasy. It's an aspiration, with lots of support, but little more reality than the Kingdom of Narnia. okedem (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your soapboxing is very revealing of your bias, but remains irrelevant to the subject under discussion here. I don't care whether or not Palestine is a state. Under the heading "Participating member", the sources support the listing of Palestine. State, not a state, Narnia or not, all irrelevant. I'd ask that you stop importing you political bias against Palestine to this page. You over 30 reverts to erase Palestine, the flag or other bits of information do not constitute a good faith effort to improve this article. Tiamut^talk 12:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut, I'm really sick of your personal attacks. Accusing me of bias, of distorting sources to "serve my purposes", and all other attacks you've been making. You know nothing about me, and have zero justification to attack me like this, especially considering I have not attacked you in any such way, and have no intention to. I only care about what you write here, and never try to discuss your bias, or purposes, or any such things. This is because I have a certain respect for other editors, and for the process here - we can discuss claims, what other people say, etc - but never the actual persons - their views, motivations, etc. It's a shame you don't understand that, because it makes this place that much less pleasant to be in. The next time you disagree with me, feel free to say "you're wrong", but never accuse me of trying to "serve my purposes" or "importing my political bias". okedem (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that you believe such a state already exist, but these nice people disagree, and their opinion matters more. okedem (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pretend you are innocent of such speculations or off-topic commentary yourself. Tiamut^talk 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please. That quote clearly discusses the issue at hand - you claiming a state exists, and me proving all those more important people disagree. It says nothing of you personally, of your biases, beliefs, or motivations - just the claim you voiced on this page. okedem (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okedem, that quote evades the issue at hand and tries to portray my position as one based on "belief", rather than facts. You have collected a number of articles where Palestinian officials, not discussing the subject of this article, have asked for a Palestinian state to be established. And you have drawn an OR conclusion that no such state exists.

On the other hand, Nableezy and I have provided you with sources that attest to Palestine having accepted the decision to make Jerusalem the Arab Capital Culture. These sources are directly relevant to th subject matter of this page, which is not whether or not a Palestinian state exists, but which party accepted the decision to make Jerusalem an Arab Capital and who organized the event. You know that Palestine, and not the Palestinian Authority, is a member state of the Arab League (its sourced in our article on State of Palestine) and it was the Arab League ministers who made this decision.

In other words, your comment was not directly relevant to this issue at hand. The issue at hand is the Arab cultural capital programme and the 2009 designation of Jerusalem as an arab capital. It is not the existence or non-existence of Palestine. That is what you are trying to make the issue. And you are dismissing my position by characterizing it as my belief (your words).

