| Revision as of 09:11, 13 September 2015 editIgorp lj (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,818 edits →"DIAGNOSING HAARETZ", October 12, 2014 ):): What about other, <u>more serious</u> fields ? ):)← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:43, 13 September 2015 edit undoNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,556 edits →Ya'alon on Jewish extremists: noteNext edit → | ||
| Line 294: | Line 294: | ||
| :::Again, when Yaalon says "'''those''' extreme right wing activists" he refers to the arsonists at Duma. How did you get to "Yaalon's statement is about Jewish extremists in general"??? Does a say that about "Price Tag" attacks? No. That was also clear from A7 article that was censored as well. | :::Again, when Yaalon says "'''those''' extreme right wing activists" he refers to the arsonists at Duma. How did you get to "Yaalon's statement is about Jewish extremists in general"??? Does a say that about "Price Tag" attacks? No. That was also clear from A7 article that was censored as well. | ||
| :::and will you remove the UN stats since the are so irrelevant? ] (]) 08:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC) | :::and will you remove the UN stats since the are so irrelevant? ] (]) 08:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::In general, political statements are just that, they are directed to constituencies, and have almost no encyclopedic value, whether they be Palestinian or Israeli. The settlers are a key constituency for the present government, and Ya'alon's '''generic''' statement is one of reassurance to settlers. Whenever you get incidents like these one gets a long 'responses/reactions' list which consists of politicians condemning, deploring and saying things like 'it doesn't represent us'. You are scratching around to find some statement that 'absolves' settlers generally. This is a crime, and its has culprits. The details on this are all that matter. ] (]) 09:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:43, 13 September 2015
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | Palestine Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Urging caution, accuracy
This very recent crime is widely presumed to have been carried out by Israelis. But until there is some sort of evidence identifying the attackers, we need to be very careful about wording. I have changed absolutist wording in lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Perpetrator" is inappropriate language at this stage in the investigation, in info box as elsewhere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Until there is evidence of some sort: suspects, arrest warrants speculation about the perpetrators in the lede is a violation of NPOV. It was further down in the article, where it belongs, since it can be sourced. But to put it in the info box and in the lede is unwarranted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- One reports what RS say. All RS mention Jewish (settlers) as suspects, from the New York Times downwards, and this is therefore the default term. Saying such groups are under suspicion doesn't incriminate anyone or any group. It simply shows that government investigatory bodies have adopted that line. That Arutz Sheva darkly alludes to a village feud is a fringe theory (it did exactly the same in countering all aearlier reports re Abu Khdeir's murder by suggesting he was the victim of an Arab paedophile or two, and by6 suggesting the scaffolding incident in September 2014 was caused by Palestinians) that has no place here, -it's settler gossip and innuendo and sleaze- unless later investigations confirm it, which, as so often, never happens. That a crime has perpetrators' is self-evident.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nishdani, you know better than that. Firebombed " by suspected Jewish assailants" in the lede. when what the authorities specifically do not have is leads to suspects. In the article as I left it, the suspicisons were reported on further down the page. Expansion on that is appropriate. Putting the kind of language into the lede that you put there is against policy in a developing major crime story, and needs to be taken out of the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- I know no more than what RS say, and rewrote this to fix a botched piece of WP:OR that tried to prejudge the issues by making mysteries where sources so far indicate none. We don't know what the authorities have in hand, contrary to your assertion. We know how the Israeli political establishment, the mainstream Israeli and western newspapers presented it, and that is that Jewish settlers are suspected. This may turn out to be wrong, but so far that is what sources say, and the lead reflects this usage. Israeli usage distinguishes criminal acts from terror acts, and terrorism. The lead must respect majority RS usage, and not tamper defensively with reports to 'tone down' things.Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- One reports what RS say. All RS mention Jewish (settlers) as suspects, from the New York Times downwards, and this is therefore the default term. Saying such groups are under suspicion doesn't incriminate anyone or any group. It simply shows that government investigatory bodies have adopted that line. That Arutz Sheva darkly alludes to a village feud is a fringe theory (it did exactly the same in countering all aearlier reports re Abu Khdeir's murder by suggesting he was the victim of an Arab paedophile or two, and by6 suggesting the scaffolding incident in September 2014 was caused by Palestinians) that has no place here, -it's settler gossip and innuendo and sleaze- unless later investigations confirm it, which, as so often, never happens. That a crime has perpetrators' is self-evident.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is a breaking crime story and strong assertions about who is believed to be culpable do not belong in the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- What is the policy basis for this curious personal opinion? Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nishdani, at least try for NPOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- In what way is Misplaced Pages's neutral voice affected by the careful reproduction of mainstream language describing this incident as one in which Jewish terrorists are considered by Israel to be the main suspects? It's not quite relevant perhaps, but you should note that clan feuds in small Palestinian hamlets usually do not, if they are intent on blaming Israelis for murders, achieve the spectacular mastery of Chabad messianic jargon to forge an alibi and blame outsiders. Perhaps, if we are to believe the Arutz Sheva rumour mill, there is some devious Moriarty of Palestinian terrorism who, when not confectioning bombs, studies the writings of Menachem Mendel Schneerson? But the 'signature' has been taken by most Jewish and Israeli sources as indicating that kind of messianic environment for the simple reason that an assumption to the contrary (Arutz Sheva etc) requires an extraordinary amount of special pleading. In any case, we do not know, and 'suspect' is not proof, except when describing shot Palestinians, at least that is the standard combination one reads of in the local press concerning the other side.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- At this point, it's just an unsolved act of arson, in which a family were horrifically burned and a child died. I begin to wonder about the notability of a WP article that mostly retails rumours.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Reluctant to step into this snakes nest as an anon, but really, why is so much of the "Suspects" section detailing a description of a theory from arutz sheva which has as little or less evidence than the jewish settler theories that you want to be so careful of? What about Misplaced Pages:UNDUE ?? Even if Arutz Sheva turns out to be right, why is the article giving this theory so much undue weight in proportion to its representation in RS? Just ridiculous. Someone registered should put an undue-section on here to warn readers. 149.78.234.252 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- At this point, it's just an unsolved act of arson, in which a family were horrifically burned and a child died. I begin to wonder about the notability of a WP article that mostly retails rumours.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- In what way is Misplaced Pages's neutral voice affected by the careful reproduction of mainstream language describing this incident as one in which Jewish terrorists are considered by Israel to be the main suspects? It's not quite relevant perhaps, but you should note that clan feuds in small Palestinian hamlets usually do not, if they are intent on blaming Israelis for murders, achieve the spectacular mastery of Chabad messianic jargon to forge an alibi and blame outsiders. Perhaps, if we are to believe the Arutz Sheva rumour mill, there is some devious Moriarty of Palestinian terrorism who, when not confectioning bombs, studies the writings of Menachem Mendel Schneerson? But the 'signature' has been taken by most Jewish and Israeli sources as indicating that kind of messianic environment for the simple reason that an assumption to the contrary (Arutz Sheva etc) requires an extraordinary amount of special pleading. In any case, we do not know, and 'suspect' is not proof, except when describing shot Palestinians, at least that is the standard combination one reads of in the local press concerning the other side.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Arson v. Murder
I removed the "murder" categories since arson is not necessarily murder, courts have to determine intent to cause murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm reverting that edit. There was a clear intent to kill (murder) the occupants of the house. Israeli courts are worse then useless when it comes to dealing with Jewish attackers of Palestinians, whether they be IDF personnel or "settlers", so to say that "oh if the Israeli court doesn't find homicidal intent, then there was none" is foolish to say the least. The kyle 3 (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- I guess it's already been reverted by someone else. Good for them. The kyle 3 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Meir Ettinger
It is reported that Meir Ettinger, ( a grandson of Meir Kahane), has been detained as part of the investigation . This article: Why Jewish Terror Is Different This Time should perhaps go into the article, when more is known, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
+ Netanyahu ; - B'tselem: "Israeli condemnations were mere rhetoric"
Just curious to know who has brought B'Tselem's opinion about the allegedly rhetorical condemnation of the attack by Israeli leadership, "forgetting" to add information about the condemnation itself ):).
