Talk:2011 Itamar attack/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Restoring the plagiarised paragraph

For the record, I don't object to the restoration of the paragraph that I removed. If it is worded very differently. Let me explain very clearly why it was unacceptable. There were two instances of close paraphrasing or direct copying:

Over the previous two years, Israel lifted many roadblocks and checkpoints in the area, including one near the highway turnoff to Itamar and Awarta

is a close paraphrase of the source, which says:

Over the last two years, Israel has lifted many roadblocks and checkpoints in the area surrounding Nablus, including one at Hawara, near the highway turnoff to Itamar and Awarta.

And:

Palestinian militants had defended previous attacks against Jewish settlers in the West Bank, describing the settlers as combatants in the conflict rather than civilians.

is almost a straight copy-paste of the source, which says:

In the past, Palestinian militants have defended such attacks against Jewish settlers in the West Bank, describing the settlers as combatants in the conflict rather than civilians.

So please feel free to fix these issues and restore the paragraph. It has been suggested that the paragraph above it may also be plagiarism. I don't see it, but I'm happy to be convinced that I'm wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Both paragraphs are very close paraphrases of individual lines within the LA Times source. This could be plagiarism according to our standards. However, we rely on close paraphrasing and even a copy and paste of a complete sentence (which there is at least one) to ensure that the attributed source is not misrepresented. Use of this one sentence does not impact the publisher's (or writer depending on who owns the content) exclusive right of the material. One copy and paste does not make it a violation while rewording the line could be considered just as problematic since a close paraphrase could be considered infringement. IU would lean towards keeping it a copy and paste since it is attributed to the LA Times and the writer while it also keeps it in the exact context and ensures NPOV. I understand your concern but a fundamental rewrite of the sentence would alter its meaning which is not the purpose of a tertiary source.Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"However, we rely on close paraphrasing and even a copy and paste of a complete sentence (which there is at least one) to ensure that the attributed source is not misrepresented". We do not need to do that at all. There are many ways of accurately representing a source without stealing the work. Academics and journalists do it for a living. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Asserting one line is theft is a little shocking. This is especially true since even our featured articles do use close paraphrasing or exact lines when it is kept to a minimum. It is not like we are jacking the guy's complete article. Can you come up with a suggestion to reword the line that is not a close paraphrase or copy and paste? Both are in violation according to your reading of the policy.Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And on a side but similar note, you completely removed the source which was also being used for the first paragraph. That led to this removal: [1] Your removal based on one sentence being copy and pasted has negatively impacted both NPOV and verification. So is one line plagiarism? If it is, please please come up with alternative wording that is not so close of a paraphrase that it is also considered plagiarism.Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please point me to a featured article that does so? It should not be a featured article. The last time a featured article was found to contain copying (like this on a sentence-by-sentence basis), all hell broke loose. If you are completely stuck and cannot find a way to write something in your own words, the cop-out is usually to slap quote marks around the text and provide in-text attribution. WP:PLAGIARISM explains the importance of in-text attribution. A citation is not enough. It seems you've contributed to audited content yourself, so I am not going to do your work for you here. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why was "burning cars, and shooting at Palestinian residents. Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler." sourced to the Guardian if the real source was the LA Times? Again I'm not going to do your work for you. In fact, the editor was correct to remove that content. It was almost a word-for-word copy of the LA Times as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It was in the LA Times which was used to source the whole section. And you are not doing the work for me. You are simply bettering the encyclopedia and defending your misrepresentation of plagiarism by reworking the line. If you can't do that then you shouldn't have made the edit. And if you do not see the other paragraph as plagiarism then your whole understanding of the policy is incorrect. That is not meant to be a jerkoff statement but clarification on why I feel your removal was not inline with our standards even if you had the best intentionsCptnono (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see why the other paragraph contained plagiarism now: because it was lifted from the LA Times rather than the cited source of The Guardian. It's been removed (but for other reasons) so I don't see myself as needing to do any more work here. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata, I think you have a misplaced sense of what constitutes copyvio. The phrase you claim was copyvio from the LA Times was simply a list of things Awartans accuse Itamarans of. It's perfectly acceptable to duplicate things like a simple list. I think you should restore the sentence in full. Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Then please see the LA Times article and compare the information in now. It is a close paraphrase. If we can closely paraphrase one line but not others then we still have a problem. So since you have failed to assist in bettering the line while not effectively demonstrating an understanding of either NPOV or WP:PLAGIARISM then I see no reason not reincluding the whole thing. But if you do believe that the paragraph removed was [plagiarism then you must remove the current paragraph or you are assisting in ripping off the guy's work. You also failed to represent the other aspect of attribution presented at the policy page so if you are going to include one aspect and not the other it shows that there is not too much effort. You also failed to address the exclusive right argument, misrepresentation argument, scale of information duplicated argument, and so on. But if you are done here then I will be happy to restore it.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: On what basis is it a "simple list" of facts? Facts aren't copyrightable, but this is a creatively-expressed sentence. You are also overlooking the sentence "Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler" which was another blatant lift. If anyone has any doubts, I'd strongly recommend reading up on the relevant policies and taking any questions to a relevant copyright noticeboard (if you don't accept my explanation). @Cptono: you restore anything contrary to copyright policies and it's a blockable offence. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is a desyopsing offence since you are involved in the conflict. Now do you have a rebuttal or not to the reasoning provided to use the line?Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. If you are adamant that you can't write the text in your own words without it being inaccurate (and I accept that avoiding misrepresentation is an important aim), do exactly what WP:PLAGIARISM says and slap some quote marks around it. That page gives some very helpful guidance. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh oops. I saw something on your talk page that led me to assume you were. So feel free to file a report at ANI when i restore it. Apologies for the misunderstanding.Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think slapping quotes around it would lead to readability issues (flow) and is not needed per the project's standards regarding attribution. But if that will clear up this dispute then I am willing to accept something I see as ugly to address what you see as theft.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Okay Mk, well how about we go back to my version? IIRC I worked to put this info into my own words, although there's a limit on how far that can be achieved when it's a simple list of facts to be presented. Here is my version, see what you think:

The Itamar settlement was established in 1984, on Palestinian land according to local Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority. Tensions between Itamar and Awarta have been rising in recent weeks. Itamar settlers are said to be among the most "fervent",[8] believing in a divine Israeli right to the West Bank.[2][8] Palestinians accuse settlers in the locality of recently cutting down hundreds of olive trees,[2][8] burning cars and shooting at Palestinian residents. Ten Palestinians and one settler were injured in a confrontation in the week before the Itamar attack, when Israeli soldiers were accused of opening fire on them.[8]

Gatoclass (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your version is disputed based on POV reasoning provided by two editors and another editor has shown concern with it by their whittling it down. That is three editors expressing concern through editing or talk page use which means it does not have consensus. I should have just reverted based on BRD it looks like.Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just trying to establish a consensus for the first paragraph. I'm quite happy to discuss a rephrase of the second paragraph which you added so that can be restored as well, but we can only address one issue at a time. Gatoclass (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The final sentence looks good. To play on the safe side, I'd suggest just quoting the LA Times directly for the penultimate sentence and leaving out the Guardian (everything is in the LA Times article). --Mkativerata (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would reluctantly be on board with:

The Itamar settlement was established in 1984. Itamar is home to 1,000 ideological and religious families who believe Israel has a historic and religious right to absorb the West Bank, which Israel seized during the 1967 Six-Day War. According to the mayor of Awarta, it sits on land that was once part of his village. Tensions between the settlement and village had been rising in the weeks before the incident. Palestinians had recently accused settlers of cutting down hundreds of olive trees, burning cars, and shooting at Palestinian residents. Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler.

