Jump to content

Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Request for comment on media section

Consensus is that the section should go, and policy dictates of course that coverage of coverage requires secondary sourcing--that is, not the coverage itself. WP:PRESERVE is completely irrelevant here, but what can be preserved (I say this as a sidenote) are the citations themselves, which can be used to verify facts and factoids in the article. Another sidenote: this is world news, not K-pop, and we should be wary lest we make the media coverage the subject of the article, rather than the events themselves. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

There is currently a substantial "media coverage" section that has been a subject of some edit warring. Input is requested on the following:

  • Should the section exist at all? And if so, is it the correct size or too long?
  • Should the section, if it is included, contain the first and third paragraphs, focusing on CNN, in the linked version of the article? Or should those paragraphs be removed, as in this version of the article?

-- Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey

  • Remove or trim The focus on CNN is excessive, so the first and third paragraphs are grossly disproportionate and violate NPOV. In fact, I am tagging for that reason. I think that even if trimmed the media coverage section is excessive and should be removed. Coretheapple (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Trim if you must, but don't remove it entirely, per wp:preserve.--190.17.194.102 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Trim but don't remove. Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove. Per the WP:OR/WP:PSTS policy, these media sources are secondary when talking about the attack, but primary when referring to themselves. The non-OR way would be to assemble only cases where Newspaper A is reporting on the behavior of Newspaper B. Abductive (reasoning) 08:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You make a persuasive case, but I am not altogether certain that there should be absolutely no reference to the coverage. But this is food for thought. I tend to come down in favor of removing the section entirely myself, but on general grounds of disproportionality, NPOV. It definitely can't stay the way it is now, and by the way it doesn't have to by any means, subject to 1RR. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove (or condense to one sentence in response section) - the section represents a minority view on 1% of the coverage. (If there was a real controversy, it would be a lot more broadly covered.) To be balanced, it would have to also cover the 99% of coverage that wasn't criticized, which isn't really possible. Thus, the only plausible solution is the remove it and maybe have one sentence saying some early headlines were criticized in the "response" section - that would be an appropriate weight, a whole section on it is not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources problem

The debate was indecisive. You quoted one opinion, and the discussion is 6 years old. If the animus challenging a report by a political scientists who is thoroughly familiar with the factional politics of a little known organization challenges it because it is in Counterpunch, on the basis of some old discussion, I'm looking forward to hearing, Epeefleche, from you and others as to why here we have
  • Arutz Sheva (4)
  • Israel Hayom, a tabloid rag run by a Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson as a mouthpiece for one politician, Netanyahu, used 4 times, once snuck in via Hebrew. There is a Knesset Bill which has passed a first reading banning the paper’s free distribution);
Algemeiner;
jspacenews.com;
nrg.org )Hebrew)
New Jersey Jewish News;
The Hollywood Reporter.
Fox News (‘examples can be multiplied ad nauseam but the mere existence of Fox News’s stable of commentators whose stock in trade is preying on their audience’s fears and hatreds is more than sufficient to make Nbussbaum’s point’ Alan Ryan ‘In the Spirit of Maya Lin,’ New York Review of Books October 9 p.43)
I.e., your selective protest isolating just one, Counterpunch, of many sources in the article as problematical because it shows selective policy bias. It happens to be 'disestablishmentarian'.
I look forward to editors telling me why, in particular, Arutz Sheva and Israel hayom are reliable whereas Counterpunch, for a very nuanced analysis of an obscure political group, is not.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Because some of these things are not like the others. Counterpunch is a political newsletter that primarily features opinion and analysis; when it does investigative journalism there is some actual reporting, but most of the content is a re-analysis of material originally reported elsewhere - and it does not attempt to cover the daily or weekly news. The New Jersey Jewish News is typical of local Jewish newspapers worldwide, i.e., it does reliable, original reporting in its region, reprints national and world Jeiwsh news drawn from wire services, and offers analysis and commentary. Arutz Shava is a constantly updates news source with a great deal of original reporting, and also analysis and commentary; so is Fox News on a larger scale. But, then, so are the Wall Street Journal, the BBC, The Guardian,,Le Monde and Haaretz, and Fox News. All of these, like Arutz Sheva (which differs in that it is local to Israel and Israeli news) are unlike Counterpunch because they are constantly updated news sources, that do publish commentary and analysis inflected by the politics of their respective publishers, and that select what to cover according to their particular biases, but that strive to report facts substantiated by journalists on their news pages.ShulMaven (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Counterpunch

We have 4 sources for the statement, all issued on the day of the murders, repeating the same information. We had from Ramzy Baroud a piece written 10 days later which analysed claims and counterclaims in an historical light. Just editwarring without examining sources is pointless. This is the lay of the textual land, copied to allow resaders who don't read links to actually check.

  • Note 2 Ben Lynfield The Independent 18 November 2014

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a small left-wing group within the Palestine Liberation Organisation that is usually dwarfed by Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement and the militant Hamas organisation, came to the fore today by claiming responsibility for the attack on the Jerusalem synagogue that left four worshippers dead.

  • Note 10 Jodi Rudoren, Isabel Kershner,Israel Shaken by 5 Deaths in Synagogue Assault, NYT 18 November. 18, 2014

The Israeli authorities arrested 12 relatives of the assailants, family members said. Local news organizations said neither man had previously been arrested, though a cousin was among the 1,000 Palestinian prisoners released in a 2011 exchange for an Israeli soldier held captive for five years by Hamas, the Islamist faction that dominates the Gaza Strip. That cousin was affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a militant group that celebrated Tuesday’s attack and claimed credit for it.

