Talk:2011 Itamar attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Palestinian reaction

Under the Reactions section, the paragraph on the Palestinian response is potentially biased as it does not correspond to how the Jerusalem Post reported the claim of responsibility for the attack. Note that the Jerusalem Post does not say that Fatah claimed responsibility but rather that Fatah's militia did. It would be best to reword the paragraph to conform to how it's being reported in the press and more clearly distinguish between Fatah and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. In addition, the paragraph makes no mention of the condemnation issued by PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. This too suggests bias on the part of the article.—Biosketch (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Photos

User:Jalapenos_do_exist, please consider that plastering photos of the victims all over the article is nonconstructive editing. In particular, placing a photo of a victim in the Reactions sections is inappropriate.—Biosketch (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Have decency, people! These are dead babies! The user who added these, whoever s/he is, needs to stop and smell some serious coffee. -- Y not? 04:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The images compliment the text and add to the reader's understanding of the event. Everyone reads an article differently and Wikipedia has made a point of highlighting the use of media as a way to benefit the project. Furthermore, the family supposedly released. However, that claim needs verification to get the right copyright tag added.

I agree that they are disturbing images but that does not mean they do not have a place here. I think it might be a good idea to put them into a collage in one file so that the reader is not essentially bombarded as they scroll down. Simply removing them was inappropriate with the reasoning provided. Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Kudos for the admission in the edit summary, though.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I see they were all deleted, I would've suggested just having a link to the CommonsCat. Wikipedia is not censored but the one of the dead infant was rather disturbing and didn't add much to the article other than the emotional aspect.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, the one with the dead infant is maybe the best one at accompanying the text "an act of incomprehensible cruelty and brutality". It is emotional and it is disturbing and that is exactly why it pairs well with the text. I do believe that highlighting the emotional aspects can be problematic since it can lead to POV. However, it was an event characterized by its brutalness so we should not expect this to be an article about sunshine and lollipops.

And I assume you meant "not censored".

This discussion will mean little if the copyright tag isn't figured out.Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, yes I meant not censored. I corrected my post above. I see you point about the infant as this is the most disturbing part of the incident and it does illustrate that. If the pictures come back, a gallery or Commons link would be the best recourse; with one picture as a primary instead of scattered throughout the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The link (23) does not match the author's text. Please change link to story alleging revenge killing. MizzR (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

See also: 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign

Why on earth is this a "see also" link? Are there any reliable sources linking the Itamar attack to the so-called "2010 Palestinian militancy campaign"? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. If it were a link to 2011 that would be one thing, but 2010 is tenuous at best. I would prefer to substitute the link with another See also link than remove the section altogether, though.—Biosketch (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if such a link can be found. I think in the meantime it's probably best to remove it altogether (as an aside I had no idea there was a guideline on this!). The implication from its unexplained presence is that the attack was part of the so-called campaign. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The linked article says it's about the coordinated effort to derail peace talks between Israel and PA. Completely irrelevant in 2011, as we all know. As for substitution, how about this: "List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011"? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks good - the list mentions this incident so it's obviously a useful see also link. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep.—Biosketch (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding a link to August 2010 West Bank shooting. As noted, for example, in the detailed The Guardian article [1], this was the last killing of settlers before the current incident. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Editorializing in the lead

I've tagged the following clause in the first paragraph as possible Editorializing:

(based on circumstancial evidence, it seems almost certain that it was carried out as part of ongoing hostilities of Palestinans toward Israelis living in the West Bank)

In the first place, this is commentary unsupported by either of the four sources cited at the end of the paragraph, which raises concerns of WP:SYNTH. Secondly, "seems almost certain" is WP:VAGUE.

Beyond that, as a rule encyclopedic writing should not have parenthetical clauses. If it's not important enough to be part of the regular prose, then leave it out or mention it in a footnote. While it may be considered a stylistic criticism that can be flouted on occasion in a long text, the first sentence of the lead paragraph demands a higher standard of writing.—Biosketch (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that as it appears to be WP:OR speculation. I have also removed the "celebrations" claim from the intro as it's clearly turning into a contested mess. It shouldn't be in the intro in any case - it appears to refer only to a relatively small number of Palestinian residents, whose opinion is hardly notable by comparison with regional and world leaders. Gatoclass (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades as claiming responsibility

According to Haaretz, "Reports that responsibility for the attack was claimed yesterday by the "Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades - Imad Mughniyeh Group are "nonsense," according to a senior officer in the area." http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/mess-report/settlement-attack-could-trigger-terrorism-by-jewish-extremists-1.348815 --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good point User:Frederico1234. Except that that's a blog page, and blogs tend to rank low on the reliability scale for news sources. But there are now credible news reports that corroborate what the Haaretz blog article said, that the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade never claimed responsibility for the attack. I get the impression there was confusion when the terrorists behind the attack claimed responsibility for it: they called themselves the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade of Imad Mughniyeh, and the press right away associated them with the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade of the Fatah party. This should somehow be incorporated into the article; but with all the craziness that's going on, it's hard to see how that could be done at this stage. Nonetheless, here are some credible sources that I've been able to find, which undermine the earlier claims that al-Aqsa Martyrs is behind the attack, and that we should keep on record for when things settle down:

• Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades deny responsibility for Itamar massacre (Ynetnews)
• West Bank: No Excuse for Murder of Settler Family (Human Rights Watch)
• Shadowy group claims settlement attack (Ma'an)
• Report: Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades of Imad Mughniyeh Claims Responsibility for Israel Attack (Naharnet)—Biosketch (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. For the record though, the Haaretz article is not actually a "blog" in the Wikipedia sense of the word, despite the link name. It's actually written by Haaretz correspondents. It's basically a normal news article with some analysis by the correspondents. --Frederico1234 (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that there is there every reason to be skeptic about claims announced by this group. According to the Ma'an article: "Israeli authorities have dismissed statements from the group in the past, as it has claimed responsibility for other operations that may have been the work of others". The article should reflect this uncertainty. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In the Hamas section it was mentioned that they have labelled it as a "revenge attack" yet nowhere in the provided source does it mention this. it was removed unless another reliable source is provided Atmleb (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also see http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/mess-report/mess-report-does-palestinian-group-behind-west-bank-shooting-actually-exist-1.296193 --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Reaction of notable NGOs

Notable NGOs that reacted to the attack (placed here for easy reference and possible incorporation):

• ADL: The Anti-Defamation League expressed shock and outrage at the brutal murder of five members of the Fogel family at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. (Includes statement issued ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman.)
• Human Rights Watch: "There can be no political or other justification for the brutal killing of these family members." —Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.
• CIC and CIJA: Moshe Ronen, Chair of the Canada-Israel Committee, called the attack "an unspeakably heinous act" and "a slaughter." Steven Cummings, National Chair of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, expressed his deep shock and sorrow on behalf of the Canadian Jewish community.
• WJC: Dan Diker, Secretary-General Designate of the World Jewish Congress, blamed the attack on Palestinian incitement: "This barbaric execution of children is the natural consequence of the ongoing orchestrated incitement of the Palestinian public to hatred of Jews and Israel in the Palestinian media, mosques and schools."—Biosketch (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• EJC: Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress called the murders "gruesome" and accused some Palestinian Authority officials of "glorifying previous terrorists, sending a message that could be construed as justifying such attacks." The EJC called on the European Union to add provisions to the aid it extends to the Palestinians.
• J Street: J Street Vice President for Policy and Strategy, Hadar Susskind, called the attack a "massacre" and expressed a hope that the perpetrators will be brought to justice. —Biosketch (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Amnesty International: Amnesty International issued a statement condemning the murder of the Fogel family and calling on Israel to halt retaliatory attacks by Jewish settlers. Philip Luther, Deputy Director the Middle East and North Africa, said, "We utterly condemn the killing of the Fogel family in Itamar. There must be a prompt and effective investigation to identify those suspected of involvement and ensure that they are brought to justice in a fair trial."
• AJC: The American Jewish Committee strongly condemned the attack as "an unconscionable outrage." AJC Executive Director David Harris called it "a cold-blooded terror attack...cruel beyond comprehension" and "a despicable crime."
• APN: Americans for Peace Now released a statement strongly denouncing the murders and extending its condolences to the families of the victims. APN president and CEO Debra DeLee called the attack "horrifying" and said, "We hope that the Israeli and Palestinian security forces will act to find the perpetrators."
• CMEP: A statement released by Churches for Middle East Peace denounced the attack as a "tragic and senseless killing," "abhorrent," "immoral," and "symptomatic of a stagnant peace process." The statement stressed, "It has never been clearer that all of us must work now to find a way to end this conflict that breeds such violence."—Biosketch (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Seeing as the lead now mentions "as well as by a number of non-governmental organizations," it would make sense to start incorporating some of the condemnations above into the Responses section.—Biosketch (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the point in that. Of course many NGOs are going to have something to say about this, but that doesn't mean we have to include a laundry list of every other statement made. We already have a stack of comments from foreign governments. At most, I'd say a single short paragraph summarizing the comments of two or three NGOs would be sufficient. Gatoclass (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of media coverage

At some point I'd like to work some of these links into a new section, to be titled Criticism of media coverage, because it's turning out to be a notable aspect of the attack. I don't have time now, though, so if someone else would like try their hand at it, please do so. Alternatively, if editors feel it transcends the scope of the article, please elaborate why.

