Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 1

Is Warsi English?
I am not sure why the Warsi episode is reported under the heading "England". Apparently we are talking about the legislative branch of Great Britain, not England. More specifically, it still has jurisdiction over Scotland, as well. Tkuvho (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. Tkuvho (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian reaction to attack
Some Palestinians, like Hamas, endorsed the attack. Others, like the Palestinian government, condemned it. (Additionally, Arab states like Bahrain also condemned it). It is very biased to mention endorsements without the condemnations. I've moved all the Palestinian reactions to the section on reactions.VR talk  03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"allah hu akbar" or "allah akbar"?
Usually the expression is quoted as "allah Akbar" in western sources, without the "hu". What's the source for the "hu"? Tkuvho (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that our article Takbir prefers the form "Allahu Akbar" which is still different from what appears in the massacre page. Tkuvho (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a pretty minor thing to try and focus on, don't you think? The kyle 3 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein massacred Muslims at prayer in Hebron how we forget the other terrorists


 * It's interesting how some individuals on this site will try to make every excuse for Baruch Goldstein's actions whilst at the same time pretending that whenever a Palestinian does anything, "it's just because of their implacable anti Semitism and their hate" or some kind of statement like that that's rooted in hyperbole. The kyle 3 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)(talk) 18:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Baruch Goldstein committed a horrific massacre. The kyle 3 is an aggressive, partisan, and uncivil editor.ShulMaven (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Shulmaven I don't think you have any ground whatsoever to accuse anyone else of being "partisan" or otherwise unbiased considering the sort of people that you associate with here on a regular basis.
 * You refer to the Palestinian West Bank as "Judea and Samaria"-- enough said, in my opinion, as to what you're about. The kyle 3 (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum and its not a place for a political argument. The only discussion should be on the question raised by the original posting user. Stop. - SantiLak  (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Reactions
I'm wondering (and I don't know what is usually done in other articles) if the reactions of US local/state officials (De Blasio and Cuomo) should be included- and to a lesser extent those of US Senators(at least they are federal officials). Local/state officials do not speak for the US Government as President Obama does. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Typically I only see national reactions unless it has a specific reason to include a governor or senator. For example, during Operation Protective Edge, several are mentioned throughout the articles because they went to Israel in support. I do not believe they were listed in reactions though. - Galatz (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the Baroness was included even though she is neither a president nor a prime minister. Tkuvho (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

how silent?
The "See also" section contains a link to Silent intifada. The title of that page is not very informative and in fact at first I had no idea what it was about. One of the redirect pages for that is Third intifada which is more informative. I changed the entry in "See also" to Third intifada but the change was reverted. The reader of this page is better served by a more descriptive link. Tkuvho (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am the one who redirected Third Intifada to Silent Intifada. Silent is the term most often used in the news right now which is why the title for the article is that. The reason I set up the redirect is because many people looking for information on a Third Intifada will mean the Silent Intifada at this point. People are also calling for a third one. The redirect makes sense. It is not in any way officially called that by Palestinians, Israelis or the media. Until that time Third Intifada doesn't really make sense. Silent isn't referencing the way people are attacking, just the fact that it hasn't officially been called for, its only silently been discussed. - Galatz (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, whether or not people are more likely to look for "silent intifada" than "third intifada" is precisely the question. Perhaps "potential but unofficial third intifada"? Tkuvho (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly acceptable to add explantory text after a see also link... Really, the article in question should probably be linked in a "background" section giving a brief overview of the recent rise in violence instead of buried in the see also section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Thad's point that it is perfectly acceptable to add explantory text after a see also link. As wp:seealso states: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed the paragraph on what the attackers allegedly "screamed"
I see no point in including this unless they actually made their motive for the attack clear in the verbal sense. There's no point in including "they shouted the takbir" because we all know that this isn't just some kind of spontaneous attack or rooted in theological rationale or anything like that. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Objection. In a hate crime, the words the perpetrators scream are absolutely pertinent.  This perp shouted  Allah hu'Akbar It is reliably sourced.  It belongs in the article.ShulMaven (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't a "hate crime". Again, unless the perpetrators said something specific as to their motives for carrying out the attack when they were doing so, then what they said or didn't say otherwise is not relevant. The kyle 3 (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What the attackers shouted is evidence to the reason they perpetrated the attack. Thus it is relevant. And as ShulMaven says, it is well sourced.Galastel (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Did the attackers shout anything in the way of specific rationale as to why they were carrying out the attack? You can pretend otherwise, being who you are and all, but we really both know that the takbir isn't "evidence" of any kind of specific rationale, being a generic slogan that hasn't any ultra-specific meaning to it. The attack was carried out because of the recent turmoil and especially because of Israeli actions towards Palestinians and Palestinian property/cultural-religious sites-- unless they were saying "this is for Al-Aqsa" or something similar, then there's nothing to show that what they were saying was or is relevant.The kyle 3 (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it is incredibly relevant. It shows it was religiously motivated. Was what the person who shot Yehuda Glick said to him right before shooting not relevant? Was the incident in Brooklyn today when a Jew was beat up on the subway while being called "Dirty Jew" not relevant to the beating? - Galatz (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, I fail to see how it's "incredibly" relevant. It is religiously motivated in the sense that it partially has to do with "settler" groups talking about "reclaiming" the temple mount and rebuilding over Muslim and Christian holy sites-- but the takbir has nothing to do with those specific reasons, being a perfectly generic religious slogan that crops up in multiple situations with multiple kinds of inflection in its use. The kyle 3 (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I doesn't matter what you think the WP:RS report it so that all what we need.--Shrike (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Shrike. - SantiLak  (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's funny. Regardless of the source, it doesn't change the fact that it's trying to make something out of nothing, as I keep saying. The kyle 3 (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does matter what I think, especially considering I'm interrupting your little circlejerk over this particular insertion into the article.


