Jump to content

Talk:2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Palestinian terror"

[edit]

In the lead, the wikilink is a redirect to Palestinian political violence, a self-evidently inappropriate Easter egg. I realize that there are those that desperately would like every single incident involving Palestinians to be characterized as terror, this is not one of them however, just gratuitous POV editing and I am surprised that an editor would support maintaining it on the grounds of "longstanding version". The title is "stabbing", the given ref says "murder" but oh no, we must somehow mangle the text so as to include the words "Palestinian terror". Duh.Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obvious case of terrorism, and was described as such in reliable sources: Israeli man killed in West Bank terror attack, "Evyatar Borovsky, a 31-year old father of five, who was killed in a terror attack", Palestinian terrorist murders Israeli in West Bank. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-responsive rubbish.Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting sources that describe this as terrorism is clearly responsive. If you have a counter argument, make it, in a civil manner , if you can. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its mentioned in the book Terrorism, 2013-2015: A Worldwide Chronology --Shrike (talk)
Looks like an AfD candidate.Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This act looks like the dictionary definition of "terrorism", which is not not clear in the lead from just the words "stabbing". The word "terrorism" and the link should remain:
Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the unlawful use of intentional violence to achieve political aims -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a subjective claim, another could be an act of political violence against somebody willfully engaged in a war crime in occupied territory. Have worded to avoid the WP:WTA issue. nableezy - 17:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a subjective claim, we should defer to how RS describe the act. The JP for example, calls the attacker a "terrorist":
"The Palestinian terrorist, Salam Azal, came up from behind the victim, Evyatar Borovsky, stabbed him in the chest and stomach...."[1]-- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a Palestinian dog biting someone, the JP would call it a Palestinian terror dog or else claim it's owner was a terrorist dog trainer. Notice that the AP source doesn't do that, it says "Israeli police say a Palestinian killed an Israeli in the West Bank" and then quotes an Israeli cop saying ""Palestinian terrorist attacked an Israeli civilian at a bus stop".Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now you reverted it back in when it is not even in the source (surprising since it is JP) nor is it in the AP source that follows it. So it would seem that if you want to keep this, you need to demonstrate that a majority of acceptable rs so call it and if you can't you should self revert your POV edit.Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted the sources in the lead to use one of the many sources which describe it as a terror attack. Would you now please remove your tag for failed verification? -- Bob drobbs (talk)

