Talk:Murder of Reuven Shmerling

RFC

There is no consensus to rename the article from Murder of Reuven Shmerling to another title.

Cunard (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pending the deletion discussion, should the article be renamed "Death of Reuven Shmerling" since "murder" presumes the alleged perps are already guilty?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Murder (or alt. Killing). Murder does not state that the current suspects are guilty - they may be exonarated. The finding of homocide in relation to Smerling is based on the coroner's report on the cause of death of Smerling, which was performed. Death would be misleading and would imply a natural cause which has been ruled out.Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Death or Killing I agree with Icewhiz that guilt is not implied, however 'murder' is an exactly defined category of killing in most jurisdictions, (as opposed to degrees of manslaughter/ unlawful killing/ homicide). Unless a court has ruled that 'murder' is established, the use is unnecessary and imprecise. It appears that 'killing' is established, though someone more familiar with 'local' legal procedures might correct me. Pincrete (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  Note that Shmerling himself has been ruled a terror victim (this provides state compensation to the family and isnnot automatic).Icewhiz (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Murder is apt; as is Killing of because sources show that this man deliberately slain.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Pulled out a Carl Gustaf rifle.."

Whatever source that came from appears to have some credibility issues.

We are talking about a 4 inch diameter pipe more than three feet long, with a wider cone attached to it? With handgrips sticking out? And a shoulder rest? And a bipod? 20 pounds?

No? Oh, good, that'd be pretty ridiculous. Must mean the regular rifle, not the recoilless...but that's still not something you "pull out". 10 pounds and four feet long.

Also, the description of the incident that supposedly triggered this neglects the fact that their were two Israeli dead, one from friendly fire. Anmccaff (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: Carl Gustaff in this case refers to Carl Gustav m/45, not Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle, and furthermore doesn't refer to the actual submachine gun, but to an improvised local manufacture (metal shop, etc.) clone vaguely resembling the Gustav. In the local I/P parlance and reporting these improvised weapons are referred to as a "Carl Gustav" or "carlo" - though this is not completely accurate. The source itself (YNET) is reliable - though the English version (which is translated directly from the Hebrew original) sometimes suffers from translation issues (e.g. in this case retaining "rifle" as a translation of the Hebrew word for rifle which is used in a wider scope (in modern Hebrew - referring just about to every firearm, the local sub-machine gun word has mostly fallen out of use in recent years)).Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

See this - [1] [2] for a more detailed explanation.Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC) With the folding stock folded (which is often absent all together) - these are 30-50cm long, and will fit underneath a shirt or in a bag - they are typically carried concealed until the attack.Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, you are saying it's a submachine gun just called a rifle? And you are showing a source that says these are often called "carlos", not "Carl Gustafs?" Yeah, I would say that is, for certain purposes, unreliable, unless the "rifle' bit was added by some wikitor. I note the example shown is, in fact, estheticly based on the AK, not the Swedish K, but this is what a "Carl Gustaf rifle" usually means. Anmccaff (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: I wrote this bit above before you added to your words above, so there is a little overlap. Anmccaff (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Note I did fix the article. The source does require an understanding of the local parlance - but it is reliable. The rifle bit is probably mistranslated/misused from the Hebrew source - as "רובה" is used in contemporary Hebrew for all firearms larger than a pistol and smaller than a squad machine gun ("תת מקלע" fell out of use with the Uzi). In the local I/P sphere - any reference to "Carlo" or "Carl Gustaff" is 99.99% of the time to the sub-machine gun and 99% of the time (in the past 10-15 years, a few decades ago - this did refer to the actual make) to an improvised firearm just vaguely resembling (or even not resembling at all - but being different from a M16, AK, the local Galil, Tavor, or Uzi) the Swedish SMG. This also percolates to international sources who copy off the Hebrew reporting and/or official statements (which will often just say "Carlo" or "Carl Gustaf" - and if the writer isn't versed in the particularities of the usage will often just be translated onwards). The aesthetics of these improvised guns vary widely, there is more commonality in terms of the actual gun mechanism - but that is variable as well.Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

To someone of my background the idea that Israelis would lose touch with the Uzi is difficult, but I suppose that's just another way of saying I'm getting old. The examples of improvised arms shown in several of the articles you linked, or linked to them, often were based on a galil/kalashnikov visually; suprised the nicknames don't reflect that.

I'm also struck by the degree that transliterated and borrowed words come out cockeyed when machine-translated back into English: "Bulpap", "tomegan", "stan". You guys need more vowels. Still.

