Talk:2017 Temple Mount shooting

Clarification needed

The line "Three Arab Israelis opened fire on Israeli police officers near the Lions' Gate, one of the Gates of Jerusalem." doesn't read right as it implies that Israelis are attacking Israelis. This isn't a false thing to say but the wording could be improved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

But the shooters are indeed Israelis. It's really unusual. Usually terrorists come from the East Jerusalem area or the Palestinian Authority, and do not hold Israeli citizenship. 46.31.103.80 (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Three Israelis from the Arab Muslim community of Umm alFahm attacked several Israeli policemen who belong to the Arab Druze community of Galilee. So far i cannot understand why some editors are trying to brand this part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as attackers were not Palestinians and there is yet any evidence whether they had any connection to any Palestinian militant organizations. Indeed there have been cases of Israeli Arabs making terrorist acts in the name of Palestinian militant organizations such as Hamas, but this time Hamas praised the attack, but didn't claim responsibility. On the other hand, there have been several attacks of Israeli Muslim Arabs under the banner of Islamic State, which notably opposes Palestinian nationalism and persecutes the Druze people.GreyShark (dibra) 13:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Greyshark, this is 100% part of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, as many Arabs living in Israel view themselves as living under the Israeli occupation and identify with the Palestinians. Israeli Arabs can not serve in the army because they cannot be trusted while Druze have to serve in the army since they are loyal citizens. There is even a Druze fighter pilot. Like I mentioned below. Incitement by Arab knesset members, by Abu Mazen and the UNESCO resolutions, have made the radicalized Arabs even more violent, because now they feel like they are closer to achieving their goal and defeating the Jews. There is talk about revoking their citizenship but the supreme court stands in the way. Anyway...what is important to note is that they shot from inside the Al aqsa complex toward the guards. The opening paragraph could be something like this " On 14 July, 2017, Three Israeli Arabs from Umm al-Fahm opened fire from within the Al-Aqsa mosque complex outward, on the Border Police officers stationed at the entrance, near the Lion’s Gate.( Someone on the Palestinian side may have aided the assailants to smuggle the weapons in.) As a result of the attack, two Israeli border police officers were killed and two more were injured. All three attackers were shot and killed by Israeli police after fleeing back to the Temple Mount complex." haaretz--Jane955 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I added "Muslim" regarding Arab Israeli attackers to differentiate from Arab Israeli Druze victims.GreyShark (dibra) 13:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I was saying that it doesn't read right is all, you wouldn't normally say "Americans attacked Americans" if both parties were from the same place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - user:Triggerhippie4 do you have any source for Palestinian involvement here, while adding "part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"? If not, please self undo.GreyShark (dibra) 13:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is silly. Arab/Palestinian terrorists attacked Israeli police. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's you bringing up original research that it's about them being Druze. They had it written on their forehead? Police on duty was targeted.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Please note that most of the attacks carried out in Israel in recent years were carried out by terrorists who did not belong to any terrorist organization

2. Most of the Israeli Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinians, even though they have Israeli citizenship. They do not enlist in the Israeli army and they support the establishment of a Palestinian state.

And if this is not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then what is it? 46.31.103.80 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I retract my objection, as the Palestinian Fatah movement has claimed responsibility for the attack.GreyShark (dibra) 15:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

So the attackers weren't from Israel? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The attackers were Israeli Arabs, but since Palestinian Fatah claimed responsibility - it looks they operating motive was Palestinian nationalism and not any thing else (ISIL, al-Qaeda, anti-Druze sentiments, etc). In the past, there have been several cases when Israeli Arabs operated as part of Palestinian nationalist militant organizations.GreyShark (dibra) 15:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't assume motives until they are revealed and also Fatah never claimed responsibility, in fact no one has yet and Fatah's leader condemned the attack. - SantiLak (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

To be precise an unknown group "Fatah al Intifada" claimed responsibilty. However, regardless of responsibility claims, it is 100% that this is an Islamic terror attack against an Israeli target.Icewhiz (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

To be precise, Fatah al-Intifada, a known group, called it a heroic attack but didn't claim responsibility, same with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. No one has claimed responsibility as of now, such a claim would have been widely reported, which it clearly has not been. Also that is not necessarily true, there is no proof this is an 'Islamic terror attack'. It is true that it is a terrorist attack on Israelis, but up to this point there is no proof to show it is an 'Islamic terror attack.' - SantiLak (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As the terrorists were Palestinian Islamists, and their action widely support by Palestinian Iaslamist terror organization, it is quite clear this is an Islamic terror attack.Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As of now there is no evidence they were Islamists or were motivated by Islamism. Also just because Palestinian Islamist organizations support the attack, does not make it an Islamist terror attack. Hamas and Islamic Jihad pretty much always offer public support of lone wolf attacks, as do the PFLP and other secular militant groups. That doesn't mean that the attacks should be classified as Islamist or secularly motivated, as they are far more often motivated by militant Palestinian nationalism opposed to Israeli actions. - SantiLak (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Besides the fact that any terror attack by a practicing Muslim could be characterized lexically as an Islamic terror attack. The 29 year old assailant was a mosque worker and activist in the Israeli branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. All three were active in various Islamic activism efforts around the Temple mount mosques. Waqf personnel have also apparently aided the assailants who hid the weapons in the Islamic compound a few days prior to the attack.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hold on Icewiz, the attackers were undoubtfully Israeli Arabs and not Palestinian Arabs. Why do you call them a. Palestinian and b. Islamists? What we do know for sure they were Israeli Arab Muslims, but it looks they didn't belong to any Islamist, Salafist or Palestinian nationalist organizations.GreyShark (dibra) 11:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually any terror attack by a practicing member of any religion can't be characterized as a terror attack of their religion, if that was true we'd have to recategorize a ton of attacks as Islamic, Christian, etc terrorism. I haven't seen any sources showing that Muhammad Ahmad Muhammad Jabarin. the 29 year old, was a mosque worker or an activist in the Islamic movement or that all three were active in Islamic activism efforts around the al-Aqsa mosque, but if you have some i'd love to see. Also if any waqf personnel helped the attackers hide the weapons in the square, that again doesn't make it an "Islamic terror attack", because motives matter. The reality is that most of the people carrying out lone wolf stabbings and car attacks aren't radical islamists or islamists at all, many are motivated by Palestinian nationalism and around 40% actually just want to commit suicide or have mental health problems. If these attackers turn out to be Islamists then sure we should call it that, but your assertion that any terror attack carried out by a Muslim is automatically an Islamic terror attack is not really true, as well as your assertion that at this point without any evidence of motive, that we can 100% classify it as an Islamic terror attack without question, is also not true. - SantiLak (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

