Talk:Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 25, 2014.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 24, 2018, and May 24, 2020.

4th death[edit]

According to [1] the fourth person shot has died. I am assuming the Google translation is accurate. --220 of Borg 07:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. "On apprenait en fin de soirée le décès à l'hôpital Saint-Pierre de la 4ème victime, grièvement blessée lors de l'attaque. Il s'agit d'un jeune homme de 25 ans, qui était employé à mi-temps du Musée." ==> It was learned late in the evening that a 4th victim, gravely wounded in the attack, had died. He was a young man of 25 years, who worked part-time at the museum. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 07:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the edit, this has been misreported by several media. But there has not been an official statement. And state media of belgium have declared these press messages to be premature. The person is however said to still be in "extremely critical condition".Pinfix (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources denying the earlier messages of his death. [[2]] [[3]]. The latter can be translated as "Media statements that the 4th victim has died were denied on Sunday evening by the justice department. Pinfix (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27567396 , CNN , Ajazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/05/deadly-shooting-brussels-city-centre-20145241633336599.html, France24 http://www.france24.com/en/20140525-belgium-police-video-suspect-deadly-jewish-museum-attack/ By now they all did the fact checking. Can we please stop this misinformation. Just because somebody wanted a news scoop. There is no primary source claiming the 4th person died at this point. and belgian officials have denied he has. all news outlets's latest media articles reflect this Pinfix (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this morning's le Soir subtitles "La quatrième victime de la fusillade est toujours dans un état critique." [4]. Which translates to "The 4th victim of the shooting is still in a critical condition". Pinfix (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4th person died[edit]

sf. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4523585,00.html read first paragraph

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4523521,00.html first paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazwsx135 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this was published the 25th of may, belgian officials have denied these messages as being false the 26th of may Pinfix (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=17769 the following is taken from the israelhayom article: "According to the Belgian media reports, the other two victims [in addition to the two israeli couple] of the attack were a French female volunteer at the museum identified only as Dominique and a museum employee named Alexandre Strens, who succumbed to his wounds on Sunday."--Qazwsx135 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he did not die on sunday, these media messages were false, look at all my sources saying this on monday.Pinfix (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4th person did not die before Monday 26th 17:00 GMT+2[edit]

The press conference of the federal prosecutor on this case talks about 3 murders and 1 attempt of murder on Monday 26th 17:33 GMT. There have been false media reports in a cycle of misinformation. Pinfix (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct - La Libre are reporting that they got it wrong earlier. Just three casualties at the moment.Brigade Piron (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we now have a good enough source to add the 4th death?[edit]

As it stands now the article says in the lead paragraph that the 4th shooting victim died, but does not say so in either the infobox or the body. I take it this report in The Times was premature. This Israel News report has been cited at Main Page/Errors, but the In the News item on the Main Page should not be updated until the article is. So ... do we yet have a source? If not, the statement in the lead para should probably be changed back. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no we do not at this time. He has not died. the belgian federal prosecutor has just given a livestreamed press conference in three languages talking about 3 murders and 1 attempt of murder. I editted this. Again i should have been more thorough. Apologies. There has been a lot of misinformation due to sensationalism in the press, and the desire for a scoop. It must be hell for the relatives of this person who are looking online for all developments, and constantly have to see people already proclaiming his death. Pinfix (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
sources belgian state media [5] updated after the press conference. "Overlevende nog kritiek" translates to "Survivor still critical". Pinfix (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
source of french language state broadcaster: [6] Monday after 17:00 press conference."triple assassinat et de tentative d'assassinat terroristes" translating to "tripple murder and attempted murder". There are other press agencies all the time writing new articles about him dieing. Apparently everybody wants to have the scoop counting on probably being right at some point. Dubious ethics. I don't think wikipedia should be sensationalist or speculate on him dieing, and should not state this without official confirmation. Pinfix (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thanks for keeping on top of it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from the French article[edit]

