Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel

This article is highly misleading

It seems like a batch of pure propaganda coming from desperate right wing Israel supporters. It mentions that the US is "looking" for a building in the city, but DOESN'T mention that Trump signed the waiver. The embassy ain't going anywhere right now. This part should be added! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.212.120 (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Rename?

United States recognition of Jerusalem as what? Let's rename it to United States position on Jerusalem? If it's dedicated to recognition as the capital only, let's rename to United States recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. --Wiking (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I recommended "Jerusalem policy shift of Donald Trump" to keep with the naming convention (Example: Immigration policy of Donald Trump), anticipating that eventually there would be a formal move proposal in any case. I think "United States recognition of Jerusalem as Capital of Israel" is too long for an article title. Most of the press sources are calling it a policy shift, or a policy change. 02:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Policy shift or policy change may be misleading because it is fully in line with Trump's pre-election promises. "Jerusalem policy shift of the United States administration" would be more precise (as policies obviously shift when a new president takes office), but is hardly a good title. While a longer title is not ideal, at least it makes sense. However, if this article will cover in detail the history of US position on the issue of Jerusalem, "United States position on Jerusalem" would be appropriate, of course. --Wiking (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Jewish studies scholars

What is Jewish studies scholars subsection doing within the International response section of the article, and how is the opinion of these private individuals relevant in the context of this article? --Wiking (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Because they're supposed to be experts on the subject? Maybe they aren't "international", but their opinion is notable. ^Falling_Gravity 20:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Notable because you said so? This isn't a Judaica article. --Wiking (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Notable because it's published in Haaretz, a well-respected Israeli newspaper. ^Falling_Gravity 20:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Surely, many opinions are published in Haaretz, which alone does not make them notable. And if I understand correctly, you no longer insist that they are some sort of experts on the matter? --Wiking (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

They can be totally experts on the matter, Israel studies and politics in the Jewish community are part of Jewish studies. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

can be totally experts is the new standard? Can be this, can be that, but per source, they are a (biased) group of critics of both Trump administration in the US and of the Israeli government and not a group of experts in political science. --Wiking (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added JTA as another source for this opinion. ^Falling_Gravity 21:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Same reporting on same PR release (which was this - [1]). If we are going to include this August group's response, this article is going to get quite long per this inclusion standard.Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Lack of RS wasn't the issue here. You have not shown why these private individuals' opinion carries enough WEIGHT for inclusion. --Wiking (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Since this viewpoint has been published in multiple RS, WEIGHT tells us it should be included. ^Falling_Gravity 22:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You really believe that WEIGHT is defined by the number of sources where a viewpoint has been published? This is a laughable defense. --Wiking (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The key citation here from the rule would be, "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view." I've added a proper subsection detailing the reaction by major Jewish organizations. The reaction by a relatively small group, representing no one but themselves, does not carry a similar weight. --Wiking (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I welcome the addition of more viewpoints, but that doesn't mean we should censor viewpoints just because you believe they're in the "small minority". You've provided no sources saying the majority of Jewish studies scholars support this decision, making these 130+ a "minority". ^Falling_Gravity 23:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the majority of Jewish studies scholars or the minority of Jewish studies scholars think about the issue without a source proving that their opinion is even relevant. Just like it wouldn't matter what 130 random physicists or chemists thought. Attributed opinions of leading experts on the Arab-Israeli conflict, US-Israel relations and related fields would be appropriate. But opinions of 130 random "Jewish studies scholars/activists" collected somewhere in a Google document? Come on. --Wiking (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've shown multiple sources proving they're relevant, and I could show more if desired. Feel free to open a WP:RfC on the matter if you feel otherwise. ^Falling_Gravity 05:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Wiking (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely WP:UNDUE - part of the POV problems in this NOTNEWS article.Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't see how sholars response is unde, they are notable to be here acording with WP:NOTABLE, it's not a small group either. We should put all the notable point of views, the deletion of the response fail WP:NPOV and it's WP:CENSORSHIP. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Considering everyone and his uncle responded to this - a random group of 100 Jewish studies scholars is not particularly note worthy. Trump's announcement was generally seen as positive in most Israeli and Jewish circles - you wouldn't quite "get that" from reading our article - nor would you get, say, the Evangelical reception. The article, as-is, fails to reflect those areas where the response was generally positive - said 100 Jewish scholars are the exception to the rule, presented as the mainstream.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty note worthy because are scholars that are related with the subject, Israel studies and politics in the Jewish community are part of Jewish studies. However, I agree with you in that Jewish possitive response to the decision is not represented here. That made the article incomplete, not WP:UNDUE. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz I don't think the scholars response is undue, and I don't think it's constructive to come to a new article and start trying to remove things you don't like from it. Since the article was created yesterday, I think you should AGF that more will be added to it. I definitely made an effort to include the major positions like Netanyahu's before I fell asleep. Evangelicals was the next thing I was going to add. If you think it is NOTNEWS you should put it up for AFD and not disrupt talk page discussions with it. I think it the proposal will SNOWFAIL but this isn't the place for it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is how you know it is not UNDUE - it is a statement signed by 130 scholars. Are scholars the types of sources we use in our articles. Yes. Would it be UNDUE if it was one scholar, or a handful of scholars - maybe. Is a statement by 130 scholars UNDUE - obviously not. This article isn't limited to just comments from political analysts - Netanyahu, in a quote I haven't added, said it's in the Bible. People have views on Jerusalem based on political and religious reasons so both fields are acceptable for this article. Maybe a group of physicists would be UNDUE, but arguing that a statement from 130 religious scholars on Jerusalem in UNDUE is borderline disruptive. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Obviously not"? Obviously to you, maybe. According to this logic, an opinion of 130 random "scholars"/activists (and calling them "religious scholars" is misleading at best) would be appropriate in any article related to Israel? Do you have any idea what sorts of disciplines fall under "Jewish studies"? --Wiking (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes my TA in college tried to talk me into changing my major but I declined, mostly because I can't read Hebrew. But I understand your point, they are academic scholars affiliated with American Colleges and Universities. I think it could maybe be moved to United States reactions, instead of being in a separate subsection.Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

What is missing here is the wider Jewish American response (as opposed to this FRINGE greop of BTselem supporters). If I were not a believer in RAPID, I would AfD this, however I think it is better to wait 1-2 months... Though if this continues to be a POVFORK, well...Icewhiz (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The Jewish American response was also added to a separate section but I think it could also be moved to the United States section. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Christian Organizations

I don't think that reactions of governments, international organizations and political leaders should be mixed with the reaction of the general public or opinions expressed by various activist groups. --Wiking (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, but NCC is not an activist group. I think the section could be shortened without creating any subsubsections, and that the content about the campaign promises could be better in the background section. Since it's my edit, I guess revising it would not count as a revert. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of how you describe NCC, it does not belong in the section on United States under International response. And neither do Jewish organizations' reactions, of course. --Wiking (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That section can't be titled "Jerusalem Patriarchates", I was about to add Pope Francis to it, and the Pope of Alexandria is not a Patriarch of a Jerualem Church. You've also made 3 reverts today on a 1RR article. The lede you added does not follow MOS:LEDE, the background section was tagged for close paraphrasing, and there was a COPYVIO in one of your edits that I removed. You also cited an opinion piece. Most of the edits you have made to this article requires major cleanup by other editors, and it is starting to become disruptive. And please do not start new discussions in random sections. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ir Amim statement

Ir Amim is a marginal activist group - how is their statement relevant and does not violate WP:UNDUE? --Wiking (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It is UNDUE as well. The entire Israeli/Jewish response is currently centered around FRINGE extreme-left anti-Zionist elements (and an Israeli Arab MK back-seater (Yousef Jabareen... Tibi or Odeh should be there prior to this guy - and even they should be muted in relation to the mainstream spectrum)- who is getting more lines than anyone else).Icewhiz (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the mainstream spectrum? Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Generally supportive for anyone right of Meretz, and there is no lack of sources in this regard.Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The two objections are essentially saying that unlike the long list of Jewish lobbying organisations, which raise huige amounts of money on behalf of Israel and settlements in violation of US and international law ([i.e.[International Fellowship of Christians and Jews]] would not be notable except for the money it collects)Ir Amim, which is an organization with an intimate knowledge of East Jerusalem, its politics and settlement developments, is 'marginal' because it lacks the heft of the lobbying groups. The point is, it is an important regional organization which happens to oppose the big shots whose noise clutters the airwaves. One does not define 'marginality' in this way, as 'groups that have no political heft'. It should be there because within the politics of East Jerusalem it plays an important function. 1,490 hits at google books proves that its analytical work on the ground is widely cited by scholars.Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what the objections are saying. --Wiking (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

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

Withdrawn - Mar11 (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Which text should be used as the lead? The current version or this?

