This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Israel C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Categorization : Diffuse articles from Category:Companies of Israel. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority Palestine Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I do take issue with this removal.[2] One line (especially sourced) is not "plagiarism". And even if it was, the preceeding kept paragraph was also plagiarism. So you should have reworked it instead of removing it since now there is a signifigant aspect ignored which introduces POV. So rework it or restore it or remove the whole paragraph until it is fixed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the record, I don't object to the restoration of the paragraph that I removed. If it is worded very differently. Let me explain very clearly why it was unacceptable. There were two instances of close paraphrasing or direct copying:

Over the previous two years, Israel lifted many roadblocks and checkpoints in the area, including one near the highway turnoff to Itamar and Awarta

is a close paraphrase of the source, which says:

Over the last two years, Israel has lifted many roadblocks and checkpoints in the area surrounding Nablus, including one at Hawara, near the highway turnoff to Itamar and Awarta.

And:

Palestinian militants had defended previous attacks against Jewish settlers in the West Bank, describing the settlers as combatants in the conflict rather than civilians.

is almost a straight copy-paste of the source, which says:

In the past, Palestinian militants have defended such attacks against Jewish settlers in the West Bank, describing the settlers as combatants in the conflict rather than civilians.

So please feel free to fix these issues and restore the paragraph. It has been suggested that the paragraph above it may also be plagiarism. I don't see it, but I'm happy to be convinced that I'm wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both paragraphs are very close paraphrases of individual lines within the LA Times source. This could be plagiarism according to our standards. However, we rely on close paraphrasing and even a copy and paste of a complete sentence (which there is at least one) to ensure that the attributed source is not misrepresented. Use of this one sentence does not impact the publisher's (or writer depending on who owns the content) exclusive right of the material. One copy and paste does not make it a violation while rewording the line could be considered just as problematic since a close paraphrase could be considered infringement. IU would lean towards keeping it a copy and paste since it is attributed to the LA Times and the writer while it also keeps it in the exact context and ensures NPOV. I understand your concern but a fundamental rewrite of the sentence would alter its meaning which is not the purpose of a tertiary source.Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"However, we rely on close paraphrasing and even a copy and paste of a complete sentence (which there is at least one) to ensure that the attributed source is not misrepresented". We do not need to do that at all. There are many ways of accurately representing a source without stealing the work. Academics and journalists do it for a living. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting one line is theft is a little shocking. This is especially true since even our featured articles do use close paraphrasing or exact lines when it is kept to a minimum. It is not like we are jacking the guy's complete article. Can you come up with a suggestion to reword the line that is not a close paraphrase or copy and paste? Both are in violation according to your reading of the policy.Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And on a side but similar note, you completely removed the source which was also being used for the first paragraph. That led to this removal: [3] Your removal based on one sentence being copy and pasted has negatively impacted both NPOV and verification. So is one line plagiarism? If it is, please please come up with alternative wording that is not so close of a paraphrase that it is also considered plagiarism.Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point me to a featured article that does so? It should not be a featured article. The last time a featured article was found to contain copying (like this on a sentence-by-sentence basis), all hell broke loose. If you are completely stuck and cannot find a way to write something in your own words, the cop-out is usually to slap quote marks around the text and provide in-text attribution. WP:PLAGIARISM explains the importance of in-text attribution. A citation is not enough. It seems you've contributed to audited content yourself, so I am not going to do your work for you here. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was "burning cars, and shooting at Palestinian residents. Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler." sourced to the Guardian if the real source was the LA Times? Again I'm not going to do your work for you. In fact, the editor was correct to remove that content. It was almost a word-for-word copy of the LA Times as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the LA Times which was used to source the whole section. And you are not doing the work for me. You are simply bettering the encyclopedia and defending your misrepresentation of plagiarism by reworking the line. If you can't do that then you shouldn't have made the edit. And if you do not see the other paragraph as plagiarism then your whole understanding of the policy is incorrect. That is not meant to be a jerkoff statement but clarification on why I feel your removal was not inline with our standards even if you had the best intentionsCptnono (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why the other paragraph contained plagiarism now: because it was lifted from the LA Times rather than the cited source of The Guardian. It's been removed (but for other reasons) so I don't see myself as needing to do any more work here. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata, I think you have a misplaced sense of what constitutes copyvio. The phrase you claim was copyvio from the LA Times was simply a list of things Awartans accuse Itamarans of. It's perfectly acceptable to duplicate things like a simple list. I think you should restore the sentence in full. Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Then please see the LA Times article and compare the information in now. It is a close paraphrase. If we can closely paraphrase one line but not others then we still have a problem. So since you have failed to assist in bettering the line while not effectively demonstrating an understanding of either NPOV or WP:PLAGIARISM then I see no reason not reincluding the whole thing. But if you do believe that the paragraph removed was [plagiarism then you must remove the current paragraph or you are assisting in ripping off the guy's work. You also failed to represent the other aspect of attribution presented at the policy page so if you are going to include one aspect and not the other it shows that there is not too much effort. You also failed to address the exclusive right argument, misrepresentation argument, scale of information duplicated argument, and so on. But if you are done here then I will be happy to restore it.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: On what basis is it a "simple list" of facts? Facts aren't copyrightable, but this is a creatively-expressed sentence. You are also overlooking the sentence "Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler" which was another blatant lift. If anyone has any doubts, I'd strongly recommend reading up on the relevant policies and taking any questions to a relevant copyright noticeboard (if you don't accept my explanation). @Cptono: you restore anything contrary to copyright policies and it's a blockable offence. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a desyopsing offence since you are involved in the conflict. Now do you have a rebuttal or not to the reasoning provided to use the line?Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. If you are adamant that you can't write the text in your own words without it being inaccurate (and I accept that avoiding misrepresentation is an important aim), do exactly what WP:PLAGIARISM says and slap some quote marks around it. That page gives some very helpful guidance. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oops. I saw something on your talk page that led me to assume you were. So feel free to file a report at ANI when i restore it. Apologies for the misunderstanding.Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think slapping quotes around it would lead to readability issues (flow) and is not needed per the project's standards regarding attribution. But if that will clear up this dispute then I am willing to accept something I see as ugly to address what you see as theft.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Okay Mk, well how about we go back to my version? IIRC I worked to put this info into my own words, although there's a limit on how far that can be achieved when it's a simple list of facts to be presented. Here is my version, see what you think:

The Itamar settlement was established in 1984, on Palestinian land according to local Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority. Tensions between Itamar and Awarta have been rising in recent weeks. Itamar settlers are said to be among the most "fervent",[8] believing in a divine Israeli right to the West Bank.[2][8] Palestinians accuse settlers in the locality of recently cutting down hundreds of olive trees,[2][8] burning cars and shooting at Palestinian residents. Ten Palestinians and one settler were injured in a confrontation in the week before the Itamar attack, when Israeli soldiers were accused of opening fire on them.[8]

Gatoclass (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your version is disputed based on POV reasoning provided by two editors and another editor has shown concern with it by their whittling it down. That is three editors expressing concern through editing or talk page use which means it does not have consensus. I should have just reverted based on BRD it looks like.Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to establish a consensus for the first paragraph. I'm quite happy to discuss a rephrase of the second paragraph which you added so that can be restored as well, but we can only address one issue at a time. Gatoclass (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence looks good. To play on the safe side, I'd suggest just quoting the LA Times directly for the penultimate sentence and leaving out the Guardian (everything is in the LA Times article). --Mkativerata (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would reluctantly be on board with:

The Itamar settlement was established in 1984. Itamar is home to 1,000 ideological and religious families who believe Israel has a historic and religious right to absorb the West Bank, which Israel seized during the 1967 Six-Day War. According to the mayor of Awarta, it sits on land that was once part of his village. Tensions between the settlement and village had been rising in the weeks before the incident. Palestinians had recently accused settlers of cutting down hundreds of olive trees, burning cars, and shooting at Palestinian residents. Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler.

Over the previous two years, Israel lifted many roadblocks and checkpoints in the area, including one near the highway turnoff to Itamar and Awarta. A security fence remained in place around the settlement. According to the Los Angeles Times: "In the past, Palestinian militants have defended such attacks against Jewish settlers in the West Bank, describing the settlers as combatants in the conflict rather than civilians."<ref name=latimes> (altered slightly from original proposal)

Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's little better. You've attributed one sentence (without quote marks) and others are still lifted. Gatoclass's proposal is significantly more compliant. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Gatoclass's is not acceptable for POV reasons as made clear by two editors dissenting. I actually meant to add quotes but missed them so am adding them now (which may or may not change your opinion). With the quote marks, it fits within your interpretation of the policy of close paraphrasing but not copy and pasting without quoting it.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've only attributed one of the three problematic sentences. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the other sentences are just as close of a parphrase. Why do you have a problem with some paraphrasing but not others? And BTW, I completely screwed up and misquoted it and need to change the tense.(now fixed and inline with MOS:QUOTE by removing the wikilink) So overall, if you are going to incorrectly call plagiarism and no one is happy with it: lets remove it for now. That is the breaks when editors refuse to work together. Sucks but it looks to be the best option for now.Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I'm saying you need to fix the other sentences as well, for example by providing in-text attribution. The sentences are "Palestinians had recently accused settlers of cutting down hundreds of olive trees, burning cars, and shooting at Palestinian residents. Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler." and "Over the previous two years, Israel lifted many roadblocks and checkpoints in the area, including one near the highway turnoff to Itamar and Awarta." --Mkativerata (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, I think the first sentence is acceptable because it's simply a list of things, and simple duplication of lists of items is not copyvio. The other two sentences may need a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You missed my point, those are close paraphrases just as the edit you support was. Therefore, your choosing when to call plagiarism and not is leading to issues in the article. Since you refuse to fix them yourself and other editors see issues with Gatoclass's version then Gatoclass's version is not acceptable and should be removed. Wish I would have just reverted in the first place now since it is only now marginally better than the original problematic version. I have worked towards a solution and there are limits to what should be expected. After it is worked on and fixed I would be happy to support inclusion of such a section but right now BRD was clearly the better option.Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, no-one has objected to my version, there have been only two objections, one that the info was in a background section, and two (from Biosketch) that the info shouldn't be included at all, regardless of the version. I can't see any effective difference between my version and yours except that mine isn't copyvio, so if you have an objection to it, I'd like to know what it is exactly. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true that others have not objected (two have and another removed info that was in your original edit making three editors showing concern) and you just changed your tune about copyvio. Your version was also a close paraphrase but it also was misrepresentitive of the source and left out key aspects.. Two editors have and another edited out two pieces of information in your version. So add my concern about NPOV to that of Biosketch and add the following reasons which I failed to detail for you:

• Tone: The tone lays the blame on the victims. This is subtle but is a violation since you are trying to lead the reader to a conclusion. Per your exact words: "Without it, the article is effectively a whitewash, presented as a completely unprovoked attack on an entirely blameless Jewish community." Note that you said "Jewish community". The scope of this article is not a Jewish community but the butchering of a family. Are you interested in preserving the accuracey of this article or pointing fingers? I am not surprised the tone comes across like the later.
  • Since you put it under the "Responsibility" section it reads like an attempt to assign blame to the "Jewish community"
• "The Itamar settlement was established in 1984, on Palestinian land according to local Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority." Shows only one viewpoint so it is not inline with NPOV.
  • I also did not see it in the source making it OR but it is easy to find in other sources so I am not too worried about it. However, the source does comment on the mayor's claim which and although it is not a POV violation, to omit it it does not provide details very relevant. Why would you not highlight this information since the battling between the two communities is the "tension"?
  • You failed to mention how it came to happen (19670 but you allude to it. That leaves a gap in coverage.
• "Itamar settlers are said to be among the most 'fervent'". Why did you choose to use wording that was so emotive that you chose to use quotes for it? Why not pull from the same source that it the residents are ideological and religious? This is a clearer representation.
• "Palestinians accuse settlers in the locality of recently cutting down hundreds of olive trees,[2][8] burning cars and shooting at Palestinian residents. Ten Palestinians and one settler were injured in a confrontation in the week before the Itamar attack, when Israeli soldiers were accused of opening fire on them." You again only paint one community as the victim. Why did you not mention that the deaths were the result of a "clash" as the source did? Your version reads as if the Israeli's decided to randomly open fire and kill Palestinians instead of making it clear that both the Israelis and Palestinians are actually fighting.

And overall: you also closely paraphrased which would also be a violation. I maintain that the exclusive right to the content was not impacted. The amount of info being used in my version was not to the scale that it mirrors the overall content (and arguably not the actual primary scope) of the LA Times article. And I feel that it was needed to prevent your misrepresentation of both the source in question and background of this topic. Note that this topic is the killing of a family again and not politics of the region.

So if you want to fundamentally reword your version in a way that addresses the concerns I would consider supporting it. If you wanted to tweak the wording or even remove some content from mine then that would be a fine alternative. Your version is too problematic and so far I am not the only one to say so even if you continue to misrepresent this talk page discussion. Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me, what an extraordinary response. I asked you what problem you had with my version, and almost all the "problems" you list are equally apparent in your own version!