An attack by a Muslim is technically islamic terror, but I do not care to argue this point. Regarding background on Jabrin (mosque work, Israeli Islamic brotherhood, and Islamic Temple mount activism) I heard this on a RS today, and I am sure I will have a written source in due time. The weapons were not hidden in the square (where they were shot), but in the mosques at least per my understanding. Some branches of Palestinian terror are Islamist, notably Hamas and Islamic Jihad whose motivations are framed by Islam. Regarding this particular attack, there is no difficulty in asserting it was Islamic (something thatis more difficult when a teenager with a knife attacks soldiers in the hope of being killed honorably - though that line of thought is definitely Islamic due to the prohibition of suicide).Icewhiz (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

An attack by a Muslim could be anything, though in this case due to the very specific circumstances of attack at the Temple Mount compound it is likely either Islamist-Arab nationalist or just Arab nationalist motive. We still do not know which.GreyShark (dibra) 11:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

According to the source cited in the article, they were hidden in the courtyard and when you have it from an RS that Jabrin was all of those things then i'm sure we'd all love to hear. Also you may not care to debate it, but your assertion that simply because a terror attack is carried out by a practicing member of a religion that it is technically terrorism of that religion still remains incorrect. As to your assertion about Palestinian militant groups, yes some are Islamists motivated by a frame of militant Islamism, some are also secular, but in this case, there is actually a difficulty asserting that it was motivated by Islamism or anything because there is no evidence of a motive as of now, you are relying on OR and speculation. - SantiLak (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

While the gag order on the investigation does hinder RS publication of the motivation, it is not in doubt (a mix of Islamism and Palestinian nationalism). Even with the limited published sources available we have information on the older attacker + Facebook posts of the attackers prior to the attack. In any event - my inclination is to WP:WAIT - there will be a plethora of resources once the gag order is lifted, and whatever we write now will need to be vastly expanded or replaced - so might as well just wait.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Video of the beginning of the attack

The Israeli police uploaded a video which includes the first seconds of the attack. Can someone please download the video to his computer and then upload it to wikimedia commons? It is free for usage. ThePagesWriter (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Incitement, UNESCO and important details about the policemen.

These are important details about the policemen: The slain officers are Hail Stawi, 30, from Maghar and Kamil Shanan, 22, from Hurfeish both in northern Israel. Officer Shanan was the son of former Israeli Druse Knesset member Shakib Shanan. He was recruited into the Israel Police’s Temple Mount unit in 2012. Officer Stawi leaves behind a newborn baby.

Why was this deleted?

Following the attack, Likud Knesset member Yariv Gideon Levin was interviewed on Israeli TV and said that the reason for the attack was Abu Mazen’s incitement and incitement by Arab Knesset members.(The interview was aired on 15 July 2017) Abu Mazen (Mahmud Abbas) has previously said: “We won't allow Jews' filthy feet.(on the Temple Mount) We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem...blood spilled for Allah...Every Martyr will reach Paradise and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah."

Ignoring the recent UNESCO resolutions that deny Israel’s historical connection to the Temple Mount (and other historical sites) is naïve. You can rephrase what I wrote, but I can’t understand why the entire paragraph was deleted. I speak fluent Hebrew, by the way.--Jane955 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The info on the officers was copy-edited and not deleted because you copied and pasted it straight from the news article. The paragraph was deleted because it was chock full of POV pushing, was based on a citation from an unreliable source, and was drawing a conclusion that something was the reason for the attack when motives haven't even been released as a part of the investigation. The conclusion that was drawn was a political one but if you can find RS that says that Levin said that, then provide it here and it probably warrants some form of inclusion in the aftermath section. - SantiLak (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

What is RS or "chock full of POV pushing"? Is there a page that explains these terms? I don't think there will be an investigation into the motives. This is already known. But the army will see if the terrorists' friends or relatives are also involved. There is on going incitement by Abu Mazen. This is well known. What surprised me is that Lavin said that members of the Arab party (in the Knesset) also incite Israeli Arabs. The attacks have become more brazen since UNESCO passed the anti-Israel resolutions. I would at least mention these resolutions and let people reach the conclusion on their own.--Jane955 (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RS is a reliable source, i.e. not PalWatch, and chock full of POV pushing means that the paragraph was not an encyclopedic one, rather it was pushing a specific point of view. In regards to UNESCO, Abbas, and incitement, you are drawing conclusions based off of your own opinions and as such that stuff really shouldn't be included, but since this is not a forum for arguing opinions we aren't going to discuss that. - SantiLak (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

While PalWatch can be a reliable source (as they mainly just reprint / redistribute with translation Arab media) - I concur with SantiLak. Yariv Levin's (who should be stated as Tourism minister and not MK - as the minister title is more important) opinion shouldn't be given too much prominence - unless it is a very unusual statement with great significance (not in this case) - it shouldn't be in. Putting in Lieberman's (Defense minister) or Erdan's (Internal security minister) statements might be appropriate (borderline). I don't think UNESCO's politics are relevant for on the ground events - might fit in background - very borderline for inclusion. Abbas's incitement - if you have a good RS or a major Israeli figure saying this in relation to this specific attack - then possible, otherwise not. We will probably have to put in Raed Salah's and other Islamic Movement in Israel views/statements in - once this gets tied to them a bit more (which it will seeing how this is going - but with the present gag order this isn't too widely covered yet) - but that's a case for WAITING.Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the section added on the police officers (besides just the copyvio) - we also need to take into account WP:MEMORIAL.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

ICE, ok, well then you can add this to the article. I translated the relevant part. (I left out the name of the Arab leader he mentioned because I didn’t know how to spell this name.) If there is a technology that enables me to turn this recorded television program into a video, I will happily do it and add the translation.

Interview with defence minister Avigdor Lieberman, “Meet the press”, Israeli TV, Channel 2, 15/7/2017

Avigdor Lieberman; “We have no intention of changing the status quo on the Temple Mount, but we will continue the investigation to make sure that everyone can pray in safety. What causes the tension and violence is wild incitement. I heard today the leader of the northern faction; his views are no different from Daash or Al-Qaida. We have to examine if he did not break ‘the terror law’. According to him these murderers are holy and of course 'the occupation' is the reason. In the Arab world in the last 7 years 700,000 people were killed in the wars of Muslims against Muslims; in Syria, Yemen, Libya & Iraq. They don’t care and ignore this mainly because the real reason (problem) is radical Islam and not 'the occupation’. What is going on has nothing to do with 'the occupation'; it has nothing to do with Israel. It is an international phenomenon.”--Jane955 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes - but this only appears in Hebrew. You could work this one in - [1] - cutting it down to a sentence or so.Icewhiz (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

ICE, how is this? and where in the article can I put it? Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman commented on the terror attack: "The State of Israel will continue to fight resolutely, forcefully and uncompromisingly against the terrorists, their dispatchers, and those who incite them. I applaud our security forces in their courageous daily struggle against terrorism, and mourn the death of the officers who fell in the attack."