 * I find it funny that you're reporting me for "edit warring" because I'm changing different aspects of this article to sound more impartial-- but on the particular subject as hand, the issue of Israeli newspapers turning someone going "Allahu Akbar" into some kind of big stink doesn't change the fact that the takbir doesn't mean anything in the way of showing a motive for carrying out the attack. Once again, if the perpetrators said something specific, like stating that they were specifically taking revenge for Palestinians killed by Israelis, or the actions of the "settlers" towards the Palestinians in East Jerusalem, then that would be a different story all together. The kyle 3 (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to take a look at WP:CIVILITY and come back with a different attitude. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that embraces cooperation and following policy, not your desire to start political arguments or insult other editors. - SantiLak  (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You know, I don't think I will look at WP:CIVILITY, especially considering that not being civil isn't my problem just because Shulmaven alleges it is. If you're going to jump in accusing me of "starting political arguments"-- something that all the people waxing hard over this event as part of their pro-Israel position have been doing-- or "insulting" other editors, then you should at least read what I was writing here and respond properly to that. If you do care that much that you respond to me in other places, I mean. The kyle 3 (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I read what you wrote in the section above and you were clearly trying to start a political argument. By arguing reasonably over why material should or shouldn't be included is completely you wouldn't be doing anything wrong but you clearly aren't doing that, you are instead insulting other editors, ignoring rules on necessary sourcing, and refusing to engage in cooperative editing. - SantiLak  (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was clearly trying to "start a political argument" based on what evidence? Beyond disagreeing with Israeli Jewish editors who seem to think that referencing how the attackers said "Allahu Akbar" is some big breakthrough or somehow determines the motive, I mean.


 * Once again, saying that slogan alone doesn't mean or prove anything isn't "trying to start a political argument". It's stating a fact and nothing more-- barring the fact that we all know why this attack happened, because of the ongoing situation and especially because of the encroachment of the "settlers" and the maiming/killing of Palestinians by Israelis. Don't even try to pretend that the two sources they linked to that "necessary part of the article"-- the "Daily Mail" and the "NY Post"-- are anything close to useful, valuable sources, because they're tabloids. Don't try to pretend that the likes of Shulmaven or Galastel are remotely interested in "cooperative editing", because they're not. The kyle 3 (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I haven't been here for 24 hours yet, and already there's someone telling me what I am or am not interested in.Galastel (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well you already have gone on record in other talk pages in trying to portray any Palestinian violence against Israelis as being "anti Jewish bigotry" instead of anything else. No, it couldn't be because a boiling point has been reached or anything like that. It couldn't be because of "settler" and IDF violence against Palestinians and the abject disregard for Palestinian claims and Palestinian property-- it "has to be" baseless 'bigoted' violence. Do you see why I might start to think that you've got a specific line of thought to push? The kyle 3 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's relevant. First clue: it is reported by the RSs. So it is relevant to them -- for wp purposes, that trumps whether it is relevant to any wp editor. Second clue, of course while there are many uses of the phrase, it is often used as an Islamist (and sometimes Islamic) battle cry. Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Both of those RSs are tabloids, sensationalist publications that are pretty much held in very low regard when it comes to their status as newspapers. If the perpetrators are actually affiliated with the PFLP, as has been alleged, then the last thing you would expect them to be would be Islamists, considering that group is far-left and secularist. Again, I have to state that if what they were shouting is to be tied into their rationale for the attack, i.e. revenge for the abuses of the IDF and the "settlers", then you would think that something a lot more specific would have to go on record. The kyle 3 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The kyle 3 is not only the type of aggressive, foul-mouthed editor who gives editing on WP a bad reputation, he if disingenuous. If he truly believed that the fact that witnesses heard the attackers shout AllahuAkbar was poorly sourced, he would have googled it - not taken it to talk. Googling shows that it is in the morning after article in the Washington Post and several other reliable newspapers - including the New York Post which, like the Daily Mail, mixes screaming headlines, lurid photos and gossip with reliable news. The kyle 3 may in fact have a strategy here, one that I see used too often on WOP, to wit, drag out endless arguments on Talk pages to make it difficult for good editors with whom they disagree on political issues to edit.ShulMaven (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * @Kyle - they are RSs for this, and of course there are other RSs covering it, such as here. BTW - Kyle, have you ever edited wp under another name or as an IP? Epeefleche (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You consider that to be a really useful, relatively impartial source? I'm sure that one would go to town in trying to connect the attackers to Al Qaeda/ISIS if it got any chance to do so-- it's about as bad as any vapid tabloid prone to sensationalism/distortion. I'm curious as to why you would ask that question-- you're not from Toronto, by any chance? Are you someone I know? The kyle 3 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It is certainly an RS. That' what we look for. On the other side we have the POV of kyle. Your POV is not what drives the Project; rather it is what RSs say.
 * I ask whether you have ever edited wp under another name or as an IP, because you resemble an editor who has done so. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So the source doesn't matter, is what you're saying-- you can use worthless tabloids and something that's practically "news for proud Zionists" and the objectivity of the source doesn't matter at all. A big part of why I'm still going on about this, actually, isn't to do with "pushing my POV"-- it's because I still have no answer as to how the fact that they were allegedly shouting the takbir is relevant enough to the article-- because at this point, mentioning that and leaving it at that essentially makes it look like you're making a non-sequitur of some sort. The kyle 3 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, you can be sure that I do appreciate that kind of "endorsement" coming from someone like yourself. I have yet to see any evidence of undue aggressiveness or foul-mouthed language on my part-- although I agree that those who subscribe to Bibi and the Likud party are pretty "dirty", and it isn't something to be proud of. Speaking in seriousness, I find this obsession over someone saying "Allahu Akbar" and this idea that "it has to be evidence of the motive for the attack" to be pretty funny. Daily Mail and the NY Post will have mentioned it because they want to make it into something like "the evil Muslims attack the poor innocent Israeli Jews" and otherwise try to connect it to some kind of baseless Islamist action on par with what the Salafi Jihadi or Takfiri carry out-- which isn't the case in this case, by any standard.