Over the previous two years, Israel lifted many roadblocks and checkpoints in the area, including one near the highway turnoff to Itamar and Awarta. A security fence remained in place around the settlement. According to the Los Angeles Times: "In the past, Palestinian militants have defended such attacks against Jewish settlers in the West Bank, describing the settlers as combatants in the conflict rather than civilians."<ref name=latimes> (altered slightly from original proposal)

Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's little better. You've attributed one sentence (without quote marks) and others are still lifted. Gatoclass's proposal is significantly more compliant. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But Gatoclass's is not acceptable for POV reasons as made clear by two editors dissenting. I actually meant to add quotes but missed them so am adding them now (which may or may not change your opinion). With the quote marks, it fits within your interpretation of the policy of close paraphrasing but not copy and pasting without quoting it.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You've only attributed one of the three problematic sentences. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But the other sentences are just as close of a parphrase. Why do you have a problem with some paraphrasing but not others? And BTW, I completely screwed up and misquoted it and need to change the tense.(now fixed and inline with MOS:QUOTE by removing the wikilink) So overall, if you are going to incorrectly call plagiarism and no one is happy with it: lets remove it for now. That is the breaks when editors refuse to work together. Sucks but it looks to be the best option for now.Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm saying you need to fix the other sentences as well, for example by providing in-text attribution. The sentences are "Palestinians had recently accused settlers of cutting down hundreds of olive trees, burning cars, and shooting at Palestinian residents. Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler." and "Over the previous two years, Israel lifted many roadblocks and checkpoints in the area, including one near the highway turnoff to Itamar and Awarta." --Mkativerata (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I think the first sentence is acceptable because it's simply a list of things, and simple duplication of lists of items is not copyvio. The other two sentences may need a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You missed my point, those are close paraphrases just as the edit you support was. Therefore, your choosing when to call plagiarism and not is leading to issues in the article. Since you refuse to fix them yourself and other editors see issues with Gatoclass's version then Gatoclass's version is not acceptable and should be removed. Wish I would have just reverted in the first place now since it is only now marginally better than the original problematic version. I have worked towards a solution and there are limits to what should be expected. After it is worked on and fixed I would be happy to support inclusion of such a section but right now BRD was clearly the better option.Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, no-one has objected to my version, there have been only two objections, one that the info was in a background section, and two (from Biosketch) that the info shouldn't be included at all, regardless of the version. I can't see any effective difference between my version and yours except that mine isn't copyvio, so if you have an objection to it, I'd like to know what it is exactly. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not true that others have not objected (two have and another removed info that was in your original edit making three editors showing concern) and you just changed your tune about copyvio. Your version was also a close paraphrase but it also was misrepresentitive of the source and left out key aspects.. Two editors have and another edited out two pieces of information in your version. So add my concern about NPOV to that of Biosketch and add the following reasons which I failed to detail for you:

• Tone: The tone lays the blame on the victims. This is subtle but is a violation since you are trying to lead the reader to a conclusion. Per your exact words: "Without it, the article is effectively a whitewash, presented as a completely unprovoked attack on an entirely blameless Jewish community." Note that you said "Jewish community". The scope of this article is not a Jewish community but the butchering of a family. Are you interested in preserving the accuracey of this article or pointing fingers? I am not surprised the tone comes across like the later.
  • Since you put it under the "Responsibility" section it reads like an attempt to assign blame to the "Jewish community"
• "The Itamar settlement was established in 1984, on Palestinian land according to local Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority." Shows only one viewpoint so it is not inline with NPOV.
  • I also did not see it in the source making it OR but it is easy to find in other sources so I am not too worried about it. However, the source does comment on the mayor's claim which and although it is not a POV violation, to omit it it does not provide details very relevant. Why would you not highlight this information since the battling between the two communities is the "tension"?
  • You failed to mention how it came to happen (19670 but you allude to it. That leaves a gap in coverage.
• "Itamar settlers are said to be among the most 'fervent'". Why did you choose to use wording that was so emotive that you chose to use quotes for it? Why not pull from the same source that it the residents are ideological and religious? This is a clearer representation.
• "Palestinians accuse settlers in the locality of recently cutting down hundreds of olive trees,[2][8] burning cars and shooting at Palestinian residents. Ten Palestinians and one settler were injured in a confrontation in the week before the Itamar attack, when Israeli soldiers were accused of opening fire on them." You again only paint one community as the victim. Why did you not mention that the deaths were the result of a "clash" as the source did? Your version reads as if the Israeli's decided to randomly open fire and kill Palestinians instead of making it clear that both the Israelis and Palestinians are actually fighting.

And overall: you also closely paraphrased which would also be a violation. I maintain that the exclusive right to the content was not impacted. The amount of info being used in my version was not to the scale that it mirrors the overall content (and arguably not the actual primary scope) of the LA Times article. And I feel that it was needed to prevent your misrepresentation of both the source in question and background of this topic. Note that this topic is the killing of a family again and not politics of the region.

So if you want to fundamentally reword your version in a way that addresses the concerns I would consider supporting it. If you wanted to tweak the wording or even remove some content from mine then that would be a fine alternative. Your version is too problematic and so far I am not the only one to say so even if you continue to misrepresent this talk page discussion. Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Goodness me, what an extraordinary response. I asked you what problem you had with my version, and almost all the "problems" you list are equally apparent in your own version!

Your comments regarding expression sound a little more constructive. If it's just expression we disagree on, it shouldn't be too difficult to find a compromise. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought my version had a copyvio problem and not a POV problem? But I reread the recent edit by another editor and removed the tag. Since it is in the background section it does not read like blame is being assigned anywhere. It is completely minimalist as is which makes NPOV now. I lean towards wanting to add more info on the recent clash but then I think it would be great to add "It was the first killing of settlers since four adults were shot dead in a drive-by shooting near Hebron" per the source as JDE pointed out. But then of course, where is the line at where we stop mentioning past events. As mentioned in my edit summary, I would be OK with readding the tag if Bioscetch wants so that we are not edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what to tell you about removing the POV flag. It's a bizarre paragraph as it stands – especially the way it ends, as though settlers enjoy cutting down olive trees just for the fun of it, with no indication that they're Palestinian trees. I actually think it potentially does more to damage the Palestinian narrative than the Israeli one. Anyway, it doesn't alter the fact that it belongs in the article at Itamar and not here. I would be grateful if, instead of restoring the POV flag, you flagged it with Template:Move section and substituted Itamar for the destination parameter. That way visitors would know the argument's not so much over POV as it is over relevance – provided, of course, User:Cptnono doesn't object to it anymore on POV grounds.—Biosketch (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Okay Cptnono. I think at this point we should probably start discussing specifics rather than generalities. However, I'm not ready to do so right now as if you don't mind I'd like to take a break from this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Already given you specifics. You now know exactly what I think is wrong with your edit. BS is edit warring by adding any templates but I was worried about 1/rr if he wanted to revert my NPOV tag sine the conversation split somewhat.Cptnono (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See message on your Talk, but the Merge template isn't edit warring. There was unsourced information in the paragraph, as well as the discussion here about moving it to Itamar. After the Template:POV-section flag was removed, I edited the paragraph to remove the information about the mayor of Awarta because it wasn't in the Guardian reference. The Template:Merge-section was a new addition to the article, and based entirely on what was going on here.