The Hebrew wikipedia page with the same name looks similar to this page, but some details are missing here. Are there editors working on both pages? What do you think about this article? Fatah calls for ‘Day of Rage’ amid new Temple Mount security in wake of attack--Jane955 (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

UNESCO

There is a new article that explains what I wrote about UNESCO. ISRAEL: UNESCO IS A FULL PARTNER IN PALESTINIAN INCITEMENT: "UNESCO is a full partner to the false incitement by Palestinians and radical Islam who claim that Al-Aksa [Temple Mount mosque] is in danger,” Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO in Paris Carmel Shama HaCohen said on Thursday. To help remedy the situation his office has called on UNESCO’s Director-General Irina Bokova to condemn any attempts to use the Temple Mount as a location from which to launch terror attacks.--Jane955 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Reversion Needed

Per WP:Terrorist, I ask that another editor revert the edits by the IP user, as I forgot about 1RR and cannot do so. - SantiLak (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess that the rules of common sense are not applied to Wikipedia, indeed. However, just out of curiosity, would you kindly explain to me, why is the term "terrorist attack" allowed along Wikipedia's "September 11 Attacks" article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.62.128 (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|SantiLak}] - I reverted. If I remember 1RR correctly for ARBPIA it doesn't apply to reverts of non extended confirmed accounts (500/30) and a few other cases - but don't count on my word here. I do think terror attack needs to be inserted a bit more, as it has for June 2017 London Bridge attack for instance, but I agree we shouldn't replace every single "attack" with "terror attack". 77.127.62.128 - Wikipedia is supposed to adhere to NPOV, include taking into account the POV of those who commit such attacks. In general it is easier to state that "X said it was a terror attack" then saying "It was a terror attack" - we are very careful with Wikipedia's voice not to take sides. Note September 11 attacks doesn't contain terror in the title, though due to inherent en-wiki editor bias (Western editors far outnumber Al-Qaeda oriented editors) "terror" has perhaps crept in there a bit too much.Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 London Bridge attack has a background section prior to the description of the attack, which is normal. But while background for terrorist attacks in European countries logically consists of mentions of prior violence of this type, you cannot use that model here, because we are not dealing with a state's territory, but disputed territory in which violence is frequent from both sides: it is a war zone. Several sources give an overall context of I/P violence directly contemporary with or preceding this particular attack, and naturally call for inclusion. I saw no trace of background or these contextualized reports and therefore added one. If NPOV is the concern,(which is rarely is for these articles) then one cannot describe the event without context, esp. when that context is directly alluded to in sources reporting it. This is basic.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The PA-controlled territories are NOT a "war zone".E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Citations

I need help numbering the citations. --Jane955 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

+972 magazine

User:‎Icewhiz. Your removal of +972 magazine on the pretext it is a partisan blog runs in the face of several requests regarding it at RSN. Check before doing things like that. It is a news website run by a cooperative of Israeli journalists with excellent mainstream cvs.Nishidani (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at RSN - it doesn't look like this is accepted as RS at RSN ([2], [3]) - it might be reliable for opinions of those who post there - but it is WP:SPS. It definitely is not the best source available in this instance (not I did not remove any material from the article - just this cite). It is definitely possibly to cite better sources for Palestinian deaths in the current riots - as this was widely covered (and indeed - there are two other cites here, and if you look - this was covered by leading world RSes). Per - 927mag's about - [4] It is a blog. Some of the writers are journalists. Some are not. There is no editorial board I believe, every writer publishes for himself. I don't think it should be used for anything beyond the opinion of whomever wrote there - but in any event in this particular instance there are much better sources.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• 972 is NOT an edited news site, it's post-at-will group blog that, like similar sites (such as The Federalist) can be cited for the opinions of it's writers, but it's not on the level of RS level an edited news publication.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion is known, E. M. Gregory. It was repeated over a dozen times in one of the following discussions, where you convinced nobody. Icewhiz cherrypicked 2 old inderterminate Look at 972 may have been characterised by some in these discussions as a blog; it was also characterised by others as a reliable source. There has certainly been no consensus or ruling about this, and you are simply cherry-picking the comments with which you agree. Please point, if you can, to any decision regarding 972 as a source. And if you cannot, please cease your disruptive removal of all citations to this source. RolandR (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2015

And this and this. Attribution would be only needed if the fact were not reported in other sources.

What is rtotally unacceptable is what User.Icewhiz has done here: taking out one 'activist' magazine as not RS (because it is critical of government policy) and then, on another article (see the other page) introducing two thoroughly disreputable sources. If you keep playing games with policy, accepting trash as RS, and then throwing out other sources as not RS because one favours an opinion critical of Palestinians, and the other does not, attention will be drawn to it on the appropriate board Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

An interview published in +972, or the opinions of someone who posts there - could be considered reliable for said opinion or sayings in the interview (which is one of the RSN discussions). Facts - that's a separate matter. Specifically in this instance - I don't really understand why you are insisting on +972 - there is no real problem to source the deaths in the past week from elsewhere - it has been well covered in several RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Put the question on the other boot: why are you taking up a practice, frowned on at the most rcent RS discussions of removing this source at sight? (while using far more disreputable sources on other pages) Nishidani (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

My reading of the RSN discussions (as well as +972 about page [5] - which states - "We see +972 as a platform for our bloggers to share analysis, reports, ideas, images and videos on their channels. Each blogger owns his or her channel and has full rights over its contents (unless otherwise stated). The bloggers alone are responsible for the content posted on their channels; the positions expressed on individual blogs reflect those of their authors, and not +972 as a whole." - so no editorial board, each writer writes as he sees fit representing himself) is that +972 is not a RS for facts. It may be an RS for opinions of the writers or for interviews with others. In any event - in this particular instance - there are much better sources available for the death of said Palestinians. It isn't a question here of whether +972 allows you to establish something or not - you can establish the same facts (which are established) by much better mainstream sources. I do not remove +972 "on sight" - if +972 were used to support the opinion of the writer or an interviewee - I would probably not support removal. In any event - I am bowing out of this discussion - take it up with other editors, or the RSN (where I will reply, briefly).Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree there is not consensus to accept this blog as reliable source to facts clearly per WP:SPS and WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Propose Major Rearrangement