None of this relevant to the article's improvement. I'm working on adding more information now (sources, more on how the decisiobn is made each year, etc.) Please hold off on restarting an edit war until I add more information. I'd also appreciate a cogent polic-based argument as to what is incorrect about the way the listing is currently formulated. Tiamut^talk 13:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab League is not the only group that has recognized the state of Palestine. With over 100 countries doing so there is no cause for Wikipedia editors to say they know better and that it does not exist. Palestine is the member of the Arab League, Palestine is who accepted the designation (and Okedem, Abbas also carries the title President of Palestine (the state)). It is not up to you to say no state exists, nor is it up to Salam Fayyad, whose words apparently have a great impact on some. A state does exist as the only entities with the authority to say so are other countries. nableezy - 14:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I think Salam Fayyad would know, but hey, the Arab League thinks that Sharjah is the capital of the UAE according to some people, so at this point nothing would surprise me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt the capital of the UAE (though our article does describe it as the "capital of culture and industry", but it is the capital of the Sharjah emirate. nableezy - 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this is a really dumb discussion. There is no state of Palestine though there seems to be an aspiration for one. It's ridiculous that this unimportant page is being used for this discussion which will have no impact on the rest of WP or in the world. There is no purpose in throwing around accusations of bias because we all have it, undeniable. The point here is to get above that bias and keep all pages on the same level of NPOV. --Shuki (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats nice, but you saying "there is not state of Palestine" is contradicted by sources so I dont see the need to respond. Neither you nor any other WP editor makes that determination. The only entities that have any standing to make the determination as to whether or not a state exists are other states, and over 100 states have determined that the state of Palestine does exist. Nothing else needs to be said about this. Any assertions that Palestine does not exist are bogus and do not merit a response. nableezy - 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, you see the political recognition, and make the assumption that means a state exists. But that's your interpretation, which is just as valid as mine, saying that recognition in this case is just symbolic, a show of support. The difference is, I show that all people in positions of power in this matter, Palestinians, Arabs, world leaders, etc, do not believe recognition makes a state, and speak of the need to establish one in the future. Try as may, you cannot dismiss their position as meaningless. If the supposed leaders of the state say it doesn't (yet) exist - it doesn't. okedem (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. When Abbas says "We will not alter our demand to end the occupation in full and to establish a Palestinian, with east Jerusalem as its capital, on all of our national land." the major point is "on all of our national land". Nobody has said that Palestine has control over all of the occupied Palestine territories. Which is what, at least Abbas, is calling for. It is not saying that there is currently no state of Palestine. But that doesn't even matter. Abbas does not have the authority to say whether or not a state exists. The PLO is the representative of the Palestinian people to the world, and they declared statehood. Over 100 states recognized that there is a state of Palestine. There is no such thing as a "symbolic" recognition. Whether or not the state exists and whether or not the state controls its territory are two different questions. You are trying to make the first dependent on the second, but it does not work that way. nableezy - 15:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He also said: "Let me emphasize: Fatah categorically rejects the attempt to form a transient Palestinian state" - clearly, no current state exists. So, you're saying that the president of the so-called state doesn't matter at all when it comes to that state's status? Everyone in the world is a fool, they don't understand that a state already exists. They keep talking about the need to establish one, drawing up plans to create a state in two years, etc. All they have to do is speak with the brilliant political scientists Tiamut and Nableezy, who understand that a state already exists... Come on. okedem (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was referring to the attempt to form a token state in the oPt (and not all of the oPt). That is not a rejection of there being a state today that does not control whose territory is under occupation by a belligerent power. I dont want to argue this anymore, you lost that argument at Talk:State of Palestine and have taken it here as perhaps the numbers may favor your position more here than there. But the state does exist, and you dont have to ask me, you can look at the sources at State of Palestine to see for yourself. nableezy - 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't "lose the argument" there, I gave up trying to get you read sources. Forget the Abbas quote, if you wish. There are enough others, that are completely unambiguous. They (Fayyad, for instance, but all others as well) know that there's political recognition, just like you do. But, unlike you, they accept that it doesn't mean there's a state. Your intepretation is your own, but it is rendered meaningless by the contradictory interpretation of much more important figures. okedem (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time Okedem, go take your argument about the existence of non-existence of Palestine elsewhere. This discussion does not belong here. This page is about the Arab Cultural Capital of 2009. It was Jerusalem, awarded to Palestine by its fellow Arab League members. I don't care what Fayyad is saying in the papers about the Palestinian state, it's not relevant here. Nor do I care what you think about Palestine being like Narnia. Nor do I care what Nableezy thinks that Palestine exists. ALL OF THIS IS IRRELEVANT HERE. End of discussion. Tiamut^talk 16:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wipe a single tear from my eyes, I begin to see things with a newly found clarity. Tiamut is right; it doesn't matter here whether or not Palestine exists or who says what about its existence. Does anybody dispute that the member of the Arab League is Palestine? Does anybody dispute that it was Palestine who accepted the designation? Anybody? nableezy - 16:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wipe my screen of the melodrama, some dust comes off, and I realize I should clean my computer more often. Please present the evidence that the State of Palestine accepted this. I saw no such statement - the sources said the representatives were of the PNA, not the SoP. And as we've already established that the PNA and SoP are not the same, we have a problem. okedem (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. nableezy - 17:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he says it, and it's not meaningless, given his position. But, is he part of the SoP? Is there any SoP official saying that? Any official statement from them? Because before this source, you guys were presenting sources talking about the PNA representatives, so that's somewhat confusing, isn't it?