The article page has a banner suggesting translation of the French article. It's not clear to me that a wholesale translation would be very useful at this point... however I have been watching the French article and translating French references and content where appropriate, and it looks like a couple other French-speakers have been doing the same. Okay to remove the banner? Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly multiple weapons used[edit]

- it is unclear if the jewish couple was shot with the AK-47. There has been no official statement on this as far as i know. The camera images showing the AK-47 being taken from a bag happen after the jewish couple was shot at the entrance. Their bodies are behind him at this point (blurred out by police). It seems unlikely that the attacker would have taken out the weapon to shoot the jewish couple, put it away, and take it out of a bag in 10 meters. Especially considering the short duration of the attack.Pinfix (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couple is at the entrance ? Are you sure ? Because if so, there is something I don't understand: he has no gun before taking the AK-47 and he cannot have taken this outside ? What did he use to kill them ? More when he leaves the Museum he crosses the "blurred out part of the image" but doesn't seem to be embarrassed by bodies... Pluto2012 (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "seeming to be embarrassed by bodies" would look like and even if he isn't it doesn't mean they aren't there. The most plausible(not WP:NPOV) explanation seems to be that he had a small caliber hand gun which he used to shoot the jewish couple with. This scene is not released by police for decency reasons. Presumably he had dropped this gun in a bag by the time the released footage starts. It seems to be pretty ubiquitously reported that the couple died right at the entrance. There are also various witnesses for example minister of foreign affairs reinders who speaks of seeing two of the bodies when he arrived at the scene. It is likely they saw the bodies in the entrance, rather than that they would have passed through the hallway, and looked through the glass door through which the attacker shot his AK-47 in view of cameras. In any case. It is at least to me unclear that only one weapon was used. And we should probably not state it as such.Pinfix (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have the two bodies on a video report and they were indeed at the entrance.
So it should have happened be as you assume.
When I refer to embarrassement, I mean he crosses the blurred area without stopping or jumping, which would mean there is no corpse. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
embarrassé in French ~= "held up" or "inconvenienced" in English. I think this is what you mean, Pluto2012?
I don't think it is necessary for the article to be very precise about the exact mechanics of the attack, at least not at this point where the details are still unclear. The reported statements of the authorities are clear enough that the killings appeared to be well-planned and carefully executed. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, that we don't need to be exact about gruesome details. But we should also not be wrong. The article currently strongly implies that all he shot the victims with an AK-47. which is likely not accurate. for example this video of a news bulletin [7] (dutch, starts at minute 12, may not be viewable outside of belgium). talks about "vermoedelijk met een klein wapen", "tweede wapen" (which translate to, "likely with a small weapon" , "second weapon". I'd much prefer the article be vague about the mechanics. Than inaccurate. Pinfix (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the bad use of the word "Embarrassment" which meaning in French is different than in English. Maybe the right word is "affected" or "inconvenienced" [8].
Whatever I agree with Pinfix even if it is a little bit WP:OR. We should not mention that all 4 people were shot with the AK-47. Both Israeli citizens where shot before he took the AK-47. Few sources talk about this (only videos). So in this case, being vague will avoid inaccuracy. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the suspect in france was arrested it was ubiquitously reported he had two weapons (the ak47 and a revolver) of the same types as used in the attack. [9][10]. Indicating there were indeed multiple weapons used.Pinfix (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. You ~had analysed it well and I think we have enough to modify the article in stating both Israelis were shot with the handgun and the others with the AK-47. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So how about possible role Mossad. Only that can explain us - why the schemer salesman?) Of the death weapon and the organizer - coordinator of this anti-Muslim attack are still in the state of Brussels. Diapers with Hiroin, Wikipedia users poison with methylmercury, recruit new volunteers and Modjacheddin's. Well, his faded Turkish passport expired long ago, invalid.
In comparison with [Mr. Skripal], - do these anti-Semites have any advantages?
(Mr. Skripal bought something in a Jewish food - shop, right?)

