Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel

RfC for 130 Jewish studies scholars

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

---

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 [1] 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)

• remove And rewrite/merge the section while you're at it. Section titles like that in articles like this one are cruft magnets, which offer a platform for any reaction which can be sourced, thus blurring the WP:DUE boundary and spurning numerous debates like this one - wasting countless hours of project time. The American domestic reactions section should be kept, but not further subdivided and the most salient parts of the section (per WP:LASTING) should be rewritten as prose, thus necessitating additional edits be contextualized and made in relation to the existing article text. The current format is going to attract section bloat and encourage anyone who comes along to further subdivide things using headings for whatever takes their fancy. This makes things confusing for our readers who may not be able to distinguish the importance of one item on a bolded list from another. Edaham (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's already been removed, you are a bit late. And no reason to mix the reactions of past ambassadors, Jewish, Christian and Muslim groups all under the same section header. --Wiking (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

then why is the RfC still open and legobot still sending out requests? And yes, unless you can think of another way of avoiding opening a platform for every report on the issue, prose is the way to go as it makes it less convenient for excited editors to circumvent due by tacking on a new heading each time some new party joins the clamor and gets noticed by the New York Times. Also my comments in RfCs aren't designed to turn into threaded discussions. In future I'd really appreciate it if you ping me in the discussion thread. Cheers Edaham (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, when an RfC has been opened, the issue is not considered settled until the RfC is closed. What edits might have been made in the interim is inconsequential. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• include (summoned by bot) - as per FallingGravity. I notice that Washington Post covered it too. I don't see any reasonable grounds for its exclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2018 (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 [2] and are opposed to Trump administration [3]. 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.[4] 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)

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.

RfC Yousef Jabareen

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

---

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)

So American Palestinians are not Palestinians either? You have to live in a certain place to be Palestinian? No one is saying it is Islamophobic, and everyone here knows which POV this represents, no serious WP:RS about Palestinian-Israeli identity has ever tried to claim that a person can not be both Palestinian and Israeli. Saying they are both POV is false balance, of the worst kind. They are called Israeli Arabs both to make a point that they are not Jewish, and to deny their Palestinian origins. The same label accomplishes both of these things. It is disgusting, and we should not be removing well-sourced content just to censor the words "Palestinian Israeli" here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

American Palestinian's are American Palestinian and they are Palestinian. However in the context of this article a Palestinian American should be called a Palestinian American. Yousef Jabareen commentary and views should be considered only on the basis as a member of the Knesset. His views are particularly being sold as a Palestinian. As a Member of the Knesset and in the minority, if this meets the standard of a significant minority then he represents a significant minority POV. You are talking about censorship of "Palestinian Israeli" as if anyone is actually trying to use it. The text solely says Palestinian. I'm sure Palestinian Israeli is even used but in the suggested text it's damn sure not used. There's been no rela effort in suggesting that as a change. Israeli Arab is a term that's used. You are right, no one was calling anyone Islamaphobic. They were instead called anxious.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Remove – Opinion statement of a non-notable politician. Besides, it's hard to see how moving an embassy to West Jerusalem would have any effect on the status of East Jerusalem, or would somehow allow Israel to "control the whole of Jerusalem", so the comment sounds a bit speculative and off-topic on its face. — JFG ^talk 12:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep The percentage of Jewish/non-Jewish Israeli comment is roughly reflective of the population make-up, which given the polarised nature of Israeli politics is probably the nearest thing one can get to balance. If a better comment exists, use it, but none seems to have been identified. Of course it's an opinion, so is the whole section and his (and most of the other) comments represent a variety of distinct viewpoints. Yes they are broadly 'pro or con', but the details are informative. On a sidenote, I see no problem in decribing him as an 'Israeli Palestinian', if we refer to someone's ethnicity (which here would be helpful but not essential), we always use self-designation and the linked article makes clear that Isr-Pal is an often used variant of Is-Arab. Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Remove Per WP:UNDUE we can include opinion of every politician reported only by one source also article already very large so WP:SIZE also applies--Shrike (talk) 19:28, 23 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 [5](sage journals), [6] (tandf),[7] (JSTOR), [8] (European Paliament), [9] (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, [10] 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)

• Remove – The quote is from a random politician and doesn't add much to the article. I'm sure every politician in Israel has an opinion on this issue, but not all of their opinions have sufficient weight to be included here. Yousef Jabareen is not a particularly important politician and his statement is not particularly unique. OtterAM (talk) 13:06, 30 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.

