Jump to content

Talk:2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing

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


Proposed merge with Jerusalem Light Rail

[edit]

While tragic, I don't think a stabbing with one death merits a separate article any more than most single murders would. Suggest a merge. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right that those shouldn't exist either, though I am only discussing the article in front of me. I haven't reviewed those pages to know if they should be there or not. Please review other things exist. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the Shin Bet would be considered a neutral source in this case. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa We trust the security services of Western democracies on this. Shin Bet says perp was known to authorities. We treat the Jewish country and their government just as we treat other countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: I would just like a clarification only- do you think this event merits a standalone article, or should be deleted instead of merging? 331dot (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article. Note that many editors on article about Israel are observing the Passover holiday, which continues through Wednesday, and are not editing at present. As are almost all Israeli journalists and newspapers. Seems fair to wait until th eocuntry returns from holiday before holding this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that terrorism and mental illness are not mutually exclusive categories, cf. Anders Breivik.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at the news, I agree with User:ThePagesWriter that this is similar to other recent terrorist attacks; we keep terror attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There's already discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article. Wikipedia really needs firm rules that EVERY attack in which there is a strong possibility of a terrorist motive is notable enough to have its own article as long as there is ANY media coverage. Most attacks include a psy-op disinformation component in which people on media attempt to argue that there is no terrorist motive, and there may be cover story elements in which the attacker has already established some mental or personal issue or intoxication which provides an alternative explanation. Mainstream media adn authorities often have strong motive to rule out an obvious terrorist attack as in the case of the Fort Hood Westminster attack in which no less than Scotland Yard or FBI refuses to tie the attack to known terrorist groups. It is a problem with EVERY obvious terrorist attack is immediately a target of deletiion and often successful . In most cases. "reliable" media such as CNN won't even cover "minor" attack in Israel, while many Wikipedia editors above won't even accept Israelii media or law enforcement which unlike the US has no problem immediately concluding that any vehicle or stabbing or shooting by a Palestinian arab is a terrorist attack without any further investigation. Wikiwashing should be recognized as disruptive editing and propoganda by omiission Bachcell (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Mainstream media hasn't exactly been reliable these days, so there should be some reliance on editors' good faith to share more accurate information that is being neglected. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is Wikipedia should cover this story because it isn't covered by "reliable" sources like CNN, the mainstream media and authorities are conspiring to deny terrorism and lie about the accused's mental health, so we should keep the page as a policy-matter to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on the battleground of Wikipedia in the war against "psy-op disinformation". I'm not being sarcastic, I just want to be sure I understood you correctly. Seraphim System (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The stabbing had nothing to do with the light rail system - and was incidentally located at the door of the railway car. The attack could've occurred 50 feet away from the light rail system - and receive the same coverage. This is even more disconnected then school shooting - in a school shooting the shooter is often "angry" at students / staff / whatever and is often "connected" to the school (pupil or his mother was volunteer, etc.)..... In this case it is hard to say the attacker had any strong feelings regarding the light rail system - it just happened to be where he did the deed - a random location in Jerusalem with non-Muslims that can be attacked.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: There is not that much link between the train line itself and the stabbing, besides the stabbing just happening to have occurred there. If a merge is considered, it would be better to merge the attack with a list of other attacks or some article about the knife intifada. In the one other case of an attack on a train that I can think of off hand, the bombing on the RER B line in Paris (1995 Paris Métro and RER bombings), the article about the line (RER B) does not even reference the attack. OtterAM (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism or not?

