Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

The Jerusalem Embassy Act was an act of Congress, but I believe by policy what is meant the foreign policy of the President. There are constitutional arguments about the Jerusalem Embassy Act that are beyond the scope of this article, but I will try to find some sources to clarify it further. The article does (or did) mention that the Act was opposed by the Clinton Administration. It may need to be rewritten to remove the confusing primary source language. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The statement you removed is not unsourced, please restore it. The citation at the end of the paragraph is for the entire paragraph.Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Congress changed American neutrality? No congress in fact did not. The president was and still is the sole organ in US External relations and it's sole representative to foreign nations. From 1995 till now congress only accomplished one thing with the Jerusalem Embassy act. Each president wrote them a note explaining why they would not do so every 6 months. Did you even read the law? The law is essentially do etc or we will cut the state department funding by etc amount. Trump changed 70 years of neutrality because the prior presidents maintained that neutrality with regard to Israel since the law was passed in 1995.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Congress approves treaties, etc. Also, Congress can REMOVE a president if the will of the people is such that a president's foreign policy is damaging.50.111.3.17 (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Related: The statement "It may take several years for the actual move to take place.[18]" is no longer relevant (& therefore should be deleted) as of today, as it's happened on schedule.

TSamuel (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted the sentence as the article should be updated. However, it should be noted that the full move hasn't happened yet. The old embassy in Tel Aviv is still open, and the recent dedication is "largely symbolic", according to Globes. ^Falling_Gravity 15:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Around-the-world condemnation is POV and factually incorrect

This edit introduced the phrase "condemnation of the U.S. move from around the world". However, the two sources included don't support this. The countries or groups cited by Al Jazeera (!) that actually condemned it were the Arab League, Iran, Hezbollah, Turkey, Kuwait and Pakistan. Several other reactions were for individuals not apparently speaking for the org., for example, some UN officials. I plan to partially revert the change for NPOV, probably with the words "rejected by majority-Muslim countries in the Middle East", which is an accurate description of this list (without splitting hairs over who Hezbollah represents), and in accord with The Telegraph which called it "many Arab and Muslim countries". ☆ Bri (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I very much agree, thanks for checking the sources. I also object the phrase you mention on being vague despite its lofty appearance. Heptor (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Heptor had changed it pretty much as proposed, while I was composing my original note. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

👍👍👍 --Heptor (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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).

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)

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. [2]. 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 - [3] (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 - [4] - 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)

General Assembly voting positions

Why is it necessary to list: Every. Single. Vote and abstention that took place in the General Assembly? Wouldn't it be more practical and less shambolic to summarize the results and have a source that provides the complete overview?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. These can be omitted. If you really want to list the negatives - fine - that is at least manageable at 9 - but can be omitted too.Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I restored lost sources and changed the wording.[5] Hope this helps. — JFG ^talk 12:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump's waiver on the embassy move

Even following the announcement, as required by law, Trump signed the waiver delaying the embassy move by another six months, and per White House officials, it may go on for a few more years. This important and properly sourced detail has been removed from the article at least twice. Why? I think it clearly belongs, and the only question is, in which section. --Wiking (talk) 16:15, 22 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)

WP:SYNTH has absolutely no relevance to this issue. It's a prohibition on original research by Wikipedia editors, not a prohibition on including the research of journalists. The Resolution is quite clearly in response to Trump's actions, as has been extensively reported by a multitude of sources. It appears one of them has been added since you made this post, and it would have been extremely easy for you to have done that yourself. The Resolution is an extremely significant response to Trump's actions, its inclusion in the lede is a no-brainer. Cjhard (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. The resolution itself does not say anything about "Trump's actions". That's an interpretation. There is obviously a connection, but you either quote it as is, or attribute the interpretation to a source. --Wiking (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel I understand your point more clearly now. The Resolution does not specifically say that it's in response to the United States' decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, it just spells it out and is obvious to everyone. Basically every reliable source covering the issue has stated that it's in response to that decision. In effect you're asking for the inclusion of something along the lines of "the Resolution was widely considered to be in response to the United States' decision...", which is honestly just pedantry. Cjhard (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And also, the Assembly did determine that Trump's actions had no legal effect and must be rescinded. It didn't need to specifically describe Trump's actions in order to do it. This is silly. Cjhard (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't think you understood which part was misleading, but this edit took care of it. --Wiking (talk) 15:51, 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)

Right. And moving the U.S. embassy would have absolutely no concrete impact on "the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem", so that the U.S. decision can not be declared "null and void" under this resolution. These diplomats are experts at writing obfuscatory language. — JFG ^talk 12:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. 'any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition is clear language. The status, - one of 3 things, is 'purported' to have been altered' by the U.S. declaration that it recognizes a city, legally under international law not part of Israel, as Israel's capital, meaning that for the U.S. it is part of Israel, an alteration of its status in U.S. terms.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I won't disagree, nothing changes in a city, see my comment here [6]. Pointless fights for non-tangible constructions... Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Change from "border community" to "house"

Icewhiz, regarding this edit: [7]. You changed "border community" to "house". However, this contradicts the provided source, which says "Two rockets were fired late on Sunday, one of them exploding inside an Israeli border community". I was wondering what the basis was for this change. Is there another source supporting your claim? Or is the basis of your change that structures, rather than communities, can be hit by explosives? If it is the latter, I believe the term 'border community' as well as the contrast with 'an open area' indicates that the meaning given to 'community' is that of an 'area a particular area or place considered together with its inhabitants'. Cjhard (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict, it does elaborate. I added a ref for this (one of several available for this). I erred in adding this from memory of the coverage without checking that this was actually in the ref given in the article at the time of my modifications.Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 24 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)
  • Now truly done. --Wiking (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• I hope it's clear from the text that Obama backtracked on his comments before the elections, not after (but if not, it can be added). I think we could expand it just a bit further (one or two sentences), adding that Obama and both his secretaries of state, Clinton and Kerry, criticized Israel for construction in the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. We also need to mention United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and that Trump opposed it as president-elect. --Wiking (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added the overall position from 1949 to the present (text taken from the main article). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Comparison to Nazi boycott

Our text says : Israeli-Arab politician Ayman Odeh compared Lieberman's call to Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.

In fact what the source says is: The leading Arab politician in Israel, Ayman Odeh suggested it was reminiscent of Nazi boycotts against Jews. .... new para ..... "Lieberman is the representative of fascist regimes in the extremist government of Netanyahu," said Mr Odeh, head of the Joint List which includes most Arab members of the Knesset. "The call for a boycott against citizens just because of their national and religious origin remind us of dark regimes in human history. The idea that such a person is responsible for the security of the state has to worry every sane person."

This appears to be The National interpreting "dark regimes in human history" rather than anything Odeh actually said. At a minimum the interpretation should be attributed to TheNat, or Odeh's actual words used.

Is it reported anywhere other than the National? I haven't seen much coverage of Libeberman in general, and a quote that is basically political bluster that isn't going to have any effect or add anything of value to the article could be removed entirely. It was added in the first few days, but I don't think every "Call to action" made by a politician in the first week needs to be covered, most of them have been skipped or noted briefly. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know enough about either the source or the key players to say anything useful. I was merely reporting the disconnect between what Odeh actually said and what we imply that he said. Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

References