• The old version of the link adequately summarizes the article but the current version seems very descriptive and can be moved to the history/background section. - Mar11 (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with above comment, it starts of chronologically as a background section and not as a description of the article topic per MOS:LEDE. It can be worked on more but this would be an improvement. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• I think the new one is somewhat better, however both are lacking in that they don't MOS:INTRO summarize the body properly. More importantly I think this RfC is rather pointless as we're in current event/evolving article mode - and as the article is evolving, by the time we reach consensus on the RfC both versions will be irrelevant. I agree with Seraphim System's placement of a lede tag.Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think if Mar11 wants to withdraw the RfC and just directly make the edit that would be fine I think. It will likely change, so I don't think an RfC is really necessary at this point, but there should be at least a bolded lede sentence in place. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2017 - delete wrong assertion about Czech president

Now the text says: " Czech President Milos Zeman of the Freedom and Direct Democracy party said the European response was "cowardly". " However, Zeman is only a tacit supporter of the party, not a member, he cannot be labeled as being "of" the party. See e.g. Milos Zeman wiki page.

Replace the wrong text by: "Czech President Milos Zeman said the European response was "cowardly". " 89.233.135.164 (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead: Palestine claimed Jerusalem as their capital since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War

This doesn't match our other articles, e.g. Jerusalem #Jerusalem as capital of Palestine or East Jerusalem#Jerusalem as capital. Palestine, as an entity, didn't exist in 1948 and political control on the ground was by the Arab states (and Jordan did indeed declare Jerusalem as a second capital). The Palestinian claim dates I believe to circa 1964 and the foundation of the PLO. The current text is also imprecise regarding the Israeli claim, which is dated to December 1949 - a bit after hostilities ended on the ground (circa March).Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed, diff by Galobtter, thanks.Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:DERRY

Can someone please edit the Other nations sub-section and change Londonderry to Derry as per WP:DERRY. Thanks. 82.28.89.159 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Not takers? 82.28.89.159 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Troubles in the holy land. Done.Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays :) 82.28.89.159 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC for 130 Jewish studies scholars

Should the following text be included in the "American reactions" section?

In December 2017, more than 130 Jewish studies scholars from across North America criticized the Trump administration's decision, calling on the U.S. government to take actions to deescalate the tensions and to "clarify Palestinians' legitimate stake in the future of Jerusalem." According to Haaretz, many of these scholars have been critical of the Trump administration and the current Israeli government.

References

Indicate Remove or Include with reasons. --Wiking (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Poll

• Remove. Undue opinion of a fringe group with no particular expertise on geopolitics. Reform Judiasm leadership should be in, this insignificant group who signed a letter, not.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Remove Quality of argument means a lot more than a poll, but might as well count my vote (and the argument is presented below). --Wiking (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Include. Multiple sources have covered the statement, including: Times of Israel, Cleveland Jewish News, Forward, Deutsche Welles, Washington Free Beacon, Jewish News, and Jacobin. ^Falling_Gravity 01:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: this is important because of WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The fact that this viewpoint has appeared in multiple sources should be enough to at least merit a mention. ^Falling_Gravity 22:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Include for all the reasons that have already been discussed at length.Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Include per Falling. No reasonable objection, other than distaste for the fact that part of the Jewish community dissents from many powerful political lobbies, has been given for treating this as somehow marginal or anomalous. It is part of the record.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Remove as per Icewhiz. Just being a "scholar" of X does not make you an expert or someone notable for inclusion into an article, especially if many of them are activists and not neutral. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Include per User:FallingGravity Onceinawhile (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Remove I can't really say per anyone here. We are in a situation where multiple Arbrahamic religions are stakeholders here. I'm not really seeing the need for expertise in Geopolitics. I don't see an issue with them being Reform Jews, this only implies Bias. At the time of this writing I can't stand with the remove status quo and say per Icewhiz. But when looking over this situation I notice numerous officials giving the position against Trumps policy on behalf of their country. You have specific people and representing specific countries represented here to denounce. But the desire is to list a group of unnamed scholars, mention they denounced trumps position here and to mention they often denounce Trump. I really do not see this much different than finding a source that shows that 130 Lunch ladies offered a similar position. There label of scholar does nothing more than the label of a Lunch lady or that of 130 generic Tennesseans in this instance. Giving 130 Generic people weight when there are multiple other significant commentators doesn't seem to me to be a matter of due weight. This as represented in the text of the above RFC should be removed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you consider changing this to Neutral? It seems that you have some comments about the way the comment is written, but not necessarily the inclusion of the material. I agree with some of you comments about problems with the wording as it is proposed and might also change my response to neutral/remove based on this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Theoretically I can if it meets a standard that I feel is encyclopedic but all I have is whats above and going on what's above I feel it has to be removed. As a matter of weight you can give Germany's position on this but not 130 generic people and their positions as scholars adds nothing to consider here. It comes down to their notability is the scope of the article is what it comes down to to me. Not Wikipedias notability guidelines but their actual notability and in context to Jerusalem. You get a quote by Stephen King I'm prolly going to say remove it because of it's weight implications. Stephen Kings position on another writer would seem highly relevant but his position on Jerusalem would cause a balance issue. My question about the scholars would be first, who are they? Second, why does their opinion matter when there are many sources for many more notable positions. The UN position, the EU position, The positions of other states of the world, the position of former negotiators or people who have worked directly with Israel/Palestinian negotiations, Perhaps the Sovereign Order of Malta would be highly relevent. These generic Scholars are neither relevant as Scholars or Jews. They are not Irrelevant because they are reform Jews but simply being a Jew doesn't make them relevant either. I'm willing to hear why specifically these Scholars voices need to reverberate on wikipedia. I'm willing to consider being neutral or even supporting some theorhetical proposed change that's up to standard, but I have whats written above and that's most definitely a remove.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Because wiki I /P articles are plagued with political positions from governments, that are predictable and tedious. What numerous Jewish scholars specializing in the area state (167 not 130) constitutes an important community,-Lustick, whose works I know well, is an outstanding voice there, and is the most erudite analyst of territorial clashes between colonial powers and occupied peoples. This high octane input is being dismissed as somehow (a) not representative of 'Jews' or not carrying a sufficiently high political profile. Since when are predictable lobbies and political agencies important, but a constituency of area specialists, uniting for the occasion to formalize a protest, unnoteworthy? It's not as if there were some problem with space. Significantly, no one in his right mind, in writing an encyclopedic article on any I/P topic would cite a politician, or a lobby, for 'facts' (the verified reality). Advisedly, we seek to construct the factual sphere by drawing on scholarship, which can err of course, but which works under peer-review pressures that activists lobbies or public interest bodies or community interest groups don't have to cope with. They write not to the facts but for constituencies. Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