Your comments regarding expression sound a little more constructive. If it's just expression we disagree on, it shouldn't be too difficult to find a compromise. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my version had a copyvio problem and not a POV problem? But I reread the recent edit by another editor and removed the tag. Since it is in the background section it does not read like blame is being assigned anywhere. It is completely minimalist as is which makes NPOV now. I lean towards wanting to add more info on the recent clash but then I think it would be great to add "It was the first killing of settlers since four adults were shot dead in a drive-by shooting near Hebron" per the source as JDE pointed out. But then of course, where is the line at where we stop mentioning past events. As mentioned in my edit summary, I would be OK with readding the tag if Bioscetch wants so that we are not edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to tell you about removing the POV flag. It's a bizarre paragraph as it stands – especially the way it ends, as though settlers enjoy cutting down olive trees just for the fun of it, with no indication that they're Palestinian trees. I actually think it potentially does more to damage the Palestinian narrative than the Israeli one. Anyway, it doesn't alter the fact that it belongs in the article at Itamar and not here. I would be grateful if, instead of restoring the POV flag, you flagged it with Template:Move section and substituted Itamar for the destination parameter. That way visitors would know the argument's not so much over POV as it is over relevance – provided, of course, User:Cptnono doesn't object to it anymore on POV grounds.—Biosketch (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Okay Cptnono. I think at this point we should probably start discussing specifics rather than generalities. However, I'm not ready to do so right now as if you don't mind I'd like to take a break from this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already given you specifics. You now know exactly what I think is wrong with your edit. BS is edit warring by adding any templates but I was worried about 1/rr if he wanted to revert my NPOV tag sine the conversation split somewhat.Cptnono (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See message on your Talk, but the Merge template isn't edit warring. There was unsourced information in the paragraph, as well as the discussion here about moving it to Itamar. After the Template:POV-section flag was removed, I edited the paragraph to remove the information about the mayor of Awarta because it wasn't in the Guardian reference. The Template:Merge-section was a new addition to the article, and based entirely on what was going on here.

Now, in the interest of seeking a constructive way out of this, two options are available. One, we move the section so it's lower in the article and doesn't imply a speculative cause-effect relationship vis-a-vis the attack; or Two, we leave the section in its current Background position but be very careful and sensitive about what we write in it. If I recall, User:Gatoclass didn't add a new section above the section on the attack but rather inserted it lower on the page. It was User:Cptnono who insisted on moving it up to function as the Background. That would suggest that User:Gatoclass and I are more or less in agreement. On the other hand, User:Gatoclass did include stuff in her edit that could be construed as promoting a particular POV whereas User:Cptnono's edit reduced some of those concerns. So in that sense, I'm closer to User:Cptnono's proposal of keeping the Background but removing any potential for misleading the reader. Personally, I prefer User:Gatoclass' original edit, which was to add the material lower on the page; but I can sympathize with User:Cptnono's desire to have the structure of the article resemble the structure of WP:GAs.

It would be helpful to have input from more editors on this.—Biosketch (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the full version of the section as authored by Cptnono, but rewritten in such a way as to remove the plagiarism concerns expressed by Mkativerata. In doing so, I've tried hard to keep as close as possible to Cptnono's version. I'm inclined to agree with Biosketch that the entire section would probably be more appropriate lower down in the article, but we might want to get Cptnono's agreement to that first. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seeing as this discourse is essentially between the three of us only, and that both User:Cptnono and User:Gatoclass are adamant about leaving the section and not moving it to Itamar, the Template:Move section is gone and I won't press that point anymore. However, since the questions of the Background section's prominence on the page and relevance to the attack have not been resolved, the hatnote is now of the Template:Importance-section variety. There's no other way to say it: the true background to the attack is not known and the editors are speculating as to what the events were that led to the attack. Furthermore, as the Guardian, JPost and LA Times place the report of the attack above its putative background, our article is not being consistent with how the attack is being reported in the sources cited, which still counts as WP:SYNTH.—Biosketch (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since you decided to tag it, I've moved the section down the article as you suggested. I have also put it in its own section, labelled "Local tensions", since Cptnono objected to it being a subsection of the "Responsibility" section as he felt that was misleading. I think it's long enough to support its own section now anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the problem was never with the information itself but rather with how it was being used to contextualize the attack. In its new position lower down on the page, the only criticism that could be considered valid would be if there are factual errors in the text and such – which there don't seem to be. If steam blows out of User:Cptnono's ears and nostrils when he sees the disappearance of the Background section, he (or anyone, for that matter) can propose an edit whose language is vague enough so as not to be controversial and then maybe everyone will be happy.