 * There doesn't have to be "endless arguments" over this. I gave my rationale as to why it's not really relevant-- especially considering there's nothing more then "witnesses say that the attackers said this", and nothing in the way of justification for why that deserves to be mentioned. I can't stop the users who seem to be obsessed with shoe-horning it into the article, but I can state over and over again as to why it doesn't have any purpose in the article in question. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This has already been responded to. It is noteworthy because the RSs reflect it.  Just as we "keep" articles, on the basis of the fact that the RSs have covered the topic. We rely on them. Not on Kyle's - or any wp editor's - POV. You may not like how wp works, and think it should work differently, but your assertion that "nothing in the way of justification for why that deserves to be mentioned" is flatly incorrect, and has the potential of leading you to mislead others. Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The RSs, again, are, at best, tabloids. There is nothing in the way of expansion as to why the perpetrators shouting the takbir is noteworthy enough to be included in the article. Ok, they said it-- so what? Why would you mention it without going further in the article itself as to why it's noteworthy, unless you wanted to try to make it sound a certain way or to try and mislead people as to what the motive was? That is the main reason as to why I keep coming back to this-- the fact that they shouted the takbir doesn't mean anything specific. It's not the equivalent of a pack of Israeli Jews screaming "Am Yisrael Chai" as they beat Palestinians to death or something like that, that's for sure. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's completely bogus. This is covered by the Jerusalem Post, as has been pointed out to you, and other well-established RSs. That are obviously not tabloids. You've ventured into the ridiculous, and are quickly thereby losing credibility and your (rebuttable) presumption of good faith. Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. The three sources that I've seen are the Daily Mail (tabloid), the New York Post (tabloid), and some "Jewish news" website. Does the website cite the Jerusalem Post? This is all disregarding the fact, again, that just adding "the perpetrators were heard to be shouting 'Allahu Akbar" and leaving it at that adds absolutely nothing other then a chance for pro-Israel users to actively mislead people-- if anyone's going to try to claim that "Islamism" or "Jihadism" was the motive behind the attack, then I would have no trouble at all accusing them of lying shamelessly. The kyle 3 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Who were the Jamals?
Were Abed Abu Jamal and Ghassan Muhammad Abu Jamal Israeli citizens? Since they lived in East Jerusalem and at least one of them worked in Har Nof, there is a good chance they were. If so, they should be described as "Arab Israeli" rather than "Palestinian" in the article. Tkuvho (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Most Arab permanant residents of Jerusalem have a status of permanent resident and hold a "blue" ID card. Historically after East jerusalem was anexed the locals could get full citizenship but the large majority declined. DGtal (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not entirely clear if they had a blue card or an orange card because the neighborhood seems to have been split by the separation fence. If the Jamals indeed held blue cards a case could be made that they should be described as Israeli arabs rather than Palestinians. Tkuvho (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As Ian Lustick has shown, despite the endemic use of the word 'annexation', there has been to date no formal law passed in the Knesset annexing Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is not, in Israel nor international law, annexed to Israel. Like everything else affecting Arabs beyond the 67 lines, rule is more comfortable with the absence of clear_cut laws.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is possible that rule of law is thus facilitated as you say, though the purchase of axes and meat knives is also facilitated through payment of social benefits afforded by a blue card. Tkuvho (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh really, how nicely offensive.I heard the almost exactly the same remark from a senior Detroit motor executive about 'n....rs' in 1963. what rule of law is it that allots 12% of the municipal budget to Arabs who constitute a third of the city's population and pay taxes, but have no proportional representation? The drop out rate from high school where Israel ostensibly rules in East Jerusalem is 40%, as compared to 1% wherever Palestinians are allowed to organize their own realities.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Returning to the subject of this section it seems the most appropriate characterization of the Jamal duo is "East Jerusalem Arabs", since "Israeli arabs" is not entirely correct and "Palestinians" makes it sound as though they live in PA-controlled area. Tkuvho (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