Let's still try to comply with some
, at least, with minimum of POV and to distinguish between the Government and some controversial NGO in their notability. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC) --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Igorp's removal of RS
B'tselem said that Israeli condemnations were mere rhetoric if such attacks (were) allowed to continue.
Where's your policy justification for erasing this sourced material?Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Condemnations of violence are tediously mechanical and lack any significant content, yet editors think this chorus of crap outrage, as opposed to the record of then doing nothing, is often the most significant thing to underline. You boost the outrage by officials, and remove the one sentence which says nothing is ever done to fix these outrages.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- See my '+ Netanyahu ; - B'tselem: "Israeli condemnations were mere rhetoric"' --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- To repeat. Where is the policy justification for having excised B'tselem's comment? Yopu edit summary is a description of what you did, not an explanation of the removal.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I told you several months ago that it is not wiki policy to 'comply with some POV'. That is, precisely, what editors must not do. If you can't understand the ABC, then don't procede as if you understood D to Z. The Zionist Organization of America's outrageous paranoid crap is here, and B'tselem's quite legitimate note on the record of failure to crack down on these abuses is elided. That is, exactly, pushing a POV, which is what you did.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Changed to "Let's still try to comply, at least, with minimum of POV..."
- No comments to a next case of your personal attacks. --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- B'tselem is not an official anything. It is a smallish NGO. While it is appropriate to quote some small NGOs sources at times, there is no necessity for every small NGO with an opinion to be quoted everywhere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
<-B'Tselem, one of Israel most prominent NGOs, is merely "a smallish NGO" whose statements can be removed even when RS regard them as significant enough to publish. This is a good example of the state of the ARBPIA topic area. If editors like Igorp_Ij and E.M.Gregory are planning to continue editing here, I think it would be better to delete the article/change it into a redirect to the Price tag article. I think it would be better to have no article rather than expose readers to the kind of content these kind of editors will produce. It would be an act of kindness towards the readers. While I suppose it's a historic privilege to witness the growth of extremism among Israel supporters first hand through their actions and comments in Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's failure to deal with it, I think the readers should come first. Clearly it will not be possible to produce a decent article in the presence of these kind of editors, discussion is pointless, and Misplaced Pages does not have a working method to deal with the kind of Israel supporters that are attracted to Misplaced Pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am not going to discuss your absurd accusations & statements, only tell you that anger is a bad counselor, especially for an editor on Misplaced Pages :)
- And it's so funny & sad to read all this from one of those who by all means promotes only their own, but not neutral POV in such article as the 2nd Intifada, and many others. What about Yarmouk massacre, etc.? The rest see in my "Hysteria, paranoia, propaganda clichés?.." corrsponding reply.
- Regarding to B'tselem: I haven't considered it as small one, it's not about NGO with almost 10M NIS funding. It's about reliability of its data. See https://en.wikipedia.org/B%27Tselem#Criticism , as min. --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani: selective quoting again
Nishidani, if you've already decided to move a focus to Klein's comparison of the methods using by "Palestinian Arab terrorists" (Klein) with Nazi's ones, it'd be fair do not forget to place his "Klein called for a full investigation into the attack and the prosecution of the perpetrator “to the full extent of the law", etc. from the same article. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's just window dressing at best because he wants to cover his slimy ass. Klein doesn't give a damn about the victims because they're not Israeli or Jewish-- this is something that's very, very clear from his ridiculous tirade that's all about attempting to exonerate the "settler" movement and blame "Arab terrorists" instead.
- Once you consider that fact, it stands to reason that you wouldn't bother putting in some pointless window-dressing statement unless you're trying to defend Klein as far as his commentary goes. The kyle 3 (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- No comment to such kind replies. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Huldra's revert
Huldra, can you explain your following "way, way undue: leaving half of the "suspect" paragraph to this? No thanks" (sic!) action ?
Nobody forbids you to bring more information, but do not roll back a version that do correspond to RS, unlike the previous Nishidani's one (see. the topic above). In any case, it should be returned, as well as taking into account the Klein's letter itself, which is different from its treatment in JPost. At the moment I put it here as well as other RS. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Zionist Organization of America president Morton Klein, calling to a full investigation of the arson, after which "whoever is responsible for this attack – whether Jew or Arab – should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law", has noted that "available evidence" gives rise to suspicions the attack "was part of 18-year-old feud in Duma between two Arab clans". Citing a report from Arutz Sheva, he claims the graffiti show traces of being written by a native Arabic speaker. He also asserted that location of Dawabsha’s house, makes it "extremely difficult for Israeli Jews to reach and then to depart from the center of a hostile Arab village without being detected".
Comparing "Palestinian Arab terrorists" to the Nazis who pretended to be Poles and staged the Gleiwitz incident that triggered World War 2, Klein said the incident can be read as an 'Arab' attempt to "blame on (non-existent) Jewish ‘extremists’ and Israel”. He also reminded about an Arab in Lod who "had recently blamed a beating he had received on Jews before it was revealed that his attackers were also Arabs" as well as about "infamous al Durrah libel" as a prime example.
--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Cite error: The named reference
USNEWSwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Morton Klein (August 4, 2015). "ZOA: Stop Rush To Blame Jews For Attack on Arab Home, In Light Of History of Arab Lies About Attacks". Retrieved 7 August 2015.