On an interesting note I can simply ignore your argument outright as if you had failed to post a response to me altogether. The content promoted above for specific inclusion doesn't mention 167 of anything, nor do the sources recommend for inclusion. They do not mention anyone named Lustick. I'm not even sure the 137 (not one of the sources specifically mentions 137) are the generic scholars that editors want listed here as [2] feels the need to mention that there are 2,000 members of Association for Jewish Studies. As represented, as generic scholars, there voices amount to that of poll about Jerusalems status by 10 million McDoanld's cashiers. If these individuals in fact are a constituency of area specialists, uniting for the occasion to formalize a protest, then they damn sure are not represented such in the text being discussed for this RFC. Grandstand all you want and offer all the fucking vieled accusations of antisemitism against me that you want but as represented the above content is presented in a manner that should specifically removed. And you are generically correct with the use of scholars, for instance, Donald Trump recently commented on the American Civil war, We shouldn't replace James M McPherson's commentary with Donald Trump's, or for that matter even mention Donald Trumps position on the American Civil War. However this is not The American Civil War. This is a current event and a very active matter. We are not talking about a paper on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This is not a matter up for peer review. This is a matter for news commentary. Where papers like Haaertz mentions they often speak out against Trumps actions in an attempt to discredit them. This is their political position. As such the position of World Powers and World organizations should be given more weight. NGO's world wide involved directly should be given more weight (ie, CAIR). And again, specifically as currently represented and as mentioned by me in my prior comments, a Generic group of scholar (100,136, or even 10k) should be excluded. TLDR: Your argument is lacking. Generic Scholars shouldn't be included whether you grandstand or not.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Include we really cannot dismiss opinions because someone doesn't like them...Huldra (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Include: This article is basically a bunch of newspaper sources stitched together. Given this, and the fact that there has been enough coverage of the group's statement in geographically and politically diverse newspapers (as shown by FallingGravity), I don't see a problem with including it. The statement is attributed properly per WP:YESPOV and contextualized properly. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Include for reasons given by others. It is diificult to see how such a large group of scholars can be dismissed as 'insignificant', nor why 'expertise on geopolitics', should be demanded of this group, but not from numerous 'religious' groups, including Christian ones, whose reactions are recorded (though many of these scholars do seem to have valid expertise). The section is a collection of reactions and these reactions have received widespread coverage and should be included. Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Include, obviously. Scholars are generally given more weight than news sources, as they are generally more reliable/less prone to sensationalism, etc. The fact that the scholars also have an opinion on the issue in question is grounds for in-text attribution, not for removal. Indeed, the only problem is with the last sentence of the paragraph. We need their affiliations, their qualifications, and their opinions on the issue in question; not their general views on some other political matter. Vanamonde (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • RS do not offer their affiliations and qualifications. They are not presented as a group of experts on the matter though - only as a group of political activists. --Wiking (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Include - There's nothing to suggest that the Jewish studies scholars are a fringe group. Their statement has been widely covered by reliable sources. It's extremely difficult to accept the policy reasons given for exclusion. Cjhard (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• As discussed above, the reaction of some "130 Jewish studies scholars" may lack sufficient notability and gives the opinion of these private individuals (many of whom are also political activists) undue weight. It has not been shown that they as a group are renowned experts in the area of foreign relations or in any area directly relevant to the topic of the article. Same applies to the responses of some lesser known organizations mentioned. I propose to remove such reactions. --Wiking (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

So seems that Icewhiz and Wiking are actively trying to remove Jewish left leaning opinions on the subject under the rationale that they are not "mainstream" and that are a "small group". This is not true at all, the majority of Jews in United States lean to the left [3] and are opposed to Trump administration [4]. The American Jewish left opinion should have more WP:WEIGHT than the right. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Your statement is absolutely false, and the rationale for the removal has nothing to do with them not being "mainstream" or a "small group". It has to do with them not being a notable group whose statements are relevant. --Wiking (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Reform Judaism is the major denomination in the US, they are the mainstream and opposed to Trump's decision.[5] Rupert Loup (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

And no one suggested removing their reaction, so what's your point? --Wiking (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a very brief add in a long section about the views of 130 scholars who are affiliated with academic universities and colleges is undue. I also think that the RfC should be revised and the question stated briefly and clearly without argument. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit places Reform and left-leaning Jewish organizations ahead of the long list of not just Orthodox and Conservative groups, but also a number of many secular and nondenominational groups representing the organized Jewish community. All of a sudden, umbrella groups representing a wide spectrum of affiliated Jews became "Right-wing" after this edit. I am not sure this could have been done in good faith. --Wiking (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

So? It doesn't matter who is discussed first. Sometimes placement at the end of a section is more prominent then placement in the middle or the beginning. That is not the way to write an article. I think on the whole it reads better then it did before the shuffling of paragraphs. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

What reads better? the following right-wing Jewish organizations... - this? Not only does the order give a false impression that the number of major Jewish organizations not welcoming the move exceeds or is even comparable to the number that supported it, but it also falsely calls all proponent organizations "right-wing", which wasn't the case prior to the edit in question. Please revert. --Wiking (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that may have been a good faith mistake, they are center and right organiztions but the article calls them "mainstream" - that doesn't mean we have to use the language the article does. I think he objected to the characterization of Reform Judaism as fringe, which is fair because it isn't. Let's see if the editor comments. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