Suggest that we move the background and aftermath sections to 2017 Temple Mount crisis, leaving hits as a page on teh shooting.@ThePagesWriter:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Since there is now a new page on that I agree. I moved some key parts there so the article didnt look half empty, but I feel most should almost be reversed, have a summary here and details there. - Galatz^Talk 20:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But note that reprisals in Maghar should stay on this as the main page (as the stem from this shooting, unrelated to wider crisis), as should should events in Umm al-Fahm. Most of the rest should go to the crisis (with minor summary here) - perhaps not the police raid immediately following the attack - but metal detectors / rioting / other attacks / etc - yes.Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The part about the incident in Jordan can be moved to the new page. In the first page we can write more about the victims...that one had a young child. By the way...all of this was to be expected following the UNESCO decisions and intensive incitement. I think it's worth mentioning that. There are many articles on the subject. --Jane955 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as per the consensus, and WP:COMMONNAME. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 Temple Mount shooting → 2017 Lions' Gate attack? – The present title is anomalous. It is the only article of this type which designates the immediate point of departure of the killers (the Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount) as more significant than the actual place site where the attack took place. Secondly, the Temple Mount is one of 2 terms for the departure site. WP:NPOV would impose in the I/P area that references to the site contain both names. Placing the Jewish/Western name for the site of origin of Arab attackers is self-evidently POV, implying ‘they’ prepared an attack from one of ‘our’ holy sites. Neutral third party advice would be welcome, since I/P editors’ positions are well-known, and mostly predictable. As it stands, ironically, the article should be dealing with the place where the killers were shot, the Haram al-Sharif, the 'Temple mount shooting' can refer to no other fact of that day, and certainly not to the killing of the two Druze policeman some distance from that area.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• In Favor: I have never seen it described as "the Temple Mount shooting." Which is logical because it didn't occur on the Temple Mount. So why should Temple Mount be in the name? The proper name for the article should be "Jerusalem Old City shooting." ImTheIP (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Opposed. The WP:COMMONNAME is Temple mount shooting. Further more, out of the 5 fatalities, 4 died (3 assailants, 1 police officer) in the open space inside the temple mount. The assailants themselves hid weapons on the mount, ran outside the gate and shot at police, and then ran back inside - where they had a final shootout with police. So this event actually took place on the mount - and subsequently instigated a whole crisis around the mount.Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Then why the singular? 2 separate 'shootings' took place, one at Lions' Gate, the other on the Haram al-Sharif. The singular of the title refers to one event.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It could have been called a gun battle, but it seems RS have stuck to shooting. This is all one event. They ran out of the mount through the tribes gate into the alley, shot, ran back in, and the there was a shootout back inside. The whole thing was over in a few minutes. In very initial breaking reports it was reported as near the Lion's gate,(which is near), but they were just in the alley leading to the lion's gate. RS are calling this the Temple mount shooting for good reasons. The shot officers belonged to the Temple mount detachment.Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Opposed - While I could see the argument that it should be consistent with Lions' Gate stabbings but I do not believe its the same thing. This was a coordinated attack involving storing weapons on the Temple Mount and several different spots over a very short period of time. - Galatz^Talk 16:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• opposed because changing the title could appear to be politically motivated. --Jane955 (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Strike the insinuation I edit for political reasons out immediately, it is a personal attack (see WP:NPA)Nishidani (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have asked you now twice to cross out that insinuation that I am motivated by politics (whereas of course no one else in the I/P area is). Kindly strike it out. Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Temple Mount is not a Western name. It is definatly a Jewish holy site, as it is a Muslim holy site. The attackers shot from within the compound; that is why metal detectors were placed. I rephrased my reason for opposing. --Jane955 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Temple Mount is what's being used in Media. Not sure if many will know what Lions' Gate is. But having said that previous comment by Jane955 deserves a strike out. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this event is known as the Temple Mount shooting, not the Lions Gate. The shooting happened on the Mount, the weapons were stored on the Mount and the aftermath affected the Mount. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because WP:COMMONNAME in use by media is Temple Mount shooting. Also because Temple Mount is the common and longstanding English name of this site.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

)

I'll give more evidence. I am still waiting for external neutral input. All of the negatives above are predictable, save for In ictu oculi, who has, however, accepted an argument that I believe does not stand up to scrutiny.

This article was created within an hour of the attack, so the title chosen does not reflect the principles of WP:COMMONNAME, according to User:Icewhiz's assertion, accepted by many. You can shoot holes in this very easily, see below. It was chosen before one could assess how widespread news coverage would title and describe the incident. This is the first error. (b)If you look at mainstream newspaper reports outside Israel, this is how the attack was reported that day.

• Peter Beaumont, Two Israeli police and three gunmen killed in shootout at holy site The Guardian 14 July 2017

Comment. Neutral title. In the text 'holy site is qualified with both terms

Two Israeli police officers have been shot dead and three gunmen killed during an early-morning shootout in one of Jerusalem’s most holy and sensitive sites. The attack – involving three Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin – took place just after 7am in the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif complex in Jerusalem. It began near the Lions’ Gate entrance to the compound, which is revered as a holy site by both Muslims and Jews.

• 2 police officers killed in shooting near Jerusalem holy site:Area is known as Temple Mount to Jews and Noble Sanctuary to Muslims CBC News/ Associated Press 14r July 2017

Comment. Neutral title. In the text 'holy site is qualified with both terms

The rare gunfight took place inside a sacred hilltop compound in Jerusalem, known to Jews as Temple Mount and to Muslims as Noble Sanctuary or al-Haram al-Sharif

• Ian Deitsch, Jerusalem shooting: Two Israeli police officers killed in Palestinian attack near holy site known as Temple Mount and Noble Sanctuary The Independent 14 July 2017

Comment. Neutral title. In the text 'holy site is qualified with both terms

Three Palestinian attackers have opened fire on Israeli police from inside a major Jerusalem holy site, killing two officers before being shot dead, officials said.

The rare attack from within the contested shrine, known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as the Temple Mount, raises new concerns about an escalation of violence

• 2 Shooters killed near Jerusalem’s Temple Mount The Australian 14 July 2017

Comment. As the recent book by the Australian's senior Middle east correspondent argues this newspaper is very strongly Pro-Israel. The title choice reflects this. But the the body of the text reads:

Three assailants opened fire on Israeli police in Jerusalem’s Old City today before fleeing to a nearby highly sensitive holy site and being killed by security forces, police said. No details were immediately available on the identity of the attackers. The three were killed at the site known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif and to Jews as the Temple Mount, the location of regular clashes between Palestinians and Israeli police, but gunfire rarely occurs there.

• Two Israeli police shot in Jerusalem attack die,' France2 14 July 2017

Comment. Neutral title. Neither name is mentioned. The text reads:-

Three assailants opened fire on Israeli police in Jerusalem’s Old City today before fleeing to a nearby highly sensitive holy site and being killed by security forces, police said. Three people were wounded in the attack, two of them critically, police said. The incident was among the most serious in recent years in Jerusalem and was likely to heighten Israeli-Palestinian tensions. No details were immediately available on the identity of the attackers. The three were killed at the site known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif and to Jews as the Temple Mount, the location of regular clashes between Palestinians and Israeli police, but gunfire rarely occurs there.