Also, any reason to prefer the heading "Local tensions" over "Recent tensions"? I'm not sure which is better, just was wondering.—Biosketch (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent tensions" didn't occur to me. I suppose it's a possible alternative. I'd need some time to think about it though. Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why user:Frederico1234 removed a valid category Category "Murdered Israeli children" from the article without even bothering adding an edit summary. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about the children, it's about the murder of a family, an event. I don't see the logic in assigning the "Murdered Israeli children" category to an event. It should only be assigned to articles where the topic is a child. I'm not familiar with policies regarding categories, so please correct me if there's something I've misunderstood. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is at Wikipedia:Category#Categorizing_pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I believe this point in the guideline support the argument raised above: "Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article." --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is incorrect. Please do not remove valid category. This article is about murdered Israeli children.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is about the attack. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources give plenty of space to the murdered children. Although it is sad that the kids were butchered, that is a significant part of the scope. No reason to pretend otherwise. Even some Palestinians were appalled by it so it isn't like we are taking sides. If the scope of the cat is generalized (articles that are not biographies but still discuss murdered children) then we should be all good to include it. If it is only bios then no. Maybe go ask over on that talk page for clarification as to what the scope of the cat is. Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All articles in this category are about attacks. Those children did not have a time to become notable, and to have their own wikipedia articles because they were murdered by Palestinian terrorists. So either you nominate the whole category to be deleted, or you leave this article alone (I mean this article with this category).--Mbz1 (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. My initial kneejerk reaction was to nom it but then I noticed it is subservient to Category:Murdered children which is a parent to cats detailing murdered children in several nations. Looks like there is some precedent. And you are also right that it does not need to be bios. It looks like there are articles detailing events as well as quasi-bios ("Murder of so-and-so) and bios in these other cats.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I find a bit strange about the various guidelines and FAQ pages about categories is that, while they contain plenty of fascinating details like hinting at the relationship between graph theory and set theory for no apparent reason, they don't really come out and actually say what categories are primarily for, helping people find things. While this article isn't exactly exclusively "about murdered Israeli children" in the same way that the Gaza war and 2006 Lebanon war‎ articles aren't exactly exclusively about children killed by the IDF, if a reader was looking for the set of articles related to murdered Israeli children I think it's reasonable to assume that they should be presented with this one rather than not being presented with this one. Is it misleading categorization or overcategorization ? I don't think so. Does it help people find things ? I think so. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I stand corrected. My reasoning were more based on logic, but just considering whether the category helps people find things is a much better approach. So really good explananation, Sean! My apology to Mbz for the revert and lack of edit summary. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK,Frederico1234. I see your edit was a good faith edit. I am sorry I snapped at you in my edit summary.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there have been various discussions above about the troubled community relations around Itamar. If someone has the stomach for it and time, there is a Human Rights Watch report from December 2010 available here that contains a detailed section about problems faced by people in the area, both Israeli and Palestinian, together with background information. It could be useful for the Itamar article. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, with but two caveats: 1. The references in the report to Itamar and its immediate vicinity would have to be isolated so as not to project onto Itamar a context that doesn't necessarily apply to it. 2. The edits to the article should be done with in-text attribution because it's been alleged that HRW receives funds from the Saudi Kingdom and that could introduce a neutrality concern.—Biosketch (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your caveat 1. If you mean that the only parts of the source that can be used are the parts that are explicitly about Itamar and its immediate vicinity then I agree completely. No generalities in the report should be applied to Itamar. As for caveat 2, HRW is an activist organization (and probably the most respected human rights organization in the world). Attribution is standard for sources like that. It's not because it's been alleged that HRW receives funds from the Saudi Kingdom. It's true that they are constantly attacked by nationalist supporters of states all over the world that they have criticized for human rights abuses and all sorts of other crazies but that doesn't have any bearing on their status as a highly respected reliable source. I don't think even right wing organizations like NGO Monitor were willing to go as far as actually alleging that HRW, an organization that explicitly states it doesn't accept donations from governments, received funds from the Saudi Kingdom. I'm familiar with the Saudi funding story. I described its trajectory here if you are interested. It's possible that people may raise neutrality concerns about using HRW as a source just like people regularly raise issues about using the BBC as a source. Personally, I see that as a WP:COMPETENCY issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first caveat was just to make sure what happened here regarding the Background section doesn't happen at Itamar all over again, i.e. carrying a context from the macro level over to the micro without sufficient evidence for doing so. The most natural place to discuss the HRW report is at Israeli settlements, because there's already an appropriate context for it there. But if the report has specific references to Itamar or to its immediate vicinity, then incorporating them into the Itamar article wouldn't qualify as WP:SYNTH and would be welcome. The second caveat wasn't intended to discredit HRW necessarily, though I concede I have my own POVs where it's concerned; rather, it was to make sure that what HRW reports isn't communicated to the reader as impartial observation. That HRW is a respected human rights organization is widely accepted, but it's had its share of scandals in relation to Jews and Israel that call into question its reputation as credible a reporter on things like the settlements – to enough of a degree as would warrant in-text attribution. With BBC it's difference, because the BBC is primarily relied on for reporting events, whereas HRW does a great deal more in the way of interpretation, assigning blame, and characterizing events. Again, adding relevant HRW reports to the Itamar page isn't a problem, and the reader doesn't need to be told HRW's credibility has been challenged because of X, Y and Z – the reader can click on HRW and read all about that there. But in-text attribution is important because knowing the source of the report in this case, in contrast to BBC or NYT, is essential.—Biosketch (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The report has ~10 pages dedicated to Itamar and the nearby Palestinian villages Upper and Lower Yanun together with a wealth of cited references. Anyway, it's out there if someone wants to summarize it. It won't be me. HRW are about as partial as it gets on issues related to human rights and that's enough reason for inline attribution in itself in my view. They have a model of "human rights", one of many possible alternative models. They measure compliance with their model and issue statements based on their notion of effective strategies for "protecting human rights" which influences their coverage and reporting. It's not information that should be provided using Wikipedia's narrative voice because it's all based on their model. That's the way I look at it anyway. The attacks on their staff and the attempts to delegitimize them as an organization are fascinating for any student of propaganda and ethics but I don't think they have any bearing on their actual credibility as measured by credible people without an axe to grind in the real world or in Wikipedia. Anyway, I guess with their donation from George Soros and their expansion plans they are likely to make even more enemies. Actually I would prefer to see a lot more attribution, even for the likes of the BBC and NYT so that people can see where in the world the reporting is coming from and apply their own personal de-biasing/source credibility filtering to the information. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are Wikipedia talk pages appropriate forums for discussing perceived problems with documents of this nature? After all, the document's out there, accessible online, verifiable as a cited source, and it qualifies as an RS by virtue of its publisher. Would there be any practical point exposing its flaws? or would it be pure intellectual sparring for the sake of intellectual sparring, with no actual consequences on a practical level (and hence ultimately a waste of time and energy)? In those ten pages about Itamar there's some pretty funky business going on....—Biosketch (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has criticized the Israeli response by building more settlements. See-> http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/international/us_just_shrugs_new_building