That's right, the word "mainstream" it's false and the portrait of the American Reform Jews and Jewish scholars as "fringe" is borderline WP:POV, they are the mainstream in the US, not otherwise. Wiking and Icewhiz, you keep claiming the contrary citing WP:DUE and WP:POVFORK, but you didn't give any proof that this is true, you even didn't bother in check who this scholars are and keep saying that the mayority of jews in the US suport the decision, this is not true according with the sources. And about the scholars, they are notable people like Mark Baker, director of the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, an associate professor expert in the Arab-Israel Conflict at Monash University, Lila Berman, director of the Feinstein Center for American Jewish History at Temple University and expert on modern Jewish history, David Biale who is an expert in history of the State of Israel at the University of California, among many others. So if you have a proof of what you are saying is true you should present WP:RS that state that. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Rupert - I'd love to hear your defense of your edit labelling following right-wing Jewish organizations: Conference of Presidents, AIPAC, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, Hadassah, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the National Council of Young Israel, the Republican Jewish Coalition, Zionist Organization of America, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. as right wing. While true for the Republican Jewish Coalition, calling Anti-Defamation League or Hadassah right-wing is perplexing to say the least, and most of the rest of them don't fit the bill either.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't labeled as such, that's how was before. I just remove the word "mainstream" that is a WP:WEASEL, if you have a problem with the label "right wing" it can be removed, in fact I will be WP:BOLD and will remove it my self. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I made some changes to reflect more fairly what the sources say. It's true that one source said that they are mainstream citing the JTA, the original source that used the label in quotation marks. All the sources that I found in the internet that use this label copy pasted the JTA's report. But the JTA doesn't defined in what sense are mainstream and I don't understand why the quotation marks are used. However, they state that the reform movement is the majority denomination in the US which is also stated in they Wikipedia article. The Conference of Presidents and the AIPAC are closely related, they share the same leaders, and many groups are international like the ADL. AIPAC's Wikipedia article states that it "has won support from an overwhelming majority of Republican Jews, while J Street is presenting itself as an alternative for Democrats who have grown uncomfortable with both Netanyahu's policies and the conservatives' flocking to AIPAC." So it's seems that the information is some what contradictory. The only that seem's clear is that the Jewish responses in the US are divided. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the Conference of Presidents and the AIPAC are not closely related, and obviously the leaders of many major Jewish organizations are members of the Conference of Presidents, that's kinda the point of it. Removing the word "mainstream" for now, as "major" is sufficient, and restoring a number of organizations mentioned in the references, each of which is more notable than some unnamed "scholars". --Wiking (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't seem to know about what are you talking about, it's stated that the majority are the Reformist. This organization don't represent the majority. AIPAC only has 100.000 members compared with the 2.506.000 Reformist Jews, you have to back up your claims with evidence. The article Conference of Presidents states: "The Presidents' Conference and AIPAC work together, with all members of the conference sitting on AIPAC's executive committee, which is distinct from its board of directors. The two organizations follow a clear division of labor. The conference focuses on the executive branch of the U.S. government, while AIPAC lobbies in Congress." Rupert Loup (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to help here. It's just what you said doesn't match what the evidence says. Everyone has an opinion on the subject. But we can't put here our personal opinions. We put what the sources say. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If you are trying to help, please be specific and quote what I said and what evidence it does not match. --Wiking (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Reform movement is the largest of the Jewish denominations in America, but the leadership obviously does not speak for all Reform Jews, especially considering that many of them are active in other organizations without any religious affiliation which do welcome the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital. Comparing the number of Reform Jews to the number of AIPAC members is comparing apples to oranges, based on the way these numbers are derived, not to mention that their membership overlaps. Your quote about the Conference of Presidents working with AIPAC proves absolutely nothing. They are still distinct organizations. --Wiking (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Rupert loup, please provide a diff showing where I portrayed the American Reform Jews as "fringe", because I have no idea what you are talking about. The issue is specifically with the individuals, the "scholars"/activists, whose reaction was given undue weight, making them comparable with that of major Jewish organizations. Furthermore, I never said that "the mayority of jews in the US suport the decision" - I don't think anyone really knows for sure one way or the other, and I am not also sure whether such research on support of the policy decision among the American people by religious affiliation would have been appropriate to cite even if it existed. What is certainly appropriate is listing major groups and organizations that came out either in support or in opposition of the decision. It's as simple as that. The article does not say what the majority of US Jews, Christians, Muslims or atheists think - only what certain groups and organizations declared. Among the major Jewish groups, vast majority were in favor, and this majority cannot be categorized as "right wing" or "centrist". Such labels simply do not apply. As far as the minority of groups that were critical, I think "left-leaning" is correct, but feel free to propose a different description; it is also appropriate to separate those who criticized only the timing of the recognition from others who argue against the idea of Jerusalem being Israel's capital. --Wiking (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it is better after Rupert's edits. There was too much link density in the original version and that has since been broken up either by Rupert or another editor but it is a major improvement. I think "described as mainstream by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency" should be removed entirely. The source is not clear about which groups are right and which are mainstream, so for those groups that were identified as right wing this has been mentioned, but the use of the word "mainstream" is undue. RJC is not more mainstream then JDCA. Mainstream was a poor word choice on the part of one journalist and we shouldn't repeat it here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The arguments of Wiking and Icewhiz are directed to maximizing 'Jewish' endorsement of Trump's declaration, and systematically challenging any 'Jewish' opposition, even from respectable collective scholars' statements or well-established organisations like Ir Amin, as 'marginal'. It's so patentLY an attempt to stack the evidence one way that the abuse scarcely deserves comment, as opposed to simply restoring what they are weeding out.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about the join efforts to downgrade the Reformist Jews and protrait the supporting organizations as mainstream as the rescent edit that I just reverted because there is no WP:CONSENSUS, you should keep the discusion and wait until other editors respond the RfC that you opened. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You've reverted my addition of sourced material. Please restore or self-revert immediately. --Wiking (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just for the record, the Reform Movement is part of the Conference of Presidents as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • They clearly had a dissenting opinion though if they issued a statement disagreeing with that of the Conference of Presidents. --Wiking (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Right, but the article originally had the ADL, a member of the COP, in way to paint the ADL a certain way, but the URJ did not have the descriptor that it is a member of the COP. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please use indentation, you both know better then to disrupt the format of the talk page and also to make changes like this in the middle of an open discussion without consensus.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Second warning to you regarding reading my mind or pretending to do so. Please refrain from using such expressions in a figurative sense. --Wiking (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiking I don't think your edits have been an improvement, and I did AGF when I said you know better - if you don't know that you should not restore a disputed edit while a discussion is open then it is a competence issue. Other editors still have to review you work for close paraphrasing, basic MOS issues and unreliable sources, You have been editing since 2009 but you have only 2239 edits. Maybe you should work on other articles outside of the Arbitration area until you are more familiar with Wikipedia policies. I don't think you should be issuing warnings to editors who are trying to help you.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I am of the same opinion about your edits not being an improvement, and my warning stands. I am not the one who restored a disputed edit today, but I did further improve it. As far as my edit count, since it has become your concern for some reason, perhaps you should look beyond English language Wikipedia. --Wiking (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

What you added was directly copied and pasted out of the jpost article, this is a third warning on WP:COPYVIO/Close Paraphrasing. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware that a fragment of a sentence could be problematic, but in any case, replaced it with similar section from the LEDE of Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. --Wiking (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This "RfC" is useless because I can't figure what on Earth it's talking about. Nor does it follow the guidelines for RfCs: RfCs should include a short, neutral statement as the header. Please read this, in particular point 3. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I could help you figure out "what on Earth it's talking about" if you bothered to explain what was not clear to you. What part of the four sentence long statement (short, wouldn't you agree?) appears to be not neutral? --Wiking (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wiking: This part: It has not been shown that they as a group are renowned experts in the area of foreign relations or in any area directly relevant to the topic of the article. Same applies to the responses of some lesser known organizations mentioned. I propose to remove such reactions. It is arguing for a particular option, rather than asking people their opinion. I still haven't been able to figure out from the section the basic point of disagreement: what is the proposed edit and what is the source cited?

The way to ask the question is as follows: "Should the following text be included in this article <text><references>"? You give your own reasoning when you actually give your !vote (or in the discussion section). See this for a concrete example on how I do it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, this was my first RfC, after all.  Done --Wiking (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nishidani's vote to include above should be disqualified since it's based on the objection to "distaste for the fact that part of the Jewish community dissents from many powerful political lobbies", without providing any reference in support for such claim. In fact, the article does mention more prominent and notable groups which came out with similar statements, and the reason to remove these "scholars" response was clearly spelled out. --Wiking (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that is a comment about repeated characterizations on this talkpage of a statement signed by 130 scholars with academic positions at American universities as "Fringe" "non-notable" and "marginal" which was explained and doesn't need reference. If any votes sould be disqualified it is those that are not based on policy. I have already explained why a statement signed by 130 scholars in a relevant field is not undue by any reasonable understanding of the policy. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

And Jewish Studies is a relevant topic area for the geopolitical status of Israel and Jerusalem how? Was this a peer reviewed academic publication, or just personal opinion?Icewhiz (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not what he said. There was no attempt to suppress the fact that the leadership of some notable Jewish organizations did not favor the announcement, and the focus had always been on this group of "scholars" or minor organizations which neither represent the Jewish community nor are experts on the topic. I am not sure why you are bringing up your own position (I disagree with it and believe it reflects your lack of understanding of the policy, but that's not grounds for disregarding it). I only called for disregarding Nishidani's vote because his reasoning is based on an obvious lie. --Wiking (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

neither represent the Jewish community nor are experts on the topic

So anyone who disagrees with 'the Jewish community' can't represent it. And though you have no apparent familiarity with the 167 scholars on that list, and what they do, you palm off their protest as 'not expert' So you are, and only you know what this fictional 'Jewish community thinks'. For your information, 'Jews' among themselves pride themselves in not thinking in lockstep. That is why they have, historically, been so important to the creation of modernity.