- Sam Sokol, Lahav Harkov, 'ZOA slams those who ‘rush to blame Jews’ for Duma attack,' Jerusalem Post 6 August 2015.
- DOLSTEN, JOSEFIN (August 2, 2015). "Police dismiss claims by assaulted Arab man that Jews attacked him". timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 7 August 2015.
- Seriously?? Are you kidding me? When 95-99% of the sources think it is Jewish terrorist who are the perpetuators, you want about 50% of the "Suspect"-paragraph to be about potential Arab perpetuators? Sorry, won´t happen. Please take a look at WP:Undue, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it's seriously. Again: "Nobody forbids you to bring more" about those " 95-99% of the sources". --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- It deserves a line, no more, unless the eventual investigation vindicates it. It is simply not newsworthy that the person in question surrounds hyis paranoid insinuations with the usual lipservice to the rule of law. Politically correct clichés are not news, as opposed to the extremist insinuations they bracket. The remarks certainly do not appear to represent mainstream American Zionist opinion either. Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Morton Klein just appears to be slimier then you'd first assume, from that little bit of hysteria coming from him. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The kyle 3 (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hysteria, paranoia, propaganda clichés? Rather, at those whose publications you are pushing so hard, attempting to diminish or remove anything that does not fit your agenda. I don't rush to roll all this propaganda back, preferring to wait for results of investigation.
- Meantime: I am very sorry for those who builds his picture of the events in Israel, basing on opinion & data of such marginals as G.Levi, A. Hass, B'Tselem, etc. Such a picture is so far from reality. ):). And at the moment yet: a food for thought for those who still wants to see a full one: http://9tv.co.il/video/2015/08/08/57140.html
- --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Levi, Hass and Btselem are Israeli people and organizations with a vast experience of the subject area. Klein is just an American extremist making predictable assertions. No comparison. Zero 23:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's not about Klein, even not about "those who builds his picture of the events in Israel, basing on opinion & data of such marginals..."
- It's a sad story how some editors (and admins :( ) harm Wiki-reliability pushing these marginals & foreign agents and their corresponding "data", as reliable Israeli main-stream. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Minwer Dawabsha
What does that have to do with the article, specifically the section on suspects? nableezy - 21:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- And also, nothing in the source (no.19) indicate "suspicious"; that seems made up, Huldra (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Theres a random MK saying there could be a link, while the sub headline says both Israeli and Palestinian officials say there is no link. Im removing that entire paragraph as irrelevant. nableezy - 22:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Less than a month after the arson attack covered in this article, the nearby house of the victim's brother was torched. Palestinian security authorities say that it was not done by Jewish extremists. The clan to which the brothers belong is in a violent struggle with a rival clan. An MK and several reputable news aources (JTa, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, and - the Ma'an News Agency have the story. And still no suspects in the first arson. I remind Nableezy and Huldra that WP:NOTCENSORED.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Um both the Israelis and the Palestinians say this has nothing to do with the topic of this article. And what exactly is the connection to suspects in this case? Besides the transparent attempt at, through sheer conjecture, attempting to say oh no it couldnt be the settlers cus this also happened, what is the relevance here? And, while youre reminding others on guidelines, try WP:BRD. nableezy - 02:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- The sources like Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel attributed it to an electrical fault. One big difference, of course, between this fire and the first one is that during the last one they never found any "writing on the wall", literally. They did, during the first one, Huldra (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I moved the material to a new section named "Second fire". The sources make the connection between the incidents so except for the poor placement under 'suspects' section, I can see no problem with the content itself. Settleman (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, Settleman, the sources say there is no connection between the two incidents, they in fact specifically say they are unrelated, and it is completely irrelevant to the topic of this article. There is clearly no consensus for this addition, and I would ask that you revert yourself until there is such a consensus. nableezy - 13:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- The text doesn't say there is a connection either but all the sources mention the first fire and wonder whether there is a connection. It is very clear a simple electrical fault won't get such coverage if not for the first attack. Maan says there were signs of arson. E.M.Gregory done a good job not inferring anything. Here there are additional reports with less connection to the original crime so I don't see a reason to not include neutral text of an incident to a family member in the same village. Settleman (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Seriously? Presently the article has the sentence: In late August the Duma home belonging to Minwer Dawabsha, the brother of the victim of the July fire, burned in a suspicious fire, sourced to this Jpost-article, with headline "Electrical blaze hits Dawabsha home in Duma", sub-heading: "Israeli, Palestinian officials say fire is not linked to arson in which two members of family were killed." The word "suspicious" is pure invention. And, as I previously noted: this second fire did not have Hebrew graffiti all over it. (Btw: electrical faults is an extremely common cause of fires: some years ago my neighbours house burned down because of it.) Huldra (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Press accounts do not confirm that it was an electrical fire. Ma'an News Agency, in particular, reports it in a number of different ways. However, several news accounts report that inflammatory liquids were deliberately poured on the house and ignited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is only *one* press report mentioning arson; the early 24 aug. Maan -report. Meanwhile, all the others blame electrical fire; and the PA authorities and Israel Fire Services finds that it is likely caused by electrical fault. Do you seriously think that the Israeli Fire Services didn´t look into arson-allegations? And ruled them out? Huldra (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Press accounts do not confirm that it was an electrical fire. Ma'an News Agency, in particular, reports it in a number of different ways. However, several news accounts report that inflammatory liquids were deliberately poured on the house and ignited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- The reason not to include it is that this is not a general article about fires involving one family. It is a specific case of arson, and the added material is wholly irrelevant. And again, there was an addition, it was objected to, it should not be restored until there is consensus for it. nableezy - 00:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- The relationship is that in less than a month two brothers, neighbors in a very small town, have their houses set aflame in apparant arson attacks in under a month - with no named suspects in either case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- ....except that in the first fire there was Hebrew graffiti all over, while there was none in the second, and even the Israel Fire Services found the second likely caused by an electrical fault. Huldra (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Huldra, there is enough doubt about the case to be included. Here and here are additional articles. I see no base for not including it though maybe the text should be compacted. Settleman (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Its not related to this topic, this article is about an arson attack, not any other random fires. If there ends up being a connection between the two fires then sure, include it. But as it stands, every official source from every side says these two things are not related. nableezy - 08:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Almost a week later papers are still wondering whether there is connection between the deadly attack and three additional fires. I agree that E.M.Gregory took it a step too far (sorry) but you mirror him in your refusal to include any of it in the article. What policy are you basing your opposition on? Settleman (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- note - According to Walla, Israeli forces didn't rule out arson just a hate-crime. They said it either electric fault OR arson. Settleman (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- I´m sorry, I do not read/speak Hebrew (or Arabic), I don´t think Nableezy understands Hebrew, either (?)