Lead bias

Here is the current lead. It bizarrely refers to rockets being fired from Gaza, which AFAIK have killed no one, and are a totally marginal issue here. It omits any mention of the 12 Palestinians who have been *killed* by Israeli forces. These are dead human beings. The people who have helped write this page should be ashamed of themselves, but sadly it's par for the course here. N-HH talk/edits 23:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead is constantly changing, since this is basically an article created by stitching together newspaper sources. Thanks for your addition: the fact that 12 Palestinians have been killed should be mentioned. However, one can also mention the rocket fire from Gaza (which is also notesworthy, though nobody was killed). So I have amended the lead to do this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think rocket fire should be in the lede, it is not one of the "key points" of the article. If it is mentioned, it should be mentioned in context of the government's remarks and the closure of Gaza's border crossings.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You think "rioting" (which existed prior to my edit) should be in the lead, but rocket fire shouldn't? That doesn't make any sense. One does not diminish the death toll among Palestinians by showing a more complete picture. Mentioning the Blockade of the Gaza Strip is neither here nor there; one might just as well mention the Nakba in the lead using that logic. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't add rioting either, and I don't think rioting should be in the lede until the consensus discussion above about it is resolved. It has nothing to do with the blockade, Israel closed the border crossing on December 14th - it is sourced in the article, in the section that discusses rockets and the retaliation for those rockets. However, the lede should summarize the key points of the article, and I don't think this is one of them.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying your position. However, I doubt your position will gain much support from others. To my mind, removing "rioting" and "rocket fire" from the lead is a non-starter (you are welcome to waste your time with an RfC if you like). As for the border closings, that is a more murky question and I don't have a firm opinion on it at present, though I'm leaning against inclusion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is any point in having RfC's about the LEDE until it the LEDE is actually written. Certainly the language that is currently in the LEDE will have to be amended (most intensive attacks? where is that sourced in the article?). It was already removed once, and two other editors are objecting. I think it's weird that this is, in your mind, the most important key issue of the article that needs to be added to LEDE, first thing. It's not, but if there is consensus for it (And right now there is not) some form of it will be included. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Type Ctrl-F "intensive". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyway my point is right now it is grossly undue but in a longer LEDE it will most likely have an appropriate place. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The most intense rocket fire, at civilian targets, from Gaza since 2014 is not UNDUE for the lead - this is a casus belli and has received wide coverage. Wider coverage, I will note, than the dead rioters - who are quite the par for riots taking place at an international border fence. Regarding border closings - I'm not sure these were actually carried out. They were announced - yes. In terms of them actually happening (beyond a few hours) - I'm unsure.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It is just IDF spin that 'rocket' attacks target 'civilians'. As anyone knows, these are (most recently Salafist) most regularly highly erratic rockets that fizzle off over the bordfer if they ever reach it. They are demonstrative, without a guidance system, and are aimed towards Israeli territory, which,along the Gaza Strip is sparsely populated. That is no excuse for them, but their primary function seems to be to buttress an image of Israel under lethal rocket assaults from a foreign terrorist power. Occasionally one or two hits a road or a building. The casualties of such 'rocket attacks at civilians' are risible statistically. In short, 'against civilians' is in many sources, but it is just the usual hyperbolic newspaper spin for pitiful backyard rocketry that cannot be aimed at a specific target, let alone civilians. The language, will stay because it is well sourced, but, like 99% of the reportage in this area, it has nothingh factual about it.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow. A textbook example of WP:OR. --Wiking (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the "textbook" again. WP:OR refers to text in the main article. It does not refer to arguments made on the talk page. You are free to accept or reject the arguments made, of course. Anyway, as Nishidani says, correctly, the language will stay because that's how it is described in sources, and we follow sources. Incidentally, if you want sources, read Gaza's bottle rockets by Mark Perry in Foreign Affairs, which on its own contains better information than thousands of ill-informed propaganda pieces taken together. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