[edit]

There have been some reverts and re-reverts of controversial material at the article (latest revert). Some of the material that was removed is undeniably incorrect (it is not a mass stabbing, as only one person was stabbed, and it is not one of the "Prominent terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2010s" as declared by Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2010s, as it wasn't against an Israeli in the first place (I have removed it from that template))

Was it terrorism though? As long as this is undecided in reliable, independent sources, it shouldn't be stated as fact in the article (directly or through categories and links). The article of course can include that Netanyahu and others have said that it was a terrorist attack, but that doesn't mean that we should accept their opinion as fact and present it like that. All we know is that a lone, deranged man, who had already threatened to kill his family, now killed a girl who apparently stood next to a soldier (I wonder who would have been the obvious terrorist target in such a situation), in the hope presumably of being killed by that soldier. No claims of the man making any terrorist claims, or any terrorist group seriously taking responsability for the attack, have been made as far as I know. Fram (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the determination of (a)Israeli police, (b) psychiatric reports and (c)the trial. If the police state it was terroristic, then that must go in (whatever our opinion may be of the political use of that word in this context). That is why I have advised patience. There's no point trying to anticipate sources that are not yet available. Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian government will pay a monthly stipend

[edit]
Main article: Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund

This content has now been inserted in some form by two editors who apparently disregarded the DS edit notice not to restore material without consensus. The speculative material is referenced to inferior sources and opinion columns, and should be removed until there is consensus for inclusion.- MrX 11:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources. There is also an Israeli government push on the issue (e.g. Netanyahu's twitter https://twitter.com/netanyahu/status/856112923202265088, and interview with Hannity - [4]). Funding for convicted terrorist (or "resistence" as per POV) prisoners by the PA is a general topic that has received coverage - see sources here - Palestinian prisoners of Israel#Payments by Palestinian Authority.Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only source for this is Itamar Marcus, who is an activist and can only be used as an opinion with attribution. Of the other sources, two are explicit repeats of the Daily Mail, and so ineligible by the Daily Mail RfC, and the other also cites only Itamar. There is no way this can be cited as a fact without a better source. At the moment the most is "According to activist Itamar Marcus...". Even that is too much in my opinion because Marcus gives no evidence and doesn't even claim to have any evidence. He just thinks it will be true on the authority of his alleged experience. What a crock! Zerotalk 12:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Express - [5] does not repeat the Daily Mail - [6]. In particular in contains quotes and reactions from several figures that aren't mentioned in the mail - "Lord Polak, president of Conservative Friends of Israel, said: “The Palestinian Authority is receiving....", "Itamar Marcus, of Israeli monitoring group Palestinian Media Watch, said: “The fact the Palestinian state pays..."", "Ukip leader Paul Nuttall said: “How many more examples do we need to demonstrate that hard-working Britis..."", "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s spokesman said that not only did Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas not condemn Hannah’s murder “but he’ll reward the Palestinian attacker with a monthly salary....”". The Sun's piece also isn't a complete repeat of the mail - it contains statements in reaction to the piece in the mail. I agree sourcing is not great - but it isn't all Marcus and the Daily mail.Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I note Icewhiz puts 'terrorist' in a neutral format (no inverted commas) and adds 'resistance' fighters in inverted commas, to indicate only the latter is a POV. Marcus shouldn't be cited for the reasons given, and because this is a meme trotted out quite frequently by government or settler sources or lobbies, ignoring the fact that 'terrorists' or 'resistance fighters' in Jewish militant groups have often been helped out by sinecures and funding. The whole settlement project, which is theft or robbery under arms, is funded by numerous bodies, not least of which the state of Israel, and has produced numerous violent communities which continue to batten on government handouts while menacing the local populations. I.e.Jewish Underground

It was revealed in 2015 by Israeli investigative reporter Uri Blau that Menachem Livni has since received a monthly salary from the Brooklyn-based Hebron Fund, a practice of using U.S. tax deductible donations to support Jewish terrorists that is, according to Blau, verified in several other cases