Finally, there appears to be some borrowing of terminology as calques: e.g. breech, by the look of it. Anmccaff (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Nouns, not verbs (and mangled British Mandate English introduced to Hebrew and then back again - is about the funkiest thing you might imagine). And you are reading reporters, not military historians..... And reporters are clueless everywhere. The stocks, grips, etc. of these guns are all over the place (and often a mishmash of parts) - the mechanisms which are made by different small local metal working shops have a bit more of a commonality (and typically are crap quality wise - these units often will jam up quite quickly). The Swedish SMG actually does have local legs - it was manufactured under license in Egypt (as the Port Said) - and was in use in the zone (Gaza, West Bank, Palestinians in Lebanon back in the day). Carlo has basically become the "catch all" for unknown rifle/SMG (and most Israelis are familiar with the AK, Galil, M16, Tavor - so they know these odd improvised weapons are not one of them). Might be worthwhile to make an English version of the Hebrew "carlo" page - [3].Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Time-shifting.

The events here are described as happening over a considerable spread of time, working back and forth between 2017 and 2014. Anmccaff (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The 2014 was a typo. Fixed.Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Coatracking

Having gotten the most glaring factual errors and ambiguities out of the way, the article still appears to be a WP:COATrack. What may be the death of a small-scale petty criminal, as a direct outgrowth out of his illegal hiring, is taken, almost as a given, as terrorism, and instances of real terrorism that are not themselves notable cobbled into it. When you are paying illegal workers under the table, things sometimes go very wrong; that may, based on the sources, be the root of this incident. It is certainly where the cops first started looking.

There's nothing in the sources to suggest that vengeance wasn't simply a cover for a work argument or an attempted theft gone wrong, with some idiot preferring to see himself as a hero of the Gazillionth Intifadah rather than as someone who beat up and killed a 70 year old. (Or 69 year old, the sources are also mixed on that, but IMS both conventions might be used.) At least preferring that until he realized someone was gonna bulldoze his mom's house, but that's another story. Anmccaff (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Calling Shmerling a petty criminal is not supported by RS. The two perpetrators have been charged with terrorism, and Shmerling has been officially recognized as a terror victim.Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Reading the cites suggests that he ran a business using illegal labor. Now, that ain't exactly Capone, but it is, in fact, a low-grade criminal enterprise, and that's the first place, apparently, the cops looked, no?

Both the charges and the the designation fall in that grey area between fact and politics, even more so since the case isn't even adjudicated yet. Anmccaff (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff the ambiguities and coatracking are common in these types of article -- a common method to make the subject appear notable. I have full intention to nominate this article for deletion again in a few months if no long-term significance is established. Then WP:RAPID cannot be used an excuse to ignore policy-based rationale to delete. Feel free to stay tuned or nominate it yourself in after some time has passed. Or the editors who supported keeping this can work toward selectively merging this if they wish to benefit the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: In the future please do not state your opinion as a statement of fact. The closure of the AfD was no consensus, therefore you have nothing backing up your statement that "Or the editors who supported keeping this can work toward selectively merging this if they wish to benefit the encyclopedia." All you do is create issues rather than working toward solutions. - Galatz^Talk 21:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Galatz that was my solution: merging the article. These articles typically rely on speculation and uncertainty from the news without any indication of long-term significance. The best thing to do for the encyclopedia is merge the essential information. If the subject actually turns out to be significant, we always have the editing history from the redirect; and if it does not, well you already took the steps to make sure it was not given undue weight or kept as a coatrack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I dunno, @Galatz:. TGS said, essentially, that a particular policy will no longer override or weaken other policy in the future. That isn't an opinion, it's a factual statement. Whether its correct or not I dunno offhand, but there is an easy way to test this....yeah, the cite given simply suggests holding back from deletion for a short time as events unfold. It won't be an issue in the apparently inevitable AfD coming up later. Anmccaff (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither of you actually addressed what I stated. The line I quoted was stating that without a shadow of a doubt that is what is best for WP at this exact moment. The result of the AfD clearly shows that is not the case. - Galatz^Talk 13:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Personal opinions and WP:OR about the victim is irrelevant. We add to the page material that can be reliably sourced, which is what User:Galatz is very properly proposing to do here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

But that was neither personal opinion nor OR; it's readily sourceable. The incident was partly an outgrowth of illegal hiring practices. Whether it should be emphasized in an article is a legitimate question, nil nisi and all that, but so is is the whole question of whether the article should exist at all, and partly for the same reason. It's too damned early. Anmccaff (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP crime also strongly suggests this article should not exist.

People accused of crime

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Crime victims and perpetrators Shortcut: WP:BLPCRIME

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. A conviction is secured through judicial proceedings; accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other,[d] include all the explanatory information.

