Talk:Killing of Abdel Fattah al-Sharif

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

suggest a rename.[edit]

Article need a rename. Mainly known as "Hebron Shooting Incident" in Israeli media.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 05:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Bolter21 (talk to me) 05:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "extrajudicial killing of Abdel Fattah al-Sharif"? Or more accurately, the "murder of Abdel Fattah al-Sharif"?
My argument is as follows: shooting wounded, incapacitated people in the head is basically extra-judicial murder. The same would be true for executing Palestinians they've arrested.
Considering that every killing of Israeli "settlers" is labeled as "murder", I think it's only fair to make use of "murder" as a descriptive in this case. 70.27.162.84 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Murder and extrajudicial killing in the context of this incident is very subjective. There is a large dispute about wether it was a murder or not. This is not about "fair" or not, the language of "murder" and "extra judicial killing" should never be used by Wikipedia as a fact unless quoted or have enough support from sources. The name of the article should be relfected in sources.
There is a large number of sources using variants of the title I offered:
"Hebron Shooting" - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
"Hebron Shooting incident" - [12] [13] [14]
Because there were probably a dozens of shooting incidents in Hebron, I would suggest "Hebron shooting controversy"--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial, hell. It was indisputably an extra-judicial killing and the murder of an unarmed, incapacitated person by some smelly little Kahanist maggot. 70.27.162.84 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is full of errors, but I am not going to explain them to you. Insteed I"ll redirect you to the Five pillars of Wikipedia and especially the second piller. Please read it and if you can't accept it, go and edit other topics that don't involve your own point of view.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
God, are you smug. My "logic" is rooted around what actually happened. What happened was a wounded Palestinian who was effectively "neutralized" after his understandable attempt to stab soldiers belonging to a hostile, abusive military occupation was extra-judicially executed by a so-called "medic" who-- surprise, surprise-- turns out to be an Arab-hating Kahanist.
My point of view is that every Jew in the Palestinian West Bank (barring peace activists and those who actually help the Palestinians) is a legitimate target for the Palestinian resistance. Israelis can get out, or be shot, stabbed, or run over by cars. However, you don't see me advocating my point of view to be the official line on Wikipedia articles. 70.27.162.84 (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No body gives a damn about your irrelevent point. This is an Encyclopdia, not a blog. And your point is opposed to most reliable sources. Even B'tselem regard killing of Israeli settlers as ilegitimate. There is nothing you can say or write that will ever change the fact this incident is disputed and has several faces. This is not an "extra-judicial killing" or a "justified killing" in the eyes of an Encyclopedia, this is an incident that sparked controversy in Israel (seemingly more than in Palestine) and therefore got an article. I don't agree with the shooting at all and I hope the man responsible will spend years in jail in order to deterr other soldiers from even thinking about taking the law into their hands. We both oppose the action but from different angles but I do not intend to show my opinion on this (nor do I really edit this article), all I try to do is to change the name of the article to something more memorable and backed with sources. Your offer violates the laws of WP:NPOV becuase it take a side in the dispute in order to push your WP:POV which you stated in the last comment. So please, abide the five pillers of Wikipedia, with WP:NPOV in them or don't edit things that are related to your opinions.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the rant above, however, If you're going to have article titles like Murder of Hatuel family then I don't believe it's unreasonable to label this as an extrajudicial killing. I could certainly find you dozens of sources [1][2][3][4] using that language including a quote from the UN investigator [5] and I've yet to see any argument that says shooting an unarmed prisoner in the head is legal under Israeli (or any other applicable) law. 217.37.166.142 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. I never support renaming articles to "murder" and the article does not really talk about the death of the assailant, it talks mostly about the act it self. Extrajudicial killing is a WP:POV If the name of the other article is not good enough for you, go there and change it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli media & the Israeli Wikipedia called it 'Elor Azaria Affair'. As an Israeli, the title 'Hebron shooting incident' seems to me a bit weird. As if this is the first or only shooting incident there...--Noavic (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israeli-palestinians-un-idUSKCN0WW204
  2. ^ http://972mag.com/nearly-half-of-israeli-jews-support-extrajudicial-killings-poll-finds/121904/
  3. ^ http://thewire.in/31144/what-an-extrajudicial-killing-tells-us-about-israels-image-anxiety/
  4. ^ http://www.vox.com/2016/4/1/11346946/israel-hebron-azaria-sharif
  5. ^ http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/UN-expert-decries-Israeli-soldiers-killing-of-Palestinian-attacker-449766

Kahanist support etc.[edit]

Blog source: +972 - John Brown - Hebron shooter called to 'kill everyone in Gaza', 29 April 2016.     ←   ZScarpia   10:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Already moved to Hebron shooting incident by User:Baking Soda, satisfying NPOV concerns. Prolonging debate here would just be messy; further article destiny can be discussed in another venue. No such user (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Killing of an injured Palestinian knifer affair → Hebron shooting controversy (2016) – Arguments to support this title:

1) Shorter and more memorable. Has a more encyclopedig tone. "Knifer affair" sounds really really wierd.