However, I've yet to see this info from anywhere else. I can't image the Jewish Week would make this up, though, they're like a Jewish counterpart of the New York Times basically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.194.11 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the current section on palestinian reaction doesnt reflect what i'm seeing at all. check out this memri report, which extensively quotes various editorials that strongly condemned the killing of children [4], and this clip from israeli news of a reporter interviewing palestinians on the street [5]. the memri report does note that a website "affiliated with hamas" praised the killings and there is one story reporting celebrations of the killings in gaza but it is based only on a story on a hamas website and its credibility has been torn apart. [6] this is nevertheless repeated in the wiki, but when I added a reference to the memri report I was accused of "cherry-picking." everything I'm seeing shows absolute revulsion on the palestinian streets to the murders. we need to represent this somehow. if you want to change my edit, fine, but figure out some way to represent whats going on thats acceptable to you instad of just deleting it.--Rukiddingme? (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sucks because some Palestinians were happy about it. I don't get why it is so hard to admit. We actually already have sources that say some (if not many) were against the attacks so simply include the line. Isn't that complicated as long as you do not remove other sourced content. And as much as it might suck to hear: fireworks were let off. Unless you were there or have a source to dispute it then you should not condemn the celebrations. Cptnono (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, being in Palestine now about 10-15 minutes from Itamar, I have not heard a single Palestinian say something positive about the murder. In fact between my travels throughout the West Bank (Hebron, Ramallah, Qalqilya and Jenin) during the past week, the only thing I have heard is skepticism that a Palestinians would intentionally murder a baby. Than again, I am not a source -- but food for thought. -asad (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so permission to put back my old edit? I didn't remove any info, just a summary of the memri report. im only mentioning it cause it was deleted the first time.--Rukiddingme? (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be putting too much emphasis on a single report but overall the content is a good idea.