(correct me if I´m wrong.) So those sources are a bit meaningless to me, I´m afraid. With so much international interest into this, I´m sure there will be English sources available if this is anything more than wishful thinking from settler sources. Huldra (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Huldra, Foreign language sources are admissible, even in languages that you, Huldra, do not personally understand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- This story was reported by major regional media including the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Arutz Sheva, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ma'an News Agency, the 2 Hebrew sources just cited by Settleman and probably by additional newspapers. All of them report this August arson/fire as relevant to the late July arson attack, not least because of the extraordinary fact that the nearby homes of 2 brothers should happen to burn in such a short interval of time. Nableezy and Huldra disagree with the context offered by this now week long media coverage. But it is our job on Misplaced Pages to summarize what the sources are saying, not to give our personal opinions on what is relevant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you think the other fire has gotten enough coverage to be "notable" for an article make an article on it. However here you are both, in blatant violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD refusing to include the impeccably sourced material on this fire being suspected of having been an act of arson by Jewish settlers in the lead of the article on the basis that the Israeli authorities have yet to charge any specific Jewish settler and now want to include, because in your version of reality this is exculpatory evidence, a fire that those same authorities specifically say is unrelated to this event. Get off it, the sources specifically say there is no relation to this event, so it is irrelevant here. nableezy - 18:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- This story was reported by major regional media including the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Arutz Sheva, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ma'an News Agency, the 2 Hebrew sources just cited by Settleman and probably by additional newspapers. All of them report this August arson/fire as relevant to the late July arson attack, not least because of the extraordinary fact that the nearby homes of 2 brothers should happen to burn in such a short interval of time. Nableezy and Huldra disagree with the context offered by this now week long media coverage. But it is our job on Misplaced Pages to summarize what the sources are saying, not to give our personal opinions on what is relevant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Huldra, Foreign language sources are admissible, even in languages that you, Huldra, do not personally understand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- I´m sorry, I do not read/speak Hebrew (or Arabic), I don´t think Nableezy understands Hebrew, either (?)(correct me if I´m wrong.) So those sources are a bit meaningless to me, I´m afraid. With so much international interest into this, I´m sure there will be English sources available if this is anything more than wishful thinking from settler sources. Huldra (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Its not related to this topic, this article is about an arson attack, not any other random fires. If there ends up being a connection between the two fires then sure, include it. But as it stands, every official source from every side says these two things are not related. nableezy - 08:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Huldra, there is enough doubt about the case to be included. Here and here are additional articles. I see no base for not including it though maybe the text should be compacted. Settleman (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- ....except that in the first fire there was Hebrew graffiti all over, while there was none in the second, and even the Israel Fire Services found the second likely caused by an electrical fault. Huldra (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- The relationship is that in less than a month two brothers, neighbors in a very small town, have their houses set aflame in apparant arson attacks in under a month - with no named suspects in either case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Seriously? Presently the article has the sentence: In late August the Duma home belonging to Minwer Dawabsha, the brother of the victim of the July fire, burned in a suspicious fire, sourced to this Jpost-article, with headline "Electrical blaze hits Dawabsha home in Duma", sub-heading: "Israeli, Palestinian officials say fire is not linked to arson in which two members of family were killed." The word "suspicious" is pure invention. And, as I previously noted: this second fire did not have Hebrew graffiti all over it. (Btw: electrical faults is an extremely common cause of fires: some years ago my neighbours house burned down because of it.) Huldra (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- The text doesn't say there is a connection either but all the sources mention the first fire and wonder whether there is a connection. It is very clear a simple electrical fault won't get such coverage if not for the first attack. Maan says there were signs of arson. E.M.Gregory done a good job not inferring anything. Here there are additional reports with less connection to the original crime so I don't see a reason to not include neutral text of an incident to a family member in the same village. Settleman (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, Settleman, the sources say there is no connection between the two incidents, they in fact specifically say they are unrelated, and it is completely irrelevant to the topic of this article. There is clearly no consensus for this addition, and I would ask that you revert yourself until there is such a consensus. nableezy - 13:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- I moved the material to a new section named "Second fire". The sources make the connection between the incidents so except for the poor placement under 'suspects' section, I can see no problem with the content itself. Settleman (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- The sources like Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel attributed it to an electrical fault. One big difference, of course, between this fire and the first one is that during the last one they never found any "writing on the wall", literally. They did, during the first one, Huldra (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
So far we have
- Jpost stating "The cause of a fire Monday morning in the Duma home of Minwer Dawabsha appears to be electrical, according to the National Fire and Rescue Service"
- timesofisrael: "Israel Fire Services reportedly believe an electrical problem was at fault."
That an Israeli well-known pro-settler speculates that it is an internal Palestinian conflict, does not make is note-worthy...no more than Hamas assertion that Israeli settlers are behind (noted in the same article, but, which you for some reason would not like to include in the article.) When Palestinian or Israeli authorities conclude arson, then lets discuss it. Until then, MK Hazan opinions are no more notable than the opinions of Hamas on this matter, even if his views are spread more widely in English that the views of Hamas. Huldra (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Nableezy:, I didn't participate in any conversation about the lead so take your own advise and please avoid WP:NPA.