2) The shooting was not the reason to start the article, the reason to start the article is the controversy. There are really not too many detalies about the shooting it self. From what we know there was a stabbing attack, two assailents neutralised, one died, one left injured, six minutes after a combat medic with a background of radical ideologies shot the wounded attacker in the head, controversry follows. The part with the controvercy, the public debate and the investigation are the main part. Inicdents with the same significance in the world happen all time, there are rioters who are shot and there are controversies on that but this one is very prominant because it is not ambigues and there was and still a huge public debate in Israel, ensuing large protests and vague arguments between coalition leaders.

3) The most neutral title I could have come up with. Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Please respond by either saying you Support or Oppose and take it easy. Please discuss only the title and not other stuff because I think the current title is awfull (no ofence to anyone) and should be fixed ASAP. Thanks.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support. The current title is opinion-laden and non-neutral, to the point of making a point. JIP | Talk 20:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Hebron shooting (2016) or Hebron shooting incident (2016) per WP:COMMONNAME, oppose use of controversy. Baking Soda (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
edited removed year, unnecessary per WP:PRECISE. Baking Soda (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly WP:NOTNEWS.GreyShark (dibra) 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – moved to Hebron shooting incident as "Killing of an injured Palestinian knifer affair" unencyclopedic. Baking Soda (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was my second proposal if this proposal wouldn't pass, but meh. I am now indifferent about the two options. The important thing is that this is now encyclopedic.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

Nishidani, WarKosign, ZScarpia, Midrashah, Galatz No More Mr Nice Guy, Rossbawse, Arminden, 61.0.202.186, Triggerhippie4, E.M.Gregory, W.carter, Sometimes the sky is blue, AusLondonder
I chose the users per their involvment in Israeli-Palestinian related incidents. Feel free to add more, especially if there will be no consensus on that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 May 2016

My bad, I will change it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem that this is a proper name, otherwise the proposal should be for Hebron Shooting Controversy (capitalizing all three words), so I have taken the liberty to lower-case the "c", and trust that there will be no objections. If there is a good reason for a capital "C", please do revert my change in the proposal, and explain your rationale for that. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for the capital "c", it probably skipped through my eyes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should the article exist?[edit]

Greyshark09, you said the article should be deleted. I prefer that before we make a discussion per the Deletion Policy, discussing it without trying to achieve a consensus but in order to examine your claims. So apart from WP:NOTNEWS which you need to explain, are there other reasons to delete the article? I say this incident is a very serious. It was much more significant than most of the attacks and events that happened during the last seven months of violance.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article definitely meets WP:EVENT, WP:GNG with coverage outside regular news cycle, event of lasting impact.. Baking Soda (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lasting for several days is not sufficient yet; if next year someone would cover it, then maybe. For now delete.GreyShark (dibra) 18:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here looking for information about this. I agree the article should stay intact. I don't even live in Israel (rather US), and I did hear about this event before (I think it made international news), and hear again now. Also sounds like the case would set up precedent in the courts and politics, again likely having some effect even beyond Israel. 104.53.222.39 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually surprised to see that this event has its' own Wiki page. Are we really considering this to be an encyclopedia event? I would say no but I leave things as they are and would like to see how others feel about the existence of this page and whether it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Jtpaladin (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This affair has news coverege since March 2016 on the world's largest media outlets, and it is indeed one of the most bitter political debates in Israel's history.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2017[edit]

I will like this to be added under Reactions section, I think it's notable enough: On 29 December, former defense minister Moshe Ya'alon criticized politicians who praised Azaraia and attacked him, Netanyahu and the IDF. He also criticized Netanyahu for switching his opinion about the shooting and "embracing" the soldier. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2017[edit]

I made this request before but I forgot to add a source, therefore it was declined. I think it's notable enough. I have made some additions and changes.: On 28 December, former defense minister Moshe Ya'alon criticized politicians who praised Azaraia and attacked him, Netanyahu and the IDF. He also criticized Netanyahu for switching his opinion about the shooting and "embracing" the soldier. He also condemned Azaria's actions during the incident. Source: Ex-defense minister slams Netanyahu over Azaria trial (Times of Israel) 29 December 2016 MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I think this is fine for adding, can you please let me know where you'd like this to be added exactly MonsterHunter32? I'll mark this request as answered, but when you reply, activate the template again. st170e 12:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@St170e: Please add it under the Reactions section. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done st170e 23:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot User:St170e. The court verdict of this shooting case will be in 2 days. Please keep a tab on that as well and edit it when the verdict is reported by sources if you have the time. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MonsterHunter32, when the verdict is released, then you can propose another edit here and use the same template. Myself or another editor will have a look at it then. st170e 00:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks a lot for your help. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victim and Perpetrator[edit]

The article box lists:

Victim: Abdel Fattah al-Sharif Perpetrators: Elor Azaria

This is a clear NPOV issue, since al-Sharif was an assailant who stabbed and wounded two soldiers prior to being shot by Azaria. There should be another way to describe the individuals involved without this binary. This wasn't an attacker-civilian situation and the box depicts it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rida1990 (talk • contribs)

