Talk:2017 Halamish stabbing attack

Victim's names

I think the editors of this page should add the victims' names.Victims of Halamish--Jane955 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that victim names should be removed; they are otherwise non-notable. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Target - settlers - NPOV issues + factually issues

@SantiLak: - the target was civilians who were in a settlement - that is a neutral phrasing - in any attack. In this particular incident - describing the attacked as settlers is, beyond NPOV issues, also factually wrong' - as two of the three fatalities were not settlers - one was a resident of El'ad and the other a resident of Lod. [1].Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I changed it to "Israeli civilians" which I think works. - SantiLak (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Israeli civilians is better (and factually accurate in this case). I think Jewish civilians is even better for two main reasons: 1. The attacker doesn't always know if he's attacking Israeli citizens, tourists, or other non-citizens. 2. The intended target is (on civilian attacks) Jewish - attackers will usually try to avoid killing Arab Israelis (though this has happened by mistake (as well as killing Palestinians by mistake by attackers)).Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This like many of your recent edits, is problematical (see below). One uses sources and you are denied the right to play around with language regardless of them. Our standard voice refers to Israelis living in the west bank as 'settlers', tout court which is what they are, and what the project is about. Saying 'Israeli citizens' is stating the obvious. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Look at the language in the sources. e.g. CNN - [2] Three Israelis were killed Friday in a stabbing attack in a West Bank settlement or BBC (hardly pro-Israel) - [3] Three Israeli civilians have been stabbed to death in a settlement near Ramallah in the occupied West Bank.. In addition, specifically in this particular instance - some of the fatalities weren't settlers - they were visiting for Shabbat (residents of El'ad). If we look at Israeli and Western sources - the typical formulation would be "Israelis/citizens/jews in a settlement". If we look at Palestinian sources (where there is a wider RS issue, but that aside) - then the victims are labelled as settlers.Icewhiz (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Using Double Standards. User:Icewhiz

this section at 2017 Temple Mount shooting regards your removal of +972 magazine. The RSN board has never, as Roland R stated, come down with a decision that it was not RS. Generally editors in recent discussions do not allow it to be removed at sight, as E. M. Gregory used to do. You did.

Now, look at what is happening on this page. The same editor is introducing suspect sources to make a wild accusation as though it were a fact.

this edit Icewhiz adds sheer speculation from 2 sources. One is Liel Leibovitz writing for The Tablet (a journal I also cite when the topic is not inflammatory, but shows some levelheadedness).

(a) an inflammatory writer like Liel Leibovitz, known for his hostility, cannot be used for facts. He distorts everything he writes on this topic. (a) Icewhiz removed +972 magazine stating, against RSN discussions, that it was not a reliable source and then go and add 2 sources, Leiobowitz, and Mida which are obviously far more inflammatory and speculative than the ‘072 report removed. Here is Leibowitz skewing a fact for inflammatory effect (apart from using words like ‘yowling’ to describe Abbas’s protestations.)

And they include bigots like Linda Sarsour, darling of the regressive left, who took to Twitter to claim falsely that Israel was denying Muslims the right to pray in al-Aqsa

Every one who follows the topic knows that Israel regularly forbids all Palestinian male Muslim under 50 years of age from praying at al-Aqsa.

In writing:

al-Abed family will enjoy a generous payday, courtesy of the Palestinian Authority, which uses the money it receives from, among other sources, American tax payers to handsomely compensate the killers of Jews.

Leibowitz uses the future tense not to predict but to state what will of necessity occur, and he cannot be used to write:-

The alleged perpetrator is expected to receive several thousands of dollars per month in a salary from the Palestinian National Authority for carrying out the attack and serving jail time,[12] which according to right leaning Mida will total 4.3 million shekels

Mida is acknowledged to be an inappropriate source. Icewhiz thus used two extremist sources that are purely speculative. There is no far no proof of this (for far) it is an extremist POV, and a matter of violating WP:Crystal. Both should be removed immediately. And Icewhiz, if you keep playing games with WP:RS, chucking out disliked sources while introducing others that have even less claim to RS reputability simply because their opinions prop up a hostile POV, the appropriate noticeboard will be notified. You must not change the rules depending on what page you are editing, and what the POV stakes are perceived to be.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Note I removed 972 (in a different article!) given better sourcing existed (removing no text, as other sources were there) and that 972 is a self published blog - not the best place to source facts (opnions of writers or interviewees, yes) - particularly when better sources exist. Tablet may be biased (as many sources are), but it does have an editorial board (and looking at some RSN posts it is not rejected out of hand as a RS). Mida has an editorial board as well (and I did not find anything on it in RSN. From my knowledge they should not be rejected out of hand) but note I included Mida with a qualification of according to Mida, and based on a RS (bizportal) reporting on the Mida report. Mida is a RS for what Mida says at the very least. Finally there are additional sources for the expected salary of this attacker, and even more regarding the PA's stipend system in general.Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You are making asserrtions against the RSN evidence, which has no judgement against +972 magazine as not RS, despite several discussions. It is pointless saying Tablet is RS, when I am not questioning that, but the bitterly acerbic fact distorting writer who occasionally writes for it. No experienced wikipedian reading that contempt-reeking venomous polemic with its cheap and falsifying sneering could possibly imagine it not being disreputable. We do not add sheer speculations about the future on an article dealing with breaking news. You did, and you did so from obviously disreputable sources, which sling mud, while the +972 you object you is written is fairly mainstream reportage style. That is using double standards, and I will remove both because the substance, apart from WP:Crystal is sheer conjecture based on the word of deeply suspect sources.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Tablet's hyperbole was not added to the article, just the stipend. It is not crystalball to say there is an expected stipend, as the PA's stipend scale is well documented. My assumption of the Tablet piece was that it was vetted by their editorial board, and that this was not an oped. I do not see an indication of it being an oped (am I wrong?). If this is not an oped, removal based on your personal opinion regarding the writer's style is not grounds for removal. Finally please WP:AGF, particularly in new articles that are being built up, I would appreciate if we could discuss articles independently of eachother without infering regarding my editing style across disparate articles.Icewhiz (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, come now. This is straining one's credibility. Until I raised the above, I doubt very much whether much pondering about whether it was vetted by the editorial board for facts occurred. Mags like the Tablet deal with opinion, not with factual reportage. You should know that. One can keep talking, as is the case here, but the contradiction in approach to various sources has been noted.Nishidani (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Blood and Gore

Does Wikipedia have a policy about that topic? The user ThePagesWriter added the bloody image to the articles infobox a few days ago. The image is clearly meant to cause the viewer emotional distress. I think using the image in this way is in poor taste. According to ThePagesWriter, the image comes from the IDF:s Facebook page and is licensed under Creative Commons. But the part of Creative Commons licensing is not present at the IDF:s Facebook page. And someone should tell ThePagesWriter that he doesn't have 500 edits under his name so he can't edit this page. ImTheIP (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not censored. There are comparable photos at Sabra and Shatila massacre and My Lai Massacre.--181.90.196.118 (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

I reduced the excessively long quotations from Facebook. I'm preserving this material here by providing this link. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)