• במועצת יש"ע זועמים לאחר שבאתר האינטרנט באנגלית של הארץ נכתב כי הפיגוע הרצחני באיתמר 'חשוד כמעשה טרור' (Hebrew: "Yesha Council furious after Haaretz's English website described the murderous attack as a 'suspected terrorist attack'") – Criticism of Haaretz coverage
• Israel to CNN: Apologize for Biased Coverag – Criticism of CNN coverage
• GPO slams CNN for description of Itamar 'terror attack' – Criticism of CNN coverage
• Jewish Family Massacred? Not Big News for World – Criticism of Associated Press, FOX News and BBC
• Foreign bloggers vow to report other angles – Criticism of LA Times coverage and of the media in general—Biosketch (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd only say this is worthwhile including if the criticism has received coverage by recognised neutral sources. Both sides of the dispute persistently attack the western media for so-called bias. I don't think we ought to give airtime to either side unless it gets covered in reliable (ie uninvolved) sources. The closest the sources identified get is the Jerusalem Post and Ynet News, which might be reliable for factual matters but can't be considered independent in this context. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Camera, israelnationalnews.com, really? Turning a already biased article even more biased is a bad move. Also, this is WP:SYNTH. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ynet and jpost are both reliable sources and fine for this purposes. The others are of questionable reliability and obviously partisan. Taken together, the two reliable sources might be enough for a sentence or two but a full article section would probably be undue weight. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is silly, these are all Israeli news sources. If we want to talk about criticism of the coverage, it should certainly have a broader base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad112 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have other reliable sources discussing criticism of the coverage? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The ynet article talks about some bloggers who criticise the media. That is not suitable for an encyclopedia. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely with JoshuaZ. A couple lines instead of a full-on section and RS is RS. If there is a question to the RS's bias then we simply need to ensure that we do not mirror it.Cptnono (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Reliable sources talking about opinions are natural things to use. I don't see anything unencyclopedic about that. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So we should add sentences like "The pro-Isreali bloggers X, Y and Z criticized the media coverage of the event"? You don't find anything unencyclopedic about that? --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. It does not directly apply sine this is not a deletion discussion but the premise is similar. It looks to me that what you consider encyclopedic differs from others as detailed by the repetition above.Cptnono (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Everyone please read WP:UNDUE. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do. How does it apply in this case, Frederico1234?Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two articles to consider: the jerusalem post article and the ynet article. The first is official Isreali response and the second is about pro-Isreali bloggers. If we make a section based on just these two cases, both of which are obviously biased, then we put undue weight on one POV, namely the pro-Isreali one. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Two editors have said not to use an independent section but still including a couple lines. It sounds like that would address your concern. Correct? Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I also am under the impression that it is a prominence and not an actual UNDUE concern (often misspoken) since there really does not appear to be multiple POVs on how it was reported.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

These two sources do not warrant a creation of their own section by any means. What would it have to be titled? "Allegations of media bias in Israeli media by Israelis"? The criticism of the media coverage is entirely too small in the scope of the international media attention this event has got. I really don't even think the articles are worth being linked in the external links sections, but I wouldn't object to it. -asad (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So it looks like this is sorted out then. If an editor wishes to propose something then go for it. Consensus is obviously against a whole section (I cannot express how much I disagree with a whole section in a way that does not include cussing and screaming about POV) but a line or two might fit perfectly. How to do it is up to a draft by another editor since that is going to have so many pitfalls that it needs to be handled as if it was a delicate baby's head.Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as User:Sean.hoyland has deemed it appropriate to mention the controversy surrounding the images, it can be safely said that a mention of Israel's criticism of the media's coverage is not too peripheral to the topic of the article. However, in consideration of the comments above, the edit will be restricted only to reports in reliable sources (not blogs) and only to criticism articulated by notable bodies (such as the government).—Biosketch (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The source didn't say the image distribution was controversial and neither did I. Is there a controversary about the imagery evident from RS ? If so, I would support briefly describing it. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, rereading your edit, there is nothing in it directly indicating controversy. It would be interesting to know, though, why the editor felt it was relevant to bring up the matter of the images at all, given that it is not an integral component of the attack or of its aftermath. The analogy still stands, that if mentioning the issue of the images is within the scope of the article, the government's criticism of the media is as well.

In answer to the question, there are RSes reporting the controversy surrounding the release of the images, but that is not the controversy I intended to address through this thread. It would be WP:SYNTH on my part to merge a discussion of the image controversy into a discussion of the media coverage controversy, as the reports keep them separate. I'll replace the list of links above with one that's less inclusive.—Biosketch (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Images of the conflict, particular graphic images of victims of the conflict, are an integral part of the conflict. They always have been for both sides and the media. It's a key aspect of the visual narrative used by both sides. I guess that may be why the source included that information. To readers outside the conflict zone or people who don't live in places where graphic images of gruesome crimes/suicides etc appear in the media everyday, these images and the associated issues probably seem notable/interesting/shocking etc, hence they get a mention in the newspaper. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

On this edit: I see no soapboxing here, the statements are attributed. However I agree that it has nothing to do in the "Victims" section. The question is if it worth inclusion in the "Reactions" section? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly, it is the general sort of thing that's said after pretty much any incident. 168.122.0.162 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Are the usual terrorist groups reactions - calling the stabbing of a three month old "heroic" - not particularly relevant as well?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The line when taken with the quote from the father reads in a way that shifts focus away from the murders while also justifying them. I'm not going to comment on if I believe that was any editor's intent or not. Instead of using whatever long winded quotes tickle any given editors fancy, we can simply lay out clearly: "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."[2]

Some sort of "go team" mentality exhibited at the funeral should certainly get some mention but it should be blunter. A funeral subsection might also be a good addition. Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

These statements don't provide the reader with any other information and has made the victims section pretty long. With the exception of Yona Metzger, these statements are pretty obvious things Israeli politicians would say in the wake of such an event. I don't know exactly what the reader is suppose to take from it. -asad (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Claim

Sources say one party claimed. I do not understand why it was removed.[3]Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that Guardian mistook the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades with the "Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades - Imad Mughniyeh Group". Newspapers makes error sometimes, even respected ones like Guardian. [Comment updated] --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else reporting the Guardian's claims as well? No. After a few days it's very clear they got it wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, The Independent on 14th March. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have a claims of responsibility section rather than put these details in the lead ? I don't think they are even in the article body yet so they shouldn't be in the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I aggree with Sean.hoyland, the lead is the wrong place for the claim(-error), which was also reported by the Washington Post [4], so it should be mentioned. As of now, word is that nobody claimed responsability, if I'm not mistaken. I also think that the lead is too long, so I'm going to shorten it, as suggested earlier, Ajnem (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades news site (Google translate) doesn't appear to include a claim of responsibility by the way. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That observation is somewhat tenuous. We do not know if their website gets updated and there can be a host of other reasons why they would elected not condemn it online. In other words, there is not sufficient evidence to make a positive claim to the effect that they did not claim responsibility, unless they were to publish a statement actually denying responsibility – that would be different. Remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The website of the Foreign Ministry of Turkey does not, so far as I have been able to determine, condemn the attack in Itamar; but since Haaretz reported that the Ministry published a condemnation on its website, that is evidence enough to report the condemnation as fact. If a reliable sources attribute condemnation to AAMB, to dismiss them would be WP:OR.—Biosketch (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It was an observation for interest without inference as I happened to have a look out of curiosity given the conflicting reports. Their site is not an RS and if I didn't understand evidence and inference I would have got into serious trouble already... Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades deny responsibility for Itamar massacre. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Imad Mughniyya Group" has also denied responsibility: Group denies involvement in settler attack --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

True, although to be precise, the West Bank branch claimed responsibility on Saturday and then the Gazan branch denied responsibility on Sunday. Not sure where that leaves us.—Biosketch (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a terrorist attack?