What's point of venting on the talk page without the aim of changing anything in the article? When rockets are fired and civilians are killed or injured, that could be either accidental (if the objective was different) or that could be the objective (or one of the objectives). I don't see anyone arguing that killing or injuring random people in Israel isn't the objective, even if it takes many unguided rockets to accomplish. So no, it isn't a 'spin'. According to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, these 'demonstrative' rockets have killed 33 people and injured close to 2000 in the ten years from 2006 to 2015. --Wiking (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I simply corrected your wrong interpretation of Wikipedia policy. People make all kinds of arguments on the talk page, some relevant, some not. Some are "meta"-arguments, for thinking about the issue. The point Nishidani was making was that saying something "targets civilians" when they don't have any guidance mechanism is logically incoherent. The usual standard in international law is that reckless disregard for civilians is the same as actually targeting them. As an exercise to the reader, I'll leave the application of this principle to Israeli actions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017 Palestinian unrest

While patrolling new pages I came across December 2017 Palestinian unrest which strikes me as a page that basically just duplicates the United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital#Demonstrations and violence without adding much of substance that isn't included elsewhere here. Do others agree before I nominate this for a merge/redirect? If others agree feel free to nominate it yourself as well. - Galatz^Talk 20:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It could be a viable article - but as-is it is a POV-fork of this one. I don't think we need two at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For now I just did a bold redirect, if its reverted we go down the other root instead. - Galatz^Talk 20:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chetsford (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Rework throughout: Commas throughout article need to be formatted outside quotes as per MOS:COMMA. "U.S." and "US" are used interchangeably and should be standardized throughout article. A great many sentences omit the definite article (e.g. Hundreds demonstrated outside US embassy in Amman, demanding its closure and the expulsion of the US charge d'affaires from Jordan. or Two Palestinians were killed and 120 injured in clashes on December 22, according to Palestinian Health Ministry.) which needs to be corrected throughout. At several points, the article swings between present and past tense (e.g. The United States also issues a general warning for Americans abroad about the possibility of violent protests. ) which needs resolution. For all web and news citations, access date fields need to be added throughout article (in cases in which they aren't already, which are a great many). Citations don't always use the appropriate citation templates. A large number of news sources use Template:Cite web, instead of Template: Cite news, which means information like publication dates are omitted. This should be corrected throughout article. Commas should be added before introducing a mid-sentence quote throughout (e.g. On December 8 Assistant Secretary of State David M. Satterfield said "There has been no change in our policy with respect to consular practice or passport issuance at this time." needs a comma after "said".) Using "an historic" instead of "a historic" would be nice, but is not necessary. [optional] In a few cases there needs to a be terminological clarification. For example "Protesters gathered outside the US embassy in Hague ..." is not correct as the embassy is the ambassador and his entourage, not a building. Ergo, one can't gather "outside" a group of people. This, and similar instances, should be phrased "protesters gathered outside the chancery of the US embassy" (or the residence, if they weren't at the chancery). Some of the sources are out of order, for example in the first paragraph in the lede citation 5 precedes citation 4. Specific issues: There is an errant comma at the end of the first sentence in the section titled "background". Per MOS:SURNAME, honorifics like "Mr" should not be used. At one point there is a reference to "Mr. Obama". Before beginning to use "IDF" as an acronym for "Israeli Defense Forces" the acronym needs to be introduced following the first instance of invocation. for a tally of 14-1 should be rewritten fourteen to one or some variation of that since MOS:SPELL09 requires digits 0-9 be spelled-out "Which declared the statement of policy that" is unusually worded and possibly redundant. Can you "declare a statement"? Shouldn't it just be "declared that"? In the section "Background" Donald Trump should be introduced with full name in the first instance of reference instead of "Trump". January 1, 2018 no comma between "1" and "2018" "as did every president before him since 1995" should be "as had every president before him since 1995". "for Americans travelling or living abroad in those countries" should be "for Americans traveling or living in those countries". This sentence - Two Danish journalists of National Geographic channel were injured on 16 December by an Islamist carrying a knife and crying "Allahu Akbar" in Libreville, according to Gabon's Defense Minister Etienne Kabinda Makaga. - would probably be better Two Danish journalists of the National Geographic channel were injured in Libreville on 16 December by an Islamist carrying a knife and crying "Allahu Akbar", according to Gabon's Defense Minister Etienne Kabinda Makaga. This - "during protests in variously, Berlin, Gothenburg and Vienna" - is a bit clunky, could we omit "variously"? 1,200 anti-Israel and anti-American protesters ... - we shouldn't start a sentence with digits; maybe say "more than a thousand"? burnt flags with Star of David should be "burned flags with the Star of David" This sentence - "Hundreds of Muslim attended the Friday prayers outside the White House in respond to calls by American Muslim organizations." - needs to be rewritten for correct use of plural forms and other serious consistency, tense, and grammar issues. I'm not sure the title of this article is correct - "United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital". Shouldn't it be "United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel" since it was recognized as capital of the state of Israel, not the people of Israel? Unless the portraits were owned by Donald Trump I believe there should not be an "apostrophe s" here "Palestinians burned Donald Trump's portraits and effigies and tore pictures of Salman bin Abdulaziz and Muhammad bin Salman in protest of the embassy move.". In other words, maybe just "Palestinians burned portraits and effigies of Donald Trump ..."