Now, in the interest of seeking a constructive way out of this, two options are available. One, we move the section so it's lower in the article and doesn't imply a speculative cause-effect relationship vis-a-vis the attack; or Two, we leave the section in its current Background position but be very careful and sensitive about what we write in it. If I recall, User:Gatoclass didn't add a new section above the section on the attack but rather inserted it lower on the page. It was User:Cptnono who insisted on moving it up to function as the Background. That would suggest that User:Gatoclass and I are more or less in agreement. On the other hand, User:Gatoclass did include stuff in her edit that could be construed as promoting a particular POV whereas User:Cptnono's edit reduced some of those concerns. So in that sense, I'm closer to User:Cptnono's proposal of keeping the Background but removing any potential for misleading the reader. Personally, I prefer User:Gatoclass' original edit, which was to add the material lower on the page; but I can sympathize with User:Cptnono's desire to have the structure of the article resemble the structure of WP:GAs.

It would be helpful to have input from more editors on this.—Biosketch (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the full version of the section as authored by Cptnono, but rewritten in such a way as to remove the plagiarism concerns expressed by Mkativerata. In doing so, I've tried hard to keep as close as possible to Cptnono's version. I'm inclined to agree with Biosketch that the entire section would probably be more appropriate lower down in the article, but we might want to get Cptnono's agreement to that first. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, seeing as this discourse is essentially between the three of us only, and that both User:Cptnono and User:Gatoclass are adamant about leaving the section and not moving it to Itamar, the Template:Move section is gone and I won't press that point anymore. However, since the questions of the Background section's prominence on the page and relevance to the attack have not been resolved, the hatnote is now of the Template:Importance-section variety. There's no other way to say it: the true background to the attack is not known and the editors are speculating as to what the events were that led to the attack. Furthermore, as the Guardian, JPost and LA Times place the report of the attack above its putative background, our article is not being consistent with how the attack is being reported in the sources cited, which still counts as WP:SYNTH.—Biosketch (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, since you decided to tag it, I've moved the section down the article as you suggested. I have also put it in its own section, labelled "Local tensions", since Cptnono objected to it being a subsection of the "Responsibility" section as he felt that was misleading. I think it's long enough to support its own section now anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, the problem was never with the information itself but rather with how it was being used to contextualize the attack. In its new position lower down on the page, the only criticism that could be considered valid would be if there are factual errors in the text and such – which there don't seem to be. If steam blows out of User:Cptnono's ears and nostrils when he sees the disappearance of the Background section, he (or anyone, for that matter) can propose an edit whose language is vague enough so as not to be controversial and then maybe everyone will be happy.

Also, any reason to prefer the heading "Local tensions" over "Recent tensions"? I'm not sure which is better, just was wondering.—Biosketch (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Recent tensions" didn't occur to me. I suppose it's a possible alternative. I'd need some time to think about it though. Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing category

I am not sure why user:Frederico1234 removed a valid category Category "Murdered Israeli children" from the article without even bothering adding an edit summary. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is not about the children, it's about the murder of a family, an event. I don't see the logic in assigning the "Murdered Israeli children" category to an event. It should only be assigned to articles where the topic is a child. I'm not familiar with policies regarding categories, so please correct me if there's something I've misunderstood. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The guideline is at Wikipedia:Category#Categorizing_pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I believe this point in the guideline support the argument raised above: "Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article." --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect. Please do not remove valid category. This article is about murdered Israeli children.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the article is about the attack. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources give plenty of space to the murdered children. Although it is sad that the kids were butchered, that is a significant part of the scope. No reason to pretend otherwise. Even some Palestinians were appalled by it so it isn't like we are taking sides. If the scope of the cat is generalized (articles that are not biographies but still discuss murdered children) then we should be all good to include it. If it is only bios then no. Maybe go ask over on that talk page for clarification as to what the scope of the cat is. Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

All articles in this category are about attacks. Those children did not have a time to become notable, and to have their own wikipedia articles because they were murdered by Palestinian terrorists. So either you nominate the whole category to be deleted, or you leave this article alone (I mean this article with this category).--Mbz1 (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right. My initial kneejerk reaction was to nom it but then I noticed it is subservient to Category:Murdered children which is a parent to cats detailing murdered children in several nations. Looks like there is some precedent. And you are also right that it does not need to be bios. It looks like there are articles detailing events as well as quasi-bios ("Murder of so-and-so) and bios in these other cats.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What I find a bit strange about the various guidelines and FAQ pages about categories is that, while they contain plenty of fascinating details like hinting at the relationship between graph theory and set theory for no apparent reason, they don't really come out and actually say what categories are primarily for, helping people find things. While this article isn't exactly exclusively "about murdered Israeli children" in the same way that the Gaza war and 2006 Lebanon war‎ articles aren't exactly exclusively about children killed by the IDF, if a reader was looking for the set of articles related to murdered Israeli children I think it's reasonable to assume that they should be presented with this one rather than not being presented with this one. Is it misleading categorization or overcategorization ? I don't think so. Does it help people find things ? I think so. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected. My reasoning were more based on logic, but just considering whether the category helps people find things is a much better approach. So really good explananation, Sean! My apology to Mbz for the revert and lack of edit summary. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's OK,Frederico1234. I see your edit was a good faith edit. I am sorry I snapped at you in my edit summary.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Background and HRW