It's easy for the trumpminded or Trumpedminded to think vested interest groups and activist lobbies are superimportant, and anything from an informal academic community is just fringe. While civilisations are built by academics, scientists, individuals who develop the power to disinterestedly analyse and solve problems, they deserve no credit when real estate is up for grabs. We saw that in the Climate Change debate, where the obvious, known to specialist scholars, took 40 years to get into public awareness. Perhaps the foremost world expert on nationalism, colonialism and conflict from Algeria to the Middle East, happens to be on that list of 167 scholars -Ian Lustick. Yeah, right, He's not a member of AIPAC or ADL, and ergo is fringeNishidani (talk)

Please stay on topic. Jewish organizations have a wide range of opinions, and they are all represented. As far as the growing list of individuals that we are discussing here, the burden of proof of their notability is on those who want to include it in the article and not the other way around. --Wiking (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Quite a few of the people on that list appear to be notable. Searching through the list, I also found articles for Zachary Braiterman, Hasia Diner, Charlotte Fonrobert, Sander Gilman, Atina Grossmann, Susannah Heschel, Claire Katz, Shaul Magid, Eva Mroczek, Louis E. Newman, Richard Steigmann-Gall, Irene Tucker, Burton Visotzky, and Michael Zank. ^Falling_Gravity 05:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability is a policy for standalone articles, not inclusion in an article. This article covers a wide range of viewpoints, including United Torah Judaism, because the range of viewpoints is valuable information to include. There is no good reason to remove a significant viewpoint by a large number of American scholars. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the type of RS that defines a viewpoint as a significant viewpoint by a large number of American scholars. At this point, all we have is news media reports, not an academic source, and what's being reported is certainly closer to a petition circulated by political activists than to a study of a notable viewpoint. In addition, the primary source (a Google Drive file) would violate WP:RSSELF, and even with secondary sources referencing it, I'm not sure it's acceptable for inclusion. --Wiking (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

No, a Google Drive file should not be referenced. But media secondary sources are fine for this article, which is almost entirely sources to media sources. It's been reported in jpost, times of israel, DW, the Hill, JTA - no reason why this one sentence should be singled out for removal (other then its notability).Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The point was, one cannot glean additional information from the Google Drive file not reported by secondary RS, or use such information to support the inclusion of anything else. I'm glad we agree on this point, so now we can get back to debating the acceptability of mentioning these individuals' response in the first place. --Wiking (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I listed the notable scholars to counter your "political activists" claim, a WP:SYNTH phrase which isn't used by any of the sources. The correct term is "scholars", as should be evidenced by the secondary RS. ^Falling_Gravity 18:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh? What do you call people who are active in opposing the US administration and are known to be critical of the Israeli government? --Wiking (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Scholars. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BLUDGEON. Several editors disagree with you. Accept it, stand aside and allow others to give their views, Opposing a government, wherever, if you disagree with its policies is, for your information, integral to democracies, and the US and Israel do not enjoy a state of exception to the rule.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. The question was, can these people, actively opposing the US and Israeli governments in a coordinated way, be considered activists? I don't see why not, and don't believe WP:SYNTH applies, or at least FallingGravity failed to show how it does. --Wiking (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

'Actively opposing' in plain language 'expressing one's dissent/disagreement'. Anyone competent in wiki practice knows these invented twists and spins of simple data are unsourced, personal and pretextual barrel-scraping. Drop it. No one will read this thread if you keep hammering away.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from telling me what to do. You have not shown any "twists" and "spins". The quoted RS provides sufficient grounds to be paraphrased as 'activists', if the inclusion is warranted at all (which in my opinion it is not and would go against the rules of Wikipedia). --Wiking (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"Demonstrations and violence" section

Adding tag for the POV in the title of the section. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Why? Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Because, I guess, whenever Palestinians protest their being robbed of their lands or of being under military occupation, the Israeli POVpushers will try to write in as if it were neutral the idea a natural right to resist dispossession, guaranteed under international conventions is invariably a 'riot' and 'violent', while shooting from a safe concrete tower over the border from Israel live fire into a crowd of demonstrators demonstrating on their own land (GAZA Strip) is to be spun as an administrative reaction to Arab violence.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You are pushing your own POV, Nishidani - many would counter that the land of Israel was stolen by the Assyrians, the Neo-Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arabs, etc. And firing rockets from Gaza into Israel using human shields as cover, and so on and so forth to kill Israeli civilians is a brave thing to do? Stick to the RS wording.50.111.24.41 (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It is well sourced that these riots included molotov cocktails, stone throwing, a stabbing attack, and a few other violent bits. We shouldn't be calling them demonstrations in wiki's voice - that's non-neutral and counter-factual.Icewhiz (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There were a number of demonstrations and some violence, as with the protests against Trump. Tens of thousands of people protested. That is what the sources are calling them so it is fine. Besides AFAIK the editor who added the tag wanted to remove violence. Removing the word demonstrations is not going to gain consensus. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

In most of the 'civilized world', Icewhiz, demonstrating is a right, and having soldiers shoot live fire, or rubber bullets at you, or pick off so-called ringleaders, is unthought of. Raiding an elderly woman's home outside Israel, tossing in a stun grenade that caused her to die of a heart attack is barbaric, and an everyday occurrence. If one wants a header with 'violence' then it is fair to add incidents like that, or the large numbers of people shot, gassed and injured, by the belligerent power, Israel. To list only demonstrations under violence is blatant POV pushing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

Certainly the right to protest peacefully - chanting, signs, etc. is present in many parts of the world. However few countries, if at all, bestow a constitutional right for throwing Molotov cocktails and stones at innocent bystanders and security forces. However, this FORUMish debate regarding the right of assembly (and the right to toss a Molotov cocktail) is neither here nor there, what we do have is RSes clearly labeling these riots as riots - e.g. Two Palestinians shot dead and one critical in riots after Trump speech, Guardian - and the Guardian is not typically considered pro-Israeli.Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine.You should put up with military occupation by a belligerent power which demolishes 48,000 homes and shoots, breaks bones (29,000 in the first intifada per Rabin's orders) and injures by gunfire tens of thousands of people for 5 decades and chant, and, if you overstep that line, you get shot at. They are not 'security forces', they are military agents of a violent occupation, and, yes, in those conditions, the 'civilized world' regards using snipers to shoot into crowds and pick off putative ringleaders as barbaric, as anyone old enough to remember how the global press viewed the Sharpeville massacre knows. But of course, if your 'ideology' says there is a unique state of exception when Israel does what South Africa and any number of banana republics do, it's different. It's a matter of security. Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Motivations and justifications aside, these "days of rage" riots are riots.Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope. The use of that word on the P of I/P articles has always been Israelocentric POV pushing. A riot in one's own country is one thing, a protest that breaks out in clashes between a violent military occupying power and the occupied people on territory over which the former have jurisdiction only as a belligerent (in law) is an uprising or resistance. The difference is recognized by the authorities, who do not habitually shoot Haredis, gas Mea She'arim, or douse houses with skunk spray (with two exceptions) even when a 'riot' is underway. These 'riots' are also called that, according to circumstances, but the standard language talks of 'protesters' and 'protest marches'. Contrast the weekly pacific protest marches at Kafr Qaddum, or at Bil'in where half of the adult population has been shot over the last decade for what you wish to call 'rioting'.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know Israeli soldiers are now operating in Europe.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

And I didn't know that soldiers firing into Palestinian protesters are taught to tell themselves while doing so, with Nietzsche , that 'Wir sind, mit einem Worte – gute Europäer.' Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC).

Article's problem

There are no content that points out why many nations/people opposed the action.

This makes readers including me left with confusion after reading it. Thanks. 113.210.177.9 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Violence was minor?

Just now I'm reading "Eighty-thousand Muslims demonstrate in Jakarta, Indonesia, against the U.S recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital." Every day there's a huge protest. Every few days I read about a clash. Ꞷumbolo 08:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the absurd claim, which is not even supported by the sources it cited. Just because the matter did not escalate to a third intifada, one can't say that it is "minor" (nor do the sources actually use the term -- only one source uses the word "minor" in one context). To say that the violence in Israel-Palestine was "minor", when four people were killed, is absurd. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this was absurd - the clashes were indeed viewed as minor (compared to the hype) last week, and this was repeated a few times - definitely more minor than the 2017 Temple Mount crisis. However, I do no disagree with the removal - merely commenting on the labeling of this as absurd.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Most vs majority, and redundant qualifier

In this edit, Pincrete changed "most major Jewish organizations" to "majority of the major American Jewish organizations". Of course, a sentence with both words "majority" and "major" simply does not read well. I was surprised to find out that this editor believes that "most" means "almost all", while "majority" means "more than half". This isn't the case per Merriam Webster or The American Heritage Dictionary, both of which list them as synonyms and even allow the understanding of most as "plurality". Separately, I feel that the qualifier American in "major American Jewish organizations" is redundant in a subsection called American reactions, especially since it is repeated in the same sentence ("... including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations"). --Wiking (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the reply I posted on my talk when asked to revert by Wiking:

Majority means more than half, most means almost all or close to that, both are broad approximators, but majority is what the source says. It isn't reduntant to say US, the statement still needs to be clear even in a section labelled 'American'. We would similarly say "many/most European XYZs", even if the section were "Europe". One does not necessarily remember the section title when reading a sentence within it. The reader should not be asked to 'intuit' that these orgs are all US ones simply from the section heading. The sentence should be clear in itself.