• Molly Hunter , Nasser Atta Bruno Nota 2 Israeli police officers fatally shot in Jerusalem's Old City

Comment. Neutral title. Neither name is mentioned. The text reads:-

The assailants then fled into the compound toward one of world's holiest sites, known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif and known to Jews as the Temple Mount

• Two Israeli police shot in Jerusalem attack die,' SBS News/ AFP 14 July 2017

Comment. Neutral title. Neither name is mentioned. The text reads:-

The three assailants were killed at the site known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif and to Jews as the Temple Mount

·

• Israeli police killed in attack near Jerusalem holy site BBC News 14 July 2017

Comment. Neutral title. Neither name is mentioned. The text reads:-

They were shot by three Israeli Arabs close to the compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif With neutral title (Israeli police killed in attack near Jerusalem holy site

• Isabel Kershner 2 Israeli Police Officers Killed in Attack in Old City of Jerusalem New York Times 14 July 2017

Comment. Neutral title. Neither name is mentioned. The text reads:

Security camera footage showed the armed assailants emerging to attack from within the sacred compound in the Old City of Jerusalem that Jews revere as the Temple Mount and Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary.

• William Booth, Gunmen kill 2 Israeli police officers at entrance to Jerusalem mosque complex, Washington Post 14 July 2017(

Tilt to rthe non-Israeli POV. The text reads:

‘Police said the assault began just after 7 a.m. close to the Lion’s Gate into the Old City, near one of the entrances to the complex that holds al-Aqsa Mosque and the golden Dome of the Rock, an ancient esplanade revered by Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and by Jews as the Temple Mount.’

• Marc Schulman, http://www.newsweek.com/tel-aviv-diary-you-say-al-haram-al-sharif-i-say-temple-mount-637762 Tel Aviv Diary: You Say al-Haram al-Sharif. I Say Temple Mount Newsweek 17 July 2017

Comment. Neutral title, indeed one that strives to signal the POV issue. The text reads

The attack from the Temple Mount, or in Arabic al-Haram al-Sharif

• Michael Wilner, US 'very concerned' by Temple Mount tensions Jerusalem Post 20 July 2017

Comment. Understandably, it being the JP, this has the Israeli POV. However it opens with an attempt at balance, i.e.

The Trump administration is "very concerned" at the sight of growing tensions on the Temple Mount, known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, where security has been tightened since a terrorist attack last week.

And it cites the official White House response, which strives for neutrality.

'The United States is very concerned about tensions surrounding the Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif, a site holy to Jews, Muslims, and Christians.'

• (a)In short, we are supposed to take it on someone's undocumented claim, that the event is reported as regarding the Temple Mount
• (b)On the day in question, major news sources mostly appear to balance Temple Mount /Haram al Sharif(Noble Sanctuary)
• (c)The page creasting editor chose the title before he could assess the validity of this in terms of commonname usage in sources.
• (d) editors still insist on the commonname title, despite the above.
• (e)you can't google a proof, because 'Temple mount shooting', part from meme replication, does not exclude the article specifying that it is knownj to Muslims as Haram al Sharif.

Every oppose vote save one so far is predictable. I hope that is not mirrored by editors identified with the other POV, who fortunately have abstained so far. Now could neutral, unpredictable third parties weigh in?Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You argument makes no sense. Firstly you are call for neutral third parties yet your only argument appears to be calling it Temple Mount as being WP:POV. Yet consensus has been for years to call the page on WP the Temple Mount. If it was the Jewish push than it would be asking for the page to be called Har Habeit. Instead its the common name, as WP has had consensus stating for years. - Galatz^Talk 16:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack. This is what gets you sent to AE. I suggest you stop casting aspersions on editors, as if "your side" has no POV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Nish, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact I'm not known for seizing on any and every event in the I(P conflict which might strengthen one sides's drama narrative, to write articles on them. I pride myself on registering harm done to both parties. Now, could we agree not to bury the evidence provided under another predictable thread? What we need here is independent noutside input. Everyone's position, including my own, is known. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on what policy? - Galatz^Talk 19:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• These shootings took place largely on the Temple Mount, excepting one that took place closer to the Gate. More to the point, "Temple" and "Mount" are, according to the OED, the names that have been in English since King Alfred. Alfred and his translators. They, of course, got the Mount and the Temple from St. Jerome, who got them from the language used by native worshipers at this site since long before the colonialist imposition of a foreign, Arabic name at the time of the 7th century imperial conquest of the city. This an English language encyclopedia. Therefore, Alfred the Great gets the final say.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• just fyi, King James agreed. It's the King's English.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think we should keep the title because it is most recognizable from the recent headlines (I would search for Temple Mount Shooting if I was looking for this) but the lede sentence needs to be rewritten, and I think Haram al-Sharif(Noble Sanctuary) should be added to the first sentence. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's a bunch of newspaper headlines for the attack: "Two Israeli police and three gunmen killed in shootout at holy site", "2 Israeli police officers killed in shooting in Jerusalem's Old City", "2 Israeli Police Officers Killed in Attack in Old City of Jerusalem", "Shooting at Jerusalem holy site: 3 attackers killed, no Friday prayers", "Jerusalem holy site shuttered after deadly Temple Mount attack", "Jerusalem: Israeli policemen killed in shooting attack", "Palestinians shot dead after Jerusalem Old City attacks", "Jerusalem shooting: Attack in Old City leaves two Israeli police dead, one injured", "2 Israeli police officers fatally shot in Jerusalem's Old City", "Two Israeli Cops Killed in Shooting Near Jerusalem Holy Site, 3 Gunmen Dead: Police" And so on. I find one headline containing the name "Temple Mount" but a virtually endless amount of headlines that doesn't. I don't know if it favors or disfavors either sides POV to include/exclude "Temple Mount" from the article title. But it just seem completely wrong to me. ImTheIP (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sexist Steterotypes

The photo is published by Israeli police on their facebook, but this does not mean it does not promote sexist stereotypes. No matter how you try to whitewash it, the focus of the photo is of a female soldier's behind? There are many other photos available on the facebook, so why was this one chosen? I have seen many photos of female military, just Google "female marines" for examples. Just because the police oublished it does not mean it is not a sexist stereotype, is the claim here that sexism does not exist in the IDF or Israeli police? This is false, and Wikipedia should not support it. I see many photos of this of Israeli female soldiers and YES it is promoting sexist stereotypes. You will see if you compare to other military services like the US the care that is taken with showing females as soldiers on the same level as everyone else, not as "morale boosts" (which I have heard IDF officials call then before) - Wikipedia should not participate or promote the objectification of fenale soldiers - this is an encyclopedia, not a locker room calender. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

There is NOTHING sexist is said photo which shows male and female police going into the mount. In Israel, where veils are not worn by the mainstream, and women are treated equally, there is nothing sexist in such a shot. Israeli police and army handouts tend to avoid including faces of low ranking members so they will not be subject to terror or foreign threats in the future, which is the reason they release behind group shots of men and women.Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

