Talk:2017 Har Adar shooting

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


Changed category[edit]

I've moved this to "conflicts in 2017" as it seems to be a more appropriate category. There's an argument to be made that "settlers" in general shouldn't be seen as "civilian" as civilians in the Israeli state proper, but that's beside the point as this attack specifically targeted Israeli military personnel and is thus as such militarily legitimate. 70.31.81.167 (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

residential suburb?[edit]

No, it's a settlement. In the West Bank. nableezy - 16:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Malmö, for example, is both a city in Sweden and a suburb of Copenhagen, Denmark.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A "residential suburb of Jerusalem" does not in any way come close to an accurate description of this place. Your edit is flat out wrong, no part of this settlement is on the Israeli side of the Green Line, and so it does not straddle it. Your removal of where this place is located is disruptive. nableezy - 18:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the cited source calls it a Jewish settlement ... in the occupied West Bank. Please explain why you are removing a basic fact about this event, that being its location. nableezy - 18:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge some of the municipal lands, as well as the southern gate and a street, are in pre 1967 Israel. The vast majority of the built up area is north of the line however. The town does however function as an upscale suburb of Jerusalem. The separation barrier is north of it.Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem also including that it serves as an upscale suburb of Jerusalem, however, and this is seen in the overwhelming majority of sources that report this, the primary descriptor of this place is Israeli settlement in the West Bank. Just saying a suburb of Jerusalem would leave one with the impression that it is in Israel and not in fact in the occupied West Bank. nableezy - 19:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is, indeed, misleading to omit either part of this town, lede now reads: "an residential suburb of Jerusalem that straddles the Green line so that part of the town is located in the West Bank."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also fixed the description of this suburb to conform to information in the New YOrk Times and Jerusalem Post articles specifying that it "straddles" the Green line. Sloppy reporting (assertions that this suburb is in the West Bank, is common in breaking news. Journalism is a tough job.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it is not breaking news that this settlement is in the West Bank. That can be sourced to lets say

Elisha Efrat (27 September 2006). The West Bank and Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation and Disengagement. Routledge. p. 58. ISBN 978-1-134-17217-7.

Youve also violated the discretionary sanctions here. Kindly stop. nableezy - 19:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a better source for straddles, Ill return that how they treat it. nableezy - 19:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Wikipedia has any style guide mandating the use of the word "settlement" in particular contexts. Either version of the article states that the local is in the "West Bank", so it's clear which side of the green line it lies on. So, it's not too big a deal. On the one hand, calling it a "residential suburb" may give a more accurate sense of its geography to those less familiar with the intricacies of the conflict. On the other hand, a map is provided, so it's clear where it is located with respect to Jerusalem. OtterAM (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty fair to follow the article definition the article has "Israeli settlements are civilian communities inhabited by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of Jewish ethnicity, built predominantly on lands within areas of what the international community call the Palestinian territories, which Israel has militarily occupied since the 1967 Six-Day War, and partly on lands considered Syrian territory also militarily occupied by Israel since the 1967 war." - SantiLak (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We dont, Im afraid, have any style guide, you are correct, but here due weight would apply. Look at the sources cited in this article, they nearly all, with the exception of the Jerusalem Post, say this place is an Israeli settlement. It would be non-neutral to say it is strictly a "Jewish suburb". I already said I do not object to saying it is, or functions as, a suburb of Jerusalem, but it needs to say it is a settlement in the West Bank. nableezy - 04:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's both. Settlement can be a suburb. Har Adar's Wikipedia article defines it as a settlement and also this "Har Adar was initially built adjacent to the Green Line but is now largely located within the West Bank" what probably cause the confusion. Sokuya (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Galatz[edit]

User:Galatz, WP:1RR means "more than one revert", not "one revert". When you making changes with two edits and I'm reverting both edits it's considering one revert. Instead of going to my talk page with false edit-warring accusations, you should've started discussion here.

Year in names of articles about terrorist attacks is common practice, as seen in 2017 Halamish stabbing attack, 2017 Yavne attack, 2017 Turku stabbing, 2017 Parsons Green bombing. Read about it here and here. Your examples (Lions' Gate stabbings and Beersheva bus station shooting) are outdated and named like that due to lack of attention.

As for {{Current}}, it included when subject of article is in the news, which is still the case here. For attacks, it normally lasts for a day or two. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I took it to your talk page as they are not issues which need to be discussed here. You did more than one revert. You moved the page back and undid my removal of current, both are reverts and you are therefore in violation. - GalatzTalk 20:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both are 1 revert each. WP:1RR means "more than one revert". --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Triggerhippie4 is correct. reverts are counted on each text/tag/action separately.Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A revert is defined as An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. If both of my edits were the same action that you undid you would be correct, but the two had nothing to do with each other. At the top of this page it says one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) therefore this was the first [1] and this was the second [2]. Meaning in a 1 minute period you reverted twice. - GalatzTalk 21:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the other way around of what you stating. You don't get the point of edit-warring policy. What is your quote has to do with this? Here's the relevant one:

A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

– WP:3RR. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced background[edit]