I see that there have been various discussions above about the troubled community relations around Itamar. If someone has the stomach for it and time, there is a Human Rights Watch report from December 2010 available here that contains a detailed section about problems faced by people in the area, both Israeli and Palestinian, together with background information. It could be useful for the Itamar article. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, with but two caveats: 1. The references in the report to Itamar and its immediate vicinity would have to be isolated so as not to project onto Itamar a context that doesn't necessarily apply to it. 2. The edits to the article should be done with in-text attribution because it's been alleged that HRW receives funds from the Saudi Kingdom and that could introduce a neutrality concern.—Biosketch (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your caveat 1. If you mean that the only parts of the source that can be used are the parts that are explicitly about Itamar and its immediate vicinity then I agree completely. No generalities in the report should be applied to Itamar. As for caveat 2, HRW is an activist organization (and probably the most respected human rights organization in the world). Attribution is standard for sources like that. It's not because it's been alleged that HRW receives funds from the Saudi Kingdom. It's true that they are constantly attacked by nationalist supporters of states all over the world that they have criticized for human rights abuses and all sorts of other crazies but that doesn't have any bearing on their status as a highly respected reliable source. I don't think even right wing organizations like NGO Monitor were willing to go as far as actually alleging that HRW, an organization that explicitly states it doesn't accept donations from governments, received funds from the Saudi Kingdom. I'm familiar with the Saudi funding story. I described its trajectory here if you are interested. It's possible that people may raise neutrality concerns about using HRW as a source just like people regularly raise issues about using the BBC as a source. Personally, I see that as a WP:COMPETENCY issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The first caveat was just to make sure what happened here regarding the Background section doesn't happen at Itamar all over again, i.e. carrying a context from the macro level over to the micro without sufficient evidence for doing so. The most natural place to discuss the HRW report is at Israeli settlements, because there's already an appropriate context for it there. But if the report has specific references to Itamar or to its immediate vicinity, then incorporating them into the Itamar article wouldn't qualify as WP:SYNTH and would be welcome. The second caveat wasn't intended to discredit HRW necessarily, though I concede I have my own POVs where it's concerned; rather, it was to make sure that what HRW reports isn't communicated to the reader as impartial observation. That HRW is a respected human rights organization is widely accepted, but it's had its share of scandals in relation to Jews and Israel that call into question its reputation as credible a reporter on things like the settlements – to enough of a degree as would warrant in-text attribution. With BBC it's difference, because the BBC is primarily relied on for reporting events, whereas HRW does a great deal more in the way of interpretation, assigning blame, and characterizing events. Again, adding relevant HRW reports to the Itamar page isn't a problem, and the reader doesn't need to be told HRW's credibility has been challenged because of X, Y and Z – the reader can click on HRW and read all about that there. But in-text attribution is important because knowing the source of the report in this case, in contrast to BBC or NYT, is essential.—Biosketch (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The report has ~10 pages dedicated to Itamar and the nearby Palestinian villages Upper and Lower Yanun together with a wealth of cited references. Anyway, it's out there if someone wants to summarize it. It won't be me. HRW are about as partial as it gets on issues related to human rights and that's enough reason for inline attribution in itself in my view. They have a model of "human rights", one of many possible alternative models. They measure compliance with their model and issue statements based on their notion of effective strategies for "protecting human rights" which influences their coverage and reporting. It's not information that should be provided using Wikipedia's narrative voice because it's all based on their model. That's the way I look at it anyway. The attacks on their staff and the attempts to delegitimize them as an organization are fascinating for any student of propaganda and ethics but I don't think they have any bearing on their actual credibility as measured by credible people without an axe to grind in the real world or in Wikipedia. Anyway, I guess with their donation from George Soros and their expansion plans they are likely to make even more enemies. Actually I would prefer to see a lot more attribution, even for the likes of the BBC and NYT so that people can see where in the world the reporting is coming from and apply their own personal de-biasing/source credibility filtering to the information. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia talk pages appropriate forums for discussing perceived problems with documents of this nature? After all, the document's out there, accessible online, verifiable as a cited source, and it qualifies as an RS by virtue of its publisher. Would there be any practical point exposing its flaws? or would it be pure intellectual sparring for the sake of intellectual sparring, with no actual consequences on a practical level (and hence ultimately a waste of time and energy)? In those ten pages about Itamar there's some pretty funky business going on....—Biosketch (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. State Department

Has criticized the Israeli response by building more settlements. See-> http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/international/us_just_shrugs_new_building

However, I've yet to see this info from anywhere else. I can't image the Jewish Week would make this up, though, they're like a Jewish counterpart of the New York Times basically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.194.11 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

accurate palestinian reaction

the current section on palestinian reaction doesnt reflect what i'm seeing at all. check out this memri report, which extensively quotes various editorials that strongly condemned the killing of children [2], and this clip from israeli news of a reporter interviewing palestinians on the street [3]. the memri report does note that a website "affiliated with hamas" praised the killings and there is one story reporting celebrations of the killings in gaza but it is based only on a story on a hamas website and its credibility has been torn apart. [4] this is nevertheless repeated in the wiki, but when I added a reference to the memri report I was accused of "cherry-picking." everything I'm seeing shows absolute revulsion on the palestinian streets to the murders. we need to represent this somehow. if you want to change my edit, fine, but figure out some way to represent whats going on thats acceptable to you instad of just deleting it.--Rukiddingme? (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sucks because some Palestinians were happy about it. I don't get why it is so hard to admit. We actually already have sources that say some (if not many) were against the attacks so simply include the line. Isn't that complicated as long as you do not remove other sourced content. And as much as it might suck to hear: fireworks were let off. Unless you were there or have a source to dispute it then you should not condemn the celebrations. Cptnono (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, being in Palestine now about 10-15 minutes from Itamar, I have not heard a single Palestinian say something positive about the murder. In fact between my travels throughout the West Bank (Hebron, Ramallah, Qalqilya and Jenin) during the past week, the only thing I have heard is skepticism that a Palestinians would intentionally murder a baby. Than again, I am not a source -- but food for thought. -asad (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

so permission to put back my old edit? I didn't remove any info, just a summary of the memri report. im only mentioning it cause it was deleted the first time.--Rukiddingme? (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be putting too much emphasis on a single report but overall the content is a good idea.

But, you need to remove the youtube link immediately due to contributory copyright infringement. You can cite the program but not link to that video. See an essay on it: WP:VIDEOLINKCptnono (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

oops, sorry. I'm looking for the original clip.--Rukiddingme? (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No need. You can use the cite episode template without the link. If the channel makes the program available (even if it is through contacting them or paying them) then others can verify it. And if anyone gives you a hard time about it simply point them in the direction of that YouTube URL (without a link and assuming it does not get pulled). I would have fixed it up but was being lazy. Keep in mind that the more information you provide means the easier it is to verify (and, unfortunately, the less likely that it will be disputed)Cptnono (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Local tensions

Hello everybody. Back from an extended spring weekend, I'm surprised to read: “The Itamar settlement was established in 1984, on Palestinian land according to local Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority. Itamar is home to 1,000 ideological and religious families who believe that the West Bank—which Israel occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War—rightfully belongs to Israelis. Tensions between Itamar and the nearby Palestinian village of Awarta...” Well, the reasons for the local tensions may or may not have their sources in the bible, but the national-(ultra)religious Jewish settlers certainly do not believe that "Samaria" belongs to the Israelis, which would include non-Jews, but that it belongs to the Jewish people, and there is no reason to make Itamar ten times as big as it is: total population in 2009: 1,032 persons, not families. But the whole paragraph is imo weird, to put it mildly. Ajnem (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. You're right about the 1,000 families being exaggerated, and thanks for correcting. Do you have a reference to cite for the 2009 number of 1,032 residents? Also, can you explain in what way you feel the paragraph is weird?—Biosketch (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH?

User:Gatoclass, be so kind as to explain why the link to the Jerusalem bomb attack is WP:SYNTH? (I have a feeling I might agree with your reasoning, but I'd appreciate an explanation just the same.)—Biosketch (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I should have thought my reasoning would be self evident. Where is the link between the two attacks? Gatoclass (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

One link could be time, just a week and a half apart. The other could be the fact that the authorities suspect Palestinian militants to be behind both incidents.—Biosketch (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That is WP:OR. I accepted the link to the August attack because one of the articles mentioned that the Itamar attack was the first fatal attack on settlers since, so I think that link arguably has some legitimacy. I'm not aware of any links between the Itamar attack and this bus bombing however, so I think the addition is SYNTH. Gatoclass (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO says, "Links included in the 'See also' section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." That would suggest that a reader wanting to look up attacks on Israelis in 2011 should be able to navigate from the Itamar attack to the Jerusalem one that followed it via the See also section. However, I just checked the Reuters, AFP and BBC reports of the Jerusalem bombing and they don't mention the Itamar attack at all. That surprises me, but it supports your argument, so I accept that WP:SYNTH indeed applied in this case.—Biosketch (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but given the number of individual attacks of this type, I think the "See also" section would become unmanageable if we started including individual attacks with no clear link. But there are already plenty of related categories there in any case. There's also a Navbox now, although I have some concerns about that too and may raise them in another thread. Gatoclass (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I told you so.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Quelling the clash"

