Talk:2017 Amman incident

Flaws

1-The attack was not inside the embassy, but in an apartment.

2-It is still unconfirmed if this was an attack.

3-Zero sources mention that the landlord stood next to the attacker.

The naming of the article should be reconsidered. Maybe "2017 Amman incident" until more confirmed details emerge. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The apartment is part of the embassy compound - adjacent and under the same security umbrella. This is well sourced. In any event the on going siege is at the embassy.Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

See - [1] (which actually doesn't distinguish), [2], [3]. The correct terminology in my opinion (from the sources) is embassy compound. The attack was not in the embassy proper, but was in the compound. I wouldn't change the title (did change text just now)- adding compound just makes this longer and since the event spilled over in any event into the embassy itself (with the current siege/standoff) the distinction is a bit moot. If the siege develops to something really serious (and not resolved by agreement today/tonight) - it might become the focus of the article, but that's TOOSOON/CYRSTALBALL now.Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

These are preliminary reports. near the Amman embassy compound. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

No. They are all from today. Preliminary was yesterday. The sources differ. Some say in the embassy. Some say in embassy compound. Some say adjacent to the embassy compound. I can tell you that my knowledge of the arrangements there (which are based on RS, but I will have to look) - the residential quarters are very near and under the same security umbrella. This is a very "tight" situation - which is typical for diplomatic missions (Israeli and non-Israeli) in areas with security concerns.Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The embassy is 1 kilometer away from me, I have been there several times and there's no solid ground to what you are claiming. Don't take my word for it, as I am not going to take your word. Then if the sources differ then we should represent all of them, not like now. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You can see a description of this from earlier this year here (Hebrew) - [4]. The Israeli embassy staff are basically "holed up" inside the residence+embassy pretty much 24/7 - they don't leave. The streets around were also fenced off - [5]. Sources from today - are all over the place here regarding the description of the residence. Do we have a street address for the residence (in a Jordanian source perhaps)? That might clarify the question somewhat. In any event - regardless of where the apartment is located exactly - the event has spilled over into the embassy itself (the siege/standoff).Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you twisting around? If there are sources claiming that this did not occur on or in the embassy, why have the title "on the embassy"? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not twisting around. It is all over the place - including some RSes from today saying at the embassy proper (which I believe is wrong). Here's aljazeera's English description: Two Jordanians have been killed and an Israeli wounded by gunfire in a residential building in the heavily fortified Israeli embassy compound in Jordan's capital Amman, the kingdom's Public Security Directorate said.[6]. They place place the residential building as part of the compound - which is my understanding from the sources I know (all fenced off (or were fenced off)) - But I haven't been in Amman recently, so I'm relying on sources here.Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand there are sources claiming so, but there are sources claiming otherwise. [7], [8], [9], a few as example. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hala (looking via google-translate) - "guard's apartment in the building of the embassy in Amman" (this doesn't contradict this is part of the compound - supposedly part of the embassy building - but google-translate might be off here). Haaretz - "The guard at the Israeli Embassy in Amman was stabbed on Sunday by a Jordanian carpenter who was installing furniture in his apartment near the embassy compound." (this does - near the compound, but not part of the compound). BBC - "An Israeli guard has shot dead a Jordanian who attacked him with a screwdriver next to the Israeli embassy in Jordan, Israeli officials say." (so next to embassy - but does not contradict part of the compound). We could footnote all the various formulations or say in the text "variously described as in the embassy, part of the embassy compound, or near the embassy".Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a landlord killed, cannot be a part of the embassy compound. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious this is a rented apartment if there was a landlord. Note however that embassies can be rented (I actually sit next to a couple of rented embassies in my office building). Regarding if this is part of the embassy compound - that an amorphous subject matter. The main embassy building is usually well defined. But if you have a spillover into an adjacent building or across the street... And you have a security cordon surrounding all these locations - the adjacent locations are often seen as part of the same compound. I suspect the inconsistent reporting might be due to the amorphousness of compound.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I attribute the inconsistencies to the incompetent government spokespersons. Anyway, I think now it is fine for the time being. I find the content about the Ultraorthodox Jews being barred prayer extraordinary. No sources mention this. Can you research that in Hebrew? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Could be. I added a second source for the prayer restriction/crackdown. Note that the Jordanian alleged persecution of Jews is not entirely new - actions against Jewish paraphernalia (such as a kipa - Jewish skullcap) has been reported (at least in the crossings) - for several years now (a quick check now - back to 2010). See for instance (and these are leasing Israeli RSes): [10] [11] [12] [13].Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Added third source. Israeli ministry of foreign affairs also gave a response to the traveler's claims to 2 RSes. I can say with certainty this is alleged to have happened and the allegations were fairly widely published in Hebrew RSes. Whether this actually happened as alleged - well. I did modify the text so it will be clear this is an alleged occurrence.Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral name as for now

Given the discussion upper about the uncertainty of current information, I renamed the article into a neutral, fully accurate name. As information is gathered, different parties express their points and information become more reliable, more details can be put into the article's title.

Yug moved page 2017 attack on the Israeli Embassy in Amman to 2017 Amman incident.

See talk page. Nor the attack nature, nor the exact location (Ambassy?) are clear at the moment.