  • Note 25. Robert Tait, Jerusalem synagogue axe attack kills four The Telegraph 18 November 2014

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a secular Left-wing organisation, took responsibility for the attack. Family members said they did not know if either men belonged to a political faction, although another cousin, Jamal Abu Jamal, is known to be a prominent PFLP member and was recently arrested by Israeli security forces.

  • Note 26 PFLP claims responsibility for Jerusalem synagogue attack The Hindi 18 November 2014

A Palestinian left-wing group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), said on Tuesday that two of its members were responsible for the deadly synagogue attack in west Jerusalem earlier in the day that left four people dead. The PFLP said in an e-mailed press statement that the two attackers are members of the group, and that “the attack was a natural response to the Israeli attacks on Jerusalem and on the Palestinians”. Rabah Muhana, a senior PFLP leader from Gaza, said in an e-mailed press statement that “the Palestinians should work hard on making the Israeli occupation of our territories illegal by unifying our efforts and ending the internal Palestinian division”. He called for an end to the security cooperation with Israel and for “intensifying armed resistance together with focusing on the Palestinian diplomacy to end the occupation and gain back the legitimate rights of the Palestinians”, Xinhua reported.

  • Note 2 (now reintroduced) RAMZY BAROUD The Rise and Fall of Palestine’s Socialists Counterpunch 27 November 2014 written 10 days later, after investigating sources.

When news reports alleged that the two cousins behind the Jerusalem synagogue attack on 18 November were affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a level of confusion reigned. Why the PFLP? Why now?

Then, Ghassa and Odai Abu Jamal attacked the synagogue. The initial assumption was that the attack was also the work of individuals, before reports began linking them to the PFLP.(link to Ben Lynfield in the Telegraph

To begin with, there can be no easy answers. In fact, the PFLP’s own muddled responses suggest an existing tussle within the group, if not politically, at least intellectually. Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, the movement’s militant arm issued a fiery statement, but refrained from taking responsibility.(link to the PFLP’s website

It neither took responsibility for the attack, nor did it declare the attackers to be its members. Instead, it merely conveyed the Israeli accusation that the assailants were affiliated with the PFLP. Another statement (Arwa Ibrahim Conflicting reports: Were the Jerusalem attackers PFLP? Middle East Eye 18 November 2014) declared the attackers as heroes, yet still took no responsibility.)

It matters little whether the cousins who attacked the synagogue in Jerusalem were affiliated with the PFLP or not; the repeated muddled statements by the group – justifying the attack, explaining it, owning it and disowning it all at once- matters more. This confusion is becoming symbolic of the PFLP following the signing of Oslo. And while there are those who employ clever language to maintain the group’s radical status, NGO perks and socialist prestige, others expect a more serious discussion of what the PFLP is and what it stands for after two decades of political failure, for which the PFLP, like Fatah and Hamas, should also be held accountable.

Extra Note not used by us, but citing Baroud.

There has been a raft of conflicting reports regarding the cousins’ affiliation to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) - a revolutionary, leftist organisation that gained notoriety in the 1960s and 70s for a series of aircraft hijackings - and whether or not the group had claimed responsibility for the incident.

At least rhetorically, armed-resistance remains a central component of the PFLP political posturing and literature. This may explain Tuesday’s conflicting reports. “These two statement are likely the result of wrangling between factions of the PFLP, those mindful of the status quo, and the more revolutionary elements,” said Baroud.

At the same time, a tradition of honour among Palestinian resistance groups to claim the affiliation of any person who carries out an attack against Israel could also explain the situation, according to Baroud.

“If someone is a martyr in Palestine, it used to be acceptable for everyone to claim that person belongs to their group. By everyone saying he/she is ours, it becomes more difficult for Israel to crackdown on a single organisation,” he explained.

While several media sources have reported that the PFLP has claimed responsibility for the incident, sources on the ground in Jerusalem confirm that no formal statement has yet been made on behalf of the group.

Furthermore, a spokesman for the PFLP said Wednesday that it was "premature" to talk about his organization's responsibility for the attack, reported the Jerusalem Post, leading observers to infer that the operation may not have been organised by a group at all but occurred upon the attackers’ own initiative.

Analysts say that while reports remain unconfirmed, non-factional attacks have been on the rise in Israel.