The source says (text rather than headlines) "has been welcomed by a majority of the top U.S. organizations representing American Jews" later it says "Seven of the most prominent U.S. Jewish organizations issued statements supporting Trump’s move within hours of him announcing it in a Wednesday speech at the White House". The text does not actually describe these groups as 'major', though I don't object to that as a synonym of 'top' or 'most prominent'.

I don't believe 'most' and 'the majority' are synonyms, any more than 'few' and 'the minority' are synonyms, but why would we NOT use the term that the source uses if we disagree? I have no objection to rephrasing to 'top' or 'most prominent' if major/majority is 'clunky'.

AFAI can see, the nationality of the 'speakers', is established within the text everywhere else in the article (ie not simply in the heading), so what is the objection to making it clear that these orgs are US? Pincrete (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I provided RS establishing that 'most' and 'the majority' are synonyms and I also provided the rationale for avoiding using the word 'majority' in the same sentence. So is it RS vs a matter of your belief? I have also provided the rationale for avoiding using the word 'American' twice in the same sentence. --Wiking (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the language "prominent" is more encyclopedic as in "Several of America's most prominent Jewish organizations supported Trump's decision including x,y,z."Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiking, you provided evidence that the two terms can be synonymous. I don't dispute that, both are loose approximators, so why not use the term used by the source? Pincrete (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Because, like I said, we'd get "majority of major..." - but if we replace "major" with "most prominent", as suggested above, then there is no issue. --Wiking (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree, incidentally OED lists "nearly all of" as one of the 4 meanings of 'most'. Pincrete (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The RS said most and that is what we should use. I don't know why Pincrete says the RS says majority, the headline itself says most. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Headline is not text. I hope it is not controversial, but I have amended to:"The majority of prominent American Jewish organizations welcomed the move, including ..." for clarity and simplicity reasons. I don't see the need to say that they issued statements unless we quote them. Obviously they made public statements or we wouldn't know what they thought. The main reason for the sentence is to 'lead into' who supported. I'm not even sure that we need 'prominent', but don't object to its presence. Almost all of the pros and cons are 'prominent'. Pincrete (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

We do need 'prominent', because we have no source telling us about the majority of all Jewish organizations, nor would it matter for the article. I think headlines may be quoted too, but no reason to disagree with your edit, which actually improved the style. --Wiking (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The missing background

The part that was previously removed due to COPYVIO is key to understanding the background.

This may still be too close to source, but I'm not sure how to paraphrase it without dumbing it down - please feel free to improve further before pre-pending it to the background subsection:

In February 1992, during the Democratic primaries, Bill Clinton declared that he supported recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Later the same year, during the general election campaign, he attacked President George H. W. Bush for having "repeatedly challenged Israel's sovereignty over a united Jerusalem." He promised that he and running mate Al Gore would "support Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel." However, the Clinton administration backed away from this promise as peace talks in Madrid and then the Oslo process got underway. The administration found itself opposing the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress.

We would also need to restore something about George W. Bush's campaign promises and subsequent opposition to the bill.

Thanks. --Wiking (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not quite. A lot of info is still missing: Clinton making this a campaign issue; George W. Bush campaign promise and failure to deliver it. Also, sounds like Clinton administration was opposing the bill since 1993, even though it was only passed in 1995. --Wiking (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Death toll

Icewhiz How do you know those attackers are counted among the nine Palestinians mentioned in Al Jazeera? Can you show me where that is in the sources you posted? Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You can see this in other running tallies - where they are "tacked onto" the running tally (e.g. [6]. Unfortunately, the report AJ doesn't go into particulars beyond stating nine (which probably is more or less correct) Palestinian violent deaths since Trump's announcement - so verifying this particular report's particulars is not possible - though the individual incidents do all pass WP:V. Would be nice if we found a news org with a tidy timeline of deaths and a tally (might be out there).Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't have a source yet, will you please stop saying the AJ source was talking about terrorists? The Ma'an source says "sixth Palestinians to have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza over the past week" - I found an AJ source that is a bit clearer about how many were demonstrators. You also removed information about the wounded without an explanation. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that in the article text (as there was no way from the AJ cite to know anything on how they tallied the nine) - just in an edit summary - the incidents do pass WP:V. However I actually did find a source - even on Al-Jazeera - which is what they were using for the tally - 9 Palestinian Civilians Killed, 3400 Injured By Israeli Occupation Soldiers in One Week. The two unfortunate Islamic Jihad operatives are listed on December 12 ( Mustafa al-Sultan, 29, Hussein Nasrallah, 25,). The press-posing knife assailant (Mohammad Amin Aqel 19) is listed on December 15. This is a common Palestinian practice to report on "X killed since Y" (sometimes even lumping in non-violent deaths) - and is then often indiscriminately repeated by news orgs.Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A running (non-reliable) incident list of Palestinian claims is also available here - [7] (included for December 2017 is a 2014 Gaza war casualty and Hamda Zubeidat who died of a hear attack) - not usable as a source, though is useful for looking for a source.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What you are describing is the same thing all of our articles suffer from - the evaluation of primary sources, which is not a problem we are going to solve here. For now the sources are reporting a large number of wounded. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Some POVish sources are repeating Palestinian health ministry claims verbatim (both are in the same PRIMARY communiques) - which needs to be qualified if we place this at all in the article - the vast majority of the alleged wounded are very minor (i.e. scrapes, emotional duress, and tear gas inhalation). Note that "live round injuries" use by the Palestinian Health Ministry conflates Rubber bullets and other similar riot control ammunition (that for the most part (with the exception of close range use) cause bruising) with actual live lethal bullet fire. The vast majority of these alleged injuries were not admitted to a hospital. Due to the nature of these health ministry reports - many more reliable source choose to omit them all together and just report the deaths (which are, circumstances of the deaths aside, usually reliable in that someone actually died).Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thios is all your subjective bullshit. Palestinioan sources are usually quite precise in distinguishing the two types of fire, anmd drop the bullshit about 'bruises'. A rubber coated steel can kill, or maim or blind if it hits the right spot. Ask any underage child hit with one in the face.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If you are saying Al Jazeera may be inflating the number, it is not just them. Middle Eastern sources are reporting higher figures then American sources, which are reporting "hundreds" wounded. Should we qualify by saying American media is reporting the numbers lower then Middle Eastern press? Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is probably repeating one of the Palestinian health ministry reports. I do now know what the American media is doing with hundreds (cite a particular report) - it might be guess word or alternatively trimming down a health ministry report. The underlying problem is that there is (to the best of my knowledge) no good un-inflated priamry source. Many sources are omitting wounded all together and just reporting deaths. In some cases - [8] - it seems they are just repeating the PHM's "live fire" count. But really many just choose to omit these all together - Palestinians+killed in google-news has a fairly balanced cross-section of reporting. Palestinians+wounded/injured is mostly Palestinian and Muslim sources, with some western reporting on individual clashes (but not on the weekly total).Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

aljazeerah.info is not the same as Al-Jazeera. Two entirely different things. The former is usually not considered WP:RS. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Was not suggesting to use the info (which was repeating a Palestinian Ministry of Health press release - which would be reliable for the words of the Palestinian Ministry of Health - but not much else). The press release by the Palestinian Ministry of Health does however clearly show how a fatality tally of nine is reached - which is then repeated by Al-Jazeera and others.Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

That was not the number you removed. You have removed Al Jazeera as a source several times now. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC Yousef Jabareen

Should the following text be included inUnited States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital#Israel?

Yousef Jabareen, a Palestinian member of the Israeli parliament said that U.S. recognition has legitimized the right wing position that Israel can control the whole of Jerusalem by sheer force and "by creating facts on the ground," adding that the Israeli "religious right's narrative will now seem persuasive" in other disputed territories.

