Talk:Duma arson attack

The article doesn't make sense

The article is misstranslated from the original sources. Just to make one clear example how accurate is this article: The article claims two confessions, but only one sentenced perpetrator. How does that make sense to the authors? --AsiBakshish (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Urging caution, accuracy

This very recent crime is widely presumed to have been carried out by Israelis. But until there is some sort of evidence identifying the attackers, we need to be very careful about wording. I have changed absolutist wording in lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Perpetrator" is inappropriate language at this stage in the investigation, in info box as elsewhere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Until there is evidence of some sort: suspects, arrest warrants speculation about the perpetrators in the lede is a violation of NPOV. It was further down in the article, where it belongs, since it can be sourced. But to put it in the info box and in the lede is unwarranted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

One reports what RS say. All RS mention Jewish (settlers) as suspects, from the New York Times downwards, and this is therefore the default term. Saying such groups are under suspicion doesn't incriminate anyone or any group. It simply shows that government investigatory bodies have adopted that line. That Arutz Sheva darkly alludes to a village feud is a fringe theory (it did exactly the same in countering all aearlier reports re Abu Khdeir's murder by suggesting he was the victim of an Arab paedophile or two, and by6 suggesting the scaffolding incident in September 2014 was caused by Palestinians) that has no place here, -it's settler gossip and innuendo and sleaze- unless later investigations confirm it, which, as so often, never happens. That a crime has perpetrators' is self-evident.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Nishdani, you know better than that. Firebombed " by suspected Jewish assailants" in the lede. when what the authorities specifically do not have is leads to suspects. In the article as I left it, the suspicisons were reported on further down the page. Expansion on that is appropriate. Putting the kind of language into the lede that you put there is against policy in a developing major crime story, and needs to be taken out of the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I know no more than what RS say, and rewrote this to fix a botched piece of WP:OR that tried to prejudge the issues by making mysteries where sources so far indicate none. We don't know what the authorities have in hand, contrary to your assertion. We know how the Israeli political establishment, the mainstream Israeli and western newspapers presented it, and that is that Jewish settlers are suspected. This may turn out to be wrong, but so far that is what sources say, and the lead reflects this usage. Israeli usage distinguishes criminal acts from terror acts, and terrorism. The lead must respect majority RS usage, and not tamper defensively with reports to 'tone down' things.Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• It is a breaking crime story and strong assertions about who is believed to be culpable do not belong in the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the policy basis for this curious personal opinion? Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nishdani, at least try for NPOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In what way is Wikipedia's neutral voice affected by the careful reproduction of mainstream language describing this incident as one in which Jewish terrorists are considered by Israel to be the main suspects? It's not quite relevant perhaps, but you should note that clan feuds in small Palestinian hamlets usually do not, if they are intent on blaming Israelis for murders, achieve the spectacular mastery of Chabad messianic jargon to forge an alibi and blame outsiders. Perhaps, if we are to believe the Arutz Sheva rumour mill, there is some devious Moriarty of Palestinian terrorism who, when not confectioning bombs, studies the writings of Menachem Mendel Schneerson? But the 'signature' has been taken by most Jewish and Israeli sources as indicating that kind of messianic environment for the simple reason that an assumption to the contrary (Arutz Sheva etc) requires an extraordinary amount of special pleading. In any case, we do not know, and 'suspect' is not proof, except when describing shot Palestinians, at least that is the standard combination one reads of in the local press concerning the other side.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

At this point, it's just an unsolved act of arson, in which a family were horrifically burned and a child died. I begin to wonder about the notability of a WP article that mostly retails rumours.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reluctant to step into this snakes nest as an anon, but really, why is so much of the "Suspects" section detailing a description of a theory from arutz sheva which has as little or less evidence than the jewish settler theories that you want to be so careful of? What about Wikipedia:UNDUE ?? Even if Arutz Sheva turns out to be right, why is the article giving this theory so much undue weight in proportion to its representation in RS? Just ridiculous. Someone registered should put an undue-section on here to warn readers. 149.78.234.252 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Arson v. Murder

I removed the "murder" categories since arson is not necessarily murder, courts have to determine intent to cause murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm reverting that edit. There was a clear intent to kill (murder) the occupants of the house. Israeli courts are worse then useless when it comes to dealing with Jewish attackers of Palestinians, whether they be IDF personnel or "settlers", so to say that "oh if the Israeli court doesn't find homicidal intent, then there was none" is foolish to say the least. The kyle 3 (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's already been reverted by someone else. Good for them. The kyle 3 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Meir Ettinger

It is reported that Meir Ettinger, ( a grandson of Meir Kahane), has been detained as part of the investigation [1]. This article: Why Jewish Terror Is Different This Time should perhaps go into the article, when more is known, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Added Ettinger's release from detention and proper news citation. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

+ Netanyahu ; - B'tselem: "Israeli condemnations were mere rhetoric"

• diff

Just curious to know who has brought B'Tselem's opinion about the allegedly rhetorical condemnation of the attack by Israeli leadership, "forgetting" to add information about the condemnation itself ):).
Let's still try to comply with some, at least, with minimum of POV and to distinguish between the Government and some controversial NGO in their notability. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC) --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Igorp's removal of RS

you removed

B'tselem said that Israeli condemnations were mere rhetoric if such attacks (were) allowed to continue.

Where's your policy justification for erasing this sourced material?Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Condemnations of violence are tediously mechanical and lack any significant content, yet editors think this chorus of crap outrage, as opposed to the record of then doing nothing, is often the most significant thing to underline. You boost the outrage by officials, and remove the one sentence which says nothing is ever done to fix these outrages.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

See my '+ Netanyahu ; - B'tselem: "Israeli condemnations were mere rhetoric"' --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

To repeat. Where is the policy justification for having excised B'tselem's comment? Yopu edit summary is a description of what you did, not an explanation of the removal.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"To repeat": see my "Let's still try to comply with some POV and to distinguish between the Government and some controversial NGO in their notability". --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I told you several months ago that it is not wiki policy to 'comply with some POV'. That is, precisely, what editors must not do. If you can't understand the ABC, then don't procede as if you understood D to Z. The Zionist Organization of America's outrageous paranoid crap is here, and B'tselem's quite legitimate note on the record of failure to crack down on these abuses is elided. That is, exactly, pushing a POV, which is what you did.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Changed to "Let's still try to comply, at least, with minimum of POV..."