Aras Ören (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More false media reports, no suspect arrested[edit]

Federal prosecutor in a statement said they did arrest somebody, but it was in an unrelated investigation. [11] [12]. Additionally every press release by the prosecutor or news bulletin by the state broadcasters either don't specifically mention it, or still list the toll at 3 murders and one attempt of murder. The state of the 4th victim still being critical. Based on WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper we should probably be very careful updating new developments. Belgium does not have 24 hour news to drown out all the noise. Apparently a scoop is more important that accuracy. Since this is an Encyclopaedia we can probably afford to be a day late to wait for confirmation. -insert: outrage at the dubious ethics used by media- Pinfix (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is no hurry for nothing.
The article from DeRedactive referring to HaAretz is interesting [13]. Shouldn't we add this information to the article ? I think Mossad also proposed to provide support to Belgian authorities but could not find the source back. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably wait. This is pure speculation at this time. There could/should be a "Possible Motives" section at some point, but we should probably wait and not list every (conspiracy) theory.
As far as I know Israel has sent investigators to assist in Belgium(mentioned in audio of news broadcast). And there are undoubtedly at least some contacts on the level of the secret services. But again these need not be related. Israel would likely offer assistance when two of its citizens are shot dead pretty much regardless of how close they were to mossad. Pinfix (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Mischaël Modrikamen[edit]

Modrikamen is not as notable as might appear from the current wording used in the arcticle. Listing him as the leader of the "people's party". It is worth noting he is the founder of this party which exists only since 2009. And the party has little to no political significance in Belgium. It has 1 seat in parliament. Especially compared to Di Rupo, Reynders, his notability is a lot lower. And surpassed by many politicians, and other members of the Jewish community. I question if it isn't just included because some people like to hear it, which might give WP:NPOV issues. The article that it is sourced from quantifies it as "small centrist party" the wikipedia article makes that "the conservative people's party". (The source article is also very one sided.) We should probably at least similarly quantify the party as small, or find more notable statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinfix (talk • contribs)