- @Huldra:, I presented sources by Ynet, Walla and even Ma'an made a connection. I found this article which links (I don't claim it is RS) to multiple articles in Palestinian media about this. The rejection is nothing but WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Settleman (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- You are correct, you did not, my apologies for lumping you in with E.M.Gregory. But as far as this goes, every official source from both the Palestinians and the Israelis specifically say the events are not related. Thats really all that needs to be said about this. If you think there is enough material to justify an article on this other fire go right ahead. Here it is irrelevant, and it isnt me saying that, it is the Israeli and Palestinian authorities. If that changes then fine, include it here. As it stands now it is a transparent attempt at deflecting from what every source says are the likely culprits in the arson that is the topic of this article. nableezy - 20:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Apology accepted! We are going in circles. We have in the suspect section the fact it was suspected to be part of an internal feud. The first fire could be part of it and Walla source notes specifically this wasn't ruled out by Israel. So you have uncertainty on both (more like all) events which means they could be connected. We have RS that say they could be connected. You have decided the first fire attackers are completely known and thus it is irrelevant. It is your own personal opinion that goes against any policy I know of. Settleman (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Didnt rule it out as arson, ruled it out as connected to this case. No, not my own personal opinion, JPost: Israeli, Palestinian officials say fire is not linked to arson in which two members of family were killed. Ill repeat the pertinent bit, not linked to arson in which two members of family were killed. nableezy - 06:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- The Jpost also says "MK Oren Hazan (Likud) wrote a parliamentary question to the defense minister on Monday calling for an investigation into the blaze, saying that it could indicate that the fatal arson last month was the result of a feud between families in the village, and not an attack by Israeli extremists." Your attempt to to make an image of certainty it not NPOV. Settleman (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- The relevance is clear from sources and not including it at all is OR. I rewrote the text in NPOV way and tried to stick to the sources. Fine-tuning is welcome. If someone thing it isn't 'relevant enough', s/he can open an RfC. Settleman (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- The Jpost also says "MK Oren Hazan (Likud) wrote a parliamentary question to the defense minister on Monday calling for an investigation into the blaze, saying that it could indicate that the fatal arson last month was the result of a feud between families in the village, and not an attack by Israeli extremists." Your attempt to to make an image of certainty it not NPOV. Settleman (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Didnt rule it out as arson, ruled it out as connected to this case. No, not my own personal opinion, JPost: Israeli, Palestinian officials say fire is not linked to arson in which two members of family were killed. Ill repeat the pertinent bit, not linked to arson in which two members of family were killed. nableezy - 06:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Apology accepted! We are going in circles. We have in the suspect section the fact it was suspected to be part of an internal feud. The first fire could be part of it and Walla source notes specifically this wasn't ruled out by Israel. So you have uncertainty on both (more like all) events which means they could be connected. We have RS that say they could be connected. You have decided the first fire attackers are completely known and thus it is irrelevant. It is your own personal opinion that goes against any policy I know of. Settleman (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- You are correct, you did not, my apologies for lumping you in with E.M.Gregory. But as far as this goes, every official source from both the Palestinians and the Israelis specifically say the events are not related. Thats really all that needs to be said about this. If you think there is enough material to justify an article on this other fire go right ahead. Here it is irrelevant, and it isnt me saying that, it is the Israeli and Palestinian authorities. If that changes then fine, include it here. As it stands now it is a transparent attempt at deflecting from what every source says are the likely culprits in the arson that is the topic of this article. nableezy - 20:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- The wording "burned in a suspicious fire" is not NPOV and the text here only says the Palestinian security forces thought it was caused by an electrical fault when more than they think that, including the Israel Fire and Rescue Services.
- If you want to change something and don't got enough support for that, you should create an RfC. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, there is very clearly no consensus for the addition of this utterly irrelevant nonsense. The sources specifically say it is not related to this attack, and this article is specifically about this attack. Absent consensus for the addition, you should not be re-inserting it. A random MK saying maybe there is a connection is not a reliable source, and does not justify including such material. The scope of this article is one arson attack, not every fire that has ever occurred in this village. nableezy - 15:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- And finally, even if one were to make the unsupported assertion that this other fire is in any way relevant, despite both the Israeli and Palestinian officials saying that it is not, what you added would go well past WP:DUE weight. nableezy - 15:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Some sources say it is not a hate-crime but not that it is unrelated. More then enough of them speculate the different fires raise a question mark. As for WP:DUE, feel free to minimize the text. I tried to cover it in a way that will explain the matter in NPOV.
The claim Israel forces said it was not arson is incorrect. Jpost say "according to the National Fire and Rescue Service." but those are Palestinian forces as Duma is in Area B. Maariv source says explicitly Israeli police didn't investigate while Walla! claim no Israeli forces entered the village. The fact speculations are made by 4 different RS make it notable enough. Settleman (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I dont think I ever said Israeli authorities said this other fire was not arson. I said they said it was not related. Ill add one sentence next to the line on Morton Klein (though honestly that should be excised as well, who cares what Morton Klein has to say about this). nableezy - 17:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I dont think this should be in here at all, but anything exceeding this goes well past due weight into something else that Id rather not describe. nableezy - 18:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Great compromise.
- Until there are conclusive evidence, minority speculations belong especially when they are backed by numerous sources. Settleman (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- The name matches the Israel Fire and Rescue Services and more importantly, Jerusalem Post writes after mentioning what that department thinks that "Palestinian officials also said there was no link..." and "Israeli, Palestinian officials say fire is not linked to arson in which two members of family were killed" above. The article in Times of Israel says "Israel Fire Services reportedly believe an electrical problem was at fault". --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Propose moving article
Proposing a move to Duma Arson attacks or Dawabsheh family arson attacks to cover the unusual event of the houses of two brothers ia a small rural town being attacked by arsonists within less than a month, and - according to some press accounts - the series of 4 arson attacks on the extended Dawabsheh family over the course of the last year all in the very small, rural town of Duma.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, obviously, (see above) Huldra (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, there is no question the additional 'mysterious' cases are dwarfed in comparison to the deadly attack, at least when it comes to media coverage. If in time there will be new evidence, the name might need to change to "fire libel at duma" but for now it is premature. Settleman (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, jesus christ. nableezy - 08:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Since Huldra and Nableezy insist on blocking info relevant to this article, in the face of significant media coverage opposing their opinions, I thought that the problem might be resolved by broadening the title of the article to accommodate the remarkable coincidence of clustered arson attacks on the same family in this one small town. it is difficult for mere mortals with day jobs to deal with relentlessly POV and indefatigably obstructionist editors like Nableezy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- You really need to read and incorporate WP:NPA. A good place to start is the second sentence, that being Comment on content, not on the contributor. I have not informed you of what I think as toy your value as an editor of this encyclopedia because I would be violating that policy. Kindly cease violating it yourself. nableezy - 18:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose This is about a specific incident. There is no evidence later events are connected to this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:LEAD
WP:LEAD says the following:
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview ... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.
It is widely reported that Jewish settlers or extermists are suspected of carrying out this attack. It is against both NPOV and LEAD to exclude that material from the lead section. nableezy - 04:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ive added the relevant bit to the lead. nableezy - 15:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Why Arutz Sheva is an unreliable source
This is a perfect example of why we should not use Arutz Sheva as a source. If suspects have been arrested for the murders, as written there claiming to cite the Defense Minister, why have respectable news outlets like Haaretz, JP and Ynet not mentioned it even half a day later? The A7 report also says "Defense Minister Yaalon ... says they are not associated with communities in Judea-Samaria" but that is also a lie. Yaalon said they were not from the "price-tag" groups, not that they weren't settlers. I've seen this sort of useless reporting from A7 countless times. They aren't reliable, and that is doubly obvious when the subject has anything to do with settlers. Zero 10:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Zero0000: This is a perfect example of how you split hairs trying to discredit A7, just to be proven wrong. Jpost basically says the same as A7 and Haaretz published very similar article and the fact they chose not to mention connection to price tag is their decision that as we all know, can be political. I have seen a few examples of exactly this kind of attempts to discredit s source that one dislike. This one has obviously failed and is an evidence to one's own bias. Settleman (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Settleman: I never use A7 as a source because countless times I have seen them print fake news and they never retract their false stories. It is simply not true that A7 and Haaretz agree on this.