References

Indicate Remove or Include with reasons.Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Poll

• Remove. Besides sourcing issues, this is simply non-notable. The commentator Yousef Jabareen is the 4th ranked (out of 5) of Hadash (and 10th out of 13 on the Joint List which Hadash is part of) - which is the definition of a backbencher. We already include the comments of Ayman Odeh (party leader of the Joint List and Hadash). We can not, and should not, include the opinions of each of the 120 members of the Knesset. Jabareen's comments have not been particularly widely covered.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Mod for clarity.Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. By your logic Bezalel Smotrichs's view above should not be cited because he is a member of Tkuma which, correct me if I err, has only two seats in the Knesset, whereas the Joint List, of which Yousef Jabareen forms a part, has 13. You find nothing problematical with the Jewish fringe, and find everything problematical with a Palestinian MP on the grounds he was 10th on the list. Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  I was basing my argument on him being a backbencher in the party - 10th out of 13, with more prominent members of the sub-list (Hadash) and the full list (Joint List) being covered. Smotrich's inclusion is questionable as well - a more senior member of Tkuma and/or The Jewish Home party would be preferable.Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

But you are not asking here for Smotrich's removal. You want to take the Palestinian out, that is what is asked. Had you said, let's take out Smotrich and Jabareen it would have looked like a fair argument. Just nodding, 'yeah, there's a problem but in the meantime pull out this Palestinian is game-playing.Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Other See below. --Wiking (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Remove. As Icewhiz notes, he's a backbencher in his party. We can find more senior Israeli Arab politicians to quote. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • But Icewhiz isn't finding another more senior figure (few with Jabareen's legal and scholarly credentials). He is just saying, remove the Palestinian MP as insignificant, further biasing the weak 'balance' in favour of the Israeli majority. The argument for removal is only credible if objectors come up with a better substitute to replace this one. Otherwise it is unilateral POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Let me amend my above statement to we should try to find more senior Israeli Arab politicians to quote. If we can't find any, that doesn't justify including the statements of fringe players in this debate. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • But Icewhiz has admitted Smotrich is a fringe player, yet he did not poll editors to have that person's statements removed. The poll discriminates against one side and is flawed. A 'fringe'Palestinian must go. The 'fringe' Israeli, well. That's different. Can't you see that?Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Odeh, the party leader of the Joint List, an Israeli Arab, is already quoted. Smotrich can be replace by someone more senior in the Jewish Home. I brought this one to RfC since we have a dispute in editing, I do not think anyone is "hanging on" to Smotrich (who is, I will note, fairly high profile) - he can easily be replaced in an edit without discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Jabareen teaches law courses at University of Haifa and Tel Aviv University on this topic, and is one of the most visible members of the party, routinely quoted in jpost, al jazeera and haaretz. None of those sources are fringe. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete all commentary or Include all commentary - If we're gonna have stuff like, " Yisrael Eichler, also of UTJ, expressed similar views saying he would "rather have 1,000....."", then you've basically got to allow the Yousef comment if you want to maintain WP:BALANCE. Better though that we just delete all the commentary and just say the obvious (i.e. arab politicians disliked it, jewish politicians liked it). Providing the actual comments doesn't really give the reader any valuable information. NickCT (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it is valuable information for readers who may come to this article without knowing the full spectrum of Israeli politics. It's not true that Arab politicians disliked it and Jewish politicians liked it. The article should provide sufficient context for readers to get a clear understanding of the different positions, and the reasoning. Neither UTJ nor the Joint List positions should be censored, as both have been discussed by WP:RS.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It is true. Calling Israeli politics a "spectrum" makes it sound more complex and interesting than it is. It's not a spectrum. It's monochromatic. NickCT (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not the position in WP:RS, which is what I based my edits on. Again, we should not censor views that have been covered by sources that don't fall within that black and white range. Part of using news sources correctly is to summarize them without cherry picking.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: - Agree we shouldn't censor. But the problem is, if we dug a little we could find hundreds of views from middling politicians. You want to include them all? If not, where do we stop? Who do we choose to quote?

My opinion is that those questions are just too hard to answer. Might as well avoid answering them by simply excluding all commentary. NickCT (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I chose based on reflecting all the significant views not all the various persons who held those views. The views should be represented, repetitive quotation from different persons on the same point should be removed per WP:COATRACK. That is not the case here, where the proposal is to entirely remove sourced content of value from the article.Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi NickCT...I agree we should not single one politician in particular. See what I have proposed down there... it is relevant that a Palestinian member of the parliament voice the position of a significant portion of the Palestinian population. Who he was isn't relevant. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Remove - Jabardeen's statement has received very little coverage so lacks notability. If his statement is representative of views held by a large group (which I'm certain it is), it should be expressed as such, with perhaps more notable examples of this view included. Cjhard (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Reword I don't think the extent of coverage here would be sufficient to include or exclude him. I think his name should go, the only relevant info is that he's a [a] member of the parliament and that he voiced the position of a significant portion of the [a] population. His name (or notability of the coverage) would have been relevant only if his opinions weren't voiced by those who elected him. So just replacing the current wording with one which would not include his name + include that he voiced what a significant portion of the [a] population believe. What makes his opinion notable, is that it echoes what [a] (who elected him) believe. [a] = Arab, or Palestinian, or Israeli Arab, or Israeli Palestinian, etc...Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Remove and until then, it should be Israeli-Arab, since that is what he is, and how his article calls him, it's a POV to push to call him Palestinian. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Remove This is a blatant POV push. As Blatant a POV Push as some of these removal arguments. "He's a third stringer.." However the difference is one is on a talk page and the other one wants to be in the article. He's a citizen of Israel. He has the right to vote and he can run for public office. His self identification maybe Palestinian. If Israel had the ethnic identity "Palestinian" He'd be an Israeli Palestinian. They don't. They have Israeli Arabs. He's also not like the people generally called Palestinians. He's not being held in third world conditions by a Military Occupation. This all needs to be modified before it can be included.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Odd. Ask any minority with a tradition of being looked down upon whether they'd prefer to be known as their nation defines them, or as they see themselves, and they would generally define themselves in a nuanced way that reflects their specific identity. There is nothing 'blatant' about noting this. Polls indicate consistently that Israei Arabs (the official term) increasingly affirm what was banned for many decades, i.e. their Palestinian roots.

'In this article I sometimes refer to Arab citizens of Israel as "Palestinian citizens of Israel," and the Arab minority as the "Palestinian minority in Israel." Identifying the Arab minority as Palestinian has now become common practice in academic literature. This is because most Israeli citizens of origin increasingly identify themselves as Palestinian, and most Arab NGOs and political parties Israel use the label "Palestinian" to describe the identity of the Arab minority. My use of the term "Palestinian" is in accordance with the self-identification of the majority of the Arab community in Israel.' Dov Waxman, 'Dangerous Divide: The Deterioration of Jewish-Palestinian Relations in Israel,' Middle East Journal, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Winter 2012), pp. 11-29 p.11.n.2.

It is amazing how this simple ethnonym gets many wiki editors in an anxiety fit sufficient to make them ignore the evidence of polls or specialist articles.Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It amazes me when people come out to calm me Islamophobic in a sideways kiss my ass manner. It seems so much easier just to say "Your Islamophobic." Palestinian citizens of Israel? In an encyclopedia that would have to be followed by a definition. While as written in the JSTOR it means Israeli's of Palestinian decent there are Palestinian citizens of Israel that are not Israeli. Such as for example the Palestinians in East Jerusalem, many of whom lack Israeli citizenship. I digress however as I shouldn't even be responding because you haven't offered anything worth responding to. There is a difference between a politician of Palestinian decent and a Palestinian stuck within the jurisdiction of some Quasi-Bantustan.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

His statement should be integrated with other Israeli-Arab responses, preferably in a separate subsection. Incidentally, calling him a "Palestinian member of the Knesset" is highly confusing, considering that there is a section immediately below dealing with Palestinian responses. "Israeli Arab" or "Arab Israeli" would be more appropriate, and indeed, that's how he is described in his dedicated Wikipedia article. --Wiking (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The section deals with political responses in Israel, 20% of the population of which is Palestinian-Arab, with a 9% representation in the Knesset. There is nothing 'highly confusing' about calling him a 'Palestinian member of the Knesset'. 'Israeli Arab' is the official Israeli term for its Palestinians - a large number of Israel Arabs have no problem with their Palestinian identity, since they descend from Palestinian families there long before the creation of Israel. The word 'Palestinian' keeps getting editors upset, I know, but Jabareen himself speaks of himself as a Palestinian Israeli on numerous sites(or Palestinian-Arab citizen of Israel), and one just have to live with the fact. Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC).