I see that editors are reverting the phrase, "terrorist attack." Okay, I get it. Arabs don't like the word "terrorist" applied to other Arabs. Then what is a terrorist attack? Wikipedia has a list of them. Perhaps that article should be eliminated? Or perhaps all mention of terrorist attacks should be buried because, "ya gotta understand how they feel"? Look, I know, these guys have their biases, they sympathize with throat-slitters, but ultimately, the general public is going to realize that Wikipedia is pulling a fast one on them. By the way, what next? Ban the word "militant" as well? Then the word "activist"? How about "cessation of lives by individuals interested in the achieving a political goal by means of sowing apprehension within a civilian population"? I like it. How about "apprehension attack" for short? 68.4.200.35 (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not a matter of what editors like – or, ideally, it shouldn't be. It is a matter of how the sources the article is relying on report the incident. If you feel the incident should be referred to as a terrorist attack, you are encouraged to gather notable examples from prominent sources and demonstrate that they support your argument. Then it will be difficult for editors who feel otherwise to challenge your view. The important thing is that you approach the task in a constructive spirit. Don't make it about promoting a personal agenda; rather, make it about improving the quality of the article.—Biosketch (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it not a matter of what is known about the crime? Until the perpetrator(s) and motive is identified, we cannot assume either way. The frenzied nature of the attack, the type of weapon used, the stabbing of an infant and a toddler seem to indicate this was not the work of a "militant" or garden variety "terrorist". MizzR (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Saving Arab baby incident

Don't know if this was incorporated into the article yet, but a recent story was published about how residents of Itamar yesterday saved the life of an Arab baby. The source ties and compares the two incidents together, thus it deserves inclusion in this article. See [5]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It was at Halamish=Neveh Tzuf wasn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 02:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. This article is not a biography or an article about the settlement, but about the incident. Thus we may include into this article material that reliable sources found pertinent to the incident.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with these killings. It's just a media outlet tacking two unrelated stories together to flatter Israeli egos. We aren't in the business of selling a product to customers, we are an encyclopedia and we report on notable events, not tacky tabloid beatups. Gatoclass (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oooooo nice one Gatoclass. Pat yourself on the back for that one. Big man you are. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Gatoclass. Your comments about "Israeli egos" are very unfortunate. Insults aside, the reliable source is tying the two incident together, so whether you like or you don't like it, it meets our verifiability standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Insult? I didn't insult anyone. I'm simply making the point that media outlets frequently promote "feelgood" stories to please their audience. That's just good business. But this is an encyclopedia and we need to discriminate between genuine news and information and tabloid product. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There is talk of having a media coverage section to describe the er..media coverage of the media coverage. This kind of story might fit in there if a secondary source discusses it within the context of the Israeli press' reaction to the killings. By itself, I don't think the YNet piece is pertinent to the incident. The fact that they chose to write that article, an article about saving a Palestinian baby, in that way, at this time, may be pertinent to descriptions of the media coverage of the incident though...if an RS doing a media coverage analysis picks it up. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, an angle like that might be acceptable. But then, some media source will have to discuss it in those terms first. Gatoclass (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody accuses the sources at Muhammad al-Durrah incident of being "taboid"ish. Nor does that article have any sort newfangled non-policy based requirement just made up on this talk page - that we need secondary sources to report on the secondary sources. They are both articles about Arab children/babies and for the life of me I don't see how they would be different.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you referring to exactly? I recently read the al-Durrah article all the way through and didn't see anything like the story you are proposing to add here. Gatoclass (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no newfangled non-policy based requirement. I explained the conditions under which that story would become pertinent to this incident in my view. I can elaborate on that. If we include the Ynet story we will be participating in the narrative wars rather than describing them. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You just made up a new requirement. You said the only way this becomes eligible for inclusion is if other reliable sources discuss specifically the Ynet article. That's a newfangled non-policy based requirement. Nothing in our RS or V policies require a second reliable source to discuss specifically the article in a first secondary source before the first secondary sources is eligible for inclusion.

Sean, you also don't have any discretion to decide which RS's are "participating in the narrative wars" and which RS's are describing them. What does it boil down to, articles consistent with your POV are descriptive and articles inconsistent with your POV are narrative? Your position is an extreme case of wikilaywering far removed from this encyclopedia's content policies.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no new requirement. There is an opinion by a person whether the story is pertinent now and how it might be become pertinent. You disagree. That's fine. I think my views are consistent with the content policies. If you have concerns about whether my editing is inconsistent with policy or the sanctions file an AE report. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not much of a filing type, so that would be unlikely, especially against someone as yourself who can be reasonable. To take a position as an editor that the newspaper article should not be incorporated into this article because of its lack of importance is entirely valid. However, please don't dress it up on RS or V policy. The article meets all policy requirements for inclusion and no policy requires that another secondary source discuss the first secondary source before the first secondary sources is eligible for inclusion. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no dressing up in RS or V. I didn't mention RS or V or any other policy as reasons for exclusion. I just don't think the story is relevant for this article as an event. But, I do think it could be relevant to an analysis of the media coverage when and if someone, an RS, does that. That is the only time I mentioned RS because obviously an RS would need to do that analysis. I can explain why I suggested that. I just happened to have been reading a scholarly meta-analysis of the Western and Arab media coverage of another event, the suicide bombing by Wafa Idris, that described the way different media sources focused on the various personal, cultural, social, political and religious aspects of her life as a women and death as a suicide bomber to different extents. That is why I thought of a meta-analysis of this event. There's no evil subtext. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If it was not a policy based argument, I stand corrected.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Other than being a somewhat ironic coincidence, the story's too far removed from the scope of the article to be considered relevant. It doesn't involve the victims, the search efforts to locate their killers, the background to the event, or any other aspect directly issuing from it. There's also a story circulating since Wednesday night of an attack on an Arab caterer at a religious Jewish wedding in the capital, subsequent to which the wedding guests scuffled with police officers who were dispatched to the scene to intervene on the caterer's behalf, leading to the detention of Baruch Marzel's son. Of course the article mentions the chronological proximity of the wedding incident to the Gil'ad outpost clashes and the Itamar attack, but there's no established connection, and the article doesn't explore a possible connection beyond mentioning it in the blurb and wondering if it's price tagging in the first two words of the article. In both cases it's editorializing to connect the incidents with the Itamar attack. Not until there's a report clearly linking the incidents to the attack, as with the settler retaliations in the days immediately following, would it warrant mention in the article.—Biosketch (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Table should be converted to prose

Table should be converted to prose. Format is weird. Prose would be sufficient. Table serves no use that prose can't do.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Weird in what way? I thought it does a better job of organizing the information. Passover massacre lists the victims in a table. Coastal Road massacre, on the other hand, displays the victims as a bulleted list. User:Ajnem's table format was weird, but the standard wikitable is a pronounced improvement.—Biosketch (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not weird as in your table sucks or anything (it showed way more effort than a bulleted list). I am personally just a big fan of converting lists into prose when they are that short. I think prose is always better. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)#Prose versus lists Cptnono (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's a choice between a bulleted list and a table, my preference is a table in this case. But between prose and a table, the argument in favor of prose at WP:EMBED is sound.—Biosketch (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for prose, s. suggestion, Ajnem (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A reminder of the 1RR restriction

User:Ajnem, please consider that the frequency and nature of your edits may constitute a violation of the 1RR restriction. While they appear to be in good faith, they are also symptomatic of WP:OWN. Without prior warning on the Discussion page, Administrators are unlikely to take action; so please review Wikipedia policy at WP:1RR and in particular keep in mind the following: An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Take this message not as a personal insult but as constructive criticism and endeavor to be more careful in the future.—Biosketch (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please move this to the editor's talk page. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

Photographs of the aftermath of the attack can be found on Picasa, here: [6]. Israeli columnist and settler spokesperson Yisrael Medad has linked to the photos with the statement "These photos were released by the family. They have given full permission to reproduce them to report on the horrific reality of murdering children and babies in their sleep, simply because they are Jewish."[7]. Three photos were in the article and were then deleted unilaterally and without warning or satisfactory explanation by user:Y. The deletion has been opposed by user:cptnono, user:NortyNort and me. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with User:Y on this one. While Wikipedia is not censored, I personally believe we should not feature graphic images of murdered children unless there is a very good reason for doing so - e.g. the image is historically famous. In general, we're hear to inform people, not shock and disgust them. In this instance, the text of the article is shocking enough; an image would add no informative content. The pictures are still linked at the bottom of the article for anyone who really wants to see them. Robofish (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this one meet your criteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG ? Pedantrician (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Y's delete should be reverted pending a more articulate explanation than "Ignore all rules in the name of basic human dignity," which is not a valid reason to remove images from a page. I support displaying one photo in the Victims section, as a relevant document illustrating the event with which the article is concerned. While true that the photos are shocking and disgusting, it is purely POV to claim that including them would be in order to shock and disgust the reader. They serve a historical function.—Biosketch (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