Cptnono, apart from the fact that you lifted this phrase from the source, you are the one who has misstated the source, not me. The way you have edited it, it sounds as if the 10 Palestinians and one settler were injured in the clash with each other, but the source says they were injured when the IDF opened fire, so I must ask you to either self revert or rephrase appropriately. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your version sounded like there was no clash. And a couple words do not make plagiarism (although your close paraphrase could). So I don't care how you reword it as long as it is clear that there was a clash and then firing. Your version could be read that way but so ambiguously that it needed touch up. Apologies for saying you were misrepresenting the source. I see how it could be read accurately but it really looks the other way. If there is any doubt you need to use the words the source used or reword it better.Cptnono (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the ambiguity by linking the two sentences. Probably an alternative to "quell the clash" should be found but I can't think of one offhand. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says, "Last week, Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler." How about, "to keep the sides apart"?—Biosketch (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Too OR-ish. I'm sure there are better alternatives. I'm a bit busy at the moment, I will try to come back to this in a day or two. Gatoclass (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't that complicated. There was a clash and then ... . So either use the words in the source to make sure you are not misrepresenting them or figure out wording that is not POV. Cptnono (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Gag order

The gag order strongly suggests that the perpetrator was not Palestinian and a cover-up is under way. Since no official word has been given on the guilty party, this should be mentioned in the lead, and the apportionment of blame labelled as mere hearsay. See also http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/middle-east/2149-israel-manipulates-tragedy-to-advance-its-own-harassment-of-palestinians. Plus the reference to "jumping the fence" is risible in the extreme - these "fences" tend to be 40-foot tall and built of concrete with all manner of submachine posts manned (actually: wommaned) remotely. Does anyone have a picture of the "fence" around the illegal settlement and/or Palestinians with bionic legs? 86.101.219.240 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable if you added to the second paragraph in the lead something like, "Israel has as yet not officially implicated a particular individual or group in the killings," but you should look for a less contentious source to stake your claim on than middleeastmonitor.org.uk. About the fence, Itamar is to the east of the Israeli West Bank barrier, which is I think what you're referring to. The perimeter fence around the settlement looks something like what's displayed here – a two- or two-and-a-half-meters tall wire fence. It isn't that difficult to hop over a fence like that. If I remember correctly in the movie Fightclub the leading protagonists hop a barbed-wire fence by throwing a mat over it.—Biosketch (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It would not actually be possible to cross that fence that simply. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A wall, sorry fence, of such height would have to be "scaled" certainly not "hopped over", even with a mat. This, after all, makes the Israeli defence forces look ridiculous for not electrifying the "fence" or building a wall, or even patrolling it properly by its thorougly militarised population. The image you posted looks heavily guarded, as I'm sure all "fences" are, when occasion demands. As to the source I cited, where is one seriously to go for truth and veracity in this matter? I stand by my gag order observation, and that until the true culprits for the butchery are brought to justice, the libellous lead must be changed. 86.101.219.240 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You can see the actual fence here as well. It is not guarded 24/7, it is not electrified, and there is no concrete wall beside it. I have no idea what on earth you're going on about. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverted two edits by User:Knitlady

I've removed the following text that was added to the article by User:Knitlady:

The press went silent once it was realized that the crime had been committed by a foreign worker and not a Palestinian. http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/35904.htm

Palestinians were beaten and had to endure house to house searches and increased restrictions. They lost more land and homes with the approval of new construction by Israel though we now know that Palestine had nothing to do with the crime committed on stolen land by illegal residents.

The first reference is to a kind of blog entry here that says, "The paper added that Israel's leaders stopped mentioning the incident when they found that it was committed by a foreign worker." That should give some indication as to the reliability of the site, seeing as Israel's leaders haven't stopped mentioning the incident and have not "found that it was committed by a foreign worker." The second edit is unsourced WP:SOAP.—Biosketch (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. It appears that attack is more common per the stats below. Logic and rhetoric not withstanding. --rgpk (comment) 18:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Itamar killings → Itamar attack — Shortly after the attack in Itamar a week ago Friday night, 11-12 March 2011, editors began adding details to the Itamar article as they became known over the internet. Over time, as more and more details accumulated, their weight began exceeding what the Itamar page could reasonably be expected to hold. User:Danio73 created the page Itamar massacre (2011) on 12 March at 21:16. It lived for two hours before User:CambridgeBayWeather slapped a redirect on it.

The redirect was to Itamar attack, created by User:Jalapenos do exist on 12 March at 22:39. "Itamar attack" survived for 21 hours before User:Plot Spoiler came along and moved it to Itamar massacre on 13 March at 19:18, citing "Technically a massacre. 4+ people murdered at same time."

"Itamar massacre" lived about four hours. On 13 March at 22:49 User:Lihaas decided that "5 is not a massacre" and moved the page to Itamar killings, where it has remained since.

Now, that "Itamar killings" is an awkward and poor choice for a name there is probably sweeping agreement among the article's contributors. It's also been established numerically that it's by far the least common name for the attack used by the press and on the internet overall. The news aggregator indiatimes.com, for example, lists only 77 instances of "Itamar killings." That's less than the 171 listed for "Itamar massacre" or the 273 for "Itamar attack."

Really, then, the choice is between "Itamar massacre" and "Itamar attack." Personal POVs aside, the choice between the two should be based on the five criteria articulated at WP:TITLE – Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. Starting from the last one, an argument could potentially be made in favor of "Itamar massacre" by analogy to Coastal Road massacre, Cave of the Patriarchs massacre or Passover massacre. But considering that the number of casualties in those three incidents was in the vicinity of 30, the analogy turns out not to apply to cases where the number of casualties was fewer: Sirhan Sirhan's attack in 2002 that killed five Israelis isn't called a massacre. Neither is the shooting spree of Eden Natan-Zada in 2005 (no symmetry implied). Consistency favors "Itamar attack."

Conciseness is the same for both "Itamar massacre" and "Itamar attack," so on to Precision. Precision would only apply if there were other notable "Itamar massacres" or "Itamar attacks" and it became necessary to distinguish this one from the others. But since there aren't, there's no need to consider "Itamar massacre (2011)" or "Itamar attack (2011)" unless it's as a redirect – so it's on to Naturalness.

As in the case of Conciseness and of Precision, the degree of Naturalness is more or less equivalent for both "Itamar massacre" and "Itamar attack." Some will search for the former, others for the latter, conceivably as a function of their personal political preference, and redirects will ensure that everyone finds what they're looking for.

The deciding factor, then, is Recognizability. Recognizability can only be measured objectively by counting the number of instances each of the two names appears in leading search engines and news aggregators. User:ElComandanteChe found that Google, Google News and Bing News return the most results for "Itamar attack"; "Itamar massacre" came next, and finally "Itamar killings." My findings confirmed his: the New York Times had 4 results for "Itamar attack," 0 for "Itamar massacre," and 0 for "Itamar killings"; USAToday: IA 10, IM 6; IK 2. BBC: 1–0–0; CNN: 1–1–0; India Times: 273–171–77; Reuters: 5–0–0. Recognizability, then, leans decidedly in favor of "Itamar attack."