- A7, Sep 10: "Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon revealed Thursday afternoon that security services have arrested several Jewish suspects over the murder of a Arab family in the Palestinian village of Duma last month." The wording indicates new arrests, not the three people put into detention over a month ago. The Haaretz article only mentions those 3 detained before and not new arrests. Nobody else, afaik, mentioned new arrests either.
- A7, Sep 10: "Yaalon said the suspects are not at all connected to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria - or even to the so-called "Price Tag" movement." Haaretz never reported Yaalon saying that the suspects were not settlers, let alone that they were not connected to settlers. JP and Ynet didn't either. They reported like this (JP's words): "not connected to hilltop youth who routinely spray-paint hate messages". It isn't the same at all.
- Is it really so hard to use respectable sources for matters that are widely reported? Zero 13:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Settleman: I never use A7 as a source because countless times I have seen them print fake news and they never retract their false stories. It is simply not true that A7 and Haaretz agree on this.
- @Zero0000: your first bullet fails to mentions Jpost writes "Dozens of right-wing activists have been arrested and released since then, but only three have been held under administrative detention orders." And the hilltop youth is usually the extremists of the settlers.
- The second one can be attributed to choice of words. The fact Haaretz didn't even mention Price-taggers tells you a lot about the bias by the 'respectable' journalists there. Hebrew similar sources ,
- The only thing I learn from this is that while certain news outlets won't really pay much attention to these matters, A7 does since many of their readers are involved. You as an outsider split hairs of their report while these minor details and dismiss a huge organization. I have seen you doing it in a few discussions but the argument of 'Haaretz doesn't say it thus it isn't right' doesn't hold water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settleman (talk • contribs)
- Well how about the sources that say there havent been any arrests (eg JPost as of an hour ago, Haaretz two days ago). Aurtz Sheva is not a reliable source, it is a mouthpiece of the settler movement and it has repeatedly published false material without ever retracting it. I'm going to remove it and replace it with Jpost and Haaretz for what they actually report. nableezy - 17:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Sara Yael Hirschhorn, Israeli Terrorists, Born in the U.S.A. New York Times 4 September, 2015 It's an op-ed, but anticipates her forthcoming book on Hilltop youth. The material here could be used for several articles (Israeli settlement etc.) but also the remark, founded on what reading of the Hebrew press I do not know, that:'All available evidence suggests that the blaze was a deliberate act of settler terrorism.' This a week before the Ya'alon remark. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Re 'establishment deem' ('establishment' takes the singular, i.e. 'the establishment deems'. 'Deem' is just a tad archaic. If one takes a tip from the The Tol10915 article one might write, 'Sources within the Israeli security establishment are reported as regarding the evidence as pointing unambiguously to Jewish perpetrators(, from a group already identified.) Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- What on earth do you have a problem with? There have been administrative detentions over the case. You read into A7 words there have been new arrests when this is your baseless interpertation not supported by the text. Now Nableezy claims there haven't been any arrests which is completely ignorant of what was happening.
- Yeelon word about the settlements are mentioned in a few more Hebrew sources and the 'Settlers mouthpiece' claim is as relevant to A7 as it is to Ma'an which seems dear to Nishidani and Nableezy. In short - classic case of WP:REALLYHATEIT. Settleman (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Im not claiming anything. According to the JPost and Haaretz the defense ministry knows who is responsible but has not charged them yet. They may or may not already be held under administrative detention, but they havent been charged with this arson as of earlier today. Thats not a "Nableezy claim", thats what the actual reliable sources say. Adn actually reliable sources will be able to make that distinction. And heres the thing, why cant you just get a better source? I routinely do that when a source is challenged, but all the people who love to use crap like Arutz7 never seem to get the point that if something actually happened more than A7 will cover it. So use a better source. I have no idea what youre talking about with Maan. nableezy - 23:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Nableezy: See in my reply below : "Defense minister denies Israel knows who killed the Dawabshas", etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Zero0000: Maybe I'll surprise you, but I also have a claim to the A7 in this case. But only (!) to its tittle. However, such claims may be brought to all media, including Haaretz (and not to titles only: ), etc.
- In fact, all sources say the same things, the only difference is what they do present, depending (as Settleman correctly pointed out) by its orientation:
- A7, 9/10/2015, 8:32 AM: "Israel's defense establishment knows who the perpetrators responsible for the arson attack in the Palestinian village of Duma are"
- A7, 9/10/2015, 4:45 PM: "Yaalon also said several suspects were currently being held who are believed to be linked to the attack, although their precise role in the deadly arson is unclear. He noted that the suspects are not at all connected to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria - or even to the so-called "Price Tag" movement."
- JPost, 09/10/2015 17:01: Ya’alon during a meeting at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv - "Jewish terrorist cell that allegedly carried out the deadly arson attack on a Palestinian home in Duma on July 31 is a significantly bigger threat than far-right “price tag” activists, and is not connected to hilltop youth who routinely spray-paint hate messages, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said on Thursday."
- Ynet, 09.10.15, 20:28 - Ya'alon during a meeting of the Likud youth branch: "We know who is responsible, but we will not expose those findings in order to protect our intelligence sources... We are facing difficulties in establishing solid evidence... Right now we are not prosecuting those responsible in order to not expose our intelligence sources in court"
- Haaretz, Sep 10, 2015 6:01 AM - Ya’alon told a closed meeting of some 20 young Likud activists: "suspects not being identified to protect the sources; since attack that killed members of Dawabsheh family, three Jewish assailants have been detained" - & that's all
- TIMES OF ISRAEL, September 10, 2015 3:16 am: Ya’alon told a closed meeting of about 20 young Likud party members: "Security officials said later that Ya’alon did not say that Israel knew the specific perpetrators, but rather the group from which they had come, Channel 2 reported."
- Jpost, 09/11/2015 19:18: "Israel doesn't have enough evidence to arrest Duma arsonists, Ya'alon says"
- TIMES OF ISRAEL, September 10, 2015, 7:07 pm: "Defense minister denies Israel knows who killed the Dawabshas... The statement appeared to walk back comments attributed to Ya’alon earlier in the day to the effect that Israel had tracked down the perpetrators of the attack.]