“We’ve seen this pattern over the past few weeks - most prominently from Hamas which keeps some distance from actions while describing them in a positive light,” said Ofer Zalzberg, senior Middle East analyst at the International Crisis Group (ICG). “This kind of action is more effective in harming Israel. It means that Israel cannot react with a full-scale operation against the organisation and is left to deal with individuals as the less organised [the operation], the more difficult it is for Israeli intelligence to detect it in advance,” Zalzberg told MEE.'Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  • The RSN clearly does not view Counterpunch as an RS for facts, especially disputed facts. If Nish thinks that he would like to get new input from the RSN, because he feels somehow the publication has changed its ways, he is free to do so. But this has been considered by the RSN, and the consensus view (not just the view of one editor) was that it should not be relied upon for facts. Nish - feel free to ping us here if you open up a new discussion at the RSN, for the use of Counterpunch as an RS for disputed facts in this article (where the NYTimes and others says something that Counterpunch disagrees with). Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Then just read the Extra Note I added not used by us:There has been a raft of conflicting reports regarding the cousins’ affiliation to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).(Arwa Ibrahim Conflicting reports: Were the Jerusalem attackers PFLP? Middle East Eye 18 November 2014 , updated 29 November 2014.)
Evidently, one source for that day said the reports were conflicted, and thus citing 4 newspapers written within a few hours, that the PFLP claimed responsibility, when at least 1 (now 4) newspaper(s) denied that the evidence is clear on their claiming responsibility, is POV-pushing against the evidence of RS. The 3 extra sources I have added only underline the technical accuracy of Baroud's report. Secondly, I am not citing 'Counterpunch'. I am citing Ramzy Baroud who writes articles for The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Seattle Times, Arab News, The Miami Herald, The Japan Times, Al-Ahram Weekly, Asia Times, Al Jazeera and has authored three well-reviewed books. Our sources policy is to avoid blogging garbage. It is not designed to elide intelligent work by reputable journalists and analysts out of a programmatic veto on some of the venues where their work is reproduced.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Counterpunch is garbage. I would spend time creating an argument for my assertion but it would be just as easy to find another source and move on.Cptnono (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've had computer problems, hence a late reply.
Don't be silly, CPTONO. It has a large range of academics, reliably published authors, ex-members of the Knesset, Ex-Undersecretaries of the United States government, ex-CIA officials, historians, economists, and notable journalists. I myself only read 'name articles', those written by competent specialists and carried in that journal.
Epeefleche. It is a fact that the organization was named as claiming responsibility for the attack. It is a fact that articles in Al-Jazeera and Counterpunch go into this in detail and cast doubt on the attribution. To remove evidence that the claim is contested is to push a POV. The proof that this is complex is given above, and though Coretheapple seems to think it TLDR, no one who read it has replied to the points made.
There is nothing wrong with citing the widely mainstream-published Ramzy Baroud for his views on this point, with attribution. It is a fact that Baroud went through the Arabic sources, and a fact that he has an intimate knowledge of the factional politics, something the other journalists we cite do not have.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
A source that is proud of its muckraking and that receives criticism for being extremist isn't something I would seek out while writing an article. In regards to well-known contributors, Matt Damon is a great actor but Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was still shit. Is there really not another source?Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be unfamiliar with a term you take to have only pejorative implications. Read Muckraker, which refers to 'investigative journalism' as one of its main characteristics, as opposed to journalism which simply rewrites what the wire-services relate. By definition, exposures of corruption in high places cops criticism as extremism: the New York Times is moderate and was complicit in the invasion of Iraq scenario building, which was regularly exposed at the time by journals like Counterpunch. It publishes Paul Craig Roberts, the founder of Reaganomics; Michael Hudson, a former Wall Street trader; it hosts retired CIA intelligence officers like Raymond McGovern,and Kathleen Christison, or analysts for the Pentagon like Franklin Spinney, or Congressional Budget analyst Winslow T. Wheeler; or historians as various as Vijay Prashad, Gabriel Kolko and Patrick Cockburn. These are neither extremist nor identifiable with some collective 'leftie' movement. The cast of that journal is strongly libertarian. The crack about Matt Damon is slapdash because, analogically, one cites the Matt Damons on Counterpunch for their analyses, not for the venue. To invert the logic of your analogy, Judith Miller is a lousy journalist, but her writing for the New York Times doesn't make that august mainstream source, or the Wall Street Journal, thereby disreputable by wiki standards. If Ramzy Baroud's analysis is wildly off the mark, full of egregious errors, or seamed with rhetoric, you might have a case. It is actually informative, and level-headed, and notably more nuanced than the immediate march of on-the-spot rumour recorded in the 4 sources we earlier had. Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The RSN clearly does not view Counterpunch as an RS for facts. Especially disputed facts. The consensus in this string is in accord with the RSN. If Nish thinks that he would like to seek the opposite input from the RSN, because he feels somehow the publication has changed its ways, he is as always free to do so. But this has been considered by the RSN. And the consensus view (not just the view of one editor) was that it should not be relied upon for facts. It has also been considered here. Nish, I see, just despite the above yet again added it. Nish - feel free to ping us here if you open up a new discussion at the RSN, for the use of Counterpunch as an RS for disputed facts in this article (where the NYTimes and others says something that Counterpunch disagrees with). Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Look. Baroud links to the relevant websites probably none of the foreign shoot-from-the hip instantaneously reporters in the Western press could probably even access. We have immediate meme reproduction and 10 days later, a researcher's analysis of the available declarations, which were conflictual, and make the initial assertions simplistic and misleading. This is not a matter of justifying or defending some Palestinian fringe or militant group: it is a matter of not putting into Wikipedia a statement that is arguably untrue. Baroud's extensive evidence makes the initial assertion which we conveyed dubious or false. I simply do not regard it as necessary to wipe out a reference because, in the distant past, a journal's reliability for 'facts' was challenged. The New York Times is by RSN reliable for facts, and it gets them consistently wrong here (the Golan Heights is in Israel etc.) I'm a contextualist: I evaluate sources according to the quality of the analysis and its author's reputation. This is not about Counterpunch: this is about whether what Baroud documents is usable. I gave a very detailed analysis above of his material, and the way it contradicts the instantaneous news-messaging based on meme replication, and no one has troubled to read and reply to the substance. It is not Counterpunch which disagrees. It is a widely published critical analysis and journalist who, alone, challenges what many other newspapers reported, and he does so by direct citation of sources, something none of the other reporters troubled, apparently, to look into. Can you indicate what in Baroud's paper looks 'unreliable'? Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hani Thawbta, a PFLP leader in the Gaza Strip, stated.
One of many 'leaders' does not constitute a policy statement, that is Baroud's point. In the kidnapping, one Turkish-based leader claimed Hamas responsibility, but sources and our text do not conclude that this means Hamas, organization, claimed responsibility. This is obvious, and the text as it stands is dubious, and your edit probably reintroduced a falsification of the 'facts'. Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised it was put back in "per talk". All I see are blocks of text from one editor and at least three disagreeing. It doesn't matter if you attempt to counter each statement made since others are obviously not convinced. Not a vote and all but there is certainly no consensus for conclusion. I also suggest RSN since this isn't going anywhere. Bad form. Cptnono (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I put out two extensive analyses, and waited for comment. No comments, just harping on Counterpunch. In the last section below, on this page, I showed that what Epeefleche edited in was a falsification (inadvertent probably) of the documentary RS record easily ascertainable, as I did in a few minutes. These 3 sources all confirm Baroud's studied remarks on the phenomenon of claim-attribution - he was writing 10 days after the event. My edit sumnmary 'per talk' relates to the latest section, below this. I put it up, asked Epeefleche to readjust the edit according to what the three new sources say, which contradict the assertion as a fact that the PFLP assumed responsibility, and waited 2 days. When I came back and saw no response, or no edit, I went ahead and adjusted the text, adding those three new sources which have nothing to do with the vote about Counterpunch you refer to. The 'bad form' consists in reflex voting, not reading the sources I cited (Coretheapple admitted as much, and I respect him as an editor) and just mokusatsuing key issues, like the fact that, as stated, the text was false, demonstrable so. Epeefleche is a generally good editor too. Shulmaven isn't - I don't consider automatic nods particularly persuasive - especially since his vote against Counterpunch was backed by a defense of Arutz Sheva which, unlike Counterpunch, has no informed or intelligent or internationally known and esteemed writers on its pages. Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Take it to RSN. I can't see past the IDIDNTHEARTHAT and personally attacking another editor to discuss it any further here.Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I do work more work than most here, and am busy. Take your own advice and raise the question at EAB yourself. I.e., 'is the journalist Ramzy Baroud a RS for statements concerning the politics of the PFLP? or does the fact that the article in question appears in Counterpunch invalidate the utility of his analysis?' There, all you need do is (a) copy and paste the query there and (b) notify me. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Nishidani, but as I (still) agree with what the RSN has said, and with the consensus here, I don't see a need myself to seek to change that consensus at the RSN. Have a nice Sunday. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow.. quibbling over who takes it to RSN now? C'mon man. I've removed the info for now.Cptnono (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I expect my points to be addressed. I am not citing Counterpunch, I am citing a well-published author, scholar and journalist. Epeefleche, talk page issues are not resolved by statements of opinion, but by solid arguments and evidence. A cursory and rather inconclusive discussion was it 6 years ago is hardly definitive. I expect the decency of actually addressing the points I made, not simply mechanical reiterations assuming that there is an ex cathedra ruling on this. There isn't, as far as I can see.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Your edit summary was obviously incorrect. Ignoring and disagreeing with you are two different things. That was revert was inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I have yet to see you say anything more than a quip about garbage on the merits of Baroud's account. You have an opinion, and you repeat it. Epeefleche gave an opinion and a reason (precedent), fair enough. But repetition of a stance, while refusing to actually detail what is wrong with the substantial evidence I provided that you, Epeefleche, Shulmaven etc., were accepting a false text, and reverting or challenging a source that corrected factually those errors, and just insisting Counterpunch is unacceptable. That's absurd. This encyclopedia's reliability is based on getting facts right, not on favouring the New York Times or the Telegraph over any other source, however intelligent or well-informed or investigative. In other words, you refuse to evaluate the merits of the point, and just harp on a disliked source that, in this case, got the now clarified facts right.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It is now at [1]. It would be super if you could do the editors who are not involved over there a solid and not flood the board with a wall of text so it isn;t a headache to go over.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Disregard. I see that you also posted something. Replied.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt anyone gets headaches. No one read it. And this 'wall of text' meme is curious. If we are productive regular editors we should be used to reading 40-50 pages on the net, mostly newspaper tripe, apart from what one reads as a daily part of one's professional or hobby reading.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Status of Jerusalem