In conclusion, between "Itamar attack," "Itamar massacre" and "Itamar killings," the criteria of WP:TITLE support moving the page to Itamar attack.—Biosketch (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You should have added this to the "Article name should be changed" section above, so not to create two discussions. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And I would have, but the instructions at WP:REQMOVE#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves are to create a new section at the bottom of the Discussion page.—Biosketch (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support for exactly the reasons given by the nominator. This ought to come down not to personal opinion about the appropriate descriptor, but use in reliable sources. On that count, the outcome should be clear. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment nothing wrong with following protocol, BS and SD. However, as mentioned above, I think we can make this move now without this formal request based on the discussion above. So I am fine Supporting but still think "2011 Itamar attack" might be better. Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

More precise but less concise. If there's a preference for "2011 Itamar attack," it's fine with me; search engine queries for "Itamar attack" will still show this article first on the list. The admin who closes this will just have to be made aware that the REQMOVE target has been modified to include the year before the title. Out of curiosity, though, why the insistence on "2011 Itamar attack"?—Biosketch (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I am not sure if it is inline with TITLE. However "attack" is a already a little ambiguous so adding the year clarifies it a bit. I lean towards adding the year but do not feel strongly about it. Cptnono (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is principally about the killings. Had the attack not caused these deaths it would still be an attack but it's very doubtful that it would qualify for an article. Sources use other titles for various reasons, depending on the focus of the article as well as in some cases a POV. The focus of this article is clear, and its title should reflect this. Andrewa (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is about killings, yes, but a terrorist attack is still a kind of attack. Wikipedia even calls 9/11 the September 11 attacks.—Biosketch (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No comparison to 9/11. Even had the 9/11 attacks failed to kill anyone (hard to believe but theoretically possible, had the passengers managed to overcome all four teams of attackers for example), they would still be highly notable as attacks. Had these attacks failed to kill anyone, they would probably not have made the international news at all, let alone Wikipedia. It's the killings that are notable. Andrewa (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The comparison to 9/11 was purely on the semantic level. The leading media sources, which are what Wikipedia relies on to keep its articles as neutral as possible, classified both events as attacks – incidents of violence isolated in time. If this were the act of a serial killer with a string of incidents over a period of time, then the incidents could be referred to collectively as killings, or murders. But since this is an isolated incident of violence, killings is less appropriate.—Biosketch (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Unconvinced. It's tricky to sort out the valid and invalid parts of this argument, and avoid just repeating what has been said above. I'll try just a little... No, the argument you put above was not at all purely on a semantic level. I have lectured semantics at tertiary level. The argument you put appealed to Wikipedia usage, and that's related, particularly post-Wittgenstein, but it's certainly not purely semantic, and to say it was appears at the naive level at least to be rhetoric, perhaps unintentional rhetoric but still unhelpful. Andrewa (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, since you brought up Wittgenstein, I may as well share that I come from an academic background in linguistics and earn my living teaching languages. Semantics means different things in different contexts. It wasn't being invoked here in its formal academic sense but rather in its informal common sense. A reader might have misconstrued the comparison made between 9/11 and Itamar as implying an equivalence on the level of how brutal, tragic or historic the two events were. That was not the point of the comparison. The point was to demonstrate that if the word attack is semantically appropriate for 9/11, then a fortiori is it appropriate for the Itamar incident. In my mind, killings is a more emotional, evocative label than attack, which is distant and neutral. It is over there near massacre and murders on the scale of provoking an emotional reaction in the reader. As an encyclopedia, that's something to endeavor to avoid, and that makes attack preferable. Also, not to sound confrontational but, in citing WP:Rhetoric, it would have been beneficial had you mentioned that you were the author of the essay.—Biosketch (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Much of this is one or more of (1) irrelevant, or (2) repeating what has been discussed above, or (3) wrong. For example, the conclusion of your a fortiori argument is irrelevant; I'm quite happy to grant that it's one of many appropriate titles, the question is simply whether or not it's the best one.

Yes, I'm the author of WP:rhetoric, the only one to date but feel free to improve it. Others have placed it in various categories from time to time [5]. Yes, it's an essay intended to shorten posts that quote it, mine or those of several others. No, pointing all of that out here would not IMO have been helpful here, in fact it would defeat the whole point of having it. None of it is secret. Andrewa (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Enough bickering. It is beggining to not serve any purpose. The previous conversation with the couple yays here is enough. The article should have never been moved to this title and the move requested is sufficient. We can of course continue to discuss other options but we have a better title and consensus is close enough for me. I know it sucks when this conversation is being elongated by the two up above (no offence guys) but it as already a lock before the formal request was made.Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's up to the closing admin. Sorry if I've offended anyone by this bickering. I thought I was trying to keep it focussed; Obviously my attempts at this haven't impressed you, and I respect that opinion and will try to learn from it. All the best. Andrewa (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Most editors can make a move so an admin isn't needed. But if you want, we can differ to an admin but it will involve copy and pasting the previous discussion in. So far, you are the only one who wants "killings". But no worries about "bickering". We all do it it and it takes two to tango. Cptnono (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's not a lot of support for my position, and I'll abide by any WP:consensus that the closing admin decides has formed. Disagree that an admin isn't needed, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure. Andrewa (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Is this really worth having an article over?

Violent deaths occur all around the world, is this really deserving of such a long article (if at all)? How about we re-examine the issue in a month and see if anyone remembers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.184.11 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the attack has left a lasting impression on Israelis and it would appear also on Jewish communities in the Diaspora. Just the other day a leading Israeli daily ran a story on the how the three surviving Fogel children are coping with their tragedy. Also, see Shloshim: Jewish mourning customs last for 7 days, 30 days, and there are periodic memorials thereafter as well. There is every reason to expect that the media will revisit the tragedy every now and again for the foreseeable future.—Biosketch (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is well over the top for a murder in an area where it happens everyday.19 Palestinians have been killed by the Israelis in the last few days, anybody got a link to their huge article? I think it should have an article but this has been hijacked as a propaganda exercise.Owain the 1st (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The article's length is commensurate with the extensive media coverage of the event – which still continues, incidentally. There were actually proposals to add more sections to the article.

If a Wikipedia editor feels there are articles lacking on other attacks of perceived encyclopedic value, he or she is welcome to create them.—Biosketch (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is too long and just political point scoring from Israeli supporters, I have you down for one of them btw.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Just remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor. And the article is far from being WP:TOOLONG.—Biosketch (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah whateverOwain the 1st (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

International reactions

Are the 'international reactions' really necessary or encyclopediac? Almost all of them are just boilerplate diplomatic condemnations of the attacks. It would be better to just say that the international community condemned the attacks, and include and international reactions that don't. Ashmoo (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think it would be better? Also, it would be difficult to verify that a given country didn't react to the attack. You'd need a WP:RS that actually says something like, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi refused to condemn the attack, calling it a natural response to Israel's long record of human rights violations.—Biosketch (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The international reactions section is a joke. This whole article has just been turned into a political points scoring exercise by Israeli supporters. Trying to scores points off the dead is in very bad taste indeed.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The information in the article is both sourced and notable. "This whole article has just been turned into a political points scoring exercise by Israeli supporters...[t]rying to score points off the dead," on the other hand, is neither sourced nor notable and is rather more evocative of WP:SOAP.—Biosketch (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your point.This article has been turned into another Israeli propaganda tool and you are here defending it. I can see where you stand.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Roi Ben-Yehuda article