- --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- They don't say the same thing. Only the worthless source Arutz Sheva says Ya'alon said that they "are not at all connected to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria". --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Settleman suggests above that A7 didn't mean to write that there are new arrests. In fact, anyone with good command of English will read their words in exactly that way. Whoever copied their words into this article obvious read it that way too. Whether A7 got the facts wrong or are being deliberately ambiguous as propagandists like to do is a question we don't need to answer. What we need to do is to cite sources that are reliable by consensus, rather than fighting to keep challenged sources. Incidentally, people who think A7 was referring to the three people in administrative detention might like to ponder the fact that all of the three (Meir Ettinger, Eviatar Slonim and Mordechai Meyer) are associated in the press with "price tag" and the first is widely described as a leader of the "hilltop youth". Zero 00:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Settleman and Igorp make no difference between :
- Media that can have editing line and global opinions (left, right, liberal, ...)
- Media that advocate for a cause or groups of people
- 1st are WP:RS (in most of cases) and second are not (in most of cases).
- Pluto2012 (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Settleman and Igorp make no difference between :
- @Zero0000: There has been many arrests since then and though people weren't charged with the crime, it was part of the investigation and as preventative measurement., and Dozens of right-wing activists have been arrested and released since then, but only three have been held under administrative detention orders. A7 didn't claim anyone was arrested for the murder.
- About the connection with the settlement community, there is a quote from Makor Rishon. I saw someone claimed somewhere it isn't RS either but the facts are (1) none of you ever read it and I'll but money on it! (2) the one site that sometimes publishes them in Hebrew is NRG which is considered RS around here. A7 proved reliable and the ONLY source in English once more.
- @Pluto2012: what you are stating is your own opinion (which at this point have pretty bad record ex. Havakook and neo-zionism). All I can find on Arutz 7 that comes from a person with actual expertise is here. So a liberal reporter tells you it is "on the ball" but you listen to your own bias. If fox news is good enough, so is A7. Settleman (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- After 10 years on wikipedia and 7 FA (and soon one GA on the topic of the battlegroud in the media on the I/P conflict) my opinion would be quite relevant if it has any importance, which is not the case here.
- A7 has be founded by settlers to advocate for settlers. It is not my opinon. It is their choice. They have the right to do so. A7 is not a newpaper of opinion. I told you, Zero0000 told you. Nishidani told you. Nableezy told you.
- Other newspapers are newspapers who provide an opinion and tendencies on the analysis of facts. But they are not linked to any organised groups: they just gather some people. That's the main difference.
- You are not WP:NOTHERE and this discussion will be endless. That's now clear. But in any way, everything that A7 says should be checked from other sources so it is useless to use this.
- Pluto2012 (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- After 10 years on wikipedia and 7 FA (and soon one GA on the topic of the battlegroud in the media on the I/P conflict) my opinion would be quite relevant if it has any importance, which is not the case here.
- Settleman says "A7 didn't claim anyone was arrested for the murder." A7 says "security services have arrested several Jewish suspects over the murder". In the face of this, I agree with Pluto that continuing the argument is pointless. Zero 10:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Zero0000: Since you like nuances, can you tell me the difference between "arrested for..." and "arrested over..." but what I wrote isn't the point. Like I said before, the Jpost states there has been more arrests and A7 doesn't say any of the prisoners is accused of the attack. BTW, the quotes you gave doesn't fit the article. Of course you forgot your claim for a LIE which I have found on 3 additional sources.
- @Pluto2012: Do I really care what you, Zero0000, Nishidani, or Nableezy tell me? You have been fighting this for years and many people haven't been agreeing with. A7 by now is a large news group whose weekend paper surpasses Haaretz. Settleman (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Settleman:. How can you say that I "have been fighting this for years". You are new on wikipedia. How could you know that. Did you edit wp with a former account ? I already asked this to you but you refused to answer.
- The fact that A7 weekend paper surpasses Haaretz just show that there are more people who buy A7 than people interested by a left perspective of events; unless it is linked to the fact most people use internet today and that maybe these statistics could be biaised due to the use of internet. In any case, it is not answering to the point given to you numerous times before: opinion is one thing and advocacy is another thing. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Settleman: The difference between "for the murder" and "over the murder" is too subtle to make any difference in a newspaper article. Without more information, readers will assume the meaning is the same. It also doesn't matter here for two reasons. (1) Whether A7 is wrong or just misleading, either justifies the label "unreliable". (2) No other newspapers reported that anyone was just arrested "over" the murders either. Incidentally, it is funny that you confuse circulation with quality; from now on you should use a newspaper with circulation far greater than either A7 or Haaretz. Zero 13:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, the blessed Sun, memorable also for suggesting gorillas roam Mars.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here is another quote of Yaalon from Nana 10 which support what A7 wrote "for lack of any other option' we used those draconian measures and we assume we know who made this attack, when some of them are arrested" (בלית ברירה נקטנו בצעדים הדרקוניים הללו ואנו מעריכים שאנו יודעים מי ביצע את הפיגוע הזה, כשחלקם עצורים). Settleman (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Reread the thread. You ignored the objections. Since one can never know when Arutz Sheva is accurate and when it is rumour-mongering, one waits for mainstream RS to verify that the claim is supported by less POV-focused media. Numerous 'pro-Palestinian' activist sources are not used by general agreement, and neither should a settler-activist medium be used.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
"DIAGNOSING HAARETZ", October 12, 2014 ):)
@IRISZOOM:, @Pluto2012:, @Nableezy: @Zero0000: I's FYI and I hope, you'll find a lot of interesting things here, including:
- Seth J. Frantzman: "The main problem with those reading Haaretz abroad is they don’t understand the conversation they are joining when they read Haaretz. "To understand Haaretz, one must understand that its circulation rate in Israel is in the single digits as a percent of the population (20-30,000 readers in print, compared to the largest daily, Yediot, which is read by an estimated 60 percent of Israelis), and that it is read by and written for and within the milieu of a narrow-minded, extremist group."