They're already linked from the External links section, with the appropriate warning. No teenager doing research on current events needs to be exposed to this except by deliberate clicking. The deletion was pursuant to WP:IAR. Anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to take it to WP:DRV. -- Y not? 13:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating. WP:IAR would seem to be in tension with WP:CENSOR in this particular case. Perhaps Wikipedia:Censorship#Ita quam est can be of some help in resolving the conflict. The essay invokes decency as a concept in accordance with which Wikipedia operates. Coherently defining decency is the real snag; but now that you've shared your attitude, it can at least be addressed and challenged more directly.—Biosketch (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a misapplication of IAR. IAR is to better the encyclopedia. Our current standards and precedent say that images do assist the reader in understanding the subject. So it is not IAR but a violation of NOTCENSOR. I again recommend grouping them into a collage so that it is a single file instead of bombarding the reader in every section.Cptnono (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think there's a consensus on this. Of course, the photos should not have been unilaterally deleted in the first place. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Permission to use photos only to push a specific political end is pretty clearly not an acceptable form of copyright that we can use. It breaks so many different policies I'm not sure I can even list them all. Removal of the photos was the correct decision. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it would be quite helpful if you would list some of these "many different policies."—Biosketch (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:IMAGE would be the most obvious. The sorts of images we are allowed to use have a very narrow set of possible copyright statuses, and allowed to use if and only iff one is pushing a specific POV is not one of them. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation of our policies and guidelines. The only argument that can be made for not using them is based on the copyright. If the copyright holder actually sends something to OTRS or makes it clear on the Picassa page that they are in the public domain then there is no other reason to not use them. Even if they don;t, a FUR can be written since it offers so much critical commentary wise. Wikipedia is not censored and a dead baby is sad but representative of the topic. Do you really want me to go pull a quote from the most recent broadcasted statement from the foundation? There is absolutely no excuse for censoring images. Please provide reasoning based on our standards instead of moral stuff. Just to have fun with it, reasoning to remove images so far has been almost purely moral which means we should not show any images about 9/11 and never show images of Muhammad. Cptnono (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone get a valid copyright permission then we can talk about this further. In the meantime, "full permission to reproduce them to report on the horrific reality of murdering children and babies in their sleep, simply because they are Jewish" is not at all a release public domain. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

An image of a slain baby conveys little information to the reader in addition to what can be read from the text. Why would the reader want/need to know how the baby looked like after the murder?. As this is not an article about slain babies, those images need not be included. This is not about censorship, this is about excluding non-important information. We're here to serve the reader, not overwhelm him/her with unimportant information. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Images assist the reader in understanding topics. We are wired that way as people. Everyone reads an article differently. We use media on Wikipedia. Your argument is worded in away that contradicts what the Foundation, psychologists, and educational professionals say. So since you are not really saying that: This article deals with brutality. If you censor an image here the you need to censor images on other articles. There is zero POV in the image since killing people is acceptable to those who support a violent response to oppression and despicable to those who do not.Cptnono (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Images assist the reader in understanding topics". But how relevant images are varies with articles. If this article was about vaginas then we should cerainly show at least one vagina. It is not censorship, however, to not show a vagina in this article, as that is irrelevant information, regardless what "Foundation, psychologists, and educational professionals" say about the importance of showing images. While there are certainly stronger reasons to show the slain baby, it is still not enough. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not enough for you. NOTCENSOR and precedent disagree.Cptnono (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If WP:NOTCENSOR disagrees, then it's ok if I add the picture of a vagina to the article, no? I think not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of these pictures is a lot higher than that of a vagina. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly true. The point, however, is that whether or not a picture should be included in an article or not is a question of just that: relevance. You can't say a picture should be included just because we shouldn't censor. One needs to provide a reason for the inclusion of content, not exclusion. In other words, if you want to include a picture (or any content whatsoever) then the burden of proof is on you to show why the picture/info is relevant. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There are four different images illustrating the vagina at the vagina page – naturally, because that's what the page is about. The same logic should apply here. The article is about the murder of five members of the Fogel family. Displaying the images of the butchered victims will serve two important functions: a. the photos are historical documents and as such serve an important documentary function, and b. they serve to illustrate the savagely brutal nature of the attack, which is a large part of why there is an article about it in the first place.

We should be expending our resources determining which of the photos is most appropriate for the article. Whichever one we agree on should be posted in the Victims section.

Collage would be my preferred option. Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The same logic as the with the vagina article does not apply here. For the vagina article, the picture is crucial as how a vagina looks is highly relevant in the same sense as showing the picture of an orange is relevant for the Orange article. This article is not about slain babies and hence it's not as important to show it. The reader really doesn't need it. Pictures like this belongs to propaganda blogs, not encyclopedias (save Conservopedia). --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The images depict the subject. They pair with the commentary since it is the actual victims and not just a random dead baby. And propaganda? There is no propaganda but if editors are weary then keep in mind that it would propaganda for both the supporters and detractors of the attack which means POV isn't a problem. Agreed with the unsigned comment above about choosing an image and for the third time I am suggesting a collage since it would not show reference to one image and would serve the reader the best by encompassing all of the victims instead of just one.Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It is propaganda. Why would Isaeli officials release these pictures, if not for propaganda purposes? --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The pictures provide nothing to the article itself other than shock value. There are many articles about murders and other acts of grotesque nature that has happened without the need to link a photograph to it. What will the pictures give to the article that the article does not already state in words? I have yet to hear a good answer to that. -asad (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

@User:Frederico1234: Normally Israel suppresses the release of gruesome photos after terrorist attacks, out of respect for the victims' memory and families. The word "suppresses," however, is really a euphemism for "censors." So in this case, it is not so much that Israeli officials released the photos; rather, they did not restrict access to them. As for it being done in the interests of propaganda, that's pure speculation unless it can be confirmed by a WP:RS. —Biosketch (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See the Haaretz article Why did Israel release bloody images of the family slain in Itamar? where the Israeli official says that "...In this atmosphere, of wild incitement against and demonization of Israel, there needs to be a shocking reaction [to the attack] that will cause people to recognize the reality here. [...] But the mere fact that an editor or senior analyst would receive the photos and look at them and carry out a discussion - I'm certain that this had an effect, and these are the people who shape public opinion. I am sure that whoever has not lost their humanity, will in the future be more careful with regard to Israel." --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

@User:Asad112: That the images are shocking is not in itself an argument against their use – at least not on Wikipedia, per WP:NOTCENSORED. The images accompanying the tsunami disaster in Japan are shocking in their own way, yet they're an indispensable part of documenting the event. They do not "give" anything to the article in the sense of adding information that is otherwise available in the text, but they're vital because they offer a visual portrayal that the text cannot convey to the reader. Remember that this is an article about the attack on the Fogel family. What images could be more appropriate than images of the Fogel family?

Bottom line: photos are out there, they illustrate the event this article is about, and unless there are copyright issues barring their distribution, they belong in the article. User:Cptnono has suggested a collage image. Unless collages could be construed as Photoshop manipulation, I see no reason not to go with that suggestion.—Biosketch (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It is true that Israel attempted it but that does not mean editors here are. And my point still stands, those who agree with the attacks can take the "good" from the images. And raising the specter of propaganda does not change the facts that they offer information to the reader in a preferred media and that WIkipedia is not censored. Looks like Bioscetch is on board so as soon as the copyright is taken care of we should go for it. COllages are used often enough in articles. See: Second Intifada. This of course assumes that previous claims of them being in the public domain ca be verified since if not I doubt a FUR would be workable.Cptnono (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily a reliable source?

A WorldNetDaily article ([http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=274857#ixzz1Gb0ZjLt0 U.S.-trained forces arrested in bloody slaying of kids]) is being cited in the Responsibility section and again in the Responses:Israeli section. Skimming through WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_62#Worldnetdaily.2C_again, it's arguable whether this can be considered a reliable source. So far as I can determine, no other news reports have implicated the Palestinian cousins Ahmed and Iyad Awad in the murder of the Fogel family. I motion that the information relying on WND, and the WND reference, be removed from the page.—Biosketch (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. If someone wants to restore it they can try to make a case for it on the talk page and at WP:RSN. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Article name should be changed

you can't call it just an attack..pepole slaughtered there while they sleep.. it's terror attack,slaughter,massacre,murder..call it just 'attck' make it sounds like nothing serious really happened there --79.181.18.159 (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

While I tend to agree personally that the incident would be better described as a massacre, we need to reflect the manner in which the incident is being reported in the press. Google search: "Itamar attack" 7,500 results > "Itamar massacre" 1,230. It's not a scientifically valid observation, but it gives you a sense of the considerations needing to be taken into account.—Biosketch (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Biosketch. We should, however, keep an eye out for a name change in the mainstream reliable sources. That often happens in cases like this. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed it to massacre. Fits encyclopedic definition of massacre and referred as such in sources, if not exclusively. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler, you should have discussed moving the page here before doing so exclusively of your own initiative. If you feel there are compelling reasons to warrant a page move, by all means share them with the rest of us. I urge you to review Wikipedia policy at WP:OWN and WP:POVTITLE. I support reverting back to Itamar attack pending consensus on WP:MOVE.—Biosketch (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not.It was a massacre, and a terrorist attack. Good move.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless and until credible international media refer to it as a "massacre" there is absolutely no reason to title the article by our own original research. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The word "attack" is even splattered all over the front page of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [8] -asad (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Attack" shows more google news hits. When in quotes "Itamar xxx" it is 10 v 6. When not in quotes it is 900+ v 100+. So coverage appears ot lean towards "attack" but I did not look into the searches too far.Cptnono (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And now we're on to "Itamar killings." Christ, this is the fourth name for the article already. We've gone from Itamar massacre (2011) to Itamar attack to Itamar massacre and now to Itamar killings. Can we cut it out with the page moves??—Biosketch (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a massacre. The only reason "attacks" is getting more hits is because every major media source is pro-Arab. This is blatantly obvious as demonstrated here. Need I mention the precedent set here: Cave of the Patriarchs massacre?--Metallurgist (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cowboy page moves aside, please at least read WP:COPYWITHIN and WP:MOVE for why copy-pasting is a copyright violation. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It was not cowboy, it was bold. I would disagree about it being a copyright violation, but I understand how there would be misattribution since it was not administratively renamed. Lets just drop it for now. Its unimportant.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to vote on 2011 Itamar massacre vs. 2011 Itamar killings vs. 2011 Itamar attack:

• Massacre Per Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, which is certainly a massacre. Not to mention there are a whole host of non-massacres/battles that are labelled here as massacre. The reasoning behind 'attacks' or 'killings' that that is what the media is using is only reflecting the known and well-documented bias of those media groups. Alternatively, I can refer to the closing arguments (spoilers) of the film A Time to Kill (it involves a trial): what if the roles were reversed? Imagine if a Jew or several Jews broke into an Arab home and gruesomely slaughtered the occupants, including two children and a three month old baby. Would that not be widely reported as a massacre (not to mention get vast amounts of media coverage, but thats a separate issue)? Lets be realistic here. It is a massacre, not killings, not an attack; a massacre. Just like the Cave of the Patriarchs, where 29 Arabs were slaughtered by a crazed Jewish man.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually we do not need to "vote". And I don't understated the argument you are using "Per Cave of the Patriarchs massacre" or to bring up Deir yassin. Just because an instance where an Israeli settler killed 29 Palestinians in the Palestinian territories, or 107 Palestinians got killed in their village by Irgun, then this is not a reason for that in this instance where 5 Israeli settlers got killed in an Israeli settlement in occupied Palestinian land, must also be called "massacre". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Massacre. You can't call slaughtering parents, children and a baby anything else.84.95.28.249 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: With respect, this will not go anywhere unless it can be established that the convention among the media is to report the incident as a massacre. Arguments for any of the proposed titles need to be formulated with reference to the language used by independent third-party sources. Suggesting, as User:Metallurgist is, that the media is biased is just POV and not a valid argument. Anyway, though, the way to have gone about this should have been through the formal WP:REQMOVE procedure – even though it's true no consensus was ever established for the current page name, which is something that presumably should be addressed in the REQMOVE summary.—Biosketch (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ive already conceded that what I did was improper. I didnt think about the page history. Its a moot point. My argument here is that we should use what is completely obvious. I dont care if its Jews or Arabs or monkeys doing the killing. If someone deliberately goes and kills a group of civilians systematically, that is a massacre. No one in the world can deny that if a Jew went and did this to an Arab family, it would be widely reported as a massacre. We are not slaved to sources when naming a title. The 2010 Canterbury earthquake was widely reported as Christchurch earthquake, but look at what the article is named...because editors found it more "accurate". Massacre is more accurate than killings. Now, I will say massacre can be POV, but at that rate why not just rename the rest of the massacres as battles or killings?--Metallurgist (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Massacre. Notwithstanding the substantive arguments, Google search for "Itamar Massacre" v. "Itamar Attack" is 10,300 v. 22,600. HOWEVER, when one includes transalated pages in the search the result is 78,600 to 82... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.35.22 (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought Search counts are not a valid arguing point...Also, can you guys make accounts? Your opinions will carry more weight then.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Gentle reminder - The article title simply needs to comply with WP:TITLE and all arguments should be based on that policy. Comments that aren't based on that policy can be excluded from the consensus. Remember, it's not a vote or a debate about the meanings of words or the nature of the event. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Gentle? Maybe SH should be an admin. No titles should be based off editor's interpretations. We call it a massacre when the bulk of sources do. Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Massacre. Every source I've read calls it the "Itamar massacre." It was a massacre by any definition of the word. Here are the pictures. They demand to be seen and comprehended. --GHcool (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You have not seen any other source that calls it something else? Here are some that do not call it "massacre": [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, I don't know if 5 is enough to call it "massacre". Dictionary.com says: "the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder." [16] thefreedictionary says: "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly." [17] I dont see how 5 (of the same family) is "large", I would say when we get to 9-10 (a crowd) then that would probably be a "large" number in this context. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Apple Dictionary defines it as "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people." --GHcool (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The way someone dies is one aspect, but the numbers are also one important aspect.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

All descent human beings consider the number five (5) to be a rather high number of people to be brutally slaughtered. I don't wish to speculate as to how many more Jewish children ought to have been slaughtered for Supreme Deliciousness to consider the act a "massacre." --GHcool (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support "massacre". The generic "attacks" is obviously going to churn up more ghits, but I am surprised the difference is not greater then it is, especially since a majority of the ghits are Wikipedia mirrors of the current name. All in all, "massacre" is preferred because it is a more specific name to the specific event.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by: "more specific name to the specific event." ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Second comment: "Itamar attack" gets more Google hits then the current "killings" or "massacre".--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Massacre Let's call that for what it really was.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - sorry, but we have a policy to cover this, it's called WP:TITLE and that can't be trumped with a !vote. We should use what the majority of sources use, and thus far it appears that "massacre" is not used by the majority. Gatoclass (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Attack - Search engines can give us some hint on the most recognizable term for the event. Per Google Web search, Google News search, and Bing News search, "Itamar attack" is the most frequent one, then comes "Itamar massacre", and "Itamar killings" is last. Bing Web search, however, puts massacre before attack, but no one likes MS anyway. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and to eliminate the possibility that Google tricks me by personalizing results, I'd be happy if more people could verify this very scientific frequency analysis. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Attack – Per User:ElComandanteChe's findings, corroborated below:

1. Google search: site:nytimes.com – "itamar attack" 4; "itamar killings" 0; "itamar massacre" 0.
2. Google search: site:usatoday.com – "itamar attack" 10; "itamar killings" 2; "itamar massacre" 6.
3. Google search: site:bbc.co.uk – "itamar attack" 1; "itamar killings" 0; "itamar massacre" 0.
4. Google search: site:cnn.com – "itamar attack" 1; "itamar killings" 0; "itamar massacre" 1.
5. Google search: site:indiatimes.com – "itamar attack" 273; "itamar killings" 77; "itamar massacre" 171.
6. Google search: site:reuters.com – "itamar attack" 5; "itamar killings" 0; "itamar massacre" 0.—Biosketch (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: it is obvious: if a Palestinian did it, it is a massacre. The the Thai foreign worker did it (Israeli media are still under gag order)...then it is a "killing". Easy! 188.225.189.100 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Reply to ECC and BS LOL. I like MS but do prefer Google's search. Does MS have a news search? That might be something I will start searching for sources on other articles with. Verification wise, I popped in the terms up as mentioned up above in a GNews search (one search in qoutes and one not) and came to similar results. This is not perfect, of course, since not all of the hits are RS but when the ratio is so high it seems OK to go wit "attack". Does anyone else familiar with disputes in the topic area see the humor in this? Also, I agree that adding the year might be good but don;t know if it is perfectly inline with TITLE.Cptnono (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I find it funny too. To the matter: MS news search (i.e. Bing -> News) puts "attack" first. So, how about Itamar attack (2011) or 2011 Itamar attack? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  I might start using that! Now if they get an archive function of older news then it will really be something.

  (2011) is not needed since we are not disambiging anything but 2011... works for me.Cptnono (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  And the comments about !votes v standards is valid. I do not think changing it to "attack" instead of "killings" is contrversial so we might be able to pull the trigger. If editors want to use "massacre" we might have to do a formal move request and have an uninvolved admin close it. I do not see how any admin familiar with TITLE would allow consensus in this discussion (which does lean !vote wise towards "massacre" it looks like) to override project wide consensus.Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  Significant alternative names should be mentioned in the lead per Wikipedia:Title#Treatment_of_alternative_names. Has that point been reached ? There are redirects in place. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  We've established conclusively that "Itamar killings" is comparatively obscure. Whoever changed the name of the article to that did so at least partially for valid reasons because "Itamar massacre" could be construed as POV pushing, but the choice of "Itamar killings" was clearly still a bad one. The only reason I haven't initiated the formal WP:REQMOVE until now is out of deference toward the contributors who started this discussion, whose preference was passionately for "Itamar massacre." User:Sean.hoyland's point about mentioning alternative names in the lead is apt: the name can be changed – to "Itamar massacre" or whatever is decided – with alternative names in the lead and redirects as needed.—Biosketch (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  How is massacre POV pushing? I dont care who does it to whom, this is a massacre. It was an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter. A deliberate group of killings together. I swear only in this conflict would we have this debate and only when it happens to Jews. If it were Arabs that were killed, no one would challenge it based on "sources". And I would say its a massacre just the same. Enough of this charade already.--Metallurgist (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Rv grammatically ill-formed edit by User:Aa42john

User:Aa42john edited the text in the Responsibility section, changing it from,

The Jerusalem Post reports that Palestinian media doubt Israeli claims that the killings were committed by Palestinians and report that a Thai worker who was employed in the settlement had been arrested on suspicion of the killings.

to,

The Jerusalem Post reports doubts from Palestinians about the assumption that the killings were committed by Palestinians and report that a Thai worker who was employed in the settlement had been arrested on suspicion of the killings.