Epeefleche should know better than to insist that, as a fact, Jerusalem - even West Jerusalem - is in Israel. See: Positions on Jerusalem. See: BBC and Guardian reports for sources which do not give a country location for the city.     ←   ZScarpia   02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

as Epeefleche wrote, Jerusalem is Israeli sovereign territory.ShulMaven (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOV:
  • "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice."
  • "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
As the Positions on Jerusalem article describes, the international community views the proper status of Jerusalem to be that of a corpus separatum, with no country, including Israel, having sovereignty over it. Therefore, under the NPOV policy, Wikipedia articles should not be stating, in the encyclopaedia's voice, that Jerusalem is in Israel.     ←   ZScarpia   02:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
We don't generally rely on wikis for wikipedia. I certainly know better than that, as does Z. NB -- whenever an editor says "don't state an opinion as facts," and then the editor states his opinion as a fact, and sources that fact to a wiki -- either the editor is a newbie, or the editor is doing it in good faith but carelessly. Where can I find it stated that the majority of the RSs don't view West Jerusalem as part of Israel (put aside East Jerusalem, and put aside "capital of" Israel ... and focus on the RSs). Also, Z, your two reverts of the same material on the 1RR are article within 12 hours are fine as far as the 1RR restriction is concerned, but please keep your eye on the edit-warring restriction so you don't accidentally get caught up in that. Epeefleche (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
For sources, search down to the line here where it says, "There is very little support for the Israeli view regarding the sovereignty and capital status of Jerusalem (especially East Jerusalem)." Eight sources, such as those by Ruth Lapidot and Henry Cattan, are listed for the statement. Also, look at the References section directly underneath.
Obviously, you will also find sources outlining the international position in the Positions on Jerusalem article.
Under the NPOV policy, to be neutral, for the article to state as a fact that Jerusalem is in Israel requires that it is an assertion that isn't seriously disputed in reliable sources. Are you really trying to claim that that is the case?
Reverts of IP editors aren't counted under the 1RR restriction on ARBPIA articles.
    ←   ZScarpia   04:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It is still questionable form unless an IP appears to be an editor attempting to avoid scrutiny by not logging in or there is a legitimate fear that the article is being bombarded by people with no intent to edit constructively. Regardless, this has been gone over 1000 times. I see no problem with simply stating "Jerusalem".Cptnono (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The ARBPIA 1RR restriction: "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring."     ←   ZScarpia   04:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Z -- Let me highlight the parts of what I wrote above that are key: "Where can I find it stated that the majority of the RSs don't view West Jerusalem as part of Israel (put aside East Jerusalem, and put aside "capital of" Israel ... and focus on the RSs).
You responded to that by pointing me to material covering East Jerusalem, and covering "capital of" Israel, rather than RSs focusing on the issue at hand which is what I focused you on.
As to your two reverts of the same material on the 1RR article within 12 hours -- please note that I said they are fine as far as the 1RR restriction is concerned. I suggested you keep your eye on the edit-warring restriction so you don't accidentally get caught up in that. Non-vandalism reverts of IPs do count toward edit warring. Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I've quoted the NPOV policy above. Where does it say anything about 'majorities'? The sources pointed to deal with the issue of sovereignty for the whole of Jerusalem. This revert is of an IP editor; as far as edit warring goes, as it seems you understand, it is governed by the 3RR rule rather than the ARBPIA 1RR restriction. Thank-you for bringing that to my notice, but it was unnecessary.     ←   ZScarpia   04:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Z - First, you relied on a wiki. We rely on RSs.
Second, you said "don't state an opinion as facts." and then editor stated your opinion as a fact (and sourced that fact first to a wiki, and now to sources in the wiki that relate in part to issues that are not at all the issue here, whether in the opinion of that source the city is the capital of Israel, or relating to East Jerusalem.
Third, we are discussing what name to use for the city. Commonname points us to what the English RSs state use as the name -- even if a legal name is something other.
As to your two reverts of the same material on the 1RR article within 12 hours, as I said that is fine as far as the 1RR restriction is concerned. But the IP exception does not apply to reverts of IPs, where the revert is not vandalism, and since you had two reverts of the same language I as friend suggested you please keep your eye on the edit-warring restriction so you don't accidentally get caught up in that. It's easy for editors to forget that the IP revert counts as to the edit warring restriction. As it seems you understand that -- even if you somehow misunderstood my statement to you on it at first -- that's all there is to be said on it. Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You asked for sources and I pointed to places where sources can be found. You could also try doing a Google search such as this or this.
For the 3RR and its variations, edits are counted over a 24 hour period, not 12. As I pointed out above, the ARBPIA 1RR restriction says: "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR ... ."
    ←   ZScarpia   12:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Jerusalem as the default term for everywhere in the city, as defined by Israel, is unacceptable. The intelligent accommodation of views is obtained simply by following years of consensus. Since East Jerusalem has an article link, if events take place in that part of the city they should be referred to as occurring in East Jerusalem. Any attempt to try and insinuate that 'Jerusalem' is a united reality belies both the facts, while pushing the Israeli POV as a fact, which is unconscionable. This is no place to rehash the arguments, which are all known.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I just threw up in my mouth a little. Neighborhood + City should do it but I'll make the revert if we are going down this asinine discussion for the 1001st time (sorry for the minor edit... I was chocking on my own spew).Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
My own practice is quite simple, though not politically correct (I differ from Scarpia on this, but he knows the technicalities better than I). If I see edits regarding areas Israel effectively administered from 1948-1967 in Jerusalem mentioned, I don't fuss over Jerusalem being used. If I see edits regarding areas beyond the Green Line, regarding 'Jerusalem', then I specify that we are dealing with East Jerusalem (making an exception as I did the other day for the no man's land now built into), and specify the neighbourhood. I think that is a fair compromise. Most readers don't click on such terms which just seem more concrete (indeed, my objection to Jerusalem is that it's just 'more concrete' over what should have remained a beautiful historical town built of local stone). It's commonsense not to nag over this, as you say.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Internationally, Israel's claim to sovereignty over West Jerusalem has little recognition and Israel's claim to sovereignty over East Jerusalem none at all. The sovereignty issue underlies the refusal to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. To be neutral, the policy followed by news sources such as the BBC and The Guardian is to omit mention of a country of location for Jerusalem. Similarly, the United States and United Kingdom leave the country of birth blank in passports issued to those of their citizens born in the city. My edits here followed the same principle: they blanked statements about the country of location of Jerusalem, leaving the answer to the question of sovereignty open.     ←   ZScarpia   13:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The question is not whether Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem, but rather whether the massacre in fact occurred in Israel. It is clear from many neutral sources that it did. See, for example, NY Times: "A deadly attack in Israel." (The infographic there also makes it clear that the attack occurred inside Israeli territory - without wading into the whole debate about sovereignty.) We do readers a great disservice by not mentioning this important fact in the infobox. As for the whole debate about sovereignty - why get into it? (And if you believe that "Har Nof, Jerusalem, Israel" is an assertion of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, why not simply suggest "Har Nof, Israel"?) Spud770 (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
By saying that Nar Nof is 'in' Israel, you're saying that it is in Israeli territory, which is the same as saying that it is in territory that Israel has sovereignty over. The Neutrality policy bans stating as facts things which sources dispute. Some sources, for example The New York Times, follow the Israeli line and describe Jerusalem as being in Israel; others, such as the BBC (whose policy on reporting on Israel-Palestine issues can be read here} don't (you'll notice that BBC reports on the attack such as this one avoid stating that the attack happened in Israel). As the question of whether Jerusalem is 'in' Israel or not is a disputed matter, you can't state as a fact in the encyclopedia's voice that it is. You could, however, state as a fact something like Israel regards Jerusalem as being in its territory or that Jerusalem is under Israeli control. My approach is to just skip the issue by not making any statements about it if not necessary.
Here is a map showing the boundaries of the area whose proper status under international law is widely considered to be that of a corpus separatum. I think that you'll find that Har Nof is well inside it.
    ←   ZScarpia   18:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