Quoting you: "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...". "What matters here is that the entity that was awarded the event was the PNA." "There are plenty of sources saying this awarded to the PNA." - were you wrong when you said that? Or are you wrong now? Are there plenty of source for the PNA? Is there more than one source for "Palestine"? okedem (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read State of Palestine again. "Palestine" is the official name of the state, per the sources cited at State of Palestine. "Palestine" is the Arab League member (ditto). Palestine can best be defined as a transitional association between the PNA and PLO (ditto). Its all there Okedem. We don't need it, because the source is clear that "Palestine accepted". But in case you need help understanding the relationship of all these different Palestinian bodies to one another, read the article and sources cited again. Tiamut^talk 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes of Nableezy are of importance here, and I'd like to read his reply, instead of your evasions. And I try to avoid fantasy world articles, like State of Palestine. It could have been factual, but you've chosen to take another direction there. I hope others coming across it will also realize its shortcomings. okedem (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okedem only a couple of hours ago: I only care about what you write here, and never try to discuss your bias, or purposes, or any such things. This is because I have a certain respect for other editors, and for the process here - we can discuss claims, what other people say, etc - but never the actual persons - their views, motivations, etc.

Yeah, right. Tiamut^talk 17:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, but no. I didn't say "Tiamut wrote a fantasy article to suit her views", or she's "using wiki to promote her...", or accused your bias or any such thing. I'm saying your work in that article created a work of fantasy, unrelated to reality, and that's a shame. I don't care why you did it, but that's what it is now.

So, exactly as I said - I only address what you say or do here, not why you do it. Nothing related to who you are as a person, but only what you say on talk pages, and what you write in articles. If I disagree with you, I say you're wrong, but I never claim that you're saying something because you're biased, or that you're using wiki to promote your views. I don't claim that, and don't care about that. Your motivations are of no importance to me, and I never discuss them, and allude to them. okedem (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: [...] I'd like to read his reply, instead of your evasions. And I try to avoid fantasy world articles, like State of Palestine. It could have been factual, but you've chosen to take another direction there.

Don't patronize me or insult my intelligence Okedem. I know what you said and you do too. You are evading the points I raised, directl addressing the points you raised, while accusing me of "evasions" and pursuing "fantasies". Sweet. Tiamut^talk 17:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I said - I criticize your comment as evasive, and your work in SoP as fantasy. That's all fair game. What isn't fair game is motivations, biases, claims of using wiki to promote views, etc. Whatever you do here is fair game. Why you do it, and who you are - isn't. okedem (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then ... I criticize your comment as evasive. You did not deal with the substance of what I said, instead choosing to mischaracterize as evasive what was a highly relevant comment directly responding to your query; and bizarrely, critiquing my editing style at another page. I also think your importation of the dispute you have with Palestine's existence to this page which has manifested itself as 30 reverts adding practically zero content to this page is disruptive. Fair game, no? Tiamut^talk 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair game. Criticize my claims, edits, and behavior on Wiki all you want. Just don't accuse me of using it to "serve my purposes", or importing my bias, or any such thing. Whether or not you agree with my actions, don't try to analyze my motives.

There was nothing "bizarre" about my criticism of State of Palestine. You referred me there, and I explained I have zero faith in anything written in that article, as I've seen your handling of sources. okedem (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More subtle derision. No problem Okedem. I don't mind serving as the punching bag for your obvious frustration. Keep it coming. Tiamut^talk 20:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boo-hoo. You attack me personally at every opportunity, but complain when I criticize your work. Whatever. okedem (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one crying Okedem. I said, keep it coming. Tiamut^talk 20:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question to me Okedem, it is a tad complicated. The PNA is the interim body set up to run the Palestinian territories until the state exercises sovereignty over those territories. So I was wrong in saying it was awarded to the PNA but not wrong in saying that the PNA organized the events. It was awarded to Palestine and carried out by the interim organization we know as the PNA. Anything else? Is there a problem with this source? nableezy - 18:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But... you said "There are plenty of sources saying this awarded to the PNA." - are there? okedem (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was but you remained convinced that ones provided did not prove that. Is there a problem with the source that clearly and plainly says "accepted by Palestine"? Or are we just arguing for fun now? nableezy - 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a problem. Not with that source directly, but with other sources. You claimed, repeatedly, that it was "awarded" to the PNA, and said many sources support that. If that's true, than we should still write PNA, because we only have one source talking about "Palestine", and, supposedly, many sources talking about the PNA. If not, fine, but then I'll advise you to be more careful with future claims, and make sure what you're saying is actually correct. okedem (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You consistently said that the sources I provided to back up saying awarded to the PNA were insufficient, now you want to say lets go back to those? If that is the case I would advise you not to make future claims of insufficient sourcing without thinking as it may lead to others finding better sourcing whose content you disagree with even more. nableezy - 20:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to understand your position. Obviously, I didn't convince you of anything, so why are you abandoning all those sources for the PNA, in favor of a single one for "Palestine"? Personally, I don't really mind it either way. The PNA has as much control of Jerusalem as the "State of Palestine" entity (zero, of course), so both are problematic. I just want some consistency. If you claim many sources support PNA, and only one supports "Palestine", we should still write "Palestine", it being the majority opinion.