There are three problems with edit above.

1. Blank edit summary: there's no indication of what was wrong with the original text and why it was necessary to change it (WP:FIES).
2. The edit results in a grammatically ill-formed sentence. In the original, Jerusalem Post is the subject of the verb reports, and everything from the first instance of the complementizer that is a dependent clause, with Palestinian media functioning as the subject of the verbs doubt and report. In the edited version, Jerusalem Post is still the subject of the verb reports, but then the grammatical integrity of the sentence starts eroding. The verb report is stranded in the middle of the sentence without a subject. Did the Jerusalem Post "report that a Thai worker...had been arrested," or was it the Palestinians? The grammar of the sentence excludes both as potential subjects of report.
3. The edit potentially misrepresents the source cited. JPost itself didn't report that "a Thai worker...had been arrested." This was the Palestinian news agency Ma'an's claim. Yet, in its edited form, the sentence can be interpreted as attributing to the Jerusalem Post the report that a Thai worker was arrested on suspicion of the killings – which, again, was Ma'an's report, not JPost's.

I've reverted User:Aa42john's edit for these three reasons.—Biosketch (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that edit. I agree it should be clear that the report is about what Palestinian news agencies/media are saying according to Jpost. That section probably needs expanding to provide some context...Palestinian workers aren't allowed on that settlement, they use Thai and Filipino workers, everyone was interviewed by the police etc etc....unfortunately I forget where I read that...nor is it necessarily accurate... Sean.hoyland - talk 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thai version from Palestinian sources

• «they use Thai and Filipino workers» - Have we some RS for this assertion?

What I've found is the following from INN Staff:

• «Itamar has no foreign workers. It does not allow them. The Fogel home in Itamar was built solely by Jewish workers. INN received this information from the Samaria regional authority in answer to its query upon reading the, now proven to be blatantly false, Maan article.» (Gag on Itamar Investigation, But Maan News Prints Blatant Lies)

What should we do with this information ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Arutz Sheva as RS" issue was discussed several times, and several times was decided it is not, sorry. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've read only last topic, not all ones, and I do not see some difference between its beginning:

• «As a prior discussion remained inconclusive, as far as I can see, I'm starting ...»

and its finish.

Can you please mark some result point in it what doesn't approve to use A7 with appropriate attribution regarding to the Palestinian (Maan, for example) sources ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Being attributed, like "Ma'an says this, Arutz Sheva says that" or whatever, it's ok, I guess. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We should aim to use sources that actually are considered to be reliable rather than the likes of INN and Maan or else the article will turn into the usual patchwork of partisan crap favoured by so many editors in the I-P topic area. The use of reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions is a requirement of the discretionary sanctions as detailed in the "Editors reminded" section. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

one theory

There seems to be some synth in the Responsibility section. The article says

One theory was that the killings may have been in revenge for the killing of two Palestinians from Awarta, who were shot dead near Itamar the previous year.

The statement about the revenge attack theory, which we should probably say is an Israeli authorities theory, comes from this LA Times article but someone has added the Ynet source presumably because they think that is the incident the LA Times are referring to. I think that is synthesis. The LA Times source is fine but I think the Ynet source needs to go. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"someone has added" - it's me :)

It seems me that just LA source, which doesn't bring any evidence for its 19 years old "teenagers" (instead of Ynet one) either should gone or remain with more exact RS to give not POV picture.

--Igorp_lj (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

An RS is the evidence, our evidence so that readers can verify that what they read was published by an RS. My main concern though is synthesis. Unless a reliable source is used to confirm that the LA Times and Ynet are talking about the same thing it's synthesis to conclude that they are, no ? I don't see anything POV about the word teenager. Teenagers get killed all the time, all over the world in all sorts of ways. Hundreds of teenagers have been killed in the Israel-Palestine conflict. I don't think it matters whether we say it or not but the source apparently thinks it's important to say that they were teenagers or perhaps that is what the Israeli authorities said. Who knows. I don't think there is a policy based reason for the LA Times to go. It's an RS talking about what the Israeli authorities suspect. I do think there is a policy based reason for Ynet to go. More sources never hurt. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

After a hour of googling, I can't find anything connecting the events directly. The journalists that claim the connection do not mention any specific names, and those who seem to know more are under gag order. Also, I guess after the gag order will be lifted, we will need no theories. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

* «I do think there is a policy based reason for Ynet to go»

- really ? OK, it's your opinion. And I read such things enough just about LA. So what?

Any way. As I guess, B'tselem will be RS for you. And even from it: only two killed Palestinians whom B'Ts mentioned for this period are the same 19 years relatives as Ynet wrote.

So my proposal remains the same : either .. or. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you please show a single source, that is connecting Itamar attack and Quareq (Kawarik)'s death, or show by other means, beyond any doubt, using only most simple logical operations, that this is the case LA mentions? Because, you see, everything else is WP:SYNTH --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

H-m. As I hoped it's obvious now to ... leave only exact quote from LA: «of the two Palestinians killed last March»

P.S. I heard about this connection listening to Reshet Bet or other station : they told that 03/21, 2010 is exact 03/12, 2011 in Arab calendar. I do not check it. Any way, I've already wrote to Edmund Sanders from LA and asked him about the sources he used for this article, mentioning the Ynet sources as well. Let's wait for his possible answer. :)

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Btselem source supports the LA Times - that these youths were "not participating in hostilities" and simply collecting garbage when they were shot. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Ynet. Original research and synthesis are not allowed. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Tensions section (now "Background")

User:Gatoclass, is there any reason you added the Tensions section to this article rather than to the Itamar one? This is an article about the attack, remember. Some background is appropriate, but the article had sufficient background already; going into the land ownership history and tensions from weeks before the Fogels were slain is unnecessary. Also, it's suggesting a causal link to the murders not recognized by the vast majority of the sources reporting on what happened. It is best to keep the scope of the article narrow: only include those background factors and ensuing repercussions that are widely agreed to be directly related to last week's attack. You should revert your additions unless you feel they're absolutely vital to the article and can cogently explain why.—Biosketch (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I missed the fact that someone had already added this info in a "Background" section, and there is certainly no need to repeat it, but Cptnono's suggestion that this information amounts to "cherry picking" is quite indefensible. This info is crucial to the story as it places this attack squarely in context. Without it, the article is effectively a whitewash, presented as a completely unprovoked attack on an entirely blameless Jewish community.

I'm not fussed which of the two sections stays, the "Background" section or the "Tensions" section I added, but one of them should certainly stay. I therefore call on Cptnono to restore one or other of the sections. Gatoclass (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "restore". It is now "Background" per common practice. What is the problem? It is even expanded upon and wikilinked. Take a moment to check it out and feel free to make adjustments.

And cherries go a couple ways. Besides it being funny, I made sure to add some info that I personally thought was relevant. I'm on my ladder!Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread the diff. Gatoclass (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally understandable. Seeing a big block of red can easily lead to a quick reaction.Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem, respectfully, is WP:SYNTH. It's projecting a context that's in the editor's mind onto the event. For all we know, maybe it was Thai workers. Not that I really believe that, but the point is, it's important to stick to the way the media is representing this and not construct our own "backgrounds" and "consequences" that, in the end, are speculation. Do we know if cutting down olive trees in any way contributed to the attack? No. In fact, cutting down olive trees is apparently such a routine occurrence that it's more likely it played no role in the attack at all. Do we know if the land ownership dispute contributed to the attack? Again, no. It isn't a dimension of the conflict that didn't exist before, so why would it suddenly become important as of last week? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But by calling this information "Background," it's suggesting to the reader: these are the factors that led to the attack. No reports have said that – only opinion pieces and such – and rightly so, because the attackers' identities and motives haven't been established.—Biosketch (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But I do take issue with this removal.[18] One line (especially sourced) is not "plagiarism". And even if it was, the preceeding kept paragraph was also plagiarism. So you should have reworked it instead of removing it since now there is a signifigant aspect ignored which introduces POV. So rework it or restore it or remove the whole paragraph until it is fixed.