POV tag
After losing an argument, ThaddeusB slapped a POV tag on the article. Sans explanation. If there are POV issues, bring them to talk.ShulMaven (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is still open. The tag alerts people of that. As an involved party, you certainly do not get to decide those who disagree with you should shut up now.  I didn't "lose" anything - Wikipeida is not a battleground.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He did clearly mention above why he put the tag on the article as well. This is getting quiet a bit out of hand, which is why I suggest a neutral party should be involved - Galatz (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no way ThaddeusB could have lost an argument in the 16 hours that this article has existed. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - An involved party in a dispute should never determine consensus in order to justify their preferred version of the article's title. That is just simply wrong. Having said that, I don't think the NPOV tag is justified either, I think the Disputed title tag is better suited in this instance, as it is the title that is in dispute, rather than the content in the article. Isaidnoway  (talk)  03:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A reasonable request; I have changed the tag. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not clear why there are two POV tags on the article right now: one general POV and the other specifically for the title. I don't see much content disagreement with regard to the article itself and will therefore remove the general POV tag. Tkuvho (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like added it w/o explanation.  As such, removign is justified - no one can respond to an unexplained accusation of POV. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This whole article has POV problems, the name, for instance, and use of clearly biased and unreliable sources. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The name is already tagged as disputed and is being discussed above (feel free to express your view in that conversation). As to "clearly biased and unreliable sources" you are going to have to be specific.  Again, people can't respond (or correct bias) if you aren't specific. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By now User:Natty4bumpo has added the general POV tag a second time, again without explanation. Usually the placement of a POV tag is a request for improvement of the article, but in this case one gets the impression that the tag expresses disagreement with either the existence of the page or its damaging message. Tkuvho (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2nd POV tag should be removed immediately. POV tags are being used too often as a means of discrediting well-sources, reliable information. Too often a POV tag is a WP way of saying IDONTLIKEIT.ShulMaven (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A POV tag is not a matter for debate once it has been placed, certainly not the same day. If it is removed before the dispute is resolved, the editor who does so is in violation of Wikipedia policy. I have referred this matter to an administrator. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Administrator, please note that while one of the comments above is signed by Chuck Hamilton none appeared to be signed by NattyBumo who appeared to have stuck a POV tag on the page with no explanaiton. And that the explanation that I now perceive to be by Hamilton/Bumppo is a vague assertion about RS made to a developing story that several of us have been working diligently to make both NPOV and RS.ShulMaven (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to NPOV dispute, "you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article... In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time". Since their has been no listing of any specific problems with the article (besides the title, which has a separate tag), the removal of the tag is justified. Inkbug (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is no just cause to add a tag without indicating specifically why the tag was added. Otherwise, it would be impossible for anyone to deal with the problem effectively. This is not saying that the tag might not be warranted or reasonable, but that adding it without indicating why it is added is not acceptable. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note also that this article is under the WP:1RR rule, and it seems that Chuck Hamilton has violated this rule, by reverting at least twice. Inkbug (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Plus, I looked at Chuck Hamilton's recent edits and can see that he has asked an editor named DougWellwer who, as far as I can tell has not yet edited this article, to come and weigh in on the POV issue. Hamilton/Bumpo has not so invited other editors, only DougWeller.ShulMaven (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I am not under any kind of restriction, I fall into the usual category of 3RR, which I have reached. Furthermore, the 3RR rule doesn't really apply when changes being reverted were done in violation of Wikipedia policy.  I have already referred the matter to an administrator; which Doug is, in fact, not merely an editor. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (e-c) I came here because of seeing the note on Doug's talk page. Doug is one of our best and generally most level-headed admins, and he would be a good person to contact in such matters. Regarding the 1RR ban, the note on Doug's page indicates to me that the violation of that ban might have been more due to incompetence than malice, and Natty4bumpo's comment there about 3RR indicates that he wasn't aware of the 1RR restriction of this page, so as an individual I would be myself maybe inclined to not take him to the appropriate noticeboard for such incidents, which in this case might be either WP:AN3 or WP:AE, if the mistake doesn't repeat itself. But that clearly is only one opinion, and a non-admin one at that. And I urge Bumpo to read the template at the top of this page, which indicates that the article is under 1RR for any editor, whether they are currently under any sort of sanctions themselves or not. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering. All this talk and the POV tag is still on the page giving visitors who come to Wikipedia for the short course on a complex news story the impression that this is an unreliable article. And for all of his arguments, Bumpo/Hamilton has still not offered a reason or example of the biased editing he alleges.ShulMaven (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm down folks and feel free to contribute constructive comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Violation_of_1RR_rule_by_User:Natty4bumpo Tkuvho (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like his edit warring has resulted in a block. Would it now be considered safe to remove the tag? - Galatz (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the tag can be removed, as long as the remover hasn't reverted anyone in this article in the last 24 hours. Inkbug (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ?? Is that the rule? That you can only revert one thing in a given article in 24 hours? I thought that you could not revert the same thing twice?ShulMaven (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also thought that I was enacting a revert that had a consensus behind it. Now I am being threatened by Editor:DougWeller with a topic ban. I suppose that I ought to get myself a Wikilawyer, or go to Wikilawyering school, or whatever.ShulMaven (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". However, in all articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict (and certain other articles as well), one may revert only once every 24 hours. Inkbug (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , you need to look at the template at the top of the page, which rather clearly states that 1RR applies to this page. And I also think that you might be misstating the case in saying anyone is thinking of applying a topic ban. So far as I can tell, you are being considered for the same sort of short-term sanction that Hamilton got. If ignorance of the guideline wasn't sufficient for him, it arguably shouldn't be for you either. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Speculations about motives
Last line of the Perpetrators and Motives section reads "Speculation circulated in the Israeli media that the attack might have been motivated by a desire to avenge the Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, since the father of the prime suspect in that case is a rabbi who heads the Kollel in Har Nof." The reference for this statement is a link to a blog. Is a blog considered a verified source, that can be used as reference? Particularly, is it a verified source for a statement about speculations? And are speculations noteworthy at all?Galastel (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Every Israeli who reads newspapers knows that this is what is being discussed in the community concerned. The article by Sigal Samuel and Yael Even Or gives several links to the Haredi and other websites where this is discussed. Much of the detail can be 'verified' by following the Hebrew links. The Forward is a reputable journal and hosts reporters who do not in this case write in a personal blog (WP:SPS), i.e., express their personal views, (for which they are not cited) but rather cover a part of the "conversation" in Israel which other sources so far fail to transmit. The content given is perfectly on topic.Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to use a blog to make this point. A blog is not a WP:reliable source and in this case the blog is commenting on the many reputable sources that say the point. Just report the connection and use the best couple of refs. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Jordanian government praises the massacre and honors the murderers as martyrs
Information about the Jordanian government's response to the heinous terrorist attack should be noted in the article, as Jordan has a treaty with Israel. *Jordanian MPs hold moment of silence for two Palestinian terrorists -- Lawmakers read Koran in memory of cousins who perpetrated deadly Jerusalem synagogue attack, hail them as ‘martyrs’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.132.227 (talk • contribs)
 * Agree. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course.ShulMaven (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Honest reporting a reliable and notable source?
This was inserted using [www.honestreporting.com Honest Reporting] as a source. That is a pretty biased sourced. To me it seems that if a fact is only sourced by Honest Reporting, and no one else in the world, it's probably not notable enough to be in wikipedia. In fact, the source is just trying to make a huge deal out of nothing. Consider that it also: I suggest we not use that particular source. If a media error is notable, it will be mentioned in a more reliable source, like the Jerusalem Post.VR talk  03:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * criticizes Reuters for referring to the attack as “suspected” in the early hours (Reuters later removed that term)
 * criticizes BBC for attributing the label of "terrorist attack" to the police, as opposed to stating it without attribution
 * it should be noted that what BBC did is inline with our policies, as we don't treat the term "terrorist" as fact, but rather say, "X is terrorist according to Y".
 * I have removed the ifno attributed to HonestReporting. The site has a declared POV and should not be treated as a neutral source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that a reliable source is not required to be neutral (see WP:BIASED). The fact that HonestReporting is pro-Israel can be mentioned in the article, but that doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source. Inkbug (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Non-neutral sources should only be used with caution, and always require attribution, which was not done here. (I did not comment on reliability, you'll note.) Additionally, if no better sources are available then the item in question is almost certainly not worth mentioning.  (In the specific case that was removed, a better source was found making the argument moot.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But anti-Semitic hate sites like Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada are used in hundreds of articles. Double standards, anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.132.227 (talk • contribs)
 * - I seriously doubt that is true. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see here and here for stats regarding those two websites. At a rough count, Electronic Intifada is used in around 140 articles, and Mondoweiss is used in around 50 articles. Inkbug (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Mondoweiss itself, describes itself ... "Mondoweiss--The War of Ideas in the Middle East" as "a blog." Clearly a POV blog. Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Being highly partisan does not necessarily mean being unreliable. Honest Reporting is comparable to many larger NGOs that take strong, even strident political positions. (Planned Parenthood, The Sierra Club, even the NAACP are partisan.  But they pride themselves on disseminating highly reliable information, and that information is  widely regarded as reliable, even by their political opponents.ShulMaven (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: at the end of the section, add the sentence "HonestReporting, a pro-Israel NGO, documented a number of other cases of media bias in reporting the massacre, including mistakes and inaccuracies by BBC, Reuters, and CBS News .". What does everyone think? Inkbug (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I endorse Inkbug's excellent and sensible proposal.ShulMaven (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If attributed as such, it is not problematic, although it should have the word "perceived" in front of media bias - it is certainly not a given that errors occurred because of bias. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I have flagged the "media coverage" section as unbalanced. Reporting on the errors is fine, but the section should go beyond that, and cover (for example) organizations cited as making especially good coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