Fair point. I added Modrikamen's reaction to this article (as well as the French article) because it was the only one I could find from a (somewhat) notable Belgian Jewish politician, so I thought he added a useful combination of perspectives. I will mention the small size of his party. (Also, I think he's a somewhat ironic figure because he was instrumental in the rise to prominence of the idiotic Laurent Louis.)Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One seat makes him hugely notable by contrast to the no-election winning Laurent Louis ;). I agree with your comments though.Brigade Piron (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nor Louis or Modrikamen are notable enough. We can't report the mind of all Parti Presidents of Belgium. Reynders, Milquet and Di Rupo were still Ministers at the time.
I think also that the mind of Rubinfeld is not notable as well as the one of the Rabbi X in comparison with the Pope and the Secretary of the UNO.
The Belgian Jewish Community reaction is important to mention but is not in the article yet. We need a representative association for this one (see below). Pluto2012 (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Louis, Dieudonné, Mondrikamen(post Fortis) are all virtual unknowns in flanders, so i will leave this up to you guys to decide. A notable quote from the Jewish community might be rabbi of the Great Synagogue of Europe Albert Guigui. The Synagogue only being a few streets away, and the largest in europe(which has daily police protection since it was shot at in 1982 without anybody being injured). "This isn't just an attack on the jewish community of Brussels or Belgium, this is an attack on the entire jewish community of the world, and an attack on all democratic values."[14]. There is ofcourse a large difference in Tone with Mondrikamen's quote. So it might serve better as an addition than a replacement. Pinfix (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pinfix, are there some Flemish Minister reactions worth mentionning ?
Regarding the Belgian Jewish Community's reaction, I would suggest the one of CCOJB (Coordinatiecomité van de Joodse Organisaties van België / Comité de Coordination des Organisations Juives de Belgique) reported here.Pluto2012
Ofcourse most flemish politicians have expressed their sympathy/disgust/.. A couple [15]. Presumably the most notable is Minister-President of Flanders Kris Peeters. Beyond mere words the city of Antwerp also condemned the attacks and increased protection around jewish institutions in antwerp. Since the Jewish Community of Antwerp is the largest one in belgium. This in some coordination with CCOJB. Pinfix (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My conclusion is to remove Mischaël Modrikamen and add Krys Peeters ; to remove Joel Rubinfeld and to add COOJB. Any objection ? Pluto2012 (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this. I agree disproportionate weight should not be added to them, but they are still notable individuals. Frankly, I have no idea why Kris Peeters (a Flemish politician who has no hugely obvious connection to Brussels or the Jewish population of Belgium) should be included. If he is, the Minister-President of Wallonia should also be included for balance since neither is directly relevant! TBH, this article is frankly not good enough to quibble over minor inclusions. More information is better over less here in my opinion.Brigade Piron (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm neutral on this. My main objection was that a casual reader would assume that modrikamen's quote was one of the dominant conservative political parties. There is a big difference if a small opposition party rather than one with large political responsibility makes such claims. And immediately assigns blame. This issue has since been resolved.
  • I object to your characterisation of quibbling. No article is too bad to not warrant a collaborate effort to improve it.
  • I never advocated this, and provided it on request. But because you feel so offended by the notion of including a flemish voice let me point out the obvious. Peeters does represent more than half the people in the country. Including more than half of the jewish population of belgium. None of the politicians mentioned in the article ever got votes from anybody in flanders (caveat BHV, facilities). Contrarily the politicians mentioned (by chance) are all walloon. And together their parties represent the vast majority of the walloon votes. Additionally works in Brussels. But by all means get offended. Use exclamation marks. If the Prime minister had been Flemish, the minister of interior had been flemish, and there was no minister first on the scene. Which are all very plausible. Would nobody include a voice from Wallonia? Of course we would. That you omitted Rudi Vervoort, and Karl-Heinz Lambertz also undermines your argument. If something happens in the capital of a country a condemnation of the largest community is not irrelevant.Pinfix (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mondrikamen is the President of a Party with 1 seat (and he was even not elected). If he is relevant, all the Presidents of the dozen of other Parties, including VB and PTBgo are relevant too (even more that they were elected). Or could someone explain the difference between him and them ?
I really don't understand the reasons why not giving the reaction of Peters here (even less after arguing keeping Mondrikamen?). Brussels is also the capital of Flanders and as pointed by Pinfix, he is the representative of the biggest community of Belgium. And please, let's not make a linguistic quarrel of this. All this is a question of notability and representativity. Rudi Vervoort and Karl-Heinz Lambertz's reaction is welcome too.
Are there objections about Rubinfeld and COOJB (and if so, why of course) ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Pinfix's benefit, I'm certainly not fighting linguistic wars here. If you want to include opinions from leaders of the parties at federal, that's fine and very laudable. But I think you've misunderstood me. When I said that the Walloon Minister-President should be included, that was only to highlight the fact that none of them are actually connected to Brussels - Brussels not being part of the Flemish or the Walloon communities. It's rather like the Scottish first-minister being included on a similar event occurring in England - not irrelevant by any means, but probably not one of the top voices you'd choose (same point for Karl-Heinz Lambertz). Rudi Vervoort sounds like a good idea because he is relevant. Just to be sure, the reason I believe Mondrikamen's inclusion is worthwhile is that, certainly as reported in the francophone media, he is the "token" parliamentary speaking on behalf of the Jewish community of Belgium - neither the PTB nor the other tiny parties have this. If you really want to, for the purposes of representation, include Peeters, then can the others at least be retained? Brigade Piron (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that Brussels is not part of the Flemish community. We could nevertheless add a sentence gathering the reaction of the different leaders of the Federated Communities.
It is not because Mondrikamen self-proclaimed as 'the' token of the "Jewish community of Belgium" that it is true. Here is a complete list of who could claim for this status provided by a tertiary source (CCLJ). There is no reason to keep him. That's WP:UNDUE. On the French speaking side, fr:Viviane Teitelbaum is much more reknown as such, simply because she is an active member of the Jewish community, but that's just an exemple.
Pluto2012 (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is of course the tiny difference that Scotland is a country. Countries of the United Kingdom. There is an obvious scale and distance difference, and many more differences on the political level which make this comparison absurd. There is the fact that Brussels is the capital of the Flemish Region the Flemish Community. That it is not irrelevant is also indicated by the fact that flanders also immediately responded with increasing the security around jewish institutions. For the record brussels isn't the capital of Walloon Region. You also don't need to be jewish to have a relevant opinion on not gunning down people in museums. Note I never advocated that it be included. But i reject all your arguments which claim it shouldn't be. And i object even more that you try to claim "article is not good enough" as an excuse not to have valid arguments.Pinfix (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism[edit]