? This section is a little clunky: King Salman of Saudi Arabia said that moving the American embassy to Jerusalem would be a "flagrant provocation" to Muslims. Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi both expressed similar concerns about the viability of the peace process. Could it be reworded Salman of Saudi Arabia said that moving the American embassy to Jerusalem would be a "flagrant provocation" to Muslims and expressed concerns, later shared by Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, about the viability of the peace process. This sentence has no period closing it. I'm also not sure if "defined" is the correct word or it was a typo? Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro defined the announcement on national television before travelling to Istanbul to preside a Non-Alligned Movement summit to discuss the position as "an illegal declaration, absolutely illegal, I would say irrational. A true provocation, a war declaration to the Arab people, to the Muslim people"
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The layout of the article currently makes it more appropriate for an article titled "Response to United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital". I'd suggest re-sectionalizing it so that all "response" bits fall under a single section. Perhaps there's a section for background, one for announcement, and one for all the responses (domestic, Israeli / Palestinian, other international, and non-governmental [inclusive of demonstrations, church statements, and so forth])?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Many times statements are sourced to the paragraph, instead of sentence, level but ultimately everything checks out (note other comment above about the absence of some standard parameters in many sources, such as access dates, etc.).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Without passing judgment on it myself, the RS noticeboard seems to have determined that Press TV is not WP:RS. The Milli Gazette is probably RS for local reporting, however, I have a hard time believing a bi-weekly Indian newspaper has the capability to reliably originate reporting on events in the United States and the specific article in question does not seem to have come from a syndicate.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No indication of OR
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows "violation possible" at 49%, however, on closer review it appears to be picking up on common word strings and quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The "domestic reaction" section mentions the response of J Street but is silent on the response of the entire U.S. Congress. At the very least we should include the response of the principal officers in congress (e.g. Majority / Minority Leaders, Speaker, Whips, committee chairs and ranking members, etc.) of the two parties or any caucus statements that were made.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I'm concerned that the reaction and response sub-sections are all minute-by-minute, blow-by-blow accounts that veer way outside of the subject established by the title. The article is on a diplomatic act but has such a high level of detail on the reaction of individuals that it even includes, for instance, the fact that two people in Gabon received minor cuts from a third person with a knife. Many other sections seem just to be chronologically presented, exhaustive casualty lists presented in "this and then" format (e.g. "This happened here, then that happened there. The next day this happened over here."). While WP:SYNTH is OR, WP:NOTSYNTH says that "Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources.". Under the header "European Union" we have the response of the European Union in its corporate capacity, but we also have the response of individual member states of the EU, and there are responses from individual residents of EU member states not speaking on behalf of anyone except themselves or private organizations (e.g. Geert Wilders). This is a bit confusing. Also, I'm not sure why we would include Geert Wilders' response speaking in a private capacity but not the response of Hungary speaking as a state? Ultimately, in my opinion, the response of states and quasi-state actors (e.g. UN, EU), should be differentiated from the response of individuals and interest groups (e.g. churches and political parties), instead of jumbled all up together.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This is generally okay. By word count there is a greater focus on criticism of the decision than opposition to it, however, that's simply a reflection of reality. The one issue I do have, however, is that the article - as written - indicates this was a personal action of Donald Trump. While the buck may have stopped at Donald Trump, the action was ultimately taken by the United States in its corporate capacity. For instance, here it says "On December 6, 2017 President Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" but it should probably read "On December 6, 2017 the United States formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel". This is ameliorated somewhat by the attachment of the title "President" in front of "Trump", thereby implying it was an official - rather than personal - act, however, we should be more explicit. This comment is not limited to this passage but should be modified throughout anywhere the decision is personalized rather than corporatized.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	holding comments pending further consultations
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	looks good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I believe it's currently possible, and desirable, to illustrate this with more images. An article of this length should - ideally - not just have two images. A quick search of commercial-use okay'ed images on Flickr finds a few acceptable images of protests, there are also USG PD images of the current chancery of the US embassy in Tel Aviv available in the Commons, generic images of the city of Jerusalem in the Commons, headshots of some of the principal commenters like Federica Mogherini in the Commons etc.
	7. Overall assessment.