This analysis article by Roi Ben-Yehuda in Forward's Zeek may be of interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

arrests

There's some information here. I don't have time to add this properly now, so if anyone's interested... No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that the murderers have been caught

I did the very first change required, at the beginning of the article, but so much work has still to be done now on the article. For example the Thai worker theory, and the revenge theory etc. Editorprop (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We do not know if the murderers have been caught or not. What we do know is that two suspects have been caught and that they have confessed. I hope you see the difference. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think they were determined by their DNA, so it doesn't really leave a place for debate.Editorprop (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Plus, they have confessed, in detail, and even offered a re-enactment. That's in addition to the evidence that already implicated them.--RM (Be my friend) 20:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you had to have a trial in the real world before you were deemed guilty.Guess that does not apply with Israel or its supporters.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Owain the 1st, please, don't be cynical, you are of course right, the suspects are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. I'm going to try to de-POV the passages: lots of questions open, including the age of the suspects, their affiliation with PFLP, premeditation and more, Ajnem (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mugshot images

We already have a collage for the victims, now can someone please create a similar collage for Hakim Awad and Amjad Awad? Their mugshots are available on Ynetnews. These images do not belong to the media, as their mugshots were released by Israeli authorities, who have released them for media publication and have no commercial interest in them. (I cannot save images as I have a shared computer, so it's up to someone else).--RM (Be my friend) 20:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Itamar killings → Fogel family massacre. The latter has become by far the most common name for this event. Google hits:

• Fogel family massacre: 404,000
• Itamar massacre: 149,000
• Itamar attack: 86,000
• Itamar killings: 39,000
• March 2011 Itamar attack (title as of this writing): 6

It goes without saying that Fogel family massacre is more recognizable, natural and precise than the alternatives, as there have been several "attacks" and "killings" in Itamar, and the distinguishing characteristic of this incident is the targeting of a particular family. The current title, "March 2011 Itamar attack", besides being unknown outside of Wikipedia, is simply awful: long, awkward and vague. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Itamar murders comes in at 1.4 million thus eclipsing Fogel family massacre by about a million.Owain the 1st (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Itamar murders gets 56,000, putting it far below Fogel family massacre. Remember that all the options have to be in quotes or the results are meaningless. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong as people do not type in quotation marks around things when googling, very dishonest of you.Now if anyone else wants to type Itamar Murders into google then it has over 1.4 million hits..I see your dishonest agenda thanks and now so can everyone else.Have to be in quotation marks? LOL..bit of a joke that is.Obviously in google searches it is far far more well known by Itamar murders..which is what is was murders.Itamar attack comes in at 2 million hits.Owain the 1st (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

btw your claim that Fogel family massacre comes in at 404, 000 is wrong as it comes in at 173,000 even your own link shows that..Owain the 1st (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Jalapenos that Fogel family massacre is more precise than any form of Itamar attack, since Itamar unfortunately is subject to a lot of attacks. However, in the long run, people are going to forget the Fogels and remember Itamar, so I think the title should stay as is. Alternately, March 2011 Itamar massacre. Yoninah (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The article has allready been moved from one lemma to the next I don't know how many times, so it's imo about time to stop the moving and start dealing with the article. To date, as far as I know, there are at least 40 Palestinians mostly from Awarta held in custody by Israeli security forces. Two of them, both teenagers, whose ages have not been given by officials, according to the Washington Post, but whose names have been made public, have confessed to having committed the crimes, according to Israeli officials. The names of a small number of other detainees, said to be linked to the PFLP and mostly relatives of the two main suspects, have also been made public, as well as what they are suspected of, including not providing weapons. Israeli security forces have given controversial accounts concerning motive and premeditation (“murder” implies premeditation, whereas “killing” doesn't), and they have not claimed PFLP responsability. Nobody, as far as I know, has been indicted so far, let alone convicted. The article as of now states the pure opposite of the known facts, it turns the killings into a PFLP terror attack and has the two main suspects allready convicted and executed. I'm going to put the article back to “international standard” for the second time, and I should like to ask editor(s) who revert, to refrain from making false accusations when reverting. Ajnem (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

at any raet, whats the prebiosu itamar attack? doesnt seem like one so we dont need the date ( a la Tunisian revolution vs. 2010-2011 Tunisian revolution(Lihaas (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)).

And again about more than proved renaming: as I think the Itamar massacre (2011) (I hope it's already enough for Itamar) title with already existed Fogel family massacre redirect may be a good variant. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

The info box says terrorist attack..Being as this incident is a murder and unproven at that I do not think using the word terrorist is good at all.Thoughts?

I think signing is important. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, as far as I know no policy applies to template names. Anyway Infobox terrorist attack template is just a redirect, so I've replaced it with its target, don't know why. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, to Owain the 1st (talk · contribs)'s credit, at least he's consistent. At the white phosphorus discussion, he didn't have a problem with the caption being removed if it conflicted with the information from the source providing the image. But there were other editors there who did, and they based their arguments on WP:DUCK, WP:CK, and obviousness. Now, I won't invoke the h-word here, but it is ironic, when you consider that this was obviously a terrorist attack, and everyone knows it was a terrorist attack, etc., that no attempt is being made to argue WP:DUCK or WP:CK or obviousness here. That's not to say I disagree with ElComandanteChe (talk · contribs)'s action regarding the infobox – on the contrary, I support it. But the disparity between the response there and the response here is still striking.—Biosketch (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox terrorist attack template is just a redirect. So, whatever? What are we arguing about? Things are fine as is. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Is is important to get the terminology correct. This was not a killing it was a murder. They were murdered for being Jews. It was a racist murder. The attackers murdered the family while they were asleep, adults and children alike. This was a cowardly racist murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivish (talk • contribs) 09:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Indictment

Hallo, I have removed some of the many repetitions and done some clean up. I have also added that according to Ynetnews, the two suspects are now denying any involvment in the attack.[6] Maybe somebody can find out about it. Ajnem (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Conviction

Can someone please expand the conviction section? First off, its not "an Israeli military court", its the "Samaria Military Court". You might want to add that Awad corrected presiding judge Menachem Lieberman several times while he read the indicement. It is also noteworthy that despite a full confession, the judges decided to examine some of the prosecution's evidence, primarily forensic evidence like fingerprints and DNA. Also mention that sentencing will be discussed in September.[7]

I'm topic-banned from all non-talk pages in the Arab-Israeli conflict for three months, and cannot do this myself, but I would like to suggest this expansion of details.--RM (Be my friend) 20:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent revert

I made a revert here. The wording did not assist the reader in understanding the subject. If best it was bulky and at worse it cast unneeded doubt on the source. The original edit did not assist in NPOV as asserted in the edit summary (it actually increased POV)Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that DLDD has been trying to insert this and similar edits repeatedly over the past several days. Someone should give him the official warning about the ARBPIA case. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

And in regards to the whole candy business: "Rafah residents hand out candy"[8] It does not matter what your interpretation of a photo is. Stop asserting that the sources are being dishonest unless you have reliable sources saying so.Cptnono (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