No comments to a next case of your personal attacks. --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

B'tselem is not an official anything. It is a smallish NGO. While it is appropriate to quote some small NGOs sources at times, there is no necessity for every small NGO with an opinion to be quoted everywhere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

<-B'Tselem, one of Israel most prominent NGOs, is merely "a smallish NGO" whose statements can be removed even when RS regard them as significant enough to publish. This is a good example of the state of the ARBPIA topic area. If editors like Igorp_Ij and E.M.Gregory are planning to continue editing here, I think it would be better to delete the article/change it into a redirect to the Price tag article. I think it would be better to have no article rather than expose readers to the kind of content these kind of editors will produce. It would be an act of kindness towards the readers. While I suppose it's a historic privilege to witness the growth of extremism among Israel supporters first hand through their actions and comments in Wikipedia and Wikipedia's failure to deal with it, I think the readers should come first. Clearly it will not be possible to produce a decent article in the presence of these kind of editors, discussion is pointless, and Wikipedia does not have a working method to deal with the kind of Israel supporters that are attracted to Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss your absurd accusations & statements, only tell you that anger is a bad counselor, especially for an editor on Wikipedia :)

And it's so funny & sad to read all this from one of those who by all means promotes only their own, but not neutral POV in such article as the 2nd Intifada, and many others. What about Yarmouk massacre, etc.? The rest see in my "Hysteria, paranoia, propaganda clichés?.." corrsponding reply.

Regarding to B'tselem: I haven't considered it as small one, it's not about NGO with almost 10M NIS funding. It's about reliability of its data. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%27Tselem#Criticism , as min. --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani: selective quoting again

• diff

Nishidani, if you've already decided to move a focus to Klein's comparison of the methods using by "Palestinian Arab terrorists" (Klein) with Nazi's ones, it'd be fair do not forget to place his "Klein called for a full investigation into the attack and the prosecution of the perpetrator “to the full extent of the law", etc. from the same article. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That's just window dressing at best because he wants to cover his slimy ass. Klein doesn't give a damn about the victims because they're not Israeli or Jewish-- this is something that's very, very clear from his ridiculous tirade that's all about attempting to exonerate the "settler" movement and blame "Arab terrorists" instead.

Once you consider that fact, it stands to reason that you wouldn't bother putting in some pointless window-dressing statement unless you're trying to defend Klein as far as his commentary goes. The kyle 3 (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No comment to such kind replies. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Huldra's revert

Huldra, can you explain your following "way, way undue: leaving half of the "suspect" paragraph to this? No thanks" (sic!) action ?

Nobody forbids you to bring more information, but do not roll back a version that do correspond to RS, unlike the previous Nishidani's one (see. the topic above). In any case, it should be returned, as well as taking into account the Klein's letter itself, which is different from its treatment in JPost. At the moment I put it here as well as other RS. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Zionist Organization of America president Morton Klein, calling to a full investigation of the arson, after which "whoever is responsible for this attack – whether Jew or Arab – should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law", has noted that "available evidence" gives rise to suspicions the attack "was part of 18-year-old feud in Duma between two Arab clans". Citing a report from Arutz Sheva, he claims the graffiti show traces of being written by a native Arabic speaker. He also asserted that location of Dawabsha’s house, makes it "extremely difficult for Israeli Jews to reach and then to depart from the center of a hostile Arab village without being detected".
Comparing "Palestinian Arab terrorists" to the Nazis who pretended to be Poles and staged the Gleiwitz incident that triggered World War 2, Klein said the incident can be read as an 'Arab' attempt to "blame on (non-existent) Jewish ‘extremists’ and Israel”. He also reminded about an Arab in Lod who "had recently blamed a beating he had received on Jews before it was revealed that his attackers were also Arabs" as well as about "infamous al Durrah libel" as a prime example.

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?? Are you kidding me? When 95-99% of the sources think it is Jewish terrorist who are the perpetuators, you want about 50% of the "Suspect"-paragraph to be about potential Arab perpetuators? Sorry, won´t happen. Please take a look at WP:Undue, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's seriously. Again: "Nobody forbids you to bring more" about those " 95-99% of the sources". --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It deserves a line, no more, unless the eventual investigation vindicates it. It is simply not newsworthy that the person in question surrounds hyis paranoid insinuations with the usual lipservice to the rule of law. Politically correct clichés are not news, as opposed to the extremist insinuations they bracket. The remarks certainly do not appear to represent mainstream American Zionist opinion either. Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Morton Klein just appears to be slimier then you'd first assume, from that little bit of hysteria coming from him. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The kyle 3 (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hysteria, paranoia, propaganda clichés? Rather, at those whose publications you are pushing so hard, attempting to diminish or remove anything that does not fit their agenda. I don't rush to roll all this propaganda back, preferring to wait for results of investigation.

Meantime: I am very sorry for those who builds his picture of the events in Israel, basing on opinion & data of such marginals as G.Levi, A. Hass, B'Tselem, etc. Such a picture is so far from reality. ):). And at the moment yet: a food for thought for those who still wants to see a full one: http://9tv.co.il/video/2015/08/08/57140.html

--Igorp_lj (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Levi, Hass and Btselem are Israeli people and organizations with a vast experience of the subject area. Klein is just an American extremist making predictable assertions. No comparison. Zero^talk 23:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not about Klein, even not about "those who builds his picture of the events in Israel, basing on opinion & data of such marginals..."