Uh, I forgot, sorry. They are the good guys in the world's battle with Islamic fanatics.Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that this is a very tricky legal issue, and not as simple as tabloids and even respectable papers make out. Under Israeli military law, the family of anyone convicted of terrorism has its house demolished, or their property asset confiscated i.e. it is collectively punished for the misdemeanours of one of its members. The PA compensates them. Collective punishment is a violation of international law and Israel's obligations as a belligerent occupying power. The PA payment to people imprisoned after being convicted of terrorist acts also looks questionable. But these articles don't exist to outline complexities and contradictions. Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement regarding demolitions is incorrect. Forfeiture is vs. the perpetrator only, and requires some basis. In terms of demolitions (of the house the perpetrator resided in) - in fact - this is mainly applied to terrorists who succeed in killing, but doesn't apply if they just wound or don't succeed. It also doesn't always apply vs. terrorists who were involved in funding and planning, e.g. - [7]. There are also cases in which there is no relevant home to demolish. Only a fraction of terrorists have their homes demolished (depends on the time period in question, and in any event - almost always requires actual killing of victims and not just wounding or a botched attempt) - however to my understanding the PA (+affiliates) pays all "security related" (terrorist) prisoners a stipend (on a sliding scale based on incarceration length - which has actually led sentencing judges to apply verdicts just below the "step" of the next pay grade for length) - if there are exceptions - they are few (maybe some refuse? Or classification issues (e.g. dispute on status of "terror" vs. "civil crime")) - and on the margins.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think replying to me by citing a tabloid financed by Sheldon Adelson is insightful on this, then you're wasting my time, and ought to drop it. Or read the foremost authority on the subject, Jeff Halpern:

Between 2001-2005, according to B'tselem figures, 664 Palestinian homes were demolished as forms of punishment. Some 4,182 innocent people were displaced, many of them neighbors of the suspect’s family, and this often on the basis of suspicion alone. This policy of collective punishment without any due process of law was blatantly illegal on both counts After Yaalon ordered the demolition of entire apartment buildings housing the families of those accused of killing the three settler youth last year, Hamoked, an Israeli rights organization, filed three separate petitions in the Israeli High Court, arguing that “demolishing a family home was a cruel and inhuman act of doubtful efficacy, and that demolishing the homes of the suspects’ families constituted a deliberate attack against innocent people, in violation of international humanitarian law, which prohibits collective punishment and destruction of property.” HaMoked also noted that the planned demolitions did not meet the test of proportionality even of the draconian Regulation 119 of the Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945, which sanctions such punishment. Finally, HaMoked objected to the demolitions because the Israeli military only “uses the regulation only when the attacker is a Palestinian and the victim is a Jew, demonstrates extreme discrimination.” Of course, as the legal unit representing the Palestinians argued, the ruling is discriminatory in that Israel does not demolish the homes of Jewish terrorists, as evidenced most starkly by the case of those arrested for brutally murdering Mohammed Abu Khdeir, the Palestinian teenager who was kidnapped, forced to drink flammable liquids and burnt alive in early July.