• I tried resectioning and I don't think putting all the responses into one section is an improvement. It negatively effects the navigability of the table of contents and I didn't see any part of MOS:LAYOUT that would require it, but let me know if I missed something.

• I don't think the citation style has to be consistent for GA?

• I can look into removing PressTV. I think it is generally reliable, but a GA should have higher standards. Also Milli Gazette.

• You wrote as the embassy is the ambassador and his entourage, not a building. - the embassy is also a building, and the source doesn't say anything about a chancery.

• Will implement the prose corrections and appreciate the thorough proofreading. Ditto for commas.

• Ultimately, in my opinion, the response of states and quasi-state actors (e.g. UN, EU), should be differentiated from the response of individuals and interest groups (e.g. churches and political parties), instead of jumbled all up together. - I've split the European response into two sections to make it clearer. Churches are already in a different section.

• The one issue I do have, however, is that the article - as written - indicates this was a personal action of Donald Trump. - The article says "President Trump" to introduce him and Trump afterwards, which is the standard practice. "President" makes it perfectly clear he was not speaking in a personal capacity. I also think it is more neutral this way—the article is going to be around after this presidency is concluded and I don't see any detriment to its neutrality to identify which President it was, nor any benefit to making this intentionally vague or removing information/wikilinks.

• Adding more images isn't a problem.

• I can review it to see if some of the extra details can be trimmed, without disrupting the article's stability. And will look into adding some of the Congressional reactions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System - I have a large volume of additional comments to add so, to save yourself time, you may want to hold off on any edits for now. Chetsford (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Re citations I could make time to do some extra cleanup just to keep it neat, but I'd prefer to go through the content issues first and save citations for last after everything else is resolved - if it stays stable and everything else is ready to pass, I will do the citation cleanup. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Since there are a lot of grammar issues here, would you want to consider submitting this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for a copyedit before GA review? Chetsford (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A lot of editors worked on the article, and I should have done a full copyedit before nominating for GA, I can do it now - I don't know if GOCE is necessary, but we can also do that if you prefer.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Checklist:

•  Done standardize date formats
•  Done separate EU from political parties
•  Done standardize U.S. => US
•  Done change article title to "United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital"