By that logic, referring to the victims as "Israelis" would also imply Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Yet many sources, including the BBC, have done so. Spud770 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Strange logic. Living in Jerusalem doesn't make someone an Israeli. Also, Israelis can live outside Israel without losing their citizenship. You'll have noticed that all the victims had dual-nationality. The relevant question is whether the area that Har Nof is in, is, according to sources, indisputably in Israel or not. If it's disputed by sources, you can't state it as a fact on Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   22:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
So what makes the victims Israeli then? Spud770 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
At a guess I'd say it was because, after they emigrated, they applied for and were granted Israeli citizenship.     ←   ZScarpia   09:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Settlers are Israelis and would be referred to as such by all sources. Israeli reliable sources and some others would refer to some of the areas they live, such as the Golan Heights, as being in Israel. Yet others would not. Because of the contradiction between sources, you cannot state on Wikipedia that those places are in Israel. The situation is the same with Jerusalem. According to your argument, because all sources refer to settlers as Israelis, it's legitimate to refer to the areas they live in as being in Israel. It's not so.     ←   ZScarpia   12:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe you are still conflating two very different issues. Stating that a certain place is "in Israel" simply means that Israel administers or controls it. In no way does this statement assert that Israel does so legally or that it has sovereignty over that territory. (I challenge you to find reliable sources stating that the Golan, Jerusalem or area C in the West Bank are not Israeli territory - as either "occupied," "administered," or "controlled" by Israel.)
Regarding the victims: It is clear that they were granted Israeli citizenship because they had emigrated to Israel. According to your argument, however, neutral sources should not have referred to them as "Israelis" because they did not actually emigrate to Israel, but rather to a corpus separatum (i.e. Jerusalem) over which Israeli sovereignty is disputed. Spud770 (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Most people reading a statement that such-and-such-a-place is in Israel, would interpret it to mean that the place in question is within the borders of Israel. In the case of Jerusalem, that would be a disputed statement. Israel administers parts of the West Bank; that doesn't make them "in Israel". Britain adminstered Palestine and a lot of other places; nobody would claim that those places were "in Britain". Nobody disputes that Jerusalem is under Israeli control. If you want to replace the current wording with a statement to that effect, that's an acceptable solution to me.
"I challenge you to find reliable sources stating that the Golan, Jerusalem or area C in the West Bank are not Israeli territory - as either "occupied," "administered," or "controlled" by Israel." Could you clarify what you mean, please. In the case of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem, Israel passed laws which, though not using the word "annexe", effectively annexed those places. Are you challenging me to find Israeli sources which claim that the areas mentioned are in Israel? If that's the case, it's a fairly silly challenge.
Reliable sources refer to the victims as Israelis because they had Israeli citizenship. They also had American or British citizenship, so you will also find, say, American sources referring to them as Americans rather than Israelis. "It is clear that they were granted Israeli citizenship because they had emigrated to Israel." Israel can grant citizenship to any applicants it chooses, anywhere it wants, including areas it regards as being Israeli but other countries don't. Sources will call people Israeli if they have Israeli citizenship, no matter where they live.
    ←   ZScarpia   18:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The challenge was simple: to find reliable, neutral sources stating that the Golan, Jerusalem or area C in the West Bank are not Israeli territory (to date I haven't found any). My point was that if these places are Israeli territory then it can also be said that they are in Israel (with the exception of perhaps area C in the West Bank, which is not contiguous with mainland Israel), as these expressions are usually synonymous to the average reader. Furthermore, you haven't yet shown how this implies legal sovereignty. Surely you would agree with the statement that mandatory Palestine was "British territory."
Regarding citizenship: Would you not agree that it is inconsistent (and perhaps disingenuous) to consider certain people "Israeli citizens" merely because Israel does, but not to consider certain places "Israeli territory" merely because Israel does? There are good neutral sources that are fairly consistent on these issues (including the NY Times, linked above) that we could follow. Spud770 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
All I have to show is that reliable sources do not all concur with Israel's position that Jerusalem is in Israeli territory. I have pointed to where such sources can be found.
"Neutral sources" by definition will outline what different positions are, but avoid adopting a particular position themselves. The New York Times tends just to take the Israeli position. Therefore, it is not neutral.
Mandatory Palestine was administered by Britain, but it was not 'in' Britain, nor was it British territory.
No, I do not think it is inconsistent to call people Israeli citizens just because Israel gives them citizenship, but not to call disputed areas Israeli just because Israel says they are.
You said that people will interpret the statement "Jerusalem is in Israel" to mean Jerusalem is in Israeli-controlled territory. Therefore, you should be happy if the article is re-worded to say something more specific, along the lines "Jerusalem is in Israeli-controlled territory", shouldn't you?
Do you think that the Jerusalem article should be changed to say that Jerusalem is in Israel rather than that Jerusalem is claimed by and administered by Israel? Do you think that the Golan Heights article should be changed to say that the Heights are in Israel rather than that the Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel?
    ←   ZScarpia   03:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You correctly wrote: "All I have to show is that reliable sources do not all concur with Israel's position that Jerusalem is in Israeli territory." To apply this burden to this case, you need to find reliable sources stating that the attack did not occur in Israel. That certain reliable sources omit this fact does not mean that they disagree or do not concur with it. They simply, as you said earlier, avoid the issue as a matter of policy. Wikipedia has a very different policy: it does not avoid an issue simply because others avoid it. It is not censored.
You write: "The New York Times tends just to take the Israeli position. Therefore, it is not neutral." This is your personal opinion, and I disagree with it. The NY Times has been used as an authoritative source extensively throughout this and other articles relating to the Middle East conflict. But I will take your opinion into account, and provide the following additional sources that the attack took place in Israel:
Reuters:"U.S.-born rabbis slain in Israel praised"
CNN:"Terror attack in Israel kills Americans"
British Foreign Office:“We are aware of the death of a dual British-Israeli national in Israel on 18 November 2014”
Chicago Tribune:"Synagogue attacked in Israel"
There are many, many more examples mentioning that the attack took place in Israel. Not one that it did not.
(We went off a little off topic earlier, regarding whether mandatory Palestine can be correctly referred to as "British territory." A brief Google search reveals countless reliable sources - books as well as other media - that do so.) Spud770 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think your arguments are fairly desperate pieces of sophistry. You can produce all the sources you like that say the murders happened in Israel, but it doesn't change the fact that there is little recognition of Israel's claim to Jerusalem, making the statement that Jerusalem is in Israel a POV one. In the policy, there is no such thing as a "neutral reliable source" defined. I explained how I would define such a thing and why The New York Times doesn't fit that definition. You personally might see the New York Times as authoritative, but the Neutrality policy doesn't permit what it says to trump what other reliable sources say just because it's the New York Times.     ←   ZScarpia   03:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is whether it is neutral or not to state that Jerusalem is in Israel. There has been much previous discussion on the matter, particularly on the Jerusalem article talkpage and on the separate moderated discussion on the the wording of that article's Lead. The latter had non-involved editors judging the issues. One of their conclusions was that, "There is very little support for the Israeli view regarding the sovereignty and capital status of Jerusalem (especially East Jerusalem)." That discussion was one of the few, if not the only, discussion where editors from outside the ARBPIA area made a judgement about consensus.
I think that there is little point re-fighting the issue of whether Jerusalem is in Israel in every article where it's mentioned. It wastes time going over the same ground and would probably end up with the same result.
There was a possibility that Haf Nor, being on the outskirts of West Jerusalem, might have been outside the area whose proper status is considered to be a corpus separatum by the UN. However, the map linked to above shows that the corpus separatum area extends to the west of Deir Yassin, which is to the west of Har Nof, showing that Har Nof is also within the area.
I propose that unless somebody wants to produce a form of wording that is not in dispute, such as that Jerusalem is in Israeli-controlled territory, the best immediate solution is just to remove the text currently linking Jerusalem and Israel. Cptnono and Nishidani, your input would be appreciated.
    ←   ZScarpia   03:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