Recently the Terrorism and Antisemitism categories were removed from the article. I think they should be kept, and in fact the shooting should be described explicitly as a presumed terrorist attack in the lead.

According to Le Monde the shooting is being treated as a terrorist attack by Belgian authorities (translation mine, although I'm sure I don't understand how the Belgian legal system works well enough to describe the exact judicial procedures):

In other words, both the mechanics of the attack (careful execution, foldable weapon) and the victims (Jewish) have led the relevant Belgian authorities to investigate it as an antisemitic terror attack. I think there should be a very strong presumption towards treating it as such in this article unless specific evidence otherwise comes to light. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 20:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who removed it. I did so because even though it's investigated as possible anti-semitic terror attack, we don't know yet. According to The Guardian: "Belgian police were reported to be investigating all possible scenarios, including a "targeted assassination" as well as an act of antisemitism." "Amir Oren, a military commentator for Haaretz, suggested the attack may have been an act of retaliation by agents of Iran or the Lebanese Shia movement Hezbollah". In general, I think we should be careful about categorizing as terrorism, anti-Semitism too early. (Otherwise, I agree about including the released suspect; this was just an oversight by me) Iselilja (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far, I've only seen the "targeted assassination" angle as speculation by Amir Oren, the journalist from Haaretz. If any of the authorities involved in the investigation are actually pursuing this possibility, then they haven't been willing to go on the record and say so.
I understand not trying to definitively categorize it too early, though. I added this to the lead: "The attack, ... is being investigated as terrorism by Belgian authorities." Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 20:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect under arrest[edit]

That will be for sure the information of the day. I am happy a potential perpetrator is arrested but I suggest that we keep cool and wait for 24 hours before including this information. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK press report here. Alfietucker (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wikilink the name of the suspected assailant to lone wolf[edit]

  • wikilinks explain what the term means. WP:LINKCLARITY , WP:SPECIFICLINK. And in WP:OVERLINK you will find "Links should be used to help clarify the meaning of linked words," you are not clarifying the meaning of linked words. The words "Mehdi Nemmouche" are not explained by the article on lone wolf terrorism. Wikilinks don't contain a category that the person would allegedly belong to. Otherwise we can wikilink every person to human or mamal or ... This is literally what categories are for WP:Categorization.
  • And furthermore it is not sourced that he acted as a lone wolf.and infact there are claims by officials that he did not act alone. [17] Literally titled "assailant jewish musseum attack was not a lone wolf". So it even fails in WP:V Pinfix (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Piped_link FunkMonk (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per this, your reason itself is assuming presumption that it is "probably" not the case. If there is another case of support when sourced we can remove this. As of today, this is the definition of lone wolf.
ALso noted the wikilink, I have corrected that.Lihaas (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source is already above it. and i don't need a source to prove it isn't. you need a source to prove it is. [18] this literally says that OCAD doesn't consider he was a lone wolf. and OCAD is the belgian institute that analyses these things. He almost certainly got training. he was even carrying a flag of a terrorist organisation. which makes it unlikely that his actions can be classified as a lone wolf. Pinfix (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pinfix is right. This thesis is WP:OR. The responsability of the proof is for the contributor who wants to add something (in the current case the thesis of the 'lone wolf') not for the the contributor who says this information should be removed given it is not sourced.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mossad/Hezbollah[edit]