PFLP Responsibility
The PFLP did not "immediately claim responsibility". The only source included explicitly states "There is as of yet no claim of responsibility for the synagogue attack."

Kellyabt94 (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I removed the citation, along with the claim. Another source added does claim that the PFLP has claimed responsibility, but I find these claims dubious, considering there has been no mention on the official PFLP website, which is updated frequently. I'll wait for further deliberation.Kellyabt94 (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ummm ... an editor is not allowed to delete a New York Times ref, and the text it supports, based on the editor's POV. The RS need not mention the PFLP website -- it's an RS. The editor is ... just an editor. It is considered vandalism when an editor deletes RSs and RS-supported text without an appropriate reason. Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove a New York Times article. I removed a TimesofIsrael source, which explicitly stated the opposite of a claim that another user added on the page, but nice try. You can cite vandalism as much as you want, but your bias is incredibly clear and your accusation completely baseless.Kellyabt94 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

united nations on despicable terrorist attack
At http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49389#.VG77ix8UGmY the united nations security council condemned the Subject: Apparently therefore "terrorist" is no longer a POV term when it comes to describing the Jamal duo. I will correct the lede accordingly. Tkuvho (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

RS?
Is the Middle East Eye ref that was added an RS? Also, while the article presented two sides, the editor who made the posting presented only one side of it. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly give some more details on what is going on? The article is getting to be so long that it is hard to place the issue you raised.  Which section is it in, at the very least? Tkuvho (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

attempt at whitewashing
Please comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ben_Wedeman#attempt_at_whitewashing Tkuvho (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