First this has nothing to do with veiling. That comment is derogatory towards religious beliefs and entirely off topic and you should strike it. I understand that USMC training is particularly intense, even compared to other branches of the US military, and that the expression posture and professionalism of female marines in photographs is a product of their training. But I have seen many photos of Israeli army women that are sexualized. I dont know why you are putting forth the fiction that two male soldiers out of focus in the distant background changes the fact that this is a photo of a woman's behind in tight pants. That much is obvious for anyone with eyes and we have to wonder why it is being disputed. Reviewing photos of US female marines and soldiers it is pretty clear that the US military does not exploit the bodies of female servicemembers for propaganda purposes. I have looked through hundreds of US photos and still have not seen one where a female servicemember is looking over her shoulder, or whatever. She always looks like a soldier. The objectification of women's bodies in the workplace, especially in the military, of so-called soldiers, is serious. You can't whitewash it or pretend that this is positive, or feminist, by comparing to Muslims veiling (which is a religious practice) - it is entirely unpersuasive and extremely ignorant of the challenges women face to be respected and to be treated equally with men. Just because the IDF or State does this for its own reasons, or even if these photos are unprofessional shots that are not as tightly controlled (US images in uniform are pretty serious business here) - it does not mean we should promote the sexist stereotyping of female soldiers on Wikipedia - and that is what it is. There were several other photos available, yet this one was chosen (ie there is a man in a mask, and a shot from the front that shows the faces of several male soldiers and one woman in the background, so it seems your claim of "avoid including faces...so they will not be subject to [terror threats]" is incorrect. You can review the source for yourself but it's clear that male soldiers and female soldiers are not treated equally, at least when it comes to the official photography.)Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I literally just saw a pair of "IDF inspired" booty shorts, its a pretty basic fact that sexism towards women is not limited to the Islamic practice of covering. This is very much a racist comment and the notion that America or Israel has conquered sexism, and that women are treated equally because they don't have to veil is chauvinism at its worst.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your allegations of widespread sexism in the IDF (in this case - this is not IDF but police - or border police in this case) are neither here nor there - though they might definitely be a policy violation (I for one find offensive such allegations towards an entire society).. There is absolutely no policy reason to strike this photo which shows the behind of several police - a whole group - though the posterior of 1 female and 4 males - walking in one group - is visible). Unless you are alleging some modesty concern - your comment is simply odd. These police are marching in the temple mount in a professional context - to search the premise, they are all carrying arms and rucksacks. Basing your claim that a female posterior is the closest in view (while there are 4 male posteriors not far off) - is sexist - you are making your claim based on a particular soldier being female. In Israel (and elsewhere, still) - showing women (and men) as they behave naturally is not sexist. I don't see anything derogatory about "In Israel, where veils are not worn by the mainstream," - this is a statement of fact, nothing else. On the other hand - you just stated as fact (based on your own personal interpretation) that the Israeli state and army as sexist which uses "sexualized women" for "propaganda".Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC) They might have gotten the individuals' permission for the single frontal shot. However the backshot is better as it is clearly on the temple mount (due to the structures that are visible), which is why it was rather widely used by the media.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If it's a policy violation go report it to ArbCom. Don't forget to include the diff where I said this. Please, you have three photos here, one is of a man in a mask, the other is of a group of soldiers led by a man showing their faces, and the other is of a woman's butt. Attempting to make excuses for this because there are other people in the photo is pretty unconvincing. It is hardly the only photo of Israeli female soldiers shown this way. An entire calender was released showing photos of female soldiers in very suggestive poses, including one of a women leaning over a desk in a very low-cut top. It has nothing to do with modesty or veiling. This is from Haaretz:

Female Israeli soldiers are objectified to such an extent that they have become a sort of a fetish for Internet deviants...

You can also see and this :

Results: This data shows that participants experienced their army tenure as gendered and sexualized beings, and felt this could not be separated from the rest of their identities. Rather, they described this sexualization as the main, and sometimes only, category by which they were identified. For these women, the Israeli army engendered a space in which both men and women were encouraged to act out gendered stereotypes: men were rewarded for being strong aggressors, and women were rewarded for being nurturing and pretty. This created two, very different, sets of hierarchies, and two separate currencies. Implications: Results indicate that women experience differential treatment and devaluation compared to men in the Israeli army. Women are viewed primarily as feminized or sexual objects, and thus objectified and marginalized. While men are primarily valued for their abilities as soldiers and warriors, women are more likely to be evaluated by their sexual attractiveness to men or date-ability.

So file a complaint, I will be happy to show ArbCom the same sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not see anything sexist in the photograph and see no reason to change it. The rest of the stuff is off-topic and noise, as far as I am concerned. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: There are numerous sources attesting to this, so I don't think "I do not see anything sexist in the photograph" will be enough here. I guess we can always have a full RfC but I think comments based on the sources (including the Routledge source I posted, that specifically discusses IDF photographs) would be more helpful then ex cathedra statements. Of course you can say "this is the police and not the IDF" but I think that would be not in keeping with the spirit of how we try to handle women's issues here on Wikipedia. This is a real issue that is well-documented.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware of what you are talking about. Also, there is an academic literature on everything under the sun, so I do not consider your references to have any bearing on this point. Which photograph to use on this page depends on editor consensus. If you can persuade people that this photograph is sexist in some way, go for it. I, for one, am not persuaded. I would have no objections to using another photograph, or no photograph at all either. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