Copyedits:

• "Palestinians burned Donald Trump's portraits and effigies" => "Palestinians burned portraits and effigies of Donald Trump"
• "Hundreds of Muslim attended the Friday prayers outside the White House in respond" => "Hundreds of Muslims attended the Friday prayers outside the White House, in response"
• "Mr. Obama" => Obama
• which declared the statement of policy that => which declared that
• living abroad => living
• 1,200 anti-Israel and anti-American protesters => More than a thousand anti-Israel and anti-American protesters
• and burnt flags => burned flags
• variously

Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's the second round of review; a few new items but also some items from the first round still need correcting -

• "ordered the planning of the relocation" --> "ordered planning for the relocation"
• A great many sentences omit the definite article (e.g. Hundreds demonstrated outside US embassy in Amman, demanding its closure and the expulsion of the US charge d'affaires from Jordan. or Two Palestinians were killed and 120 injured in clashes on December 22, according to Palestinian Health Ministry.) which needs to be corrected throughout.
• At several points, the article swings between present and past tense (e.g. The United States also issues a general warning for Americans abroad about the possibility of violent protests. ) which needs resolution.
• For all web and news citations, access date fields need to be added throughout article (in cases in which they aren't already, which are a great many).
• Citations don't always use the appropriate citation templates. A large number of news sources use Template:Cite web, instead of Template: Cite news, which means information like publication dates are omitted. This should be corrected throughout article.
• Commas should be added before introducing a mid-sentence quote throughout (e.g. On December 8 Assistant Secretary of State David M. Satterfield said "There has been no change in our policy with respect to consular practice or passport issuance at this time." needs a comma after "said".)
• Some of the sources are out of order, for example in the first paragraph in the lede citation 5 precedes citation 4.
• Before beginning to use "IDF" as an acronym for "Israeli Defense Forces" the acronym needs to be introduced following the first instance of invocation.

Chetsford (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System as it's been a week now and there doesn't seem to have been any further momentum here, but we realistically have a few more rounds of edits to go through, I'm going to wrap-up this review tomorrow so you can continue working on it in a closed state. Chetsford (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• As it appears this GA review has been abandoned, I'm closing it as failed for now, with no prejudice for picking it up in the future. Chetsford (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2018 (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.

External Link

Can someone add this under External links? --2001:8003:4023:D900:6D0C:E0E7:6CAE:16A (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Nairobi attack

It seems the the recent terror attack in Kenya is linked to this one.[11] -2607:FEA8:A75F:F823:A02A:4CD8:C8B2:9A44 (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

In the see also section please change United States recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel, recognition of another Israeli-occupied territory by the Trump administration to United States recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel per MOS:SEEALSO SCAH (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by blocked user, no need to do Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2020

Change "...Israel as an undivided capital" to "...Jerusalem as an undivided capital" in the second sentence here:

Here's the original: The Reform Jewish movement called it "ill-timed" and said it would "exacerbate the conflict", but also declared that "Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel" and that they "share the President's belief that the US embassy should, at the right time, be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem."[43][37] The Jewish Democratic Council of America similarly expressed support for Israel as an undivided capital, but criticized Trump for neglecting to "meaningfully support peace between Palestinians and Israelis." Left-wing Mideast policy group J Street said the timing was "premature and divisive". J Street, New Israel Fund, and progressive Zionist organization Ameinu expressed concerns that the move would undermine Middle East peace efforts and could lead to violence.[37] JStrikerToo (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor JStrikerToo:  done, and good catch! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

The United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel on March 25, 2019. --> The United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel on December 6, 2017.

The date the United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is in December 6, 2017, not March 25, 2019. March 25, 2019 is the day the United States officially recognized the Golan Heights.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel-capital.html WAccount1234567890 (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

In retaliation, al-Shabaab wanted to organize a 9/11-style attack that was thwarted, the article should mention it. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/kenyan-national-indicted-conspiring-hijack-aircraft-behalf-al-qaeda-affiliated-terrorist

Parham wiki (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cherrell410 (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)