It's a sad story how some editors (and admins :( ) harm Wiki-reliability pushing these marginals & foreign agents and their corresponding "data", as reliable Israeli main-stream. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Minwer Dawabsha

What does that have to do with the article, specifically the section on suspects? nableezy - 21:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And also, nothing in the source (no.19) indicate "suspicious"; that seems made up, Huldra (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Theres a random MK saying there could be a link, while the sub headline says both Israeli and Palestinian officials say there is no link. Im removing that entire paragraph as irrelevant. nableezy - 22:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Less than a month after the arson attack covered in this article, the nearby house of the victim's brother was torched. Palestinian security authorities say that it was not done by Jewish extremists. The clan to which the brothers belong is in a violent struggle with a rival clan. An MK and several reputable news aources (JTa, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, and - the Ma'an News Agency have the story. And still no suspects in the first arson. I remind Nableezy and Huldra that WP:NOTCENSORED.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Um both the Israelis and the Palestinians say this has nothing to do with the topic of this article. And what exactly is the connection to suspects in this case? Besides the transparent attempt at, through sheer conjecture, attempting to say oh no it couldnt be the settlers cus this also happened, what is the relevance here? And, while youre reminding others on guidelines, try WP:BRD. nableezy - 02:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources like Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel attributed it to an electrical fault. One big difference, of course, between this fire and the first one is that during the last one they never found any "writing on the wall", literally. They did, during the first one, Huldra (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I moved the material to a new section named "Second fire". The sources make the connection between the incidents so except for the poor placement under 'suspects' section, I can see no problem with the content itself. Settleman (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Settleman, the sources say there is no connection between the two incidents, they in fact specifically say they are unrelated, and it is completely irrelevant to the topic of this article. There is clearly no consensus for this addition, and I would ask that you revert yourself until there is such a consensus. nableezy - 13:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The text doesn't say there is a connection either but all the sources mention the first fire and wonder whether there is a connection. It is very clear a simple electrical fault won't get such coverage if not for the first attack. Maan says there were signs of arson. E.M.Gregory done a good job not inferring anything. Here there are additional reports with less connection to the original crime so I don't see a reason to not include neutral text of an incident to a family member in the same village. Settleman (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Presently the article has the sentence: In late August the Duma home belonging to Minwer Dawabsha, the brother of the victim of the July fire, burned in a suspicious fire, sourced to this Jpost-article, with headline "Electrical blaze hits Dawabsha home in Duma", sub-heading: "Israeli, Palestinian officials say fire is not linked to arson in which two members of family were killed." The word "suspicious" is pure invention. And, as I previously noted: this second fire did not have Hebrew graffiti all over it. (Btw: electrical faults is an extremely common cause of fires: some years ago my neighbours house burned down because of it.) Huldra (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Press accounts do not confirm that it was an electrical fire. Ma'an News Agency, in particular, reports it in a number of different ways. However, several news accounts report that inflammatory liquids were deliberately poured on the house and ignited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There is only *one* press report mentioning arson; the early 24 aug. Maan -report. Meanwhile, all the others blame electrical fire; and the PA authorities and Israel Fire Services finds that it is likely caused by electrical fault. Do you seriously think that the Israeli Fire Services didn´t look into arson-allegations? And ruled them out? Huldra (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason not to include it is that this is not a general article about fires involving one family. It is a specific case of arson, and the added material is wholly irrelevant. And again, there was an addition, it was objected to, it should not be restored until there is consensus for it. nableezy - 00:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The relationship is that in less than a month two brothers, neighbors in a very small town, have their houses set aflame in apparant arson attacks in under a month - with no named suspects in either case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

....except that in the first fire there was Hebrew graffiti all over, while there was none in the second, and even the Israel Fire Services found the second likely caused by an electrical fault. Huldra (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, there is enough doubt about the case to be included. Here and here are additional articles. I see no base for not including it though maybe the text should be compacted. Settleman (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Its not related to this topic, this article is about an arson attack, not any other random fires. If there ends up being a connection between the two fires then sure, include it. But as it stands, every official source from every side says these two things are not related. nableezy - 08:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Almost a week later papers are still wondering whether there is connection between the deadly attack and three additional fires. I agree that E.M.Gregory took it a step too far (sorry) but you mirror him in your refusal to include any of it in the article. What policy are you basing your opposition on? Settleman (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

note - According to Walla, Israeli forces didn't rule out arson just a hate-crime. They said it either electric fault OR arson. Settleman (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I´m sorry, I do not read/speak Hebrew (or Arabic), I don´t think Nableezy understands Hebrew, either (?)(correct me if I´m wrong.) So those sources are a bit meaningless to me, I´m afraid. With so much international interest into this, I´m sure there will be English sources available if this is anything more than wishful thinking from settler sources. Huldra (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, Foreign language sources are admissible, even in languages that you, Huldra, do not personally understand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This story was reported by major regional media including the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Arutz Sheva, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ma'an News Agency, the 2 Hebrew sources just cited by Settleman and probably by additional newspapers. All of them report this August arson/fire as relevant to the late July arson attack, not least because of the extraordinary fact that the nearby homes of 2 brothers should happen to burn in such a short interval of time. Nableezy and Huldra disagree with the context offered by this now week long media coverage. But it is our job on Wikipedia to summarize what the sources are saying, not to give our personal opinions on what is relevant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think the other fire has gotten enough coverage to be "notable" for an article make an article on it. However here you are both, in blatant violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD refusing to include the impeccably sourced material on this fire being suspected of having been an act of arson by Jewish settlers in the lead of the article on the basis that the Israeli authorities have yet to charge any specific Jewish settler and now want to include, because in your version of reality this is exculpatory evidence, a fire that those same authorities specifically say is unrelated to this event. Get off it, the sources specifically say there is no relation to this event, so it is irrelevant here. nableezy - 18:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

So far we have

• Jpost stating "The cause of a fire Monday morning in the Duma home of Minwer Dawabsha [] appears to be electrical, according to the National Fire and Rescue Service"
• timesofisrael: "Israel Fire Services reportedly believe an electrical problem was at fault."

That an Israeli well-known pro-settler speculates that it is an internal Palestinian conflict, does not make is note-worthy...no more than Hamas assertion that Israeli settlers are behind (noted in the same article, but, which you for some reason would not like to include in the article.) When Palestinian or Israeli authorities conclude arson, then lets discuss it. Until then, MK Hazan opinions are no more notable than the opinions of Hamas on this matter, even if his views are spread more widely in English that the views of Hamas. Huldra (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nableezy:, I didn't participate in any conversation about the lead so take your own advise and please avoid WP:NPA.