(ec) and Bioscetch just got to the issue. Now it looks like we are justifying the attack. I propose the section is removed since we tried one version of collaborative editing and it failed.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not "justifying the attack". It's simply placing it in context. I added two highly reputable sources which independently referenced this information. Biosketch argues that the background section implies "these are the factors that led to the attack", but it would be far more problematic to fail to mention the background at all, because as I said earlier it presents an image of a completely docile Jewish community that was attacked for no reason whatever. Gatoclass (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It reads like it is justifying the attack even if you do not see it. Making mention that Palestinian militants have previously condoned such attacks is part of the bckground and ensures that Israel does not appear to be the only "bad guy". It is essential to keep the section NPOV. So again, it needs to restored or the seciton needs to be removed until it is up to snuff.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also please notice that the Guardian article starts with the details of the attack and only mentions the "background" as a footnote, an afterthought almost. We've gone and inverted everything by constructing a frame around the attack in a way that none of the reports have. I also have to call into question the good faith of the editor here (without jumping to any hasty conclusions, though), seeing as he/she saw fit to include the information in the Itamar attack article but not in the Itamar article where it would have been more natural. I have to wonder if it isn't a deliberate effort to construct a narrative that's disposed toward the editor's POV.—Biosketch (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely see where you are coming from and you make a wonderful case for POV pushing. Unfortunately, even if it is true this is a conversation that needs to go on a noticeboard since we are not allowed to discuss editors intent on the talk page. Even if it was not a deliberate effort, it reads like one and that is my primary concern.Cptnono (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Okay, I can accept that putting the info into a "Background" section may arguably be a tad synth-ish. I originally considered placing it into a "Background" section myself, but rejected the notion as I guessed it might be objected to in those terms. That's why I placed it under the more neutral "Tensions" label. If there's an objection to it as "Background", then the "Tensions" section should be restored instead. Gatoclass (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how the information is relevant to this page, how it adds information on the attack that wasn't in the article before.—Biosketch (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained to you, twice. Without the information, the article gives a false impression of an attack carried out on a blameless Jewish community, which is clearly far from the case. We should not presenting a misleading picture to the readers of this article. If two highly reputable sources see this information as relevant, then there is no justification for excluding it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG I am just waiting for someone to say that the dead babies carry some part of the blame ;) Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)But the "Tensions" section was also problematic. Not only for its placement (it is background) but since it omitted other important aspects. I am perfectly happy with "Background" but it needs to be reworked to not lay all of the blame on Israelis while pretending that Palestinians have been pretty mean themselves. Everything as I saw it was OK until the removal based on plagerism. This was made really bad since an argument could be made that the whole section was plagerism. So either the paragraph needs to be removed or the whole thing should be removed until a draft is agreed upon. I did not revert you originally (I could have based on BRD) since I thought working with the information you presented was an easy enough a superior option. I am beginning to regret that decision.Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(not ec) Bioscetch: If it was a neuterally presented section would you have any concerns? Background is important to events and has precedent throughout the project.Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, I don't know why you keep blaming me for things I'm not responsible for. I didn't remove the paragraph you refer to, that was done by Mkativera. I actually agree that the paragraph you added was relevant and useful, and have no objection to its reinclusion. Gatoclass (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it! Mkativera appears to have some plagiarism concerns. IMO you should probably be able to reinclude the paragraph by rewording it in such a way as to alleviate those concerns. Gatoclass (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm skeptical as to the precedent comment, User:Cptnono. Coastal Road massacre has no background; Cave of the Patriarchs has background only on the attacker and on the physical layout of the cave; Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing has no background. Background is a POV minefield in cases like this. As for neutrality, again, it isn't the facts themselves that are the problem; it's the bearing that they have on the event the article's dealing with. The bottom line is that we don't yet know what the background was to the attack. If the attackers were Thai workers, how would the land dispute or burning cars have anything to do with the article? It's speculation and WP:OR to construct a frame around the attack that isn't attributable to a WP:RS—Biosketch (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well as I said if you have objections to it being in a "Background" section - and I can see some merit in your argument - it can be restored in the "Tensions" section instead. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass, the reason you propose for why the information should be added demonstrates exactly why it's a problem. "Without the information, the article gives a false impression of an attack carried out on a blameless Jewish community, which is clearly far from the case." That's classic contextualizing. Saying that the Fogel family is clearly far from blameless is effectively an admission on your part that your additions are motivated by a desire to portray them as bearing blame for their fate. And I stress again, maybe they do bear blame for their fate. The point is that we don't know if they do or they don't, and we haven't the right to impose speculation on the event.—Biosketch (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But moving it down a couple subsections goes against our precedent of keeping some chronology within the article. Have you ever seen an article discuss background after the primary scope outside of the lead?

And to Bioscetch. I get your concern but those are C and B class articles. Background is important to present the full story to the reader. Since we are using sources that discuss it as background while also discussing the subject it: it is not OR. If we try to lead the reader to a conclusion (that it was a justified attack) then it is SYNTHy and not OK. So a background section is important to the quality rating (selfish on my part as an editor) and the reader's comprehension of the topic, but we have to make sure it is done according to our standards (namely in this case: NPOV). I get that the original attempt was slightly problematic (not really too bad, IMO) but it was the right first stepCptnono (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, excuse me, Biosketch, I didn't say the Fogel family was somehow to blame for their fate. Please don't put words in my mouth. As for "imposing speculation", it isn't myself who decided this context is important, it's in the sources. I might also point out that the article is actually full of speculation about the identity of the killers. It seems you're happy to see that included, but not some commentary on possible motives. That smacks very much of a double standard to me. Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Cptnono, please direct me to enough terrorist attack articles so I can verify that there's indeed a precedent, as you're arguing.

I withdraw my comment about User:Gatoclass implying blame vis-a-vis the Fogel family. User:Gatoclass's did, however, say that the community is far from blameless. And even though I hate to be stubborn, I'm afraid at this point I have to adamantly oppose User:Gatoclass's edit on grounds of it being a clear case of POV pushing, basically by the editor's own admission. I respect the fact that User:Gatoclass has been civil throughout this discourse, but the statement I quoted earlier is exceedingly problematic.

User:Gatoclass, the Guardian does mention what could be called context, but with nowhere near the level of prominence relative to the attack that the article was giving it. And I prefer to wait for User:Cptnono to demonstrate a pattern in similar articles that'll convince me we're not doing something in this article that's exceptional. As for a double standard on my part, if you could point to a specific case, I might agree with you; but as an observation detached from any examples it isn't a fair charge because I can't defend against it.—Biosketch (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now before we go any further, as a new user you may not realize that this article comes under WP:ARBPIA special sanctions, or that it has been ruled frequently at WP:AE that comments on contributor on ARBPIA related pages are unacceptable and subject to sanction. You have now made several gratuitous claims of POV pushing on my part which I find objectionable. I don't want to have to request a sanction against you, so please refrain from this in future. The rule of thumb is to comment on content, not on contributor. If you have a concern about "POV pushing", you should take that to WP:AE or some other dispute resolution process, not make bald accusations on article talk pages, because it only contributes to ill-feeling in what is already a heated topic area.

With regard to your request for examples of apparent double standards, I need go no further than the initial paragraph of the article, which includes the statement: The settlement of Itamar has been the target of several murderous terror attacks before these killings. This is precisely the kind of "background" and "contextualizing" you claim to be opposed to, because it has nothing to do with the killings themselves, yet you have blithely overlooked this statement and a number of others while at the same time accusing me of POV pushing. You may think so, but my position is at least consistent: I believe context is important, whether or not it happens to favour one side or another, which is why I have not removed said statement (although I think it is undue in the lead). You on the other hand, have demonstrated a readiness to overlook context which happens to be prejudicial to Palestinians, while objecting strongly to context which happens to be prejudicial to Israelis. So at this point, I think you're the one with some explaining to do. Gatoclass (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass, you're right – it was inappropriate of me to accuse you of POV pushing. For the record I ask that my accusations to that effect be scratched from the protocol. And thank you for bringing it to my attention prior to referring me to ARBCOM. I genuinely appreciate the forbearance.

I asked you for examples and you've produced a very interesting one – interesting because I happen to agree, now that you highlighted it here, that it distorts the context of the attack. I would unhesitatingly be in favor of its removal, regardless of the outcome of our disagreement on your Background addition. It belongs in the Itamar article, not here.

I asked User:Cptnono to cite examples of articles similar to this one that elaborate on the regional/historical context of other terrorist attacks, but he has not done so. It would be helpful for me to have a standard of comparison, because I seem to have a sharply conflicting approach to context with respect to other editors here. The larger context, unless it can be demonstrated to be absolutely essential to understanding the event, belongs in the parent article and needs to be kept to the bare minimum that's possible: location, time, and so on. By elaborating on the context, the article necessarily loses its focus and invites POV disputes that could just as easily be fought elsewhere. It's astonishing that we managed to go this long without Admin intervention, so we should try to resolve this among ourselves as best we can. For now the section's been flagged and the particularly problematic passages excised. As a temporary resolution, allowing the opportunity for other editors to offer suggestions, that is acceptable. But until User:Cptnono or someone else can establish that Background is the norm, I remain adamantly against introducing context to this article.—Biosketch (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, thankyou for your willingness to adopt a consistent position, I can respect that even if I disagree with the position itself.