As long as editors cite agitprop on articles or talk pages, editing with them is pointless, since they have no read and mastered the policy guidelines on what is expected of this encyclopedia's collaborators when they source material.Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a bit of a CRYSTALBALL - But Tamimi (The perpetrator here) probably won't have a house demolished - as to my understanding he was effectively homeless (living in a halfway house, estranged from his family).Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Express (never heard of it) writes "It was claimed yesterday" (by whom, do you think?) and then quotes commentary on the story. Not confirmation but commentary. I stand by my my assertion that the only source of this story is Itamar Marcus. Zerotalk 13:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Itamar Marcus is a squatter on Palestinian land at Efrat, the last person to ask for anything factual in that conflict, since he has a vested interest in this kind of skewing.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Itamar Marcus is a notable political commentator, we do cite the opinions of notable people on current events topics. Especially when, as here, multiple newspapers echo their assertions. Speaking of assertions, pace your opinion, the status of Efrat is disputed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's a notable political commentator but has an obvious bias, which is why we use neutral sources; I would have thought that would have been obvious to an editor of your experience. Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As it should be known to experienced editors that Efrat's status is 'disputed' by one party, despite numerous authoritative legal rulings, mostly recently that of the International Court of Justice in 2004. One can say 'disputed by Israel', which is different from 'disputed', which implies it's not a 'stand alone' position, but that among all observing parties, there is widespread disagreement. There is not. One should not tout a unique government line here as though it were not uniquely fringe, but shared.Nishidani (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the party in dispute is also active controlling the territory it isn't fringe. a pretender is often fringe, but his claim is not if he holds the throne in practice. Research regarding disputes is often done by the parties - as it is a focus of interest for them. If we choose to disregard Jewish Judea or Sameria residents, then shouldn't we disregard all Palestinian residents or alleged former residents?Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is all framed in the jargon of the Israeli settler movement. Palestinians are not 'residents' of their homeland. It's pointless arguing with you.Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
residents in the sense they live there (Jewish or Palestinian) - not in any other legal sense. if you disregard Jewish residents ("Israeli Settler Movement") - then it would only make sense to disregard the other side as well.Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Resident' in this context, and in English usage, implies impermanence. In no other area of reportage outside of Israeli newspapers etc., does one regularly encounter indigenous people being defined as 'residents'. It's a government settler POV, used to establish a fictitious 'parity' between immigrant colonizers and the traditional people of that land. For this reason it is unacceptable as POV-driven. Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victim

[edit]

The victim was age 20 or 21? The article says both. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources say 20; some say 21.- MrX 10:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After going over the sources - it seems the later and more reputable ones, particularly covering statements from the family say 20. So I'm updated the article to 20. Note that a year (or even 2) of disagreement in reporting is typical. Early reporting is often based on age estimates (no documents), and later you sometime just have a birth year. Sometimes you report by birth year and not whole date (So someone born in December Might be reported from 1st Jan as +1). Sometimes if someone is 20 and 11 months some news organizations will truncate to 20, and some will round to 21. There is little consistency here - in general.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect name

[edit]

Do we really need to withhold his name due to WP:BLPCRIME? He was tackled and arrested on the scene while he was attacking. His name is all over the place. It is my opinion he should be named here - but seeing it was edited out - [9] - I think we should discuss. He is named - [10][11][12].Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree that if a crime is sufficiently high profile to have a page, name of criminal belongs on the page. note however that this removal is in keeping with a recent effort to scrub crime pages of names of the accused, even in high-profile cases like this where identity of the individual who committed a crime is not in quesiton (only motive and outcome of trial are. See, for example, Talk:2017 Chicago torture incident. I am not certain what is driving this, although it is true the Germany, Sweden and several other countries ban publication of names of accused criminals. I think this topic should be discussed at WP:BLPNAME, and the rules clarified.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admins have already determined that BLPCrime applies, this is not one of those things that is consensus based so it doesn't really matter if you agree or not. Further more the fact that you have demonstrated that you are unable to distinguish between "the police say he was tackled and arrested on the scene while he was attacking" and a fact that you have personally observed is only one of the many reasons we don't include information like this when legal cases are pending. This statement illustrates the difficulty with media reports about legal content -this is grade school civics, but it is often less understood then the legislative power - the judiciary and executive branch are separate branches of government. This whole concept of "THE State" being pushed by some of the editors here, and the proposal that Wikipedia should be a mouthpiece for this "State" before there is any legal outcome and that we should decide guilt on the basis of police reports before there is a judicial outcome is the opposite of what we are supposed to do in situations like this. Seraphim System (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • blpcrime does not bar publishing a name, it says that this should be considered. In this particular case it is not just "the police say" but there is video of him being pinned down at the scene covered in the victim's blood, and a train car full of civilian witnesses, some of who tackled him along with a police officer.Icewhiz (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you are from, but I assume you are not American. The assumption behind a trial is "innocent until proven guilty." And also, that there are two sides of story, and the accused should have an opportunity to present a defense. This includes things like "That isn't me in the video" "I acted in self-defense" or a defense of legal incompetence. There are no exceptions to this. Again you are presenting a fact pattern you read in a newspaper as "evidence." Because I have studied law and read criminal law cases, I understand why we should not publish things like this. There is a process. It is difficult to explain to people who have not studied law and are unfamiliar with the basic principles of American democracy - which is a POV that effects my position on this. Seraphim System (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting assumption, however your argument is false. As a student of the law, you should know that due to the first amendment, a tradition of civilian oversight (on the executive and judicial branches), and of course direct provisions bill of rights (namely the 5th amendment requiring an indictment, and the 6th amendment requiring a public trial) -- all (with the exception, perhaps of illegal combatants tried outside the states) who stand trial are given a public trial - with their name published, and members of the public (and press) are allowed to come and watch the trial - heck it even is on TV depending on the locale (O. J. Simpson murder case. In some jurisdictions arrest records, including mug shots, are publicly available. The BLPCrime policy is completely disconnected from the American system - hiding the names (and other details) of the accused is very much a European "thing". Keeping such matters public in the US allows public oversight of the judicial branch - something that is often lacking in other countries (leading, potentially, to judicial tyranny). This is not to say that BLPCrime is not entirely without merit, just that withholding the names of those who are standing trial is decidedly un-American.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am familiar with all the things you said, and that is why the name is publicly available, but Wikipedia is not the press nor is it a public office that is responsible for releasing public records. Comparing BLPcrime to "secret trials" is straw manning. The fact is that the media is not always responsible about how they report high-profile crimes and they have been criticized for this in the past with some judges going as far as sequestering jurors in high-profile cases Seraphim System (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walla as a WP:RS