@Huldra:, I presented sources by Ynet, Walla and even Ma'an made a connection. I found this article which links (I don't claim it is RS) to multiple articles in Palestinian media about this. The rejection is nothing but WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Settleman (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, you did not, my apologies for lumping you in with E.M.Gregory. But as far as this goes, every official source from both the Palestinians and the Israelis specifically say the events are not related. Thats really all that needs to be said about this. If you think there is enough material to justify an article on this other fire go right ahead. Here it is irrelevant, and it isnt me saying that, it is the Israeli and Palestinian authorities. If that changes then fine, include it here. As it stands now it is a transparent attempt at deflecting from what every source says are the likely culprits in the arson that is the topic of this article. nableezy - 20:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted! We are going in circles. We have in the suspect section the fact it was suspected to be part of an internal feud. The first fire could be part of it and Walla source notes specifically this wasn't ruled out by Israel. So you have uncertainty on both (more like all) events which means they could be connected. We have RS that say they could be connected. You have decided the first fire attackers are completely known and thus it is irrelevant. It is your own personal opinion that goes against any policy I know of. Settleman (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Didnt rule it out as arson, ruled it out as connected to this case. No, not my own personal opinion, JPost: Israeli, Palestinian officials say fire is not linked to arson in which two members of family were killed. Ill repeat the pertinent bit, not linked to arson in which two members of family were killed. nableezy - 06:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Jpost also says "MK Oren Hazan (Likud) wrote a parliamentary question to the defense minister on Monday calling for an investigation into the blaze, saying that it could indicate that the fatal arson last month was the result of a feud between families in the village, and not an attack by Israeli extremists." Your attempt to to make an image of certainty it not NPOV. Settleman (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The relevance is clear from sources and not including it at all is OR. I rewrote the text in NPOV way and tried to stick to the sources. Fine-tuning is welcome. If someone thing it isn't 'relevant enough', s/he can open an RfC. Settleman (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The wording "burned in a suspicious fire" is not NPOV and the text here only says the Palestinian security forces thought it was caused by an electrical fault when more than they think that, including the Israel Fire and Rescue Services.

If you want to change something and don't got enough support for that, you should create an RfC. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, there is very clearly no consensus for the addition of this utterly irrelevant nonsense. The sources specifically say it is not related to this attack, and this article is specifically about this attack. Absent consensus for the addition, you should not be re-inserting it. A random MK saying maybe there is a connection is not a reliable source, and does not justify including such material. The scope of this article is one arson attack, not every fire that has ever occurred in this village. nableezy - 15:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And finally, even if one were to make the unsupported assertion that this other fire is in any way relevant, despite both the Israeli and Palestinian officials saying that it is not, what you added would go well past WP:DUE weight. nableezy - 15:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Some sources say it is not a hate-crime but not that it is unrelated. More then enough of them speculate the different fires raise a question mark. As for WP:DUE, feel free to minimize the text. I tried to cover it in a way that will explain the matter in NPOV.

The claim Israel forces said it was not arson is incorrect. Jpost say "according to the National Fire and Rescue Service." but those are Palestinian forces as Duma is in Area B. Maariv source says explicitly Israeli police didn't investigate while Walla! claim no Israeli forces entered the village. The fact speculations are made by 4 different RS make it notable enough. Settleman (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont think I ever said Israeli authorities said this other fire was not arson. I said they said it was not related. Ill add one sentence next to the line on Morton Klein (though honestly that should be excised as well, who cares what Morton Klein has to say about this). nableezy - 17:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont think this should be in here at all, but anything exceeding this goes well past due weight into something else that Id rather not describe. nableezy - 18:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Great compromise.

Until there are conclusive evidence, minority speculations belong especially when they are backed by numerous sources. Settleman (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The name matches the Israel Fire and Rescue Services and more importantly, Jerusalem Post writes after mentioning what that department thinks that "Palestinian officials also said there was no link..." and "Israeli, Palestinian officials say fire is not linked to arson in which two members of family were killed" above. The article in Times of Israel says "Israel Fire Services reportedly believe an electrical problem was at fault". --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Propose moving article

Proposing a move to Duma Arson attacks or Dawabsheh family arson attacks to cover the unusual event of the houses of two brothers ia a small rural town being attacked by arsonists within less than a month, and - according to some press accounts - the series of 4 arson attacks on the extended Dawabsheh family over the course of the last year all in the very small, rural town of Duma.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, obviously, (see above) Huldra (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, there is no question the additional 'mysterious' cases are dwarfed in comparison to the deadly attack, at least when it comes to media coverage. If in time there will be new evidence, the name might need to change to "fire libel at duma" but for now it is premature. Settleman (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, jesus christ. nableezy - 08:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Since Huldra and Nableezy insist on blocking info relevant to this article, in the face of significant media coverage opposing their opinions, I thought that the problem might be resolved by broadening the title of the article to accommodate the remarkable coincidence of clustered arson attacks on the same family in this one small town. it is difficult for mere mortals with day jobs to deal with relentlessly POV and indefatigably obstructionist editors like Nableezy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You really need to read and incorporate WP:NPA. A good place to start is the second sentence, that being Comment on content, not on the contributor. I have not informed you of what I think as toy your value as an editor of this encyclopedia because I would be violating that policy. Kindly cease violating it yourself. nableezy - 18:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose This is about a specific incident. There is no evidence later events are connected to this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

WP:LEAD says the following:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview ... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.

It is widely reported that Jewish settlers or extermists are suspected of carrying out this attack. It is against both NPOV and LEAD to exclude that material from the lead section. nableezy - 04:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ive added the relevant bit to the lead. nableezy - 15:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Why Arutz Sheva is an unreliable source

This is a perfect example of why we should not use Arutz Sheva as a source. If suspects have been arrested for the murders, as written there claiming to cite the Defense Minister, why have respectable news outlets like Haaretz, JP and Ynet not mentioned it even half a day later? The A7 report also says "Defense Minister Yaalon ... says they are not associated with communities in Judea-Samaria" but that is also a lie. Yaalon said they were not from the "price-tag" groups, not that they weren't settlers. I've seen this sort of useless reporting from A7 countless times. They aren't reliable, and that is doubly obvious when the subject has anything to do with settlers. Zero^talk 10:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: This is a perfect example of how you split hairs trying to discredit A7, just to be proven wrong. Jpost basically says the same as A7 and Haaretz published very similar article and the fact they chose not to mention connection to price tag is their decision that as we all know, can be political. I have seen a few examples of exactly this kind of attempts to discredit s source that one dislike. This one has obviously failed and is an evidence to one's own bias. Settleman (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: I never use A7 as a source because countless times I have seen them print fake news and they never retract their false stories. It is simply not true that A7 and Haaretz agree on this.

