Talk:October 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack

Saying it is in Israel is wrong
, East Jerusalem is regarded as occupied territory. Putting a place there with a cat that says it is in Israel is unacceptable. This is how it long has been reflected here in Wikipedia too but unfortunately, it has to be repeated often, as some insists to place it in Israel. NPOV doesn't mean we put both "in West Bank"-cats and "in Israel"-cats. In fact, this is in opposite to that because that would mean we take the Israeli view, rejected by the world, that it is "disputed". --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * East Jerusalem is disputed. Mentioning both wouldn't take Israeli view, it would take both since West Bank would still be mentioned. The incident in question was a terror attack against Israel. I would be perfectly happy to use a category that clarifies the distinction such as "Terrorist incidents against Israel in 2014". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All of Israel is disputed. Based on your argument you can go to the Haifa article and remove that it is "in Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a dispute but it is still regarded as occupied territory and therefore not a part of Israel. There are many disputes in the world but few are occupations. It's true that they were against Israelis but so were 2014 Alon Shvut stabbing attack and 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers. Israelis could be attacked from many places, not only in Israel, so of course saying it is "in West Bank" doesn't change that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe what he is saying is that East Jerusalem, unlike the rest of the West Bank, based on the Jerusalem Law, Jerusalem does not consider occupied under any definition. Its a valid argument based on that, however East Jerusalem is considered part of the West Bank. If people want more detail on whether or not the West Bank is in Israel, they can read the many articles written on WP that deal with that. Saying West Bank is NPOV, and then users can draw their own conclusions on whether or not the West Bank is Israel. - Galatz (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The dispute is regarding the legal status of East Jerusalem. De-facto it is quite undisputedly administered by Israel, populated by Israeli citizens and permanent residents so while de-juro this attack may have been in the West Bank, de-facto it was in Israel, hence both categories apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * De-facto it was not in Israel, De-facto it was in the Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * De facto it is controlled by Israel, not "in it". It does not change its legal status, which is military occupation. An annexation does not change that. Otherwise, every such problem could be "solved" with annexing that territory. That view is rejected by the world (including the UN Security Council, same with the situation on the Golan Heights). --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Anything in East Jerusalem is not 'Israel', as yet, by nearly universal understanding. It hasn't been annexed even under Israeli law.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So from nowhere comes "I invented it's not you, it's me"" and reverts, where he wrongly inserts that this is "in Israel". --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia still goes by what the international consensus is, and that is not that East jerusalem is in Israel. Saying "Everywhere in israel disputed" is simply not correct, Huldra (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * yawn* what do sources say? what does common sense say? can it be easily replicated without pissing on someone elses political beliefs?Cptnono (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Won't work. Jerusalem is a global city, so no news source is going to report "a terror attack in Jerusalem, Israel" (for example) no matter where they consider Jerusalem to belong. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I was wrong. Here is a source saying "Israeli police examine a car at the scene of what is believed to be an terrorist attack in Jerusalem, Israel". If there are sources saying that this attack was not in Israel we need to represent both POVs, but I couldn't find any so far - vast majority of the sources say simply "Jerusalem". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's wrong. Some source calling places in occupied territories "in Israel", including events like this, does not change the consensus that it is occupied territory. So no, it does not change if some news report says "it is in Israel". This is very clear and would otherwise be a clear violation of NPOV that I think is punishable. You can find sources that say Ariel, the Temple Mount, Old City of Jerusalem etc. is "in Israel" but that is still far from the consensus and unacceptable to state at Wikipedia. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking only on sites without apparent affiliation with Israel, "Jerusalem, Israel" is used by various weather sites, tourism sites, hotel sites. The consensus seems to be that for any practical purpose Jerusalem is in Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Jerusalem, Israel" gave "About 6,170,000 results"
 * "Jerusalem, Palestine" gave "About 240,000 results"
 * "Jerusalem, West Bank" gave "About 64,000 results"


 * That is a deeply flawed examination. It is also surprising considering that you know the issue about sovereignity, where discussion about it is taking place simultaneously at Template talk:Largest cities of Israel. While there is a dispute as a whole about Jerusalem, East Jerusalem is another issue because that is regarded as occupied territory (which can't be seen by searching like you did). Keep in mind that this this took place in Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem. There is indeed a consensus about Israeli-occupied territories and this is reflected at Wikipedia. Saying there is not such a consensus, and even the opposite, and that it can be said to be "in Israel" is totally unreasonable. That is why we don't say the Old City of Jerusalem is in Israel, that Kiryat Arba or Ariel is etc. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign, I'm on your side but technically, they are right. I would suggest creating a new category "Terrorist incidents in Israel and the West Bank" or "Terrorist incidents by Palestinians" that does not include geographical location (but then Israeli citizens won't be included). Ashtul (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing about East Jerusalem in general, but for this specific attack we have a source saying that it was in Israel.
 * If one wants to visit Jerusalem Old City, one would need to enter Israel and won't need to leave it, so de-facto it is in Israel.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It does not matter if some news report says that, as I wrote here above on 15:48, 28 February 2015. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As ridicules as it sounds to us, it seems like in Wikipedia in an attempt to stay neutral won't write Israel. It shouldn't be Palestine either (and it isn't). Ashtul (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding cats, there are Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups and it's parent Category:Palestinian terrorism. The first one is already used here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that Category:Terrorism in Jerusalem is there and it is a subcat to Category:Terrorism in Israel (though not also a subcat to Category:Terrorism in the Palestinian territories despite the eastern part being part of the occupied Palestinian territories). So that itself is a reason to not include the cat "in Israel". Not either "in the West Bank". But then I think the Palestinian territories should be a parent cat just like Israel is. So I will add it and the cat "in West Bank" here can be removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

In Israel??
Regarding edits like this: you know; there are, AFAK, literally hundreds of WP:RS sources which says that the number of killed  in the Deir Yassin massacre was 240. We now know that was wrong; the number was less than half. If I did the same silliness that I see is done on this page, then I would insist on the number "240" on the  Deir Yassin massacre -page. I don´t. So please, all of you: just stop wasting everyones time? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)