Um, you have your WP:ONUS backwards here Bob drobbs. We have a guideline that says we generally should not be using POV terms such as "terrorist" in the narrative voice. Yes, Israeli news sources routinely call people "terrorists". Non-partisan sources such as the AP however do not. We do not follow one partisan's set of language unless that language is overwhelmingly common in reliable sources. And it is not here. Kindly self-revert your edit. nableezy - 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: I believe your last edit was in violation of 1RR. Please revert it.
As for WP:WTA, it says that labels like "terrorist" must be "widely used" in RS. That bar has been met by the 3 sources listed above. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have not demonstrated that a balance of reliable independent rs call this a Palestinian terror attack. The JP source that you give for that does not state it nor does it say anything about an Israeli cop (that's in the AP source).Selfstudier (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get this idea that a "balance of reliable independent rs" are required?? WP:WTA simply says the label must be "widely used" in RS. That bar seems met. And the JP which is now referenced at the top of the article calls it a "terror attack" both in the title and in the contents:
"Israeli man killed in West Bank terror attack ... stabbed to death in a terror attack ... The Palestinian terrorist, Salam Azal..."
So yet again, plz remove your verification failed. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Overall, good Wikipedian contribution renders articles objective and neutral by presenting an appropriate balance of reliable opinions." per Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources.Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, widely used is not demonstrated given the other sources that do not include the term in their voice. And nom, that is not a revert. User:Inf-in MD, would you care to even pretend that your edit here meshes even remotely with your previous demands that others review WP:ONUS and start an RFC? Why are you removing the attribution here? Why did you remove that it was a settler that was stabbed? How is that not tendentious editing? Which oh by the way is prohibited on Wikipedia. Could have swore all of us were aware of that rule. I know I do my best to avoid tendentious editing. Would be great if you do too. nableezy - 20:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inf-in MD, you repeatedly claim WP:ONUS must be respected for challenged material. Eg here, or [here. Is it your position that this material has consensus? Or is it your opinion that ONUS does not apply here? Do you believe there has not been a good faith challenge to this material on NPOV grounds? And that a guideline supports its removal? Please explain your blanket revert. Please explain why you removed the victim is a settler. Thank you. nableezy - 20:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ONUS applies here, as it does everywhere. The burden for ONUS was met years ago, as this version (or something close to it, calling it a terror attack) has been in the article for at least seven years. Consensus can change, and you can try show that there is no longer consensus for this by starting an RfC. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, got it. Will add this to my list of greatest hits of The Artist. nableezy - 20:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:WTA says that value laden labels must be widely used to be used in our narrative voice? The attribution by AP shows that this is not widely used outside of the media of one of the parties to this conflict between Israel and Palestine. Why did you remove the victim was a settler? nableezy - 20:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WTA says such labels can be used if widely used by reliable sources. I believe that burden was met via the Jpost, Terrorism, 2013-2015: A Worldwide Chronology and other, per the article sources. I removed that he was a settler for 2 reasons: One is technical, I was restoring the longstanding version because edit warring over it while it is under discussion is poor form, regardless of content. The second is that I don't believe in Yellow-badging the victim, and resent the implication that because he was a "settler", that somehow makes him a legitimate non-civilian target . That is a disgusting point of view, one that even the notoriously anti-Israel HRW has rejected. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the "yellow-badging" claim, are you seriously accusing me of antisemitism here? For noting that the victim was an armed Israeli settler? And the words "non-civilian" appear nowhere, making that little flourish likewise confounding. So, directly, User:Inf-in MD, clarify your "yellow-badging" accusation. Otherwise I am totally happy to take this elsewhere. nableezy - 03:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not accusing you of antisemitism, but of implying that the victim deserved it, or was a legitimate target, as you have more explicitly written elsewhere. Inf-in MD (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly did I imply any such thing anywhere? nableezy - 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom of this page, for example- "One could also say it was an attack on an armed willing participant in a war crime.", or the NPOV discussion you started- "I dont personally think attacking an armed participant in a war crime is best described as a "terror attack". Inf-in MD (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those things say anything about a legitimate target. They say he was an armed settler. The establishment of settlements being a war crime, yes a willing participant in said war crime. And he was. Again, where did I imply that he deserved it or was a legitimate target? nableezy - 16:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that he could not be described as a victim of an attack because he was armed and a willing participant in a war crime implies (at least to me) that these things make him a legitimate target. But if you want to clarify that you do not think he was a legitimate target, just say so. And then we'd have to wonder why it is important to mention that he was a settler, vs that he was an actor, or father of five, or native of Kfar Hasidim. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
And who said he cannot be described as a victim of an attack? It is important to mention he was a settler because it clarifies why an Israeli civilian is in the occupied West Bank armed with a gun. nableezy - 16:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Says the person perfectly willing to badge the attacker.Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#unattributed_claim_of_a_terror_attack nableezy - 21:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Quo" does not trump "ONUS" so the 7 years is quite irrelevant in this instance.Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The 7 years establish that consensus. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
QUO, whether by quiet consensus or otherwise does not trump ONUS and here the sourcing requirement is/was not met. Show that a balance of independent reliable sources call this a terror attack.Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No-one but you has mentioned QUO. ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The 7 years establish that consensus. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. The 7 year claim is an appeal to QUO~/silent consensus and ONUS takes priority over Quo (here). There have been many discussions about this, perhaps read them.Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ONUS says those who want to include material have the onus of showing consensus for it. This ONUS has been met by having that text in the article, unchallenged, for 7 years. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating what is wrong, no matter how often, will not make it right, sorry about that.Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right back at you. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Wikipedia:Silence and consensus Line 1 "Consensus can be presumed to exist until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." and Section "Silence is the weakest form of consensus" No repetition. Now produce something that supports your position.Selfstudier (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: For whatever reason Nableezy has split this off to NPOV. Is there a point in having this same discussion in two different places simulatenously?? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO NOTE a) It's the NPOV board, not the RSN board. b) It's a different discussion not the same discussion and c) It's useful to get a view from less involved editors.Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I took it to the NPOV noticeboard, as there are users here refusing to abide by NPOV. And that is the place to get other editors to help correct that issue. nableezy - 23:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made a minor mistake in my text above which I fixed. But my point remains the same. I don't have any issue with moving the discussion to NPOV, but it seems incredibly unproductive to have two different simultaneous conversations about the same thing. If it's moving to NPOV, then let's move all of the conversations over there.
P.S. What the heck is the difference between the two discussions?!? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:DR to understand why we attempt to engage uninvolved input when users violate our content policies. nableezy - 03:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand WP:DR you probably should have notified people in this discussion that you were seeking additional input elsewhere. That's exactly what I did. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not see that I posted a link here at 21:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC), before you did? nableezy - 03:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the response at NPOVN it is clear that at the very least there is no consensus for the usage here and per ONUS I will be removing it tomorrow. Editors will indeed need to show that there is consensus for material that has been challenged on good faith grounds, and given that WP:WTA is clear that such value laden labels should, if used at all, should be attributed I very much doubt that will happen. nableezy - 23:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding an attribution to both the Jerusalem Post (RS) and the Israeli Police (authority) rather than removing the well supported description that this was a "terror attack". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Attributing to the JPost is silly, it just tells us in Israel this is called a terror attack. Im find attributing it to the Israeli police, but beyond that would just as soon remove it entirely. Given the lack of consensus for inclusion of disputed content, Im sure Inf-in MD would agree that it should not be included. nableezy - 03:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And done. nableezy - 22:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an interesting framing. One could also say it was an attack on an armed willing participant in a war crime. And described in reliable sources as something other than terrorist. nableezy - 22:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Tapuah_Junction_stabbing&oldid=1196647495"