• A7, Sep 10: "Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon revealed Thursday afternoon that security services have arrested several Jewish suspects over the murder of a Arab family in the Palestinian village of Duma last month." The wording indicates new arrests, not the three people put into detention over a month ago. The Haaretz article only mentions those 3 detained before and not new arrests. Nobody else, afaik, mentioned new arrests either.
• A7, Sep 10: "Yaalon said the suspects are not at all connected to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria - or even to the so-called "Price Tag" movement." Haaretz never reported Yaalon saying that the suspects were not settlers, let alone that they were not connected to settlers. JP and Ynet didn't either. They reported like this (JP's words): "not connected to hilltop youth who routinely spray-paint hate messages". It isn't the same at all.

Is it really so hard to use respectable sources for matters that are widely reported? Zero^talk 13:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: your first bullet fails to mentions Jpost writes "Dozens of right-wing activists have been arrested and released since then, but only three have been held under administrative detention orders." And the hilltop youth is usually the extremists of the settlers.

The second one can be attributed to choice of words. The fact Haaretz didn't even mention Price-taggers tells you a lot about the bias by the 'respectable' journalists there. Hebrew similar sources [2],[3]

The only thing I learn from this is that while certain news outlets won't really pay much attention to these matters, A7 does since many of their readers are involved. You as an outsider split hairs of their report while these minor details and dismiss a huge organization. I have seen you doing it in a few discussions but the argument of 'Haaretz doesn't say it thus it isn't right' doesn't hold water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settleman (talk • contribs)

Well how about the sources that say there havent been any arrests (eg JPost as of an hour ago, Haaretz two days ago). Aurtz Sheva is not a reliable source, it is a mouthpiece of the settler movement and it has repeatedly published false material without ever retracting it. I'm going to remove it and replace it with Jpost and Haaretz for what they actually report. nableezy - 17:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sara Yael Hirschhorn, Israeli Terrorists, Born in the U.S.A. New York Times 4 September, 2015 It's an op-ed, but anticipates her forthcoming book on Hilltop youth. The material here could be used for several articles (Israeli settlement etc.) but also the remark, founded on what reading of the Hebrew press I do not know, that:'All available evidence suggests that the blaze was a deliberate act of settler terrorism.' This a week before the Ya'alon remark. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Re 'establishment deem' ('establishment' takes the singular, i.e. 'the establishment deems'. 'Deem' is just a tad archaic. If one takes a tip from the The Tol10915 article one might write, 'Sources within the Israeli security establishment are reported as regarding the evidence as pointing unambiguously to Jewish perpetrators(, from a group already identified.) Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What on earth do you have a problem with? There have been administrative detentions over the case. You read into A7 words there have been new arrests when this is your baseless interpertation not supported by the text. Now Nableezy claims there haven't been any arrests which is completely ignorant of what was happening.

Yeelon word about the settlements are mentioned in a few more Hebrew sources and the 'Settlers mouthpiece' claim is as relevant to A7 as it is to Ma'an which seems dear to Nishidani and Nableezy. In short - classic case of WP:REALLYHATEIT. Settleman (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Im not claiming anything. According to the JPost and Haaretz the defense ministry knows who is responsible but has not charged them yet. They may or may not already be held under administrative detention, but they havent been charged with this arson as of earlier today. Thats not a "Nableezy claim", thats what the actual reliable sources say. Adn actually reliable sources will be able to make that distinction. And heres the thing, why cant you just get a better source? I routinely do that when a source is challenged, but all the people who love to use crap like Arutz7 never seem to get the point that if something actually happened more than A7 will cover it. So use a better source. I have no idea what youre talking about with Maan. nableezy - 23:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nableezy: See in my reply below : "Defense minister denies Israel knows who killed the Dawabshas", etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Maybe I'll surprise you, but I also have a claim to the A7 in this case. But only (!) to its tittle. However, such claims may be brought to all media, including Haaretz (and not to titles only: [4]), etc.

In fact, all sources say the same things, the only difference is what they do present, depending (as Settleman correctly pointed out) on its orientation:

• A7, 9/10/2015, 8:32 AM: "Israel's defense establishment knows who the perpetrators responsible for the arson attack in the Palestinian village of Duma are"
• A7, 9/10/2015, 4:45 PM: "Yaalon also said several suspects were currently being held who are believed to be linked to the attack, although their precise role in the deadly arson is unclear. He noted that the suspects are not at all connected to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria - or even to the so-called "Price Tag" movement."
• JPost, 09/10/2015 17:01: Ya’alon during a meeting at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv - "Jewish terrorist cell that allegedly carried out the deadly arson attack on a Palestinian home in Duma on July 31 is a significantly bigger threat than far-right “price tag” activists, and is not connected to hilltop youth who routinely spray-paint hate messages, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said on Thursday."
• Ynet, 09.10.15, 20:28 - Ya'alon during a meeting of the Likud youth branch: "We know who is responsible, but we will not expose those findings in order to protect our intelligence sources... We are facing difficulties in establishing solid evidence... Right now we are not prosecuting those responsible in order to not expose our intelligence sources in court"
• Haaretz, Sep 10, 2015 6:01 AM - Ya’alon told a closed meeting of some 20 young Likud activists: "suspects not being identified to protect the sources; since attack that killed members of Dawabsheh family, three Jewish assailants have been detained" - & that's all
• TIMES OF ISRAEL, September 10, 2015 3:16 am: Ya’alon told a closed meeting of about 20 young Likud party members: "Security officials said later that Ya’alon did not say that Israel knew the specific perpetrators, but rather the group from which they had come, Channel 2 reported."
• Jpost, 09/11/2015 19:18: "Israel doesn't have enough evidence to arrest Duma arsonists, Ya'alon says"
• TIMES OF ISRAEL, September 10, 2015, 7:07 pm: "Defense minister denies Israel knows who killed the Dawabshas... The statement appeared to walk back comments attributed to Ya’alon earlier in the day to the effect that Israel had tracked down the perpetrators of the attack.]