demonstrations in Gaza
There were demonstrations in Gaza with Palestinians carrying portraits of the Jamal cousins and axes of the type used in the massacre. Should this be included? Tkuvho (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems important to me.Galastel (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This might belong in the lede as well but I have had trouble even getting the security council in there, so I would need explicit help with getting it in there. Tkuvho (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources that might help:
 * Fox News: Palestinians celebrate 'lone-wolf' attack on Jerusalem synagogue
 * Jerusalem Post: Palestinians in Gaza celebrate terror attack at Jerusalem synagogue
 * MEMRI TV from Al-Jadid/New TV (Lebanon): Palestinians in Gaza and Lebanon Celebrate Jerusalem Synagogue Terror Attack
 * The last one actually shows the celebrations, so there's no alleged there. I'm not sure how to best write about this, though.--Galastel (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A gun?
The current lede states that the assailants had "a gun", implying that there was only one gun. This is consistent with a headline in a Canadian newspaper. Is it accurate that the Jamals had only one gun? Tkuvho (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * New York Times here also say "a gun". However, I don't know whether it's accurate. In Israel, early reports said "a gun", but later reports just talked about gunfire, so there might have been more than one. Early reports are often confused and imprecise.--Galastel (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Found some more info: Fox News in the video here goes on for some length about how, thanks to tight Israeli security, the terrorists couldn't get their hands on more than one gun, and for that reason attacked with meat cleavers. So yes, one gun confirmed. --Galastel (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Biased against Palestinians
This article is clearly a product of anti-Palestinian editors supporting Israelis in what they are doing against the defenselss Palestinian people in West Bank. I demand cleansing and neutralizing this scandalous article.--88.88.208.185 (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Using categories like "Islamic terrorism" and "Palestinian terrorism" is unacceptable in The Free Encyclopedia.--88.88.208.185 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if this is trolling or not. You just inappropriately blanked categories and sections on other articles so I am going to assume that your recent edits to this article could be an error (I'm not touching anything involving if the city is in Israel or not). Regardless, the categories are according to sources.Cptnono (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We should not use Israelis sources. Removing texts on other articles has nothing to do with this.--88.88.208.185 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We can continue the discussion at your talk page about the other edits (you're right, it is the correct venue). However, sources from Israel can be reliable. There are also sources from other parts of the world that say the same things for the most part so it should work out just fine.Cptnono (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as user 88.88.208.185's demand [of] cleansing and neutralizing this scandalous article as well as the "defenseless" Palestinians, unfortunately the Security Council did not mention anything about the defenseless disenfranchised Palestinian youths also known as the Jamal cousins. Instead, the Security Council strongly implied that they are terrorists through a scandalous headline mentioning a "despicable terrorist attack". As soon as the Security Council issues a correction, we will be able to incorporate it into this page, as well.  Tkuvho (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Murder is murder, but murderers are still human beings. If one uses "terrorist" only to apply to Palestinians or Muslims, then it is an ethnic slur. As such, it should be removed and replaced with something like "assailant." Auroraz7 (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Murder, like other human actions, can be characterized. Some murders are assassinations, some are Hate crimes some are acts of terrorism committed by terrorists.ShulMaven (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A pointer on language. Some acts of terrorism are committed by terrorists,(meaning they are professionals with a background in terroristic operations), and some acts of terrorism are committed by people who, by that fact, become or define themselves as terrorists. It's a slight but important distinction in POV terms. Most of the articles in the mainstream Israeli press define terrorists as anyone belonging to an organization designated as 'terrorist', and Hamas militants are regularly gunned down as 'terrorists', even though the evidence for their terrorism apparently consists in firing mortars or beanpole rockets over the border.Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that any bias claims be backed up with diffs, lest we get dragged down into a discussion of the underlying event. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with the incident being labelled an act of terrorism and the perpetrators terrorists, but editors arguing in favour of doing it should bear in mind that the onus is on them to produce persuasive arguments why the Contentious Labels section of the Manual of Style should not be applied here. They might also like to look at the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre and Baruch Goldstein articles as points of comparison.    ←   ZScarpia  18:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the consensus was that Goldstein was a terrorist, but he's become a murderer since I last looked at the article. Whatever the case, wiki editors must be coherent. I don't feel strongly either way, but I prefer murderer because 'terrorist' these days means that what you do is done in the name of some group or ideology subscribing to violence. Goldstein belonged to a terrorist group, and acted as a Kahanist. Many of these people have vague liens to militant groups but appear to murder out of some savage rancor on the day, planned or otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to the Wikipedia article on terrorism. The notion of referring to these men as terrorists, when similarly motivated others on the Israeli side or with different agendas (e.g. white supremacy) are not, smacks of objectification and ethnic bias. Were these people part of an organized group that plotted these murders in advance? There is no evidence to suggest this was the case. Unless the term is has a stable definition and is used, consistent with that definition, across time and space, then it should not be used at all. Presently, it is used, almost uniquely, to describe Muslims from the Middle East. Thus, it is simply an ethnic slur that has no place in this article and is in clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV standard. Auroraz7 (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Media coverage
Since this item is nominated for the front page, I have hidden the section media coverage until the tag is resolved. Otherwise the item will never be posted. (We could also use closure on the massacre/attack debate. I have to say I am surprised the option "murders" wasn't presented, which is neutral and less controversial than massare.) In any case, people can still edit the media coverage section, they just shouldn't unhide it until the WP:ITN nomination is approved or fails, or consensus on the section is reached. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The very purpose of tagging something is to let readers and editors see it so that the issue can be resolved. Spud770 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Readers and editors can see it on this talkpage. Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just cleaned up the section to more or less the way it was before the tag.Spud770 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The reference to an alleged apology from CNN should be removed unless somebody can provide a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. WP:PROVEIT The apology appears to have never really happened. It was indirectly cited in many online articles, but that does not meet Wikipedia's standard for verifiability. 207.244.173.138 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Althought "We regret" conveys the same meaning as "apologize" I have taken "apologize" out and let the CNN statement "We erred and regret the mistake" speak for itself. 