The background section is ridiculously unbalanced: seriously, in a conflict: listing only the dead on one side??? So Palestinian killed doesn't count.....?? Huldra (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no recent terror attacks, causing fatalities, against Palestinians. You have to go back to 2015 or so.Icewhiz (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See all the actions of the army of occupation and the occupation police. The IDF and the Israeli Border Police are undoubtedly acting in a terroristic fashion when it comes to their behaviour directed at Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank. 70.31.81.167 (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article focusses on the Palestinian terror attack. The background shows the Palestinian terror attacks in the past. If this was an israeli attack then the background would show a history of Israeli violence.JBergsma1 (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC) JBergsma1 (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinians who engage and neutralize IDF, Border Police personnel, or armed and belligerent "settlers" are legitimate paramilitary combatants and not "terrorists". Please revise your comment to reflect this fact as per the NPOV regulations for Wikipedia. 70.31.81.167 (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Unlawful combatant. In particular, when they wear civilian clothing, without insignia, with weapons hidden - this is not the case.Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"unlawful combatant" is a weasel term at best. By your standards, the anti-Nazi resistance movement in Europe during world war 2 would be considered "unlawful combatants" (are you saying that the extrajudicial executions by the Nazis of partisans was justified as a result?). More specifically in relation to you, the Jewish resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto and other such places would also be considered "unlawful combatants".
You don't get to pick and choose. Either all insurgents who fight without uniforms, conceal their weapons, have no insignia are "unlawful combatants", or they're all militarily legitimate if they target hostile military/security personnel. 141.117.118.60 (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We write according to WP:RS they NYTIMES source mention Palestinian violence as background so we should too.--Shrike (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed quote[edit]

I removed the Facebook quote from the alleged killer. I don't really see any reason to include it, and Wikipedia typically doesn't include the last Facebook status updates of killers, unless they are particularly relevant or notable. OtterAM (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

largely located within the Green line inside of the West Bank[edit]

Maybe it's me but I am a little confused by this clause. (Also, is this part really needed?) Isn't if it's within the Green Line, then it's in Israel, and the West Bank is outside of the Green Line? And if it says it's an ISraeli Settlement, then there is no need to say it's located on the "other side" of the green line inside of the WB, since that what it is. If part of it is inside the line and part out, that needs to be clarified since it's written unclearly. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence was a mess. I modified it. Most of the built up areas of town are in the West Bank, a small portion of the built up area is not (as well as municipal lands). The green line runs through the town.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the green line runs along the south edge of the built up area, not through it. I provided proof at Talk:Har Adar. Zerotalk 04:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allah/God[edit]

I very much object to the edit summary and edit here by Icewhiz. No, Muslims do not have a "specific God", Allah is the Arabic for God, and non-Muslim Arabic speakers use Allah as the word for God as well. Further, we even have a style guideline about this WP:ALLAH. The Facebook post was written in Arabic, and we use the English translation where that is the case. I understand Yedioth Aharanot choose to keep it as Allah in their article, we do not have to follow that little race-baiting here. nableezy - 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really following what you are getting at here. You seem to agree that it should say god rather than allah, so why raise this objection here? Nevermind I read the edit summary backwards, I agree it should say God. - GalatzTalk 21:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was quoted as Allah in English by other outlets as well, and per the style god we retain English quotes from the source. Nishidani's claims of equivelance to the proper name of the Jewish god were false as Jews avoid using or saying the proper name - which therefore does not appear in modern quotes.Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is Arabic, the Facebook page, the translation is partial in some of the sources. Forget any claim of equivalence with a Hebrew name for God, the Arabic Allah means God, full stop. The claim in your edit summary is made without any basis and is in fact false. nableezy - 04:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No reason is given here for failing to follow the style guide. Picking and choosing from different translations in order to get around the guideline is, let's say, bad editing practice. If you want to make a Jewish analogue (though there isn't any reason to), we would write "God" in translation of a Hebrew text that has השם. We would not translate השם into "Hashem" unless there was a specific need in that instance. Zerotalk 04:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Machsom Watch[edit]

In response to the allegation that a Machsom Watch activist told one of the guards, "You are a disgrace", she denied it. In case my Google-assisted translation is wrong, it is "בתגובה אמרה בר"ג: "מה פתאום, לא אמרנו דבר כזה. מכניסים לנו את זה לפה" which I understand to mean "In response, [Hanna] Barag said, 'We did not say such a thing; they put it in our mouths'.". I don't see how this incident played any part in the shooting. Does the source say it did? If not, why is it here? Zerotalk 01:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It happened right before the shooting - the polceman was shot after returning to his post (which he left to deal with the activist disturbance). The activists deny the "disgrace" bit, but confirm everything (including phoning an ambulance). This was reported in RS in relation to the attack.Icewhiz (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that you added this, so you are responsible for not citing the denial. Lift your act. I won't respond to your ridiculous characterisation of approaching the checkpoint as a "disturbance". It just confirms that the activists played no part whatever in the shooting. Zerotalk 08:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not deny I added it. I did write reportedly prior to the "disgrace". I do think your edit is an improvement. The denial should've been more clearly stated. Gavriyah was instructing them to step away from the checkpoint - for whatever reason - prior to getting shot.Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Har_Adar_shooting&oldid=1196733473"