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

They don't say the same thing. Only the worthless source Arutz Sheva says Ya'alon said that they "are not at all connected to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria". --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman suggests above that A7 didn't mean to write that there are new arrests. In fact, anyone with good command of English will read their words in exactly that way. Whoever copied their words into this article obvious read it that way too. Whether A7 got the facts wrong or are being deliberately ambiguous as propagandists like to do is a question we don't need to answer. What we need to do is to cite sources that are reliable by consensus, rather than fighting to keep challenged sources. Incidentally, people who think A7 was referring to the three people in administrative detention might like to ponder the fact that all of the three (Meir Ettinger, Eviatar Slonim and Mordechai Meyer) are associated in the press with "price tag" and the first is widely described as a leader of the "hilltop youth". Zero^talk 00:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman and Igorp make no difference between :

• Media that can have editing line and global opinions (left, right, liberal, ...)
• Media that advocate for a cause or groups of people

1st are WP:RS (in most of cases) and second are not (in most of cases).

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: There has been many arrests since then and though people weren't charged with the crime, it was part of the investigation and as preventative measurement.[5], [6] and Dozens of right-wing activists have been arrested and released since then, but only three have been held under administrative detention orders. A7 didn't claim anyone was arrested for the murder.

About the connection with the settlement community, there is a quote from Makor Rishon. I saw someone claimed somewhere it isn't RS either but the facts are (1) none of you ever read it and I'll but money on it! (2) the one site that sometimes publishes them in Hebrew is NRG which is considered RS around here. A7 proved reliable and the ONLY source in English once more.

@Pluto2012: what you are stating is your own opinion (which at this point have pretty bad record ex. Havakook and neo-zionism). All I can find on Arutz 7 that comes from a person with actual expertise is here. So a liberal reporter tells you it is "on the ball" but you listen to your own bias. If fox news is good enough, so is A7. Settleman (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

After 10 years on wikipedia and 7 FA (and soon one GA on the topic of the battlegroud in the media on the I/P conflict) my opinion would be quite relevant if it has any importance, which is not the case here.

• A7 has be founded by settlers to advocate for settlers. It is not my opinon. It is their choice. They have the right to do so. A7 is not a newpaper of opinion. I told you, Zero0000 told you. Nishidani told you. Nableezy told you.
• Other newspapers are newspapers who provide an opinion and tendencies on the analysis of facts. But they are not linked to any organised groups: they just gather some people. That's the main difference.

You are not WP:NOTHERE and this discussion will be endless. That's now clear. But in any way, everything that A7 says should be checked from other sources so it is useless to use this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman says "A7 didn't claim anyone was arrested for the murder." A7 says "security services have arrested several Jewish suspects over the murder". In the face of this, I agree with Pluto that continuing the argument is pointless. Zero^talk 10:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Since you like nuances, can you tell me the difference between "arrested for..." and "arrested over..." but what I wrote isn't the point. Like I said before, the Jpost states there has been more arrests and A7 doesn't say any of the prisoners is accused of the attack. BTW, the quotes you gave doesn't fit the article. Of course you forgot your claim for a LIE which I have found on 3 additional sources.

@Pluto2012: Do I really care what you, Zero0000, Nishidani, or Nableezy tell me? You have been fighting this for years and many people haven't been agreeing with. A7 by now is a large news group whose weekend paper surpasses Haaretz. Settleman (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman:. How can you say that I "have been fighting this for years". You are new on wikipedia. How could you know that. Did you edit wp with a former account ? I already asked this to you but you refused to answer.

The fact that A7 weekend paper surpasses Haaretz just show that there are more people who buy A7 than people interested by a left perspective of events; unless it is linked to the fact most people use internet today and that maybe these statistics could be biaised due to the use of internet. In any case, it is not answering to the point given to you numerous times before: opinion is one thing and advocacy is another thing. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: The difference between "for the murder" and "over the murder" is too subtle to make any difference in a newspaper article. Without more information, readers will assume the meaning is the same. It also doesn't matter here for two reasons. (1) Whether A7 is wrong or just misleading, either justifies the label "unreliable". (2) No other newspapers reported that anyone was just arrested "over" the murders either. Incidentally, it is funny that you confuse circulation with quality; from now on you should use a newspaper with circulation far greater than either A7 or Haaretz. Zero^talk 13:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the blessed Sun, memorable also for suggesting gorillas roam Mars.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is another quote of Yaalon from Nana 10 which support what A7 wrote "for lack of any other option' we used those draconian measures and we assume we know who made this attack, when some of them are arrested" (בלית ברירה נקטנו בצעדים הדרקוניים הללו ואנו מעריכים שאנו יודעים מי ביצע את הפיגוע הזה, כשחלקם עצורים). Settleman (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Reread the thread. You ignored the objections. Since one can never know when Arutz Sheva is accurate and when it is rumour-mongering, one waits for mainstream RS to verify that the claim is supported by less POV-focused media. Numerous 'pro-Palestinian' activist sources are not used by general agreement, and neither should a settler-activist medium be used.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Both the arrests and the statements about settlers are published by other sources, so in this case they are RS. Someone who uses Ma'an often, should not be so fast to label A7. [7][8] not to mention the way they presaentedthe stabbing attacks last month. Settleman (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Elderofziyon and honestreporting lol. nableezy - 07:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Some opinions about A7:

• The most influential and widely held pirate station is the pro-settelr Arutz Sheva network. This radio station, now largely broadcast via the internet, is srongly pro-setterl and violently anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab. In 2010, a US State Department human rights report said that the radio station and other settler-run stations depicted 'Arabs as sub-human and called for the expulsion of all Palestinians from West Bank. (...). Schejter believes that the proliferation of unlicensed religious and settler stations has effectively undermined freedom of expression and democracy within ISraeli.
• A7 described as "far-right"
• The Settler's radio station, Arutz Sheva, started to broadcast vitriolic contributions

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A7 bias is well known and uncontested but so is the bias of Ma'an which is a news organization and have false accusation. If we allow on WP activist blogs such as Mondoweissm, +972 and EI, I see no reason why A7 will be excluded. I hope this will be discussed in length on WP:ARBPIA3. Settleman (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"DIAGNOSING HAARETZ", October 12, 2014 ):)

@IRISZOOM:, @Pluto2012:, @Nableezy: @Zero0000: I's FYI and I hope, you'll find a lot of interesting things here, including:

• Seth J. Frantzman: "The main problem with those reading Haaretz abroad is they don’t understand the conversation they are joining when they read Haaretz. "To understand Haaretz, one must understand that its circulation rate in Israel is in the single digits as a percent of the population (20-30,000 readers in print, compared to the largest daily, Yediot, which is read by an estimated 60 percent of Israelis), and that it is read by and written for and within the milieu of a narrow-minded, extremist group."