3 reliable sources directly quoting CNN spokesman.ShulMaven (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the citations actually cites the other citations. (The Hollywood Reporter).  The other two refer to an alleged statement issued by CNN that cannot be found anywhere.  It doesn't seem to have really happened.  It cannot be directly cited.  From WP:PROVEIT: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups" Don't worry though, I'll stop objecting to the inclusion of the unverifiable statement.  I've made my point. 207.244.173.138 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * au contraire When reporters quote spokesmen, we cite the news report.ShulMaven (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The apology is quoted by at least two reliable sources; there's no reason to delete it. And had CNN posted it on their own website, it wouldn't have been an ideal source anyway. See. WP:PRIMARY. 47.18.201.58 (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair point, thanks for the WP:PRIMARY reference. I still personally have doubts that the apology ever occurred but I yield. 207.244.173.138 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The entire "media coverage" section should be removed. It is a non-story manufactured by PR people for political purposes. For example, This section of the article is 100% Public Relations. Wikipedia should not take the bait by publishing it. To do so would simply lend credibility to a "story" of no substance, while harming Wikipedia's credibility. Auroraz7 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The information on Ben Wedeman is completely incorrect. I saw the news break late Tuesday night. You can, too, on the Wayback Machine.
 * Apparently, he heard a bulletin on the Israeli Government radio channel, checked the info and phoned it in. In his first report, he quoted the broadcast; he was not yet on the scene. If you watch his coverage from the scene, you will see that there is absolutely nothing his coverage of the event that suggests bias.
 * Although Mr. Wedeman has been roundly criticized over an early, erroneous headline ("Deadly Attack on Jerusalem Mosque") he neither wrote nor posted it. Reporters do not write the banners that appear on TV. That is done by producers and editors at the network. . On Mr. Wedeman's public twitter feed, he indicates that he did not write it. . Indeed, the site honestreporting.com, which describes itself as "Defending Israel from media bias" describes the headline as a "gaffe on the part of CNN producers."
 * The person who wants to get Wedeman's pass revoked (Yossi Dagan) is not an "Israeli Government Official." He's the media liaison for the Shomrom Regional Council, an organization that serves settler communities on the Occupied West Bank. In short, he is neither a "government official" nor an unbiased source.
 * The references cited for "media bias" are not references at all: they simply point to articles about how angry Mr. Dagan is, quoting him extensively but providing no data to support anything other than this: Mr. Dagan is angry.
 * Whether the section should exist is debatable - it is certainly not inconceivable that balanced description of a media coverage could add to the article. What is not debatable is that the section is unbalanced as is.  It only presents one (minority) point of view.  Errors in breaking news coverage are neither unusual, nor indication of bias, yet this section is nothign more than a veiled attempt to say that bias occurred.  A proper section would cover more than just a few errors and the subsequent accusations the errors were the result of bias.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section should be removed. Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC) withdrawing objection because of improvements to section, see below. Coretheapple (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't start the section, I did see it and brought better sourcing. Alan Johnson is no PR flack, he is a heavyweight political theorist and British public intellectual. he addressed the coverage of this incident in a major British daily.  The issue seems to have gotten pretty wide coverage.  And while Wiipedia doesn't run press releases, it does include sections on issues that are being covered in the press.ShulMaven (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the media coverage section is problematic and should be removed. It is essentially original research and synthesis. There needs to be more coverage of the coverage before this section is justified. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC) withdrawing objection because of improvements to section, see below. Coretheapple (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Auroraz7 (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is inappropriate to include inaccurate, defamatory information about an individual, e.g. Mr. Wedeman, in a Wikipedia article. To do so lends credibility to partisan attacks on a journalist (one who has received multiple Emmy's, Edward R. Murrow, and a Peabody award for the quality of his work) for simply doing his job. In fact, Wedeman is the person who first broke the story. Yossi Dagan, whose demand for revocation of Wedeman's press pass gave rise to this kerfuffle is PR "media liaison" for a settler organization on the Occupied West Bank. He was doing his job, too - but his job involves the selling of a particular point of view. He succeeded - lots of outlets picked up the story, but they failed to do theirs, since they did not check the facts. It is my understanding that Wikipedia does not regard faux controversies as appropriate for its pages.
 * Reporters do not write the banners that appear onscreen. They rarely even see them, since they are in the field and the headlines are written in the network office.
 * Moreover, glitches in the wording of headlines happen. Such glitches do not necessarily imply motive or intent (sometimes they do imply incompetence, though). If they did, just about every major news story aired would be accompanied by at least one similarly content-free flap.
 * User:Jytdog has done a pretty good job of focusing the media coverage section. I think that's the kind of direction it needs to go in. Coretheapple (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you core. my attention was brought to the Ben Wedeman article by a posting at BLPN Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and i took a shot at fixing that and then just flowed over here. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you did nice work on a thorny issue. I've withdrawn my objection to the section as a result of your improvements. Coretheapple (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * * Post-hoc comment. I edited the text for coherence, readability, and neutrality -- also provided some references. Then, I remembered that I should have written about doing that here first. I apologize. This is only my second episode of editing in Wikipedia (the first was 4 years ago), and my Wikepedia etiquette is, it seems, exceptionally rusty. I apologize for my error and promise I will catch on quickly. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Yours in humility, Auroraz7 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * nothing wrong with being bold! just always be ready to discuss if you are reverted. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Even though I've made edits, I still think this entire section should be axed. The article concerns the attack on the Synagogue, not various peoples' opinions of the news coverage. The flap has already died; let's let it rest in peace. Auroraz7 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On balance, though it's improved, I tend to agree with you that the media coverage section does not add much value, and at the current time is disproportionate in size. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've cut back on the size of the section, with a special effort to remove the excessive focus on CNN, which is still mentioned but no longer ragging on CNN in WP:COATRACK fashion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Falsification of events by selective source use
Epeefleche. As you have restored the text, it falsifies the facts by selective use of some reports, and repression of reports that contradict the text you approve of. Here are just three sources which state a position that conflicts with what you say is a 'fact', showing that RS were by no means convinced that the PFLP's various statements claim, as you assert they did, responsibility.