But, you need to remove the youtube link immediately due to contributory copyright infringement. You can cite the program but not link to that video. See an essay on it: WP:VIDEOLINKCptnono (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oops, sorry. I'm looking for the original clip.--Rukiddingme? (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need. You can use the cite episode template without the link. If the channel makes the program available (even if it is through contacting them or paying them) then others can verify it. And if anyone gives you a hard time about it simply point them in the direction of that YouTube URL (without a link and assuming it does not get pulled). I would have fixed it up but was being lazy. Keep in mind that the more information you provide means the easier it is to verify (and, unfortunately, the less likely that it will be disputed)Cptnono (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody. Back from an extended spring weekend, I'm surprised to read: “The Itamar settlement was established in 1984, on Palestinian land according to local Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority. Itamar is home to 1,000 ideological and religious families who believe that the West Bank—which Israel occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War—rightfully belongs to Israelis. Tensions between Itamar and the nearby Palestinian village of Awarta...” Well, the reasons for the local tensions may or may not have their sources in the bible, but the national-(ultra)religious Jewish settlers certainly do not believe that "Samaria" belongs to the Israelis, which would include non-Jews, but that it belongs to the Jewish people, and there is no reason to make Itamar ten times as big as it is: total population in 2009: 1,032 persons, not families. But the whole paragraph is imo weird, to put it mildly. Ajnem (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. You're right about the 1,000 families being exaggerated, and thanks for correcting. Do you have a reference to cite for the 2009 number of 1,032 residents? Also, can you explain in what way you feel the paragraph is weird?—Biosketch (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gatoclass, be so kind as to explain why the link to the Jerusalem bomb attack is WP:SYNTH? (I have a feeling I might agree with your reasoning, but I'd appreciate an explanation just the same.)—Biosketch (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought my reasoning would be self evident. Where is the link between the two attacks? Gatoclass (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One link could be time, just a week and a half apart. The other could be the fact that the authorities suspect Palestinian militants to be behind both incidents.—Biosketch (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:OR. I accepted the link to the August attack because one of the articles mentioned that the Itamar attack was the first fatal attack on settlers since, so I think that link arguably has some legitimacy. I'm not aware of any links between the Itamar attack and this bus bombing however, so I think the addition is SYNTH. Gatoclass (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SEEALSO says, "Links included in the 'See also' section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." That would suggest that a reader wanting to look up attacks on Israelis in 2011 should be able to navigate from the Itamar attack to the Jerusalem one that followed it via the See also section. However, I just checked the Reuters, AFP and BBC reports of the Jerusalem bombing and they don't mention the Itamar attack at all. That surprises me, but it supports your argument, so I accept that WP:SYNTH indeed applied in this case.—Biosketch (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but given the number of individual attacks of this type, I think the "See also" section would become unmanageable if we started including individual attacks with no clear link. But there are already plenty of related categories there in any case. There's also a Navbox now, although I have some concerns about that too and may raise them in another thread. Gatoclass (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I told you so.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, apart from the fact that you lifted this phrase from the source, you are the one who has misstated the source, not me. The way you have edited it, it sounds as if the 10 Palestinians and one settler were injured in the clash with each other, but the source says they were injured when the IDF opened fire, so I must ask you to either self revert or rephrase appropriately. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your version sounded like there was no clash. And a couple words do not make plagiarism (although your close paraphrase could). So I don't care how you reword it as long as it is clear that there was a clash and then firing. Your version could be read that way but so ambiguously that it needed touch up. Apologies for saying you were misrepresenting the source. I see how it could be read accurately but it really looks the other way. If there is any doubt you need to use the words the source used or reword it better.Cptnono (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the ambiguity by linking the two sentences. Probably an alternative to "quell the clash" should be found but I can't think of one offhand. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source says, "Last week, Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler." How about, "to keep the sides apart"?—Biosketch (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too OR-ish. I'm sure there are better alternatives. I'm a bit busy at the moment, I will try to come back to this in a day or two. Gatoclass (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't that complicated. There was a clash and then ... . So either use the words in the source to make sure you are not misrepresenting them or figure out wording that is not POV. Cptnono (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violent deaths occur all around the world, is this really deserving of such a long article (if at all)? How about we re-examine the issue in a month and see if anyone remembers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.184.11 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the attack has left a lasting impression on Israelis and it would appear also on Jewish communities in the Diaspora. Just the other day a leading Israeli daily ran a story on the how the three surviving Fogel children are coping with their tragedy. Also, see Shloshim: Jewish mourning customs last for 7 days, 30 days, and there are periodic memorials thereafter as well. There is every reason to expect that the media will revisit the tragedy every now and again for the foreseeable future.—Biosketch (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the 'international reactions' really necessary or encyclopediac? Almost all of them are just boilerplate diplomatic condemnations of the attacks. It would be better to just say that the international community condemned the attacks, and include and international reactions that don't. Ashmoo (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think it would be better? Also, it would be difficult to verify that a given country didn't react to the attack. You'd need a WP:RS that actually says something like, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi refused to condemn the attack, calling it a natural response to Israel's long record of human rights violations.—Biosketch (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The gag order strongly suggests that the perpetrator was not Palestinian and a cover-up is under way. Since no official word has been given on the guilty party, this should be mentioned in the lead, and the apportionment of blame labelled as mere hearsay. See also http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/middle-east/2149-israel-manipulates-tragedy-to-advance-its-own-harassment-of-palestinians. Plus the reference to "jumping the fence" is risible in the extreme - these "fences" tend to be 40-foot tall and built of concrete with all manner of submachine posts manned (actually: wommaned) remotely. Does anyone have a picture of the "fence" around the illegal settlement and/or Palestinians with bionic legs? 86.101.219.240 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be acceptable if you added to the second paragraph in the lead something like, "Israel has as yet not officially implicated a particular individual or group in the killings," but you should look for a less contentious source to stake your claim on than middleeastmonitor.org.uk. About the fence, Itamar is to the east of the Israeli West Bank barrier, which is I think what you're referring to. The perimeter fence around the settlement looks something like what's displayed here – a two- or two-and-a-half-meters tall wire fence. It isn't that difficult to hop over a fence like that. If I remember correctly in the movie Fightclub the leading protagonists hop a barbed-wire fence by throwing a mat over it.—Biosketch (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would not actually be possible to cross that fence that simply. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A wall, sorry fence, of such height would have to be "scaled" certainly not "hopped over", even with a mat. This, after all, makes the Israeli defence forces look ridiculous for not electrifying the "fence" or building a wall, or even patrolling it properly by its thorougly militarised population. The image you posted looks heavily guarded, as I'm sure all "fences" are, when occasion demands. As to the source I cited, where is one seriously to go for truth and veracity in this matter? I stand by my gag order observation, and that until the true culprits for the butchery are brought to justice, the libellous lead must be changed. 86.101.219.240 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the actual fence here as well. It is not guarded 24/7, it is not electrified, and there is no concrete wall beside it. I have no idea what on earth you're going on about. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following text that was added to the article by User:Knitlady:

The press went silent once it was realized that the crime had been committed by a foreign worker and not a Palestinian. http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/35904.htm

Palestinians were beaten and had to endure house to house searches and increased restrictions. They lost more land and homes with the approval of new construction by Israel though we now know that Palestine had nothing to do with the crime committed on stolen land by illegal residents.

The first reference is to a kind of blog entry here that says, "The paper added that Israel's leaders stopped mentioning the incident when they found that it was committed by a foreign worker." That should give some indication as to the reliability of the site, seeing as Israel's leaders haven't stopped mentioning the incident and have not "found that it was committed by a foreign worker." The second edit is unsourced WP:SOAP.—Biosketch (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The info box says terrorist attack..Being as this incident is a murder and unproven at that I do not think using the word terrorist is good at all.Thoughts?

I think signing is important. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as I know no policy applies to template names. Anyway Infobox terrorist attack template is just a redirect, so I've replaced it with its target, don't know why. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, to Owain the 1st (talk · contribs)'s credit, at least he's consistent. At the white phosphorus discussion, he didn't have a problem with the caption being removed if it conflicted with the information from the source providing the image. But there were other editors there who did, and they based their arguments on WP:DUCK, WP:CK, and obviousness. Now, I won't invoke the h-word here, but it is ironic, when you consider that this was obviously a terrorist attack, and everyone knows it was a terrorist attack, etc., that no attempt is being made to argue WP:DUCK or WP:CK or obviousness here. That's not to say I disagree with ElComandanteChe (talk · contribs)'s action regarding the infobox – on the contrary, I support it. But the disparity between the response there and the response here is still striking.—Biosketch (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attack?It was a murder.It would be called a murder in every single country in the the entire world.Tell me if you lived in any other country outside of Israel and the West Bank etc what you would call this incident? What would your newspapers call it?The only people in the world who would call it a terrorist attack are Israelis and their supporters because they use the word terrorist for everything..much over used word in Israel.I have read that it could be a Thai guy who actually did it for money owed to him, sounds like a thing a Thai would do with a knife.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]