were the Israeli couple Mossad agents?[19] this report, from I believe a quite well respected blog,[20] says the attacker was just a criminal sort basically, the ISIS thing a feint and he was kind of recruited by Hezbollah [21] Sayerslle (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted with the user <Sayerslle>. To talk more disscretely. Unfortunately ...
<This account has been blocked indefinitely because the account owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.>
The fact is, the Jews do not always stand behind twice. And. If . A hospital with Judaism or something to do with ... And. There a couple of young people passed away by chance ... Looking at Mossad Israel. Demand a <Amende>. Or, even deffinitieve closure. Since you have to look more preziess.Doctor Pulmann (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)::Wikipedia:Fringe theories, certainly at this stage. Brigade Piron (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, Sayer. Please, keep the propaganda to the Syria pages. The guy was a North African, they're all Sunnis. This is basically just a repeat of the Toulouse and Montauban shootings. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i'm just pointing to a blog from a source that has some credibility - are you saying Hezbollah is a sectarian religious fanatic jihadist shia outfit? - what happened to all your propaganda about the torturing, sarin using, barrel bombing, assad regime being the choice for leftist secularists - richard silverstein suggests the Israeli man 'used his finance background to track Hezbollah activities (drug and arms dealing) in Europe'. Sayerslle (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly makes that blog a reliable source? And I'll let you do the propaganda ranting here, I see it's already in full swing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
just saying - 'Very rarely will we see him take a stand against Shia Islamists. In fact he supports the Iranian theocracy' - that's about Mehdi Hasan , but it goes for you too, no? Sayerslle (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you stick to the topic for once? I repeat "what makes that blog a reliable source"? FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say it is a reliable source - I'd not heard of the blog before today - I just think its interesting - I mean you say its just a repeat of Toulouse and montauban , but in this twitter exchange with an expert @p_vanostaeyen who , it has to be admitted says what you say, that the idea is 'quite insane actually. Why would a French Sunni Mujahid allign with Hezbollah ? Makes no sense.' but another tweeter says 'recall Khobar explosion Qaeda was accused of being behind then ..https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing

[22]' - anyhow I just put it on the talk page , - maybe more will be reported in the coming weeks about the Israeli couple and the suspect that will add to the picture Sayerslle (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter isn't a reliable source either, and you know it. This is not the place for peddling fringe theories, however "interesting" they are. We also have a Bigfoot page, you know, quite interesting indeed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike most blogs it has a wiki page. Tikun Olam (blog) which does cover Sayerslle's claim of "has some credibility". But also not more than that. I also claim WP:Fringe theories, this doesn't mean it can't ever make it to the article, but that does mean that it has to be clearly marked and attributed as such. There are many theories. There's the False flag , there's the mistaken identity (proposed by Haaretz, ... and so on. I don't think any of the theories contribute anything to the article, and in any case I would wait until the legal proceedings conclude. To put all the theories into perspective.Pinfix (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That articles doesn't exactly make a good case for the blog's reliability, rather the contrary. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize you are constantly twisting words don't you? Nobody ever claimed it was a reliable source. It obviously has a political mission which vastly supercedes its quest for truth. But if having previously leaked isreali state secrets doesn't give "some credibility" to the fact that it may be able to do it again nothing will. The author also has credentials outside of the blogosphere. Is this claim wrong? Most likely. that's what WP:Fringe theories is all about. As explained in the article and as evidenced by for example 9/11 conspiracy theories wikipedia can document which theories float around when properly quantified. It also isn't so much about credibility as it is about WP:Notability. And many of these theories have been coined by sources WP:Notable enough to have their own wiki pages. Regardless WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And we should probably wait for the dust to settle. Personally i don't think these theories are worth mentioning, because they would be coined regardless of facts. Pinfix (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you don't understand the purpose of talkpages then. They are not meant for discussion of fringe theories and peddling unreliable sources, but for improving the article. Wikipedia articles only discuss fringe theories when reliable sources refer to them (as in your 9/11 example). That is not the case here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, its just a talk page, not Assad controlled Damascus, or a basij controlled Tehran where every little discussion that annoys some party is squished, - - just a little info and discussion , whats the problem. Talk pages can surely stretch to holding a little mention and discussion of an article that may be useful for improving the article at some point , if not now. if say, Hezbollah becomes clearly implicated the article may say 'this Hezbollah involvement was first written of as a possibility in the first week of june 2014in a blog, silversteins ..' etc' the idea that the perpetrator was a criminal gun for hire with a criminal history kind of thing and not an ideologically motivated Sunni militant has been widely reported hasn't it? this report is a variant of that with Hezbollah doing the hiring-or mossad believing that may be the caseSayerslle (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No my friend you don't understand talk pages. Discussing fringe theories and their validity is WP:TALK#FACTS, is part of improving the article. And it's better here than having to revert edits in the article all the time. WP:Fringe theories proves you wrong. You have not given a single argument. or wiki link to any guidlines. Fact of the matter is you were wrong about the blog being completely un-notable. You are wrong about talk pages. You consistently respond negatively and twist people's words which violates the "be positive" guidline. Every time your argument is that it shouldn't be discussed you lose. It would be perfectly valid to mention the fringe theories in a way that corresponds to WP:Fringe theories but i don't think we should. Your agressive attitude towards discussing completely undercuts your point.Pinfix (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You forget the key point of my comment: only fringe theories covered in reliable sources are discussed here. If it isn't discussed in reliable sources, it effectively doesn't exist, in the context of Wikipedia. And Sayer, Wikipedia has certain rules, but your recurring blocks indicate you're unable to comprehend them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it says on the rule page - 'For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss' etc - - thats in an article - discussion on a talk page is not the same thing, the blog is not without credentials, and , assuming editors are not unduly and unreasonably aggressive and antagonistic, and petulantly hostile to others, causes no problem surely? - as for continually misspelling my username I suggest you read CIVIL , as it comes over to me as a puerile lack of civility, an attempt to antagonize. you act like the rules are not for the likes of you, who just dictates to others. please be CIVIL -its like a 'please' in life, consideration for others - it costs nothing , a bit of politeness.Sayerslle (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source that is proposed is clearly WP:SPS so its not suitable for sourcing WP:FRINGE.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that [[WP::SPS]] has this section in it right. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Which is the case here, with the reliable third party being newspapers like The Guardian. I don't like it either. but when following the rules of [[WP::Fringe]] and [[WP:SPS] these opinions are not excluded a priori from being mentioned. The blog looks bad which would immediately make you discard it, but if you look deeper you notice that it can at least be debated. And the fact that it can be spy games is also covered/speculated by more mainstream media [23]. and do read Tikun Olam (blog) it has all the sources to make it pass the WP:SPS. keep in mind i don't want it in the article either, but intellectual honesty is important. Pinfix (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<Reactions>[edit]

Via the real estate company "Century 21". Sell ​​his house with a small garden. The donor of the Kalashnikov assault rifle. As . Cartridges and hand grenades. 

Probably. The organizer of the massacre of tourists from Israel. A Turok. From Tatarstan.

We got to know the turko tartare in 2011. (After the "Rolex" operation.) At night. 5 years ! Turko Tatarun. Restaurant owners, homeowners. A rich man! Just like a highly respected citizen. Arrived at night.Mini micro Wiki User (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Museum_of_Belgium_shooting&oldid=1204161635"