References

To start off this is not a forum, second its a photo of police officers walking away, its not a zoomed in photo of the female officer's butt, in fact there is only one woman in the photo surrounded by four men. If you find a photo with CC licensing of a police officers doing the same thinfg but not of their backs, then go ahead and upload it and add it. Of all the pointless discussions i've ever seen on Wikipedia, i've got to say this tops them all. - SantiLak (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM doesn't apply here. Given the huge number of sources about this, the attitude of editor's here is troubling. We already know that most editors are male, and a female editor (which I am) pointing this out should not be attacked this way. I'm sorry that you think a discussion about the widespread sexual objectification and routine harassment of female soldiers and police officers in Israel is the most pointless discussion you have seen on Wikipedia. I am truly sorry about that. The point of the above comments is, according to the source information at WikiCommons, yes, other photos were available. It is troubling that editors here are denying what is plain as day, that men are photographed as masculine, powerful, wearing masks, active - or leading a group of uniformed officers from the front - both active, powerful images - while the only photo that features a woman is of her behind, passive and sexualized (the image emphasizes her curves, and this is not accidental, because it is a common feature of how women in these positions are depicted) - So, I would be happy to replace the photo with one of the other options available on the facebook page. Multiple WP:RS say that men are seen as the "real soldiers" in Israel, while women are seen as filling other ...needs or as "pin-up girls". This language is all from WP:RS and this is discussed in source after source, and the notion that women are treated equally in Israel has been thoroughly debunked by multiple WP:RS. Even Ayelet Shaked, a woman I rarely agree with, spoke out that the objectification of woman contributes to rape and sexual harassment. his depiction of women is tolerated and supported, and then women are told that they invited the sexual assault to advance their careers, and apparently the consensus here is no big deal.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No one is saying that information relating to sexual harassment and objectification are irrelevant to WP nor am I saying it pointless to discuss, and it sounds like a perfectly good thing to include on the IDF or Israeli police article, but it has no bearing on whether a photo of one female police officer and four male police officers walking around the compound should be included. It has zero bearing and because of that, you're making something out of nothing, and thats what makes it so pointless. Also WP:NOTAFORUM does apply because you're turning this into a forum about objectification of women in the IDF and Israeli police when it has nothing to do with the actual issue of a photo in the article. This isn't an article on the IDF or the Israeli police nor does the attack have any relation to sexual harassment or objectification of women in the IDF or Israeli police, it's an article on an attack, where Israeli police were present and photographed including a female officer. Also disagreeing with you isn't attacking you, but go ahead and jump there and try and play me off as a villain perpetuating a wikipedia male bias for thinking that a photo of police officers all in the same uniform, including one woman isn't promoting objectification and stereotypes.- SantiLak (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue if you follow the history is that I removed the photo for promoting sexist stereotypes based on an essay that I try to follow when working with women-related content WP:WAW. Per that essay, I do consider this image to be male gaze imagery. This was reverted, and I posted here. I then responded to this comment from Icewhiz In Israel, where veils are not worn by the mainstream, and women are treated equally, there is nothing sexist in such a shot. and I posted several WP:RS to the effect that veiling is irrelevant, and that the culture of assault and objectification of women in the IDF (and also the police force) is well-documented. It is relevant to the discussion of the photo, not to the article topic. The photo is what is being discussed here, and the context of the article it is being used in doesn't change that. We have at least three photos. I have looked through a lot of army/police photos and I have noticed that male police officers and soldiers are frequently depicted differently from women (i.e. the masked police officer is a common theme) and that photos of women are often sexualized (whether back or front, they are shown as "pretty" and "objects of male pleasure" - this is the "male gaze" imagery) Female officers are shown in a way that is pleasing to men. The focus of this photo is the woman. It is not just a coincidental "group shot" of police officers walking away. Contrast with the other image in the album of men walking up the stairs, it is photographed from the front and shows him leading the group. I could find countless other examples of this "motif" but I am not sure they can be posted here for copyright reasons. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please take your broad generalizations of alleged sexism in Israeli forces elsewhere (if at all this is relevant to some other artice, and please do not WP:SOAPBOX, or assert your gender as an editing rationale), it is not relevant to this article. Said photo is the most widely used media handout of the aftermath of the event as it shows police who are clearly in the Temple mount. There is nothing explicitly or implicitly sexual in a behind shot of Israeli policemen and women.Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:WAW is the editing rationale, I know the discussion is long but at least make an attempt to follow it before commenting. If you are going to cite policies like WP:SOAPBOX you should know what they mean, and here you should also be familiar with WP:WAW and systemic bias, ie the fact that we can not agree that this is male gaze imagery, or that sexism exists in non-Islamic societies seem to be the main issues driving some of the comments here. If I am understanding the thrust of your comments, the reasoning is a strawman that because women in Israel are not required to veil they are equal and because they are equal the photo can not be sexist. All writings of Israeli feminists dispute the false equivalence between objectifying women's bodies and equality (but there are academic studies about everything so the mountain of evidence that supports taking this issue serious is dismissed as off-topic and not persuasive), and the whole discussion is written off as soapboxing and off topic for the article. Am I wrong to feel that if we had more female editors the discussion might at least recognize that these issues are real and address the discussion of the appropriateness of the photo in that context instead of just dismiss them? Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

For example a comment that a photo can not be sexist because Israeli women are not required to veil and are equal to men, despite a mountain of WP:RS that plainly shows these claims to be false, could indicate that the comments are not WP:NPOV (a policy that requires us to follow the majority view in WP:RS and not personal opinion in the case of soapboxing) - this could be considered soapboxing. Responding to those comments with WP:RS and comparison imagery from other "Western" forces is not soapboxing, it is responding to issues that were raised here by other editors with WP:RS. I think it is pretty plain to see and if that is not enough, it has been written about extensively including in the Routledge book, and many press sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You are citing an essay. I wrote veil once. This photo is highly relevant due to the location. However even if your enire arguement of this photo displaying some innate sexism or sexualization were true (which everyone else, myself included, have so far rejected) that would not be grounds for removing this photo as it would be an accurate description of the status of women in said society. Likewise we do not expunge woman in attire or poses they may or may not have been forced to take in other societies or periods if said images are accurate renditions of said societies.Icewhiz (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I know WP:WAW is an essay, that is why I introduced it as an essay in the comment that you are theoretically responding to. In fact I italicized essay so no one would mistake it for a policy. But as far as I know it is a respected and widely-used essay. I've seen it used across a wide range of articles in different topic areas, so I was hoping it would be respected here as well. There are other photos available so there is no need to use this one. If you read the essay, which I recommend, it suggests avoiding male gaze imagery unless it is on topic for the article (which you have already conceded it is not.) We don't lose anything by replacing it with a similar image from the same source, so I am also having a difficult time understanding the rationale to keep this particular image. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit break

Good catch by Seraphim System :-). I'm not sure about "sexist stereotypes" but the image does not add much to the article and can be removed on these grounds. They look like tourists walking around -- a fairly nondescript group of people carrying backpacks and shot from behind; I would not have guessed that they were police personnel. If there are other images available, why not replace this one? I can see how it can be objectifying, or at least distracting. It's definitely distracting from the purpose of improving the article by causing this lengthy discussion. Remove the image -- and problem solved! K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That they are police is clear from their uniform and gear. The location is also obvious from the photo, which is not the case with the 2 other handout photos which were not used as widely as this one. We have plenty of space in the article for additional photos, we are not in redaction territory. And finally I for one take great issue at this attempt to erase Israeli women from view (singling out the single photo with a secular Jewish woman in the article) - an issue that is present in Israel in relation to Ultra-orthodox sensibilities and elsewhere due to Muslim issues.Icewhiz (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I find this amateur cultural criticism rather tiresome and pointless. I have a suggestion: just open an RfC with two (or three options), perhaps the current photo, or another one from the same Facebook page (one can also have an option for no photo). There will at least be an objective to the discussion, rather than forum-style discussion which doesn't go anywhere. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the photo's usage. There is no licencing problem, and it is on-topic: it shows the location of the event covered and it shows some of those involved in the event (but without the problem of showing faces and personalizing things). But I'd like to see a specific date and time given to the photo. I don't see a sense of any immediate "responding" there, it is more like the winding-down aftermath of a response (but that is a title problem, not an off-topic photograph problem). What is depicted is a large group of armed and uniformed on-duty police walking through a place they are never usually seen walking through, and doing it as part of of the specific event that this article covers. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Description in first sentence of the lead

While discussion about the title of the article goes on, I have replaced "Temple Mount" phrase in the first sentence of the lead with "Temple Mount (also known as Haram al-Sharif)". The reasons are many. A few:

• WP:COMMONNAME says that one should follow the usage of reliable English-language sources. As mentioned in the section above, AFP, ABC, New York Times, BBC, all use both names in their lede. This should be enough.
• The Temple Mount article on Wikipedia uses both names in the lead, and there exists a redirect Haram al-Sharif.
• There is no need to skimp on description. A few extra words do no harm and help clarify the location.