(1)Khaled Abu Toameh, ‘Palestinian terror group PFLP: To early talk about responsibility for 'heroic' synagogue attack Jerusalem Post 18 November 2014

"Conflicted reports emerged in the Palestinian media about a Palestinian terror group claiming responsibility for the deadly attack at a Jerusalem synagogue on Tuesday. A spokesman for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) stated that it was 'premature' to talk about his organization's responsibility for the attack he labeled as 'heroic.'"

(2) Synagogue attack: Israel vows retribution, demolishes Palestinian homes Al-Araby 19 Novermber 2014

"It was initially reported that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) had claimed the attack, but the group later denied that, stating that they had merely supported those who carried it out.'We bless the operation and the two young men who carried it out,' said Jamil Mizher, the leader of the PFLP, to al-Araby al-Jadeed.'But we have not received any confirmation that it was planned by the PFLP, even though it was consistent with the history of the PFLP,' Mizher said."

(3) Ben Cohen, Overlooked Palestinian terror group returns with a vengeance Sun-Sentinel 24 November 2014 "the PFLP didn't explicitly claim responsibility for the atrocity at the synagogue in the Har Nof neighborhood, it did laud the attack while describing the two assailants, cousins Ghassan and Odai Abu Jamal, as 'PFLP comrades.'"

You know as well as I do that when reports are conflicted, one cannot responsibility edit one version while eliding the other side without engaging in a WP:NPOV violation, which is what has happened here. I suggest you rewrite your edit to reflect the conflict in sources.Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)