[edit]

User:Seraphim System - you removed a Walla source ([13]) - I believe you are in error here. Your comment would've been correct 10-15 years ago. However Walla has grown into the leading Israeli Internet-portal for Hebrew language news... And a bit more than that - they're actually a "TV channel in being"(ala Fleet in being) - as they are basically funded by the parent company, Bezeq, waiting for the day they can become a TV channels news company (or something similar regulation-wise). In the Hebrew wiki I wouldn't think twice about using Walla as a news-source (as I would have in the past). They don't have an in-built political bias (unlike many Israeli (and non-Israeli) sources!). They run a fairly large organization (in Israeli standards). Locally - I'd put them on-par with YNET (without Ynet's/Yediot's shifting editorial bias (mostly non-issue on IL-PA issues, is an issue on politics and commercial coverage) and without a connection to a print newspaper). In short - 10-15 years ago, you would've been correct in discounting them. Today - this is a mainstream Israeli source, with a high readership/viewership, with a fairly large amount of journalists and a serious new organization - they take great care in keeping all the news organization stuff under "Walla! News" - separated from other content (tech, gossip/fashion, internet coverage, Food, etc. etc.). (Regarding your Arutz7 - as this was already sourced to a 2nd source, don't see a need to contest - though this an RS in my view (and others) - just with an implicit (but known!) bias due to target demographic).Icewhiz (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you feel the same way about Turkish language "internet portal" news sources - there are many which are very popular in Turkey. I also think our policy guidelines have certain rules about English language sources (or at least providing translation) - I edit Vikipedia (Turkish wiki) but I am not convinced that not all "mainstream" sources are reliable. We have a few obvious examples - like the Inquirer. But more to the point, if a publication routinely publishes propaganda to incite violence and hate, I would not use it, even if it was mainstream or supported by the State. I am not saying Walla is such a publication, but it is not possible to evaluate for those of us who don't read Hebrew Seraphim System (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As all mainstream publications in Israel Walla is independent publication.As a Hebrew speaker I can attest to that.--Shrike (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is all press publications are subject to military censorship in Israel. There is solid scholarship coming out of Israeli universities but press is a different matter - especially foreign press citations from countries that don't have the same standards as the United States (and I will have to add England) for free press. Seraphim System (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Walla! (see וואלה! NEWS) to be a reliable source—it is, indeed, a mainstream Israeli source. El_C 05:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Are you speaking as an admin or an editor, because I am going to respond accordingly. Seraphim System (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've participated in the AfD, so I am recusing myself from any administrative involvement in this article. El_C 06:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The military censorship applies to all publications in Israel - even lately to blogs (e.g. see here - [14]). It is, however, fairly "light" in that it is really enforced only regarding clearly security related information - not editorials - but on operational/technological details - and even when applied is often circumvented (the IL press will leak to the foreign press, and then quote the foreign press - a long-running (30+ years) local game). This, however, has nothing to do with Walla! News - as it applies to any Israeli source (including foreign press correspondents/desks in Israel). Walla News! itself - has evolved into a mainstream source. In terms of POV - It is very mainstream. If I quote Haaretz (or to a lesser degree channel-10) as a source in a Hebrew Wiki source I will often feel the need to balance the source (with e.g. Arutz7) with a counter-biased source. If I quote Walla! News? I don't feel the need to balance. This is a mainstream outlet these days - it isn't a fringe internet news source (e.g. 0404 - [15] - wouldn't fly as an RS) - Walla! News is a serious news-org.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another note regarding military censorship - they can only tell a news-org not to publish. They can't insert information. Usually the newspaper won't run the item alltogether if it is barred (unless something was mentioned in passing) - and the amount of interventions is fairly small - and focused on very particular subjects (e.g. the arsenal of the IDF. specific operations) - it wouldn't apply to "routine" terror (on which there is a separate issue - judicial gag orders - which protect the investigation/identity of perp (and sex crime victims) - the gag orders are however temporary (for investigative purposes - typically limited to 30 days which are not renewed) - though in terms of quantity they are more of an issue than the military censorhip (which really doesn't intervene that much).Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Mainstream" is not part of our WP:RS policy. It must be a "high quality" mainstream publication, which Walla is not. I suggest you consider this op-ed, this Haaretz article, and this article - Walla has received an astonishing amount of attention from high quality publications, it is not considered a credible source by established press publications. Seraphim System (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NY peiece is only an opinion piece also there is nothing about Netanahu in the walla source so Haaretz speculation is irrelevant.--Shrike (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also It was your claim about "mainstream" when you removed the source.--Shrike (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors and especially admins should err on the side of caution and disavow this publication and any involvement with its promotion entirely and immediately, so Wikipedia is not seen as taking sides in a multifaceted corruption scandal. The Atlantic Seraphim System (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Walla News IS considering high quality locally. Haaretz's views should be discounted as they are in direct competition (an issue regarding all cross-claims between Israeli sources... They are all "at war" with each other (including, back in the day, Yediot and Maariv engaging in wiretapping the opposing editor....)). Ruth Margalit is part of the Haaretz clique (though writing for the New-Yorker presently) - refering to Haaretz as "only remaining liberal bastion — Haaretz" - is a highly biased POV (most Israelis' would view Haaretz as touting Amos Shouken's radical pro-Palestinian politics - which used to be two-state, but in the past 1-3 years has shifted more and more to one-state). The local view on Walla News! (to which I'm not affiliated) is that this is a high quality mainstream local source. Unlike Yisrael Hayom which is in Sheldon's pocket and is pro-Bibi editorially - walla doesn't really have a strong-bias yet. In Hebrew wiki - Yisrael hayom would be accepted at times, but viewed as biased (as would Haaretz). Walla news - I don't think anyone would contest it - I'd even say it is close to the least contentious source to use in Hebrew.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW I didn't found a phrase "high quality" in WP:RS.--Shrike (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Netanyahu media relations scandal.... It touched everyone. Certainly Yediot/YNet which is the primary subject of the investigation (of Noah Mozes and Bibi holding discussions on the nature of his coverage), and just about every other media sources as part of the on-going news-source wars in Israel. Haaretz in particular has an extremely radical local agenda - and it is of course attacking all other news-orgs that are even tangentially affected - both due to its editorial line, and due to commercial interest vs. other news organizations.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Israeli Wikipedia, it is English language Wikipedia, and in the United States press Walla has been directly implicated in publishing favorable stories about Netanyahu during the corruption scandal in exchange for political favors. I don't speak Hebrew, so I don't know what you all do over in Hebrew Wikipedia, but this is not the kind of press source we consider high quality in America. I don't think there is much point debating this with me because as an American I do have a certain American-POV about free press and press outlets that public puff pieces in exchange for political favors. From what I have read in the Atlantic, which I think is an excellent publication, Walla does not meet my standards for what I consider WP:RS. That is my opinion, and I am but one voice in a multitude. Seraphim System (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in passing in "the Atlantic" (and mainly based on Hebrew language sources) - a very liberal outlet - and unfortunately, this is an affair that involved just about all Israeli newsorgs. I'm afraid you have to know the sources to really comment in depth - if you are relying on translated Haaretz pieces which are then rejumbled into a supposedly independent article, that's a step or two removed from the actual reporting.Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to use "well the sources are in Hebrew so you can't really comment on them" as an excuse, that is another example why foreign language sources should not be used on english language wikipedia unless they are absolutely necessary. This is part of WP:V - WP:TAKEMYWORDFORIT is not one of our core policies. May I ask why the supporters feel this article is absolutely necessary to use as a source for a story that has been covered by western media? Seraphim System (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google-translate works wonders + I could say the same on NYT based on coverage in the New-York-Post, The National Interest, and umm say The Gateway Pundit (no - I'm not say that. NYT is a premier source regardless of any editorial bias). Judging the reliability of sources in a particular media scene - requires knowing that media scene - something that you can't get from searching "walla news" in google (or "der spiegel" for that matter)... Regarding to why this particular walla news article was used (though I could find a different Hebrew source, probably - though it might take 2-3 different pieces) - I inserted it since it contained detailed information on the alleged perpetrator including information