The accused are certainly "relatively unknown", and the case is certainly not fully adjudicated. Anmccaff (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

WOW talk about a stretch. So because the people accused havent been convicted the ENTIRE ARTICLE should not exist. I must say, that is a really impressive stretch. Additionally it says they should strongly consider not including, however it doesn't say they cannot. Additionally the suspects confessed, as the article clearly states. - Galatz^Talk 15:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Your bombasticism aside, what article would there be without the accused, and the (slightly contradictory) charges against them? Should this turn out to be what the cops originally saw it as, some petty crime gone wrong, it isn't the sort of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. Anmccaff (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

No, no matter what the victim has officially been declared a victim of terror. Regardless of the number, or lack their of, of people accused, he is a victim of terror. The article would look the way it did a week ago without any information on the accused. The same way it did during most of the AfD. WP:BLPCRIME only applies to the people themselves. - Galatz^Talk 16:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Dont forget to nominate 2017 Lower Manhattan attack for deletion since the person hasn't been convicted yet. Try that and see how it goes. Don't forget about 2017 Las Vegas shooting because he is dead and can never be convicted. You better have that article deleted and remove any mention of anything he did. Clearly it was just a bunch of random people dying in a concert, we cannot say anything more than that. - Galatz^Talk 16:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff don't bother. Just present these concerns to the second AFD in, say, two months. One thing I have learned is any content in this topic area, no matter how many policy violations you can find, are going to be strenuously defended; for what reason, I cannot speculate. Would this news story be better suited to a list? Absolutely. Did Dab Wolf provide an excellent example of such an entry? Got that too, and it actually resembles an encyclopedic article. Galatz why can't this be merged until some lasting significance is established? This isn't a well-written article for an encyclopedia (maybe the Daily Mail), notability is unclear next to non-existent, and we have a suitable entry provided by Dab Wolf that just needs the sourcing filled in.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Your lack of acknowledgement is pretty impressive. The way you can pretend policies you don't like dont exist is very impressive as well. Based on your comments we should create 2017 mass shootings in the United States and merge things like Weis Markets shooting, UPS shooting in San Francisco, 2017 Plano shooting, Orlando factory shooting, 2017 Mississippi shootings, Little Rock nightclub shooting, 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, Congressional baseball shooting, Clovis library shooting, Bronx-Lebanon Hospital attack. All of those mass shootings happened in the US over 2 months ago, have their own articles, and have no recent google news results hits. Based on your criteria these should be merged and stripped to a couple of paragraphs. So please go ahead and star the request for merger and see how that goes, then apply the same thing here. - Galatz^Talk 17:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Galatz you could have said something for the lasting impact of the incident but instead you presented a nonsensical statement for the sake of arguing. Why are you comparing mass shootings to a murder; WP:OSE anyone? Again, I will ask, since you seemed to have overlooked the question, why can't this article be merged using the entry Dab Wolf provided until this incident displays persistence and a lasting impact? The editing history is readily available for this article to be re-created within seconds since you were confident there would be some sort of significance later on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

My entire thing was an answer. You are trying to say my answer is just WP:OSE however if you look at WP:NCRIME it makes no distinction between a terror attack or a massage shooting. They are exactly the same. So please explain what makes this article different than any of the other ones I referenced. - Galatz^Talk 18:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Galatz I am not going to encourage a bad argument -- you are comparing other articles for the sake of WP:OSE, and at least three of those examples fail notability guidelines anyways. But that is unimportant for I am focusing on this article, as you should be doing. I will ask, for a third time: why can't this article be merged using the entry Dab Wolf provided until this incident displays persistence and a lasting impact? As WP:EVENTCRIT states: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". What gave this enduring significance? And don't say it was "terrorism" because there is no inherent notability given to that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As I have explained time and time again and you selective chose to ignore, I have answered your question. Giving you comparable examples and suggesting you do the same is a completely valid point. I suggest you read the nutshell of OSE, it will give you a nice summary, since you don't seem to understand the page when reading it (or chose to ignore the stuff you don't like). A rationale used in discussions is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value. The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others: Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them. So you are using OSE but ignoring the heart of it. I also suggest you actually read what people are writing during our discussion here Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Terrorism and WP:NOTNEWS. Multiple people have pointed to the fact that there is nothing routine about a terror attack. The continued news coverage makes it very obvious that no matter what this meets WP:GNG. Now once again I ask you, if you are so passionate about these attack articles going away, why only the Israel ones? Start nominating the ones up above. - Galatz^Talk 14:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This whole line of argument may have been relevant if the article were about the BLPs who allegedly carried out the attack had an article created about them. It may also be relevant vis-a-vis the naming of said BLPs here prior to conviction (however we often publish such names when they are widely disseminated). BLPCRIME is not relevant towards suppression of a notable crime act itself.Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

And how is this a notable crime? As a crime, it's either garden-variety property crime gone violent or garden-variety dispute turning to violence. Neither are notable to an encyclopedia. Anmccaff (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the editors of several RS disagree with your assessment.Icewhiz (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Where? Someone dies, it's in the paper, yep. Doesn't mean they show up in an encyclopedia, unless they woulda been anyway, or might have been. Anmccaff (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It has officially been declared an act of terrorism. So clearly the Israeli government and law enforcement disagrees as well. I would love to see an explanation how terrorism is either of those things? - Galatz^Talk 19:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

{{ec}...which is precisely why the above states "as a crime", yes. Would you care to reword this so it isn't a strawman? Anmccaff (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You stated As a crime, it's either garden-variety property crime gone violent or garden-variety dispute turning to violence. Please explain how a pre-meditated terror attack is either of those??? - Galatz^Talk 14:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)