--Igorp_lj (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh; I seriously have tried to forget how the then mr. Frantzman started the article "Artas, Israel", which I had to move to "Artas (village)"...as it is on the West Bank. It is now called Artas, Bethlehem. Please don´t remind me of it -------but pardon me for not kowtowing to him. (Though I´ll give you this: Frantzman is not particularly vain; otherwise he would have given us a dozen socks during his AfD: he didn´t......and I am also grateful to him for uploading his pictures, say here to Wikipedia )

Besides this: @Igorp lj:,have you fixed those links I mentioned under "Sloppy editing" yet? Hey; Back to work! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, The facts remain - Haaretz is now 5.2% exposure, down from 5.5% last year[9]. Settleman (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That really doesnt matter. Like not even a little bit. nableezy - 07:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, you're so proud of "victories" over Frantzman at still your "home field" here in Wiki. :) What about other, more serious fields ([10], [11]) ? ):)

Btw, what "links" are you talking about? --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I´m seriously concerned about accepting anything...from a guy who has Richard Meinertzhagen as an hero,...even if he misspelled his name "Richard Mienertzhagen," so it used to be red-linked until quite recently... Huldra (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

At least in my country, the tabloids (with the largest distributions) have always been the least reliable. And Igor: the links are those mentioned in the section below. As I said: sloppy work. Huldra (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

We aren't talking about tabloids in your country, but about controversial Haaretz (Israel). :)

And now w/out "bla-bla": here is overall diff of my last edits (including your ones). What "sloppy work" are you talking about? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

My comment about tabloid is from observing that numbers of circulation is absolutely no way to establish wether a source is WP:RS, or not. Just that. As for "sloppy work": that relates to my paragraph below, called "sloppy editing"....and I have *no* idea as to who is the "culprit".....I cannot be bothered going back in the history. I repeat though: anyone who bring a new source into the article, should make sure that the source is available to all, and please, no "bare" url, do us the courtesy of adding where it is from, the date, etc. Again: :Igorp lj: I have no idea if it was you or not...but since you replied about that mobile link here ..I thought you had added the link. If I was wrong: my apologies. Huldra (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sloppy editing

Firstly, may I ask people who add sources, to

1. : make sure the links actually *works*? This link does not open for me: http://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Terror-cell-behind-Duma-attack-goes-way-beyond-Price-Tag-activists-415848#article=6018MTQxOTI4RDIwRDUyMkU1NDQ2NTg0NDE2QTc0MThEMEI=
2. : fix the links, i.e., no "bare" urls, but full links, please
3. : there are so many sources in English, so can we stick to those, please? (yes, I´m fully aware that Hebrew sources are allowed, so are Arabic.) But this is English Wikipedia, so when English sources are available, I´ll suggest we stick to those, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, it was mobile link what = http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Terror-cell-behind-Duma-attack-goes-way-beyond-Price-Tag-activists-415848 (see my reply in a topic above)

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Here we have a perfect example where A7 was the only one to bring information in English but editor's biased resistance to it forced me to bring a source from a paper newspaper in Hebrew. Settleman (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman: Eeeeh, huh? Igorp lj: if you added those sloppy references ...did you fix them? If not, why?Huldra (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra - ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ya'alon on Jewish extremists

This information is wp:undue and not relevant. More that's an obvious statement that doens't bring any real information but just emotion.

What Ya'alon can say about the Duma arson attack is relevant given his responsibilities. But what he thinks about Jewish extremism in Israel and in the Occupied territories is unrelevant (and in fact more a political message). If we report the mind of Ya'alon here we should also report the mind of all other political groups who share and don't share this and even more important the analysis of scholars in sociology about the profile of settlers and extremism in Israel (and there are such sources).

I think we should remove this. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This is going to be great evidence at WP:ARBPIA3. Settleman (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

More to the point. The fact Terrorism section has the word 'settle*' 6 times while Ya'alon says it does not represent the community, I think we should put it in bold font. Settleman (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So... You give your conclusion : It must be in bold. Now, could you please explain why but in answer to the comments that I made ? Ya'alon says so. Is his mind relevant about the origin of Jewish extremism ? If we give this, shouldn't we give the one of scholars on the issue and the one on all other people on the topic ? If we discuss all this, isn't this wp:undue ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

He speaks directly about the attackers at Duma. Not price tag or anything else. If you find a scholar who speak directly about this, bring him to the party. Settleman (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Not RS, but gives the most reasonable explanation so far of the anomaly between knowing who they are, and not proceeding to arrest them.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I didnt read the whole source, but the part quoted is not specific to the people responsible for this. It is a general statement on extremists. nableezy - 17:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's see, first it was a lie by A7, then it was undue, then it was Yaalon unnotable thought and last it is completely irrelevant. You guys should really put a coherent reason before pushing from all direction. You have no problem with the statement put on a COATRACK but this, oh no. Settleman (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You understand that each of us have our own views on these topics right? That there isnt some vast leftist conspiracy working in concert where we all together come up with one argument that we will all argue. I have no idea what the last sentence means, Ive tried reading it several times but I cant get what it is youre trying to convey. But you could try answering each of the points raised instead of just repeating them as though doing so dismisses them. The quote added is a general statement on Jewish extremists. It does not say that the people responsible for this arson are not connected to the settlers. If Dayan says that then sure, I would add that myself. But he didnt say that, at least not in what you added to the article. nableezy - 00:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't about conspiracy, it is about taking over. I will add A7 as well which states it as well. (The statement I refereed to was UN stats on 'settlers violence' which is here as WP:COATRACK) Settleman (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that statement is related to this article as this is widely reported to be a suspected attack by settlers. The one you just re-added, without in any way addressing the objections of every other person that has commented here, is not. Ya'alon is saying that most extremists Jews are not settlers, not that the suspects in this attack are not settlers. What dont you get about that? nableezy - 07:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What I don't get is how statistics about 'settlers violence' belong and the fact this didn't come from and doesn't represent the settler communities, belong. Your standards on relevancy are one sided. Settleman (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And when Yaalon says "those extreme right wing activists" he refers to the arsonists at Duma. But you know that. Settleman (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Because what you dont get is that Yaalon's statement is about Jewish extremists in general, not the people responsible for this attack. And the people responsible for this attack are, at least suspected to be, settlers. My standards are not one sided, the standard is simple. The material actually needs to be relevant to the topic of this article. And finally, unless you want me to start making remarks on your motives and standards, kindly desist from remarking on what you think are mine. nableezy - 07:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, when Yaalon says "those extreme right wing activists" he refers to the arsonists at Duma. How did you get to "Yaalon's statement is about Jewish extremists in general"??? Does a say that about "Price Tag" attacks? No. That was also clear from A7 article that was censored as well.