--Igorp_lj (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Heh, heh, heh; I seriously have tried to forget how the then mr. Frantzman started the article "Artas, Israel", which I had to move to "Artas (village)"...as it is on the West Bank. It is now called Artas, Bethlehem. Please don´t remind me of it -------but pardon me for not kowtowing to him. (Though I´ll give you this: Frantzman is not particularly vain; otherwise he would have given us a dozen socks during his AfD: he didn´t......and I am also grateful to him for uploading his pictures, say here to Misplaced Pages )
- Besides this: @Igorp lj:,have you fixed those links I mentioned under "Sloppy editing" yet? Hey; Back to work! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Huldra, The facts remain - Haaretz is now 5.2% exposure, down from 5.5% last year. Settleman (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- That really doesnt matter. Like not even a little bit. nableezy - 07:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Huldra, you're so proud of "victories" over Frantzman at still your "home field" here in Wiki. :) What about other, more serious fields (, ) ? ):)
- Btw, what "links" are you talking about? --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Sloppy editing
Firstly, may I ask people who add sources, to
- : make sure the links actually *works*? This link does not open for me: http://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Terror-cell-behind-Duma-attack-goes-way-beyond-Price-Tag-activists-415848#article=6018MTQxOTI4RDIwRDUyMkU1NDQ2NTg0NDE2QTc0MThEMEI=
- : fix the links, i.e., no "bare" urls, but full links, please
- : there are so many sources in English, so can we stick to those, please? (yes, I´m fully aware that Hebrew sources are allowed, so are Arabic.) But this is English Misplaced Pages, so when English sources are available, I´ll suggest we stick to those, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Huldra, it was mobile link what = http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Terror-cell-behind-Duma-attack-goes-way-beyond-Price-Tag-activists-415848 (see my reply in a topic above)
- --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here we have a perfect example where A7 was the only one to bring information in English but editor's biased resistance to it forced me to bring a source from a paper newspaper in Hebrew. Settleman (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Settleman: Eeeeh, huh? Igorp lj: if you added those sloppy references ...did you fix them? If not, why?Huldra (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here we have a perfect example where A7 was the only one to bring information in English but editor's biased resistance to it forced me to bring a source from a paper newspaper in Hebrew. Settleman (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Ya'alon on Jewish extremists
This information is wp:undue and not relevant. More that's an obvious statement that doens't bring any real information but just emotion.
What Ya'alon can say about the Duma arson attack is relevant given his responsibilities. But what he thinks about Jewish extremism in Israel and in the Occupied territories is unrelevant (and in fact more a political message). If we report the mind of Ya'alon here we should also report the mind of all other political groups who share and don't share this and even more important the analysis of scholars in sociology about the profile of settlers and extremism in Israel (and there are such sources).
I think we should remove this. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is going to be great evidence at WP:ARBPIA3. Settleman (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- More to the point. The fact Terrorism section has the word 'settle*' 6 times while Ya'alon says it does not represent the community, I think we should put it in bold font. Settleman (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- So... You give your conclusion : It must be in bold. Now, could you please explain why but in answer to the comments that I made ? Ya'alon says so. Is his mind relevant about the origin of Jewish extremism ? If we give this, shouldn't we give the one of scholars on the issue and the one on all other people on the topic ? If we discuss all this, isn't this wp:undue ?
- Pluto2012 (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- He speaks directly about the attackers at Duma. Not price tag or anything else. If you find a scholar who speak directly about this, bring him to the party. Settleman (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not RS, but gives the most reasonable explanation so far of the anomaly between knowing who they are, and not proceeding to arrest them.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- He speaks directly about the attackers at Duma. Not price tag or anything else. If you find a scholar who speak directly about this, bring him to the party. Settleman (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I didnt read the whole source, but the part quoted is not specific to the people responsible for this. It is a general statement on extremists. nableezy - 17:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Let's see, first it was a lie by A7, then it was undue, then it was Yaalon unnotable thought and last it is completely irrelevant. You guys should really put a coherent reason before pushing from all direction. You have no problem with the statement put on a COATRACK but this, oh no. Settleman (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- You understand that each of us have our own views on these topics right? That there isnt some vast leftist conspiracy working in concert where we all together come up with one argument that we will all argue. I have no idea what the last sentence means, Ive tried reading it several times but I cant get what it is youre trying to convey. But you could try answering each of the points raised instead of just repeating them as though doing so dismisses them. The quote added is a general statement on Jewish extremists. It does not say that the people responsible for this arson are not connected to the settlers. If Dayan says that then sure, I would add that myself. But he didnt say that, at least not in what you added to the article. nableezy - 00:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't about conspiracy, it is about taking over. I will add A7 as well which states it as well. (The statement I refereed to was UN stats on 'settlers violence' which is here as WP:COATRACK) Settleman (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, that statement is related to this article as this is widely reported to be a suspected attack by settlers. The one you just re-added, without in any way addressing the objections of every other person that has commented here, is not. Ya'alon is saying that most extremists Jews are not settlers, not that the suspects in this attack are not settlers. What dont you get about that? nableezy - 07:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't about conspiracy, it is about taking over. I will add A7 as well which states it as well. (The statement I refereed to was UN stats on 'settlers violence' which is here as WP:COATRACK) Settleman (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- You understand that each of us have our own views on these topics right? That there isnt some vast leftist conspiracy working in concert where we all together come up with one argument that we will all argue. I have no idea what the last sentence means, Ive tried reading it several times but I cant get what it is youre trying to convey. But you could try answering each of the points raised instead of just repeating them as though doing so dismisses them. The quote added is a general statement on Jewish extremists. It does not say that the people responsible for this arson are not connected to the settlers. If Dayan says that then sure, I would add that myself. But he didnt say that, at least not in what you added to the article. nableezy - 00:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Let's see, first it was a lie by A7, then it was undue, then it was Yaalon unnotable thought and last it is completely irrelevant. You guys should really put a coherent reason before pushing from all direction. You have no problem with the statement put on a COATRACK but this, oh no. Settleman (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
What I don't get is how statistics about 'settlers violence' belong and the fact this didn't come from and doesn't represent the settler communities, belong. Your standards on relevancy are one sided. Settleman (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- And when Yaalon says "those extreme right wing activists" he refers to the arsonists at Duma. But you know that. Settleman (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Because what you dont get is that Yaalon's statement is about Jewish extremists in general, not the people responsible for this attack. And the people responsible for this attack are, at least suspected to be, settlers. My standards are not one sided, the standard is simple. The material actually needs to be relevant to the topic of this article. And finally, unless you want me to start making remarks on your motives and standards, kindly desist from remarking on what you think are mine. nableezy - 07:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Again, when Yaalon says "those extreme right wing activists" he refers to the arsonists at Duma. How did you get to "Yaalon's statement is about Jewish extremists in general"??? Does a say that about "Price Tag" attacks? No. That was also clear from A7 article that was censored as well.
- and will you remove the UN stats since the are so irrelevant? Settleman (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- In general, political statements are just that, they are directed to constituencies, and have almost no encyclopedic value, whether they be Palestinian or Israeli. The settlers are a key constituency for the present government, and Ya'alon's generic statement is one of reassurance to settlers. Whenever you get incidents like these one gets a long 'responses/reactions' list which consists of politicians condemning, deploring and saying things like 'it doesn't represent us'. You are scratching around to find some statement that 'absolves' settlers generally. This is a crime, and its has culprits. The details on this are all that matter. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Because what you dont get is that Yaalon's statement is about Jewish extremists in general, not the people responsible for this attack. And the people responsible for this attack are, at least suspected to be, settlers. My standards are not one sided, the standard is simple. The material actually needs to be relevant to the topic of this article. And finally, unless you want me to start making remarks on your motives and standards, kindly desist from remarking on what you think are mine. nableezy - 07:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)