  • (a) 'Jerusalem' is a noun that refers to a city.
  • (b) politically, legally, that city has two positions: the Israeli one that it has been 'unified' unilaterally by an act of non-existent 'annexation': the Palestinian and international one that it is not unified as part of Israel.
  • Sources are clumsy, and in this case one cannot use sources to put over that the Israel POV is a factual reality. The New York Times places at times the Golan in Israel: it isn't.
Numerous mainstream sources say Israel 'annexed' Jerusalem/East Jerusalem. The fact is, as Lustick showed, there has never been a law approved by Israel to that effect (to do so would have serious consequences politically and internationally).
With regard to Har Nof and all parts of West Jerusalem that Israel has controlled since 1948-1967, I think it a realistic compromise to say that they are in Israel. No negotiation will change the de facto reality there. A rigorous reading of corpus separatum law, as Scarpia shows, can prove that this is contested, but the Palestinian perspective is purely instrumental. They will accept those places west are in Israel, when Israel accepts that East Jerusalem will form part of the future Palestinian state. I have no problem, therefore, with editors who write of events like that in Har Nof as taking place in Israel. In exchange, I think thos editors should accfept the overwhelming legal and physical evidence that Jerusalem over the Green line is hotly contested by mutual territorial claims, and that therefore one must simply link to East Jerusalem and avoid using the counter-factual POV-descriptor 'in Israel' for incidents there. It patently violates WP:NPOV, and those who would deny this are in bad faith.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Would the implementation of that view be changing the wording from "Jerusalem, Israel" to "West Jerusalem, Israel"?     ←   ZScarpia   16:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with using Jerusalem absolutely (Jerusalem), but since we have links to West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem article, I think the proper compromise is to use 'Jerusalem' linked to either where we can determine in what part of the city any event occurred. I object to Jerusalem being called part of Israel, which is a POV cogging of the connotative dice. I think it sensible to bury the controversy bby linking as suggested. Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It is a city. Jerusalem is fine here. A thesis about the politcal nature belongs somewhere else. The sources are clumsy because it is a subject that people do not agree upon (as previously stated there is something to be said for "reality") or The New York Times and other typically amazing RS have the worst editorial staff ever.Cptnono (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Nishidani Are you the same Nishidani that stated above: "I have no problem, therefore, with editors who write of events like that in Har Nof as taking place in Israel."? Spud770 (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't care that much by the way. I originally reverted it to include Israel when I thought people mght have fits over the whole occupied, EJ, whatever thing. I remembered this conversation and thought it might be leaning toards removing. Certainly feel free to readd it if it is a sticking point for you.Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Scarpia is the only one here who knows intimately the details of the technical status, as one can see. I agreed with his analysis, but I added that to all effects and poiposes West Jerusalem will not be contested as part of Israel. The Palestinians won't contest that. The problem is not what we think, but what the encyclopedia obliges us to do, and it obliges us to be neutral. The neutral position here is to write Jerusalem, which does not prejudice the reader. It is in Israel de facto but not de jure and on all controversial points the de jure status must be given, because if you start the precedent of writing de facto realities, you'll only invite a huge POV push and inevitable conflict, over many other articles, beginning with the Old Quarter, Har Homa and all the others.
The rest of us tend to be driven by POVs. Cptono and I agree on almost nothing and therefore when I saw his remark:' Jerusalem is fine here,' I thought that was an example of a sensible mediation between extreme positions. When I saw him endorse that position by the revert, I again thought he was summing up (as the last comment in this thread) the agreement we had concluded. That is why I reverted back to his position. My words that I have no problem with editors who see West Jerusalem as part of Israel still stands, because it is reasonable to think that. I don't take it as an Israeli POV push (if I did I'd be making life hard for everyone by challenging all those West Jerusalem suburbs which are designated in our articles as in Israel. I don't bother, though it is not strictly speaking correct). But I know in my bones that Cptono's solution is, in encyclopedic terms, technically correct, neutral and collegial. When Cptono and someone utterly disreputable jihadi like myself agree, others should take note that a miracle of commonsense has occurred, and smile that edit-warring and POV-pushing has been, for once, suspended.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Jerusalem is fine. No one is really going to give a fuck in 2 months, 1 year, or 10 years. If they do, the whole P-I conflict will be settled.Worrying about where it happened is stupid since we should be archiving when and how it happened.Cptnono (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Media coverage" section

Please see Talk:2014_Jerusalem_synagogue_attack/Archive_3; I hope some conscientious editor will draw the appropriate conclusion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Media Coverage Neutrality Dispute Tag

What needs to be done to remove the neutrality dispute tag from the media coverage section, I realize it was bad at some point, but I think it is objective.... can anyone list what neutrality problems remain?Eframgoldberg (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed the reference to the takbir

There's clearly an insinuation that the attackers were acting out of some kind of "jihadist" rationale. This is wrong-headed because the perpetrators ostensibly were affiliated with one of the most left wing (read: not remotely Islamist or Jihadist) militant organizations, and the attack wasn't carried out for "jihadist" reasons.

The kyle 3 (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This was all properly sourced. If you disagree with it you must bring an RS to the discussion that proves this is untrue so it can be debated here and a consensus be brought as to whether or not it should be included. - GalatzTalk 14:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Gone again, bud. NYT was maybe the one really objective source and that mentioned the use of the takbir in passing, without trying to make any grandiose claims or sensationalism out of it. We both know that PFLP affiliates are really the furthest thing from conservative Islamists or "jihadists", so the fact of the matter is that the link to the "takbir in jihadism" subsection is intentionally misleading.
The kyle 3 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
If you "properly source" something from a newspaper that makes lying or otherwise un-objective claims, then the lies are still lies.
As we both know, Israel and the worst of the pro-Israel element does feel it to be in their interest to lie to the world and try to claim that they're fighting "jihadists" on par with the likes of ISIS or Al Qaeda, despite that being not at all the case in reality.
Pulling it again because there's no point to that sentence outside of pro-Israel editors here trying to misconstrue the attack as some kind of "international jihadi" one.
The kyle 3 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The point is that this is an encyclopedia. Since you cannot find any sources disputed the claim, it stays. Those are the rules of WP. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. - GalatzTalk 13:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Jerusalem_synagogue_attack/Archive_3&oldid=1234717751"