You'll note, though, that I was worried about the phrasing "Awarded to", as no source used that phrasing, or anything similar. Since we no longer have that phrasing, it's not a problem. The events were organized by the PNA, and so writing PNA under "Participating member" might be more accurate, as it is the PNA who organized the events (thus participating in the program), and not the SoP. okedem (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Participating member is a reference to member of the Arab League. Palestine is the member, not the PNA. And I have said for some time that I wanted to use Palestine. The sources support that the PNA carried out the events, but I have said for some time that it was awarded as the capital of Palestine. But no worries now, we have a high quality source making it clear so there should no longer be any issue. nableezy - 20:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice list, but...[edit]

... take away the list of cities and the citations, and you would have virtually nothing in this "article". What's the significance of the designation? What's being done at the designated city in the designated year? If UNESCO is involved, clearly this is more than symbolic, and the article needs to demonstrate this, and 2008 Arab Capital of Culture and 2009 Arab Capital of Culture hint at it. B.Wind (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the red links because the stubs were deleted: [12] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jerusalem is in israel[edit]

jerusalem it is in israel, no matter how you change it. you want to write lies? go ahead this is a palestinian probaganda and not encyclopedia. 77.126.147.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The award for Jerusalem was presented to Palestine, and was given to Palestine as a member of the Arab League. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a neutral decision.[edit]

I wrote: "De facto" Israel/... to write "PLN" is controversial decision, which is not neutral,and says directly,that Jerusalem is owned by the Palestinians. I find it ridiculous, that some Palestinians trolls dictate Wikipedia's policy. According, this wiki's policy, the articles mustn't be subjective. 84.228.90.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Read the column header. The Palestinians were awarded it. Israel isn't even a member.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Arab Capital of Culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links[edit]

Away from the discussion related to Jerusalem's name and territorial ownership, I just wanted to point out that this article contains a number of dead links (the Al Quds 2009 and site and the article related to Sana's nomination as Arab Capital of Culture, for instance), so it would be greatly beneficial if we could work on updating these. --Nevborg (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arab Capital of Culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514191731/http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/IPPP/Fall97Report/negotiating_jerusalem.htm to http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/IPPP/Fall97Report/negotiating_jerusalem.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arab Capital of Culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725000704/http://www.alquds2009.org/etemplate.php?id=91 to http://www.alquds2009.org/etemplate.php?id=91
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805132907/http://damascus.org.sy/ to http://damascus.org.sy/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.manamaculture2012.bh/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arab Capital of Culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301023211/http://www.jordanembassyus.org/12122001002.htm to http://www.jordanembassyus.org/12122001002.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dohapress.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1676%3Airaqi-cultural-week-opens&catid=42%3Aculture-a-art&Itemid=220
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.manamaculture2012.bh/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

2017 Edition was in Luxor, Egypt and 2018 Edition is in Oujda, Morocco. Anyone can update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.88.51.116 (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2020[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The commitee has decided the cities for the following years: 2019 Port Sudan, Sudan 2020 Bethlehem, Palestine 2021 Irbid, jordan 2022 Kuwait City, Kuwait 2023 Tripoli, Lebanon

Source: http://cpnn-world.org/new/?p=14709 Madenry (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Thanks for helping keep this page up to date! — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 17:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map is broken[edit]

Only Cairo and Kuwait City show up on my map, regardless of browser. BhamBoi (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]