--Yug (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Jim Michael renamed the article into 2017 Amman attack. I disagree. The current event is few hours old. It may well be a disagreement turned into fight and shooting. "Attack" suggest we already know who started the violence, which, event with current sources, is really not trustable enough. With "Attack", Wikipedia takes a side. "Incident" would be safer in these early hours. --Yug (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources saying it wasn't an attack? In any case, the original title was too long. Jim Michael (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I note that : 1) most sources are from Israeli newspapers ; 2) Reuter, a respected international source, uses the word "shooting", citing the Israeli government claim it is an "attack" but itself refusing to take side as of now. We should do as well. --Yug (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Reuter, AFP, and AP have journalism standards far above other medias, as their role is to do very neutral reporting that news organisations then rewrite according to their own will and public. Yug (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we should have "Israeli Embassy" in the name. The uncertainty of the location of the of embassy's rented apartment (in or next to) the compound - is really minor to the whole incident. First off since the apartment rented by the embassy (so - an official residence) is part the embassy's operation. And in wider context - this has resulted in a diplomatic standoff between Israel and Jordan and the Israeli embassy personnel being under siege inside the embassy proper. What makes this incident "interesting" - is the diplomatic angle. And in any case - this involves Israeli embassy staff. Regarding "attack" - the current sources support this - all sources agree the Israeli guard was attacked - there is speculations as to why (and varying opinions - from a dispute about money - to the Temple mount) as well as questions by some regarding his response to the attack (in regarding to yes/no attack - we need to look at reports from today (the 24th) and not from yesterday (23rd) when the initial reports were very unclear (and then it was a shooting, with an unclear background). However I don't really feel "strongly" either way about "attack" - as what is "interesting" about the whole event is the subsequent diplomatic standoff.Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)*

Being in the embassy implies immunity. Being around is different. The title cannot just says "embassy". As of now, we haven't enough certainty. --Yug (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, the fact that Reuter (high journalism standard) is cautious about using the word "attack" while Israeli papers (they have skin and readers in the game!) are the main source for "attack" let me think that the attack is very much an interpretation as of now. Yug (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Diplomatic personnel have immunity outside of the embassy. You can read the sources here - Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or alternatively the complaints from NYC about unpaid parking tickets by UN delegation staff... The embassy (and at times also additional locations associated with the diplomatic mission) is accorded additional protections - "inviolable and must not be entered by the host country" per article 22, however immunity is granted by article 29 to all diplomats belonging to a mission regardless of where they are - "Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. They are immune from civil or criminal prosecution, though the sending country may waive this right under Article 32.". Whether the incident occurred inside or outside the embassy has no bearing on immunity and seeing that the guard relocated inside the embassy proper - he is further protected by article 22. What makes all this relevant - is that he was a member of the Israeli embassy. If it was "just a stabbing/shooting" - it really wouldn't have been that interesting (maybe notable, maybe not)! Regarding attack vs. incident - there are non-Israeli sources - e.g. [14]. Note that even if the guard is at fault (say "being crazy" and shooting at random) - it is still an attack (attack by itself doesn't imply a direction). Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Against putting the Israeli embassy in the title, the embassy was not attacked so that is misleading. Icewhiz is insisting on calling this an attack on Israeli diplomats, even though two Jordanian were killed. Why not call this an attack on Jordanian citizens? The investigations are not over yet, and you are starting to take sides. The official being immune has nothing to do with this being an attack or not. "2017 Amman incident" is the most neutral title for the time being. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

If we rename to 2017 Israeli Embassy in Amman Incident - we do not make any call in the title regarding who attacked who and why - but we do make clear that this an incident involving the Israeli embassy in Amman.Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Not the entirety of the embassy was involved in the shoot out. Also, name would imply that the Amman incident was multidimensional. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the most common name that the media are using to describe this? Jim Michael (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

On the 23rd it was the embassy shooting (and coverage was very unclear as to where this was). Today, the 24th, in the morning it shifted to attack (yesterday - there were no Israeli sources or Israeli statements - complete gag and officials didn't speak to foreign press). I'll note that later coverage today focuses more on the diplomacy and standoff and less on the attack. Wapo has shooting. CNN, BBC - attack. They all have the Israeli embassy in the title in some form or other: [15] [16] [17].Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Again and in answer to Jim Michael, the fact that Reuter (high journalism standard) is cautious about using the word "attack" while Israeli medias (they have skin and readers in the game!) are the main source for "attack" let me think that the attack is very much an interpretation as of now. We cannot simply count the popularity of "a common name" for the event.

As Icewhiz is for 2017 Israeli Embassy in Amman Incident, Makeandtoss supports "2017 Amman incident" while rightfully pointing out the embassy was not itself really involved and the event ("attack") is uncertain as of today, and this also being my position ("2017 Amman incident"), we have at least 3 people for a variation of "2017 Amman incident" as more relevant, neutral, an defensible. The word "attack" is indeed taking side and truly problematic as of now.

Also, I rename the article into "2017 Amman incident" ("2017 Amman shooting" would also do for me).

As Icewhiz point out, I also suggest we find a sharper and more accurate alternative for "Israeli Embassy", something like "Israeli Embassy staff" or "Israeli-Jordanian incident", or something. But I haven't find a rightful, smooth wording right now. --Yug (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: The nytimes just published today a report on a previous Jordan-based "attack", the narrative has completely changed in 7 months (Video Shows U.S. Soldiers Surrendering Before Fatal Shooting in Jordan). Also, as for the current Amman incident, we cannot trust the current narrative and must stay cautious. --Yug (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

There actually is no NPOV issue with attack - as attack doesn't specify who attacked who (though it is clear at this point) - it can be read as either side attack either side. That aside, this should be 2017 Israeli Embassy in Amman Incident (or Attack) - the bigger issue here was not the actual attack itself but rather the diplomatic incident - which involved the entire embassy staff being held inside the embassy, not being allowed to leave, and then a diplomatic agreement that allowed for the evacuation of the entire embassy.Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

PM / President

4-The article names Benjamin Netanyahu as 'President' when he is actually 'Prime Minister' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.174.212 (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Icewhiz (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)