of where he was committed (down to the details that he was released from one place, committed himself voluntarily in another, and then expelled from there in the same day due to violence) - the international media didn't go down into this level of detail (leaving "mental issues" or "previously committed") - I would've preferred an English language source that went into this level of detail + was reliable (e.g. non-tabloid etc.)) - There are other Israeli sources - but they are mostly "split up" - e.g. contain this same information in 2-3 items - which is inconvenient for a single quote, and some of them are TV-news (which has downsides when quoting for print/internet - there are advantages when this links to text). Any Netanyahu bias in Walla (which really is minimal compared to issues regarding this in most other Israeli sources - everyone has a position on this...) - is really besides the point when dealing with an article that details information on an alleged terror attacker. Finally - I thought your position on Walla News to be out of date - ten years ago it would've been a valid viewpoint. The news scene - in the US as well as Israel had changed - there are new sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a trendy blog that showcases "new media" sources that have not established their credibility. There are a lot of reasons for this, including sourcing and citations given by the secondary sources we use. Since in the War in Iraq, there have been increasing questions about how news organizations source their stories - often it is one source proliferated through many articles. There is a lot of imprecision all around in how our editors handle this, but I am only one editor, and I don't think this is a good use of my time. In my editing, I personally don't use a lot of press sources. In most circumstances, I will use press sources when they are also cited by my secondary sources. Of course, there may be exceptions to this but I mostly rely on academic and specialist sources. I don't usually work on "news" articles, so it is an editing style thing. When I do rely on news organizations, I don't cite biased publications like Walla, or even sources that I personally enjoy reading like my favorite libertarian blogs. Seraphim System (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Walla news is mainstream Israeli press - not a "new media" source anymore. I (and others) feel much more comfortable quoting from Walla than from Yisrael hayom, i24, Times of Israel, Arutz7, or Yediot/Ynet. And there is definitely less bias than Haaretz (which is increasingly a problem - separating the news from the editorializing there). The Israeli mediascape is changing - as with many other locations - particularly in print/Internet-print following Maariv's demise. You wouldn't discount WaPo as a pro-Hillary outlet following Trump's allegations and Bezos's ownership, would you? The link between Bezeq's tycoon and Netanyahu really is on the same level.Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz has some contributors that are really quoted more in their own right, so it is clear who the source is - Gideon Levy is the source, not Haaretz. At least you know, so there is no harm. Would I go to Arutz Sheva to bring myself up to date on recent news stories? No. We are not supposed to be using news stories as heavily as we are on the whole. Media stories should be incorporated into articles in the right way. This has turned Wikipedia into a pseudo-newsoutlet, it amounts to articles that are a form of news aggregation that pass through the vicissitudes of a flawed human process. The outcome is interesting, but in my opinion it is not encyclopedic. I am mostly active on articles where at least some secondary sources exist for the topic. But this is being discussed, we have problems all over, not least of all al-Masdar, which is probably going to get thrown out for writing things like "Hezbollah stressed that targeting Christians in their place of worship is a savage act that deviates away from the teachings in the Quran." Seraphim System (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most (if not all) Israeli news outlets do have specific writers on the by-lines, but for the sake of brevity I usually leave them out. Gideon Levy is of course a red herring - but an obvious one, the problem with Haaretz is that it is editorializing in recent years much more than years past (in the past this was confined to the op-eds). For current event items (and this is a current event - less than a month) you have to rely on the news, unfortunately. As for the Hezbollah quote you provided - it is actually consistent both with the Quran (which places "people of the book" (Christians and Jews) in a special sub-category of tax paying (dimm) tolerated infidel and accords some respect to such places of worship) and with Hezbollah policy/alliances - which at the moment is aligned with Christians both inside Lebanon and in Syria (Minorities (i.e. non-Arab/non-Sunnies) are for the most part aligned with Assad or at least nominally anti-Sunni-Jihadist - all the more so since FSA turned into mostly a Jihadi Sunni branch). And I will mention that I actually regularly watch (and read the site) Al-Manar when it is relevant "heat wise" - though the relevance of this is usually limited to the short time frame. Al-Manar has its biases - but it doesn't mean the information there is irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag

[edit]

Since the recent AfD closed as "No consensus" (not as "Keep"), I tagged the article for notability. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any inherent notability either, this is a news article, not an encyclopedic entry. AddMore-III (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your personal perspectives aside is not a valid reason to question notability. We keep or delete articles according to the impact, news coverage and so forth as per WP:GNG. While I understand that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, this incident has had WP:SIGCOV internationally, most intensively in Britain and Israel; coverage that had continued since the AfD closed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you marked every article with ""AfD closed as "No consensus" " with this tag?This tag is inappropriate as there are WP:DIVERSE source and hence meet WP:GNGShrike (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that it is not customary to immediately follow the "no consensus" close of a heavily sourced article with a Notability tag. In fact, I am trying to recall ever having seen this done before.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is written in News Style is a pretty clear indication that it does not confirm to WP:NOTNEWS. If you refer back to WP:Notability there are two requirements: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2)It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. WP:GNG is not relevant here, what WP:GNG says is "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." So, once again, WP:NOTNEWS and the template was appropriate. Seraphim System (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's common to tag articles with a notability tag after an AfD closes as no consensus. Compare with: Talk:White_Lodging#Notability. We currently have three editors who agree with the tag, and two who do not. I will restore the tag. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Friday reference

[edit]

The article states that the event took place on a Good Friday. Good Friday is not a Jewish holiday, Catholicism is not practiced by the Jews, and this event did not take place in Vatican. Unless I am missing some connection between this act of terror and Rome, the reference is out of place and should be removed. 73.121.228.133 (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&oldid=1252354330"