In regards to the "standard of comparison" question, my own view is that there are far too many articles missing contextual information in this topic area, so I don't think it's very helpful to be looking at other articles in the topic area to try and establish such a standard. We would be on much more solid ground if, for example, we looked at what reliable sources have deemed to be relevant. At the end of the day, we are an educational project, and a little too much context is always preferable to not enough, especially if the information being omitted leads to misleading or one-sided content. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what hatnotes and wikilinks and See-also sections are for, to give readers convenient, immediate access to relevant information not on the page. That too much context is always preferable to too little would only be true if there were limits on the reader's ability to expand the context by clicking on a link. Pages should be about what their titles are and not digress or overwhelm the reader with information that isn't pertinent. There was a discussion above about the images. Contributors that were opposed to displaying the pictures of the victims based their arguments on their being outside the scope of the article. A fortiori, if images of the victims are outside the scope of the article, then reports of things that happened weeks before the event are outside the scope of the article, as well. The boundaries of the article need to be clearly defined so we'll be in agreement as to what belongs in it and what belongs in other articles. Excepting the passage you cited about Itamar's history of attacks, there was nothing in the article that was superfluous – until the Tensions text was added. The best way to deal with this now is to transplant the added text to an appropriately-named section at the Itamar page and link to it from here. Our page should stay about the location of the attack, the time, the victims, the suspected perpetrators, the immediate repercussions, and that's it. When suspects are apprehended, arraigned, tried, convicted, etc., then there'll be more information to add. But now, yes, the attack should stand alone basically as though it occurred in a vacuum. It's a case of aggressor and victim, and because of that certain implications of good-guy and bad-guy will be insurmountable, but that's not a reason to fight them. It's not a reason to counterbalance them. The reality is that a family in Itamar was stabbed to death, and that's what makes the event notable. That is what should remain the core of the article, and preferably also it's starting point on the time line, until WP:RSes can establish a clear causal link going back in time to earlier events. We're not at that point yet, wherefore we should hold off on speculating as to the context within which the attack happened.—Biosketch (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your analysis. We are absolutely not in the business of promoting "good guy vs bad guy" narratives, we are here to educate and inform, and to do so in a way that presents all perspectives. The bottom line is that our sources have contextualized this tragedy so it is appropriate for us to present that context. I find it very disappointing that you would take such a position. I can't imagine this view ever getting support in an article dealing with Israeli atrocities, BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If showing you some examples in FA is what it takes to show you examples of background sections then i will be happy to dig them up, Biosketch. I am surprised you have not seen them around but I do understand your point of straying too far off topic and using hat notes and other such remedies to that problem. One thing that is something to look out for is when background sections do go to far. That is part of the reason I removed the POV tag. The shooting incident highlighted one event (yes presented in the sources) that disregarded other events (also in the sources). We could make the background section stretch way too far. So if we keep it minimal then I am alright with it. If we have addressed the issue of it leading the reader to draw a conclusion on what aspects were at fault without it being stated in the sources then I am happy enough. Simply stating that there is a conflict and tension which was part of the background of this event then I see no problem. I'm off for a few drinks at the bar but will be back tonight or tomorrow with some examples of background sections in FAs.Cptnono (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Cptnono, cheers. @Gatoclass, that's exactly the thing. There isn't active promotion of any POV by reporting on the attack in a vacuum. The good-guy/bad-guy association is the natural response from whoever hears about a family being stabbed to death. It's when one tries to balance that response that POV gets introduced. Also, the ethnic identity of the victims is beside the point. If a Jew were to slash a Palestinian baby's throat, do you suppose I would feel any differently? I certainly hope that is not your impression from this exchange we've been having. The bottom line is that this event, until we have information to indicate otherwise, is about the murder of the Fogel family. It is not about the Israeli-Palestinian land dispute or cutting down olive trees. When the perpetrators tell their interrogators they killed the Fogels because of olive trees, then have that be the context. Right now to start recalling Itamar's feud with Awarta when there's no evidence it's relevant to the attack is forcing a context onto the it that may not apply.—Biosketch (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

About the murder of the Fogel family? You're kidding, right? 9/10ths of this article is about the political fallout of the killings. Settlers calling for more settlements. The Israeli government agreeing to more settlements. Settlers attacking Palestinians. Palestinians attacking settlers. Grandstanding politicians. And on and on it goes.

Practically every paragraph contextualizes the killings in relation to the struggle for land. Even a surviving family member (commendably in my opinion) attacked those who are trying to politicize these killings as justification for more land grabs. It's abundantly clear that this tragedy is all about the struggle for land, or has become about it since the killings took place. And yet somehow you want to pick on this one little piece of contextual info, that happens to present a Palestinian perspective, as irrelevant. Again, this doesn't seem at all consistent to me. Gatoclass (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The crucial difference is that the events that happened after the attack are undeniably linked causally to it. The settlement expansion, the clashes, the international reaction, and even the criticism of the media that I had wanted to add at one point – the impetus for them all was the attack. Can we isolate something that happened before the event and confidently label it the cause of the attack? No. All we can do is assume and propose a speculative context. But there's no place for speculative context in this article, and certainly not when it's to balance a perceived POV. Its place, if anywhere, is in the Itamar article, where the reader won't mistake background for cause.—Biosketch (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The authorities questioned every male in Awarta. They arrested dozens. Do you think that is just a coincidence?

Again, we have two solid sources that have contextualized these killings in terms of the tensions between the two localities. We also have speculation that the killers were Thais, or members of this or that Palestinian terrorist group, or the killings were in revenge for two Palestinians shot, or maybe not. So why exactly have you picked on this one piece of context as appropriate for exclusion, because it alone is too "speculative"? It makes no sense to me. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I keep hoping you'll take a break so I can get some sleep. This is my final post for a while, and thanks for fixing the sections so it's easier to edit. We don't know if questioning every male in Awarta was because it's the closest village to Itamar or because the mayor claims the settlement's land belongs to his village or what. We just don't know, and that's the point of this all. If a commander in the Israeli army were to say, "We suspect it may have been a resident of Awarta because the settlers in Itamar have been harassing them in recent weeks," that would be an attributable context. The speculation concerning the Thai and Philippine workers was also reported as causally linked to the attack. The Guardian doesn't do that. It reports on the attack first, and then it constructs an abstract context without indicating that it has anything to do with the attack directly. Had the Tensions addition been placed lower down on the page, it wouldn't have been such a problem, either. It's the prominence it's being afforded by being placed above the actual account of the attack/victims/funerals. And it's understandable that the article needs to follow a chronological structure, but by placing the Background section before the attack it's necessary implying that A led to B, and that's not what the Guardian indicated. That's misrepresenting the Guardian by inverting its order.—Biosketch (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I've said, I can concur with your view that this may be questionable as a "Background" segment, and might be better added to another part of the article. Apart from that, I'm happy to leave the discussion to another day, as I could use a break from it too. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... need more coffee. Here are some examples of Background sections in Featured Articles: 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt##Background, 1981 Irish hunger strike#Background, Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec#Background, Convention of 1832#Background, Convention of 1833#Background, Confederate government of Kentucky#Background, 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident#Background, Black Friday (1945)#Background Cptnono (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable by everyone if, instead of purporting to know the background to the attack or the context appropriate for framing it, we renamed the Background section "Recent tensions" and moved it so it's after the Funeral section? That way it wouldn't be WP:SYNTH and it could afford editors a greater degree of flexibility as far as what can be considered germane to the article. User:Cptnono, acknowledging the spirit of ambition in wanting to raise the quality scale of the article, the reality is that the background is as yet too poorly defined to justify being called "background." Until more details surface about the attackers' identities and motives and so on, it's still WP:SYNTH to construct a linear a led to b led to c narrative, which is what Background sections do. The quality scale upgrade will need to wait until the circumstances themselves invite it. On to a review of the precedents:

1. 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt – That is not background in the sense that we've been using the term. The Background in that article might have been better labeled "Introduction," since it opens with an elaboration on the leaders of the coup.
2. 1981 Irish hunger strike – If we were to follow that example, our Background would begin with a summary of previous attacks on Itamar's settlers and the total number of casualties suffered owing to Palestinian terrorism. Beyond that, though, it's a valid precedent: it covers the years 1917–1976, and the hunger strike didn't begin until 1981.
3. Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec – The Background there elaborates on the identities of the explorers, so it's similar to #1.
4. Convention of 1832 – Background par excellence, a valid and fine example.
5. Convention of 1833 – That's recycling, come on....
6. Confederate government of Kentucky – Another valid and fine example.
7. 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident – No, because it establishes a clear a led to b chain, hence it qualifies as an introduction.
8. Black Friday (1945) – Introduction: it introduces the reader to the Z33. The article could just as easily have been called "1945 attack on the Z33." The Background section explains how it got where it was and why it was there. Our Background is about land disputes and olive trees. There's a profound difference.—Biosketch (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I could not support such a move. There is background to every event. The lead summarizes (which most readers don't get past anyways) and the rest goes in order. If others deem it appropriate I won;t cry too much about it but it goes against what I see as general practice.

However: If we want to play wikigame: I can show you 2:1 my preference over yours. I did not show every version I could find since I thought it was silly but if you have the balls for some fun then we can go wikilink for wikilink (to FA articles covering any sort of event) and I can guarantee my preference of a background section is more prevalent to sticking it somewhere lower. Loser takes a week break from here? ;)

But for this article if editors think something else is better then it doesn't hurt my feelings. Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)