Palestinian-Arab would be fine, that seems to be the most widely used term. Why do you want it moved to a separate section? Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If your question was directed to me, then as I explained, it is confusing to see "a Palestinian member of the Israeli parliament" quoted in the subsection titled "Israel", with a separate "Palestinian Authority and Hamas" subsection immediately below. Readers not familiar with the topic may incorrectly assume that there are Palestinian members of the Israeli parliament, distinct from the Israeli Arab members, especially now that he is introduced after "Hanin Zoabi and Ayman Odeh, both members of the United Arab List", creating a false juxtaposition, but even before this edit. Since we have plenty of RS referring to him as Israeli Arab and in this context using such term adds clarity, it is preferable. --Wiking (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Israeli Palestinians have written plenty that they want to be called Palestinian Arabs. I don't see any justification to prefer Israel's language in this case, against the wishes of those it is being applied to, when both terms are supported by WP:RS. I would be ok with Palestinian-Arabs. I think Israeli Arab is more confusing for new readers because it makes it sound like they are Mizrahi. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone thinking that, but do not insist on particular terminology, only object to the one that's being used. Would "an Arab member of the Israeli parliament" be more reasonable? "Israeli Palestinian Arab"? I think majority of English language RS use "Israeli Arab", and judging by other Wikipedia articles, it is considered an acceptable term though. --Wiking (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Most English (and all Hebrew) RSes use Israeli Arab. Use of Palestinian Arab implies dual loyalty and possible future loss of citizenship - and is used almost exclusively by far left single staters, or far right. However this a minor issue compared to including this minor backbencher MK - almost all the 120 are on recored on this subject, including backbenchers when we have party leaders is excessive.Icewhiz (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this really important, for most readers they're all synonymous for all practical purposes. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It violates NPOV and clearly takes, in wiki's voice,a far left single state/BDS position (or alternatively Israeli extreme far right). Any reader who is aware of the politics here recognizes this. In English press it is used primarily by writers hostile to Israel, and is not the main term used.Icewhiz (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of politics then... I personally could care less of how they're called as long as they're called something. If Palestine was a province of Israel like Ontario is to Canada... wouldn't the title of Palestinians be as legitimate to the one of Ontarians? It only become controversial because of the current political situation, that's why it isn't an NPOV issue. That's the case for all the propositions here... Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

He's Israeli, not Palestinian. We can't just make up sources to suit our agenda. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• He's an Israeli Arab not a Palestinian, so that would have to change right off the bat.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That's only different in form, not substance... important thing is that those who read it understand it is about whom! Only solution for long terms is to switch articles according to a calendar... between one version which satisfy the Arabs and another the Jews and be done with it. Because by substance nothing would be changing between either versions. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No, there's a difference between calling someone who lives in Gaza as a Palestinian, and someone who is an Arab ISraeli citizen. There has been a slow POV push by people here to relabel Israeli Arabs as Palestinian. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It's also a very dangerous label to apply. When entity X is at war with Y (every so often), nationals of Y who are in X may be in some peril / subject to restrictions by the authorities. People who use this label are either advocating for separatism of Israeli Arabs from Israel (an argument out of left field) or alternatively arguing for expulsion (from the right). Israeli Arabs who do not endorse a one-state solution (or population/land swaps with a future SoP) and want to retain their Israeli citizenship are actually quite careful not to use such terminology.Icewhiz (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

If those want to be called Palestinians, who am I to enforce my POV on their identity? All what I am saying is that as long as readers know it is about who, the rest is just taste matter. And we should not discriminate about taste matters... some love apples other oranges..., who am I to discriminate apples over oranges? See the point? I'm offering a solution to that... it's called concession! Just set a calendar... use Islamic and Jewish holidays, etc... and decide the members who will be switching the article from one version to the other. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

They are free to call themselves anything they want, but Wikipedia will use the terminology that's prevalent in English language RS --Wiking (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Some would consider this as arbitrary and call it cultural bias. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

'Use of Palestinian Arab implies dual loyalty and possible future loss of citizenship - and is used almost exclusively by far left single staters, or far right.'

That takes the cake or trumps all the other ethnic bias lavishly bestowed above. I.e. 'Use of Afri-American implies dual loyalty and possible fuiture loss of citizenship' etc.etc.etc. Well, come to think of it, these days, that is trumpishly thinkable. Still, the facts are Israeli Arabs often describe themselves as Palestinians, as does Jabareen. So drop the nationalist cant, and accept the 'other' reality which is part of Israeli life, even if it is deeply disliked by Israel governments.Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC).

The majority of academic sources use "Palestinian-Arab", or "Palestinian minority of Israel" within the context of the conflict - see [9](sage journals), [10] (tandf),[11] (JSTOR), [12] (European Paliament), [13] (Christian Science Monitor)

Israeli Arab is used by Jewish Virtual Library, the Times of Israel, Arutz Sheva, JPOST, JTA...

Israeli Arab is used in a journal article on JSTOR about author Sayed Kashua, for example, [14] which is basically a critical analysis of the term: "the Israeli Arab is an impossibility, an identity that is over determined from the outside and that stands for failure, loss, incoherence and inauthentic affiliations" and "'Arab' is necessarily located in radical opposition to 'Jew'" - this article is tagged by JSTOR as being an article about racism, stereotypes, amongst other topics, btw.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

All what I can say is that what a people choose for their own identity might be more stable. Because what you call yourself doesn't need to be what others call you. What others call you might change according to decisions by governments etc. I don't like the idea that we should be solely relying on published materials like journal articles. Because those are heavily influenced by institutions which the people might never be able to fully control. It takes few changes in international arena, for changes to appear in new articles from prestigious journals to change their wordings... while such change would be almost nonexistent from the point of view of the people itself. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

What you are proposing would have been a radical departure from the principles of Wikipedia. --Wiking (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No, not principles but their wording. Essence of the laws vs the way they are worded. What I am proposing is the only way to fix the inherent limitations of written languages. I am not against sourcing things where and when it is relevant. All I am saying is that that they want to be called Palestinians should be sufficient... no need for articles or other materials which place the control of ones identity in the hand of some Elites living thousands of kms away. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't undo my proposal for a calendar... other institutions position should also be described because they describe another reality. And only way to account for that is a calendar. Just that that part will later be changed (but the calendar will still exist, for that change to be included) and only one which will be stable is what a people call itself. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

General Assembly resolution does not directly reference Trump's actions

"The UN General Assembly later voted 128 to 9, with 35 abstentions, to determine that Trump's actions have "no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council" - this is how news media may present it, but without attribution, it is disallowed under WP:SYNTH. Either quote the resolution, or quote some comments on it, but with proper attribution and not in LEDE. --Wiking (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Original wording from the resolution is:

Affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to Security Council resolution 478 (1980);

Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Fact / Bias

The article states "On December 6, 2017 President Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and stated that the American embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This marked a shift away from nearly seven decades of American neutrality on the matter.", however this contradicts an earlier statement "In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which declared the statement of policy that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel." It can't be both. Trump couldn't have changed 70 years of American neutrality because Congress had already done so as a matter of law back in 1995. As the former is a sourced statement, I have removed the latter. It can be fixed if necessary, but the flow of the text is fine without it. -- RM 02:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)