Feel free to discuss etc. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• And the WSJ and many other mainstream publications use Temple Mount without appending the Arabic name. Adding the Arabic name is a sort of POV-pushing that English-language media engage in, or not, depending on the political tone of a particular media outlet. Wikipedia strives to remain NPOV, which is why we use the English COMMONNAME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe change it to Noble Sanctuary or add Hebrew name too -"Har Habait"--Shrike (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to Noble Sanctuary. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe anything other than Temple Mount should be included in the article lead. The Temple Mount page itself can give its alternate names. There are multiple names given in the lead of the main page, with the Hebrew coming first. There is no reason to include more than one here, as has been discussed at length above. - Galatz^Talk 13:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, this discussion is about the lead paragraph, not the title of the article. There are two names for the general area: Har Habait (rendered in English as "Temple Mount"), and Haram al-Sharif (in English: Noble Sanctuary). As I showed above: the usage in English-language international news sources is to use both. Therefore, I use both. Properly speaking, the usage in international sources is Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, but I changed the latter to Noble Sanctuary to avoid arguments about whether to use Arabic names or not. Since you earlier reverted citing WP:COMMONNAME (it applies specifically to titles, but let's leave that aside), and different languages, I have addressed both of your points. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree and feel it shouldn't be there as WP:POV, it should use the common English name for it which is Temple Mount. 2009 Temple Mount riots does not include any other name, 1990 Temple Mount riots makes no reference to Nobble Sanctuary, only gives an alternate name for the event due to its specific location on the Temple Mount. Rather than just discussing since it obviously wont get anywhere I will ping @E.M.Gregory:, @Icewhiz:, @Jane955:, and @Sir Joseph: who participated in the earlier conversation to chime in, in order to attempt to gain consensus. - Galatz^Talk 13:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This is rather surreal. You keep asserting without evidence that the common English name is Temple Mount, while I gave four news sources from the international media specifically talking about this incident, which specifically use both names in the lead. If it's good enough for the BBC, AFP and NYT, why is it not good enough for Wikipedia? You assert that using Temple Mount (alone) is NPOV, even though "Temple Mount" is the English translation of the Hebrew name; and including the Arabic name (or the corresponding English translation) somehow violates NPOV in your view.

Incidentally, if you want to ask other people to weigh in, the proper way is to either post on a noticeboard or open an RfC, not ping people who happened to agree with you on a related RfC. You have been editing for many years; surely I don't need to tell you these basic things? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments are very funny. In your first post you reference having it because of WP:COMMONNAME and when I use the same policy to go against your point you say it doesn't apply. You've already brought this topic up here, why should I go and open a formal RfC when other people above have already chimed in? And I pinged everyone who responded to the above conversation since its the same talk page and related to the above. - Galatz^Talk 14:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Temple Mount is the COMMONNAME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• gBooks: "Noble Sanctuary" gets 10,000 hits. "Temple Mount" gets 150,000. Because Temple Mount is the COMMONNAME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Since I am rather pissed off by the nonsense displayed here, I'll make the effort to do a review of the news media as to what the "common name" is, as shown in the lead or beginning of the articles covering this incident. I am only looking at international media:

1. First, let's look at wire service (AP, Reuters, AFP). All of them use both names.
2. I have already given links for BBC, NYT. Both of them use both names. WSJ uses only Temple Mount.
3. I Googled "2017 july jerusalem shooting", and looked at the first page of results. We get (I discarded Al Jazeera, Press TV, BBC and NYT):
   1. The Guardian: The attack – involving three Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin – took place just after 7am in the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif complex in Jerusalem.
   2. The Telegraph: Palestinian gunmen ambushed and killed two Israeli police officers at the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem on Friday, bringing bloodshed and chaos to a religious site that is sacred to both Jews and Muslims. According to Israeli police, the three attackers smuggled weapons into the mosque complex - which is known to Jews as the Temple Mount - and then burst out and opened fire on the officers early on Friday morning.
   3. CNN: The attack took place a little after 7 a.m. local time by the Lions' Gate in the Old City walls, next to what Muslims call the Noble Sanctuary and Jews the Temple Mount.
   4. ABC: Israeli media reports said the attackers opened fire near the place known to Jews as Temple Mount — the most holy site in Judaism — which is also the site of the Al Aqsa mosque..

(Incidentally my favourite newspaper in the world (Financial Times) and my favorite magazine in the world (The Economist), both use both names. They actually say the Al-Aqsa mosque compound. But anyway.)

I fully expect all of this to have zero effect on people who will continue to insist that black is white. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The media sources Kingsindian cites are sidelining the name "Temple Mount" because they are trying to sideline the whole topic, make it appear to be about some obscure mosque complex nobody knows about or should care about rather than it concerning a place almost everyone in the world has heard of. The BBC, as befitting its corporate agenda, shamelessly went the whole way and did not even bother to refer to the name Temple Mount at all in many of its later broadcast reports. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Indictment

I question this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Temple_Mount_shooting&diff=802753067&oldid=797021481 On the following grounds a) the persons were indicted today and the story is developing, b) while the names and photos of the accused have already spread in Israeli media, that is no reason for Wikipedia to pile on c) there is no reason not to let the legal process run its course, and if they are found guilty, or at least have stood trial, then include that information. Doesn't Wikipedia have policies for when arrests and indictments are reasonable to include, given the potential for harm such inclusion has? ImTheIP (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

They are kept unnamed, meeting BLP policy. They were arrested a while ago, the gag order was over today, so it is in the official media - but the case is already past the arrest and into court charges (and we mention arrests unnamed). Naming them on wiki (for non public figures) would be a problem.Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that there is international coverage as well now (and Israeli English) - eg [6]. I added the item here prior to this as itcrossed my desk as it was clear this would be highly notable and well covered.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I added the item here prior to this as it crossed my desk

Interesting. You have an official job in Israel dealing directly with news events? 'Cross my desk' in a context of information flows unambiguously means this.Nishidani (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Offtopic, but no (on a number of counts). I am connected to a number of newsfeeds - actually mostly not for Israel, but also, which I do "sit on" part of the day.Icewhiz (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)