I don't think there is any problem with current definition. This shooting incident is part of a larger attack, but in this specific case Azaria is a perpetrator. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Hi Rida1990, I concur with Arthistorian1977 and I don't think there is anything wrong with how it stands. I do see where you are coming from, but in this particular incident, al-Sharif was the victim (of the shooting). If the article was (as Arthistorian1977 says) about the whole attack, then I agree it should be changed. But I believe the information in the article describes the incident very well and the infobox is correct as it stands. st170e 17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of victim is "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.' Nowhere does the definition states that a victim himself cannot have done a criminal thing himself. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article *is* (or at least should be) about the larger picture, with an attacker being shot as the element of interest. If this was a clear-cut perpetrator-victim situation, this story wouldn't merit an article. --Rida1990 (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are created based on notability and reliable here not a perpetrator-victim situation. And this incident fills all criterias for creation of an article. Besides we cannot remove the word victim when the definition isn't against it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define IDF[edit]

I understand that Israeli readers know this, but for the rest of us it would be nice if the acronym is defined (directly or at least with a hyperlink) before/when it is first used. I guessed from the context that it stood for Israeli army, but a guess is different from knowledge... 104.53.222.39 (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IDF = Israel Defense Forces Sokuya (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the problem by making the first mention as:
Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)
As it should be. Thank you for noting that, you anonymous guy.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video[edit]

there is mention of a video. There should be a link to video. Do you like to keep the link to video hidden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should absolutely be a link to the video, perhaps at the bottom of the page, a "See also" link? Huldra (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the section of External links. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Huldra (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the link with a link to the original Btselem video. Rami R 06:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert checkpoint[edit]

The shooting took place at a checkpoint called "Gilbert checkpoint" see this. Now the present picture doesn't show it very well (it shows a "Breaking the Silence Hebron tour"), but these four pictures shows the situation better, I suggest we change the picture, Huldra (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is from the incident. I have contacted B'tselem before, I can ask them if Wikipedia allows the use of a screenshot from their video.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the picture is from a tour with Breaking the Silence, several months before the shooting took place. There are rarely as many people at Gilbert checkpoint as in this picture; any of the above pictures would be more representative, IMO. But best of all would of course be a screenshot from the B'tselem video; if you could get hold of that, it would be great, Huldra (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems B'tselem is ignoring me.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thats too bad, but I see that he.wikipedia is using this, citing "fair use", can't we do the same? Huldra (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Hebrew Wikipedia is like the wildwest of copyrights. People just uploads things there assuming it is ok, and it seems no one cares. I searched my e-mail and saw that I got a message from them, saying they "forwarded the request to the head of their publicity department". The message was sent on the 16th of January. So either B'tselem is busy, or they just forgot about me.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kfir Brigade Commander deal proposal during middle of the night[edit]

Israeli news source reporting that Kfir Brigade Commander had contacted the family directly [1] in what described as outrageous, infuriating ,wrong and crosses any rule or supposed law. They added it's mob like behavior [2] and the actions of the IDF are considers as criminal actions. [3] 159.253.248.246 (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4906381,00.html
  2. ^ http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/856/797.html?hp=1&cat=875&loc=4
  3. ^ http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/337641

How can the article be splitted into paragraphs?[edit]

The "Investigation and trial" section is very big, and it should be splitted into sub-paragraphs. How can we do it? Anyone have an idea?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hebron shooting incident. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra?[edit]

Two paragraphs refer repeatedly to an "Ezra", seemingly meaning Elor Azaria. (Though a Ben-Ezra appears in the previous paragraph, he doesn't seem to be the subject.) Azaria isn't referred to as Ezra anywhere else, so I assume this is a simple mistake. Can somebody with editing privileges please fix this up?Rxtreme (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Rami R 08:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted to 18 or 14 months?[edit]

At the top of the lemma, it is stated that Azaria was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. Further on, I read that the sentence was reduced from 18 to 14 months. Should not the top paragraph represent the last sentence? Can anyone who is qualified to edit the article add the information "..., later reduced to 14 months"? Thanks. Mcouzijn (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

=Yeah, it's not right that the article can't be edited, and gives false information. His sentence has been reduced by a third, scheduled release date of 10 May 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/hebron-shooter-elor-azaria-s-prison-sentence-cut-by-a-third-1.5914309

Rename again?[edit]

The name "Hebron shooting incident" is very plain and isn't very descriptive of the event. Maybe "Hebron killing controversy" or something would be better? ImTheIP (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence of the Israeli court was "manslaughter" so the title doesn't even reflect the perpetrator narrative of this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:C114:6201:21A5:79F6:44EA:65B6 (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 April 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to alt title (non-admin closure) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hebron shooting incident → Murder of Abdel Fattah al-Sharif – Per WP:DEATHS, this resulted in a conviction of manslaughter for the purposeful killing of a human being, and "incident" is euphemistic to the point of being disingenuous. Nableezy 23:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Incident" is appalling pseudo-balance. Either "Murder of Abdel Fattah al-Sharif" or "Killing of Abdel Fattah al-Sharif" would be consistent with common usage. Zerotalk 01:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Killing of Abdel Fattah al-Sharif" per Zero0000. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Abdel_Fattah_al-Sharif&oldid=1204652398"