@NMMNG: Someone needs to let ANI or AE know so that an admin can due the correct process. Of course, you can give the guy some advise. I am ill-suited to.Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And since the editor refused to even acknowledge the talk page and is still inserting unneeded doubt I have reverted.Cptnono (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The clear NPOV wording would be that a resident was reported to have stated that..... I have already had considerable trouble in inserting the now NPOV reference to the claim that fireworks were seen in celebration of this event. The claim that candy was handed out is not backed by any evidence. I provided a google link that shows that only individual was shown in the photographs, this does not equate to residents, which is plural. Please stop the edit warring and accept the clear NPOV language that I have used. I am not asserting any dishonesty and you should retract that claim, I am adding neutral language, to reflect the exact nature of the evidence, and claim. There should be no objection to that.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No. You have provided original research which disputes the sources. Cptnono (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who's engaged in edit warring, DLDD. Your personal interpretation of pictures is not what we include in articles. See WP:V. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea that a search that shows all images on Google which show 'Palestinians celebrating following itamar attack' and which actually show a single individual handing out sweets in an unidentified, unnamed location, at an unknown date, can be described as a personal interpretation is really very strange. Why do you not produce a single photograph of Palestinians, (note the plural) celebrating? My search shows this claim not to be verifiable, and it should clearly be removed. Here is the search on Bing, and only one person is handing out candy. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=itamar+attack+palestinians+celebrate&FORM=BIFDDalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You should really read WP:V. It's a core policy of wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read it, and this 'The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet' surely means that google and bing images are a reliable source. I shall confirm this, and aim to restore the comment that there are no photos of Palestinians celebrating, and only photos of one individual handing out sweets.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation of images from internet searches is not sufficient. 1)The "search results" are not a reliable source. This makes your interpretation of them original research. 2)Reliable sources do say it is plural. 3)Search results on Google images do show more than one individual. This does not mater based on point number 1.

I aim to request suspension of your editing privileges if you make another revert.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Only ynet news is a reliabl source, the rest are blogs. There are no images on google showing Palestinians celebrating. If there are, then put up a link. Search results can be a reliable source. It is not interpretation to count the number of people in a picture. We shall have to see what the decision is.195.27.17.3 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

http://images.google.com/search?q=palestinians+celebrate+itamar+attacks&hl=en&safe=active&gbv=2&tbm=isch&ei=PjlqTrfvG8mj8QPfvb0O&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=20 Oh look it's the same man in every picture, just like on bing.195.27.17.3 (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, instead of assuming other don't look you can instead trust that we have. Are you not telling the truth up above where you looked at Google and are you again not telling the truth about only one source? Answer me since I am not allowed to call you a liar. And oh look... OR and V still make your argument void. Cptnono (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source saying there are only pictures of one person, you can include that in the article. Your interpretation of a search result is textbook WP:OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no interpretation here, and NO ONE has produced anything to show Palestinians celebrating. No one can call me a liar, because I have provided links that give evidence for my case. That is why I cannot be called a liar. Where is the counter evidence?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's calling you a liar. We are discussing what you can put in the article. A reliable source says Palestinians (plural) celebrated. That can be used in the article. You have yet to provide a reliable source (per WP:RS, not what you personally think is reliable) making a claim to the contrary. Pretty simple really. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly calling you a liar, DLDD, but if you want to base your argument on what internet searches say and then say that only one source says that it was plural then I feel entitled to ask you why you would make inaccurate statements. Your assertions are false. I note that you did not refute my assertion that you were not telling things as they are. But it doesn't matter one bit anyways. What you are not getting is pretty simple but you are choosing to ignore it so I am going to break it down real easy for you. You already have the links but let me kno if I have to repeat them:

We go off what secondary reliable sources. A secondary reliable source is one that is something like a published newspaper journal, or book that is independent of the subject that has oversight. Your interpretation of events (even if it is what you would consider informed) is not acceptable. That is one of the key points of Wikipedia. What you think is true does not matter one little bit. It is not meant to be offensive and not meant to discount your research (although it is flawed). What you think is true needs to be published by an author that matters.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not stating that anyone called me a liar, merely saying that I can not be called such as I have correctly pointed out that despite claims to the contrary, no one has produced an image search that shows Palestinians (plural) celebrating, just one guy handing out sweets. No one has produced images of multiple celebrants. It is really that simple. I have produced the links, and no one else has.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you googled it you would have seen it yourself. But it doesn't matter anyways since secondary reliable sources trump your original research.Cptnono (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If you had googled it, and you were correct, (I am of course not accusing you of lying, just being unable to provide evidence) then you would have posted the link here. I am still the only one who has provided any links, and they show that I am correct.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't debate class. I do not need to show you links to a google image search since 1)You can do it yourself 2)It doesn't matter if you think you are right since your interpretation contradicts secondary reliable sources. Cptnono (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono You made this claim earlier, '3)Search results on Google images do show more than one individual.' Why do you not produce those links? The only source that I can find that claims multiple celebrants is the ynet news article. All others are blogs, or refer to ynet news. I may not be able to state this in the article, but I am perfectly entitled to state here that this claim appears to be based on a single ynet news article, and that no one can produce images of multiple celebrants. You have stated that images of multiple celebrants do exist. So, why not post a link here, and prove that you are correct? I will then happily accept that you are correct, (provided that you post a reliable source of course). I look forward to your reply.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono. You still have not produced the links which you claim exist. Where are they?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Conviction update

Hakim Awad today was found guilty and sentenced to five consecutive life sentences and another five years - a total of 130 years in prison. More information contained within the article. Also, could someone switch the line in the conviction saying that he was convicted by "an Israeli military court"? Its the Samaria Military Court.--RM (Be my friend) 01:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I added some information from the link you provided. Not sure I'm following you re the military court. The Samaria Military Court is "an Israeli military court". I think it would probably be easier for the reader to understand if we leave it like it is now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dunno. It seems kinda weird to mention the exact name of the court earlier, and then mention it in such an obsure way. How about we just say he "was convicted on five counts" rather than "was convicted on five counts by an Israeli military court?"--RM (Be my friend) 02:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really care either way. This just seems easier for someone who wouldn't necessarily know what the Samaria Military Court is. How about "the Israeli military court", if it's already mentioned earlier? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me.

Also, can you mention the name of the prosecutor, and that of Judge Menachem Lieberman?--RM (Be my friend) 03:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Praise for attackers

The lead says that relatives of the killers praised the attack. This is not correct. Relatives of one of the attackers called him a hero and legend. The source does not say that they praised the attack. I intend to correct this. Does anyone want to contribute to the wording? Should this even be in the lead, as the correct wording is given later? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs. Yes, they called him a "hero and a legend", but they also "proudly describ[ed] him as the perpetrator of the Itamar attack " in the given source, and also as the "dear son" who "carried out the operation in Itamar"[9], so it is obvious that the praise for the attacker as a "legend" is due to the heroic act of decapitating a 3 month old infant. I think that part of the lead is fine as-is, but I would also be ok with tweaking it, so that instead of saying "It was praised by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, relatives of the perpetrators, and according to an opinion poll, about one-third of Palestinians.", it would read "It was praised by Palestinian Islamic Jihad and according to an opinion poll, about one-third of Palestinians. One of the perpetrators was proudly described as a "hero and legend" by his relatives." 71.204.165.25 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not splitting hairs, I am reflecting what the source says. I accept your re wording.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This wording looks good to me, too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Cracker (talk • contribs) 01:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)   strike sockpppet comment