and will you remove the UN stats since the are so irrelevant? Settleman (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Im sorry, but thats not what he said. His statement is very clearly not about the specific arsonists, it is about Jewish extremists in general. And A7 was not "censored", it was removed as an unreliable source, and the proof of their unreliability is the fact that they have made no retraction for the story that we know is incorrect. We know there have been no arrests, Ya'alon himself later said that they know in general who was responsible but not specifically. Yet you are still saying these incredibly foolish things about censorship and pov pushing when the source you wanted to include said things that are plain untrue. nableezy - 19:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

In general, political statements are just that, they are directed to constituencies, and have almost no encyclopedic value, whether they be Palestinian or Israeli. The settlers are a key constituency for the present government, and Ya'alon's generic statement is one of reassurance to settlers. Whenever you get incidents like these one gets a long 'responses/reactions' list which consists of politicians condemning, deploring and saying things like 'it doesn't represent us'. You are scratching around to find some statement that 'absolves' settlers generally. No one who shares a similar ethnic or political background with murderers, in the modern world at least, shares any responsibility for those culprits' behavior, unless demonstrably linked by evidence. This is a crime, and its has culprits. The details on this are all that matter. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

After the holiday I will translate the whole paragraph but it is kind of funny, who editors who don't have the source keep on claiming "it is generic". Settleman (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

We're basing that off of the quotes youve provided. nableezy - 07:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"In a briefing to reporters at the HaKirya minister of defense said the arson attack hurt the state of Israel and the settlement community in particular. He noted that "there was a actual condemnation from settlers leaders to the attack, but we need to know most of those extreme right wingers are not residents of Judea and Samaria, and certainly do not represent the settlement communities over there." I hope this clarify the fact he said it directly about the attack and not in a political convention. Settleman (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, the attack "hurt the state of Israel and the settlement community in particular." Thank you for informing us. Funny that; I was formerly under the impression that the attack "hurt" Ali Dawabshe and his parents "in particular". Silly me; thank you for correcting me. Huldra (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The part thats relevant is included in the article. That Yaalon said that this attack hurt the settlers. But you're mixing up a bunch of those's and acting like they all refer to the same thing. He did not say the people responsible for this attack are not settlers, he is saying that the extreme right wingers are by and large not settlers themselves. And how exactly could he say anything about the arsonists here if the next day his ministry says they have yet to identify anyone? And, as far as your last edit, thats clearly related to this article. You would do a lot better if this werent so clearly a binary game for you, oh something negative about settlers needs to be balanced by something positive. That isnt how NPOV works. nableezy - 19:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Generic stats about settlers are relevant to this particular article but briefing made about the investigation aren't??? It is useless to argue b/c this is so absurd!!! Huldra, Last time I checked we had to put our opinion aside and write base on RS. I quote Ya'alon from RS and it is clearly not what Abbas have to say about it. Find Abbas quote and put it in. Settleman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, Ive explained this several times. I do agree its useless, but not for the reason that you think. nableezy - 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Well. On my side I disagree and I will revert (somebody did so before).

There is no reason to be more flexible with Settleman given his general behavior.

As already said, there is a difference between :

• a statement based on UN statistics (primary source) to give an added value to a general context
• a statement made by a politician who says something outside of his competences.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it outside of the minister of defense to say the details he has so far lead him to believe the terrorists do not come from or represent the settlement community?? Who is? Gideom Levi?

The UN report speaks of settlers violence and thus far there is absolutely no evidence (available to us) which points at them. Is there? The one person who actually know something is being censored while a random statistics mentioned by no other then biased/partisan Al-Jazeera, it on the page. And i'm am the one blamed for WP:NOTHERE??? Settleman (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Its not random when the reliable source (al-Jazeera) directly relates the two. Im not going to get into a pointless argument on whether or not al-Jazeera is biased or partisan when the Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, and Yedioth Ahronat are all cited in this article. I really dont get what you are not understanding here. Yaalon did not say that the people responsible for this attack are not settlers. He said, according to your quote, that "most extreme right wingers" are not settlers. And ignoring that he doesnt give any evidence for that line, it still doesnt say anything about the perpetrators of this attack. And, if you will please try to ignore the impulse to dismiss every person who disagrees with you, could you please say how the line could possibly be referring to the people responsible for this attack when Yaalon's office has said they have yet to identify any suspects? Can you at least concede that Yaalon was not saying that the perpetrators of this attack are not settlers? nableezy - 08:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I know a great cherry orchard for you to go picking at. He said those extreme right wingers. How did you come up with most? Settleman (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Umm, your quote was most of those extreme right wingers. nableezy - 08:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

OOps, we are both wrong. My browser cut the line at those. So let try again, most of those extreme right wingers. Those stands for the last attackers. The al-Jazeera guy makes an assumption it was settlers and the stats are relevant and we follow it but Ya'alon comment in a briefing about the attack isn't??? You can't actually believe that. Settleman (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh no Im not wrong. And you are still ignoring a basic point. Yaalon could not have said anything about the last attackers as his office has said they do not know who the last attackers are. What dont you get about that. And again, you do not have consensus for the addition, and edit-warring to maintain it, with the assistance of an AndresHerutJaim IP sock, is not something that you should be doing. nableezy - 08:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You should read the English sources again. They were identified but not charged b/c of informants' identities. [12].

Kingsindian Your bias is clear but I found your edits to be fair (99% of the time). Can you please comment on this?

Settlers are mentioned numerous times though the suspects are Jewish extremists, some of which may be settlers. This just makes Ya'alon comment in the briefing more important, but in any case, I can't see how it is irrelevant. The '120 settler attacks' on the other hand, are from al-Jazeera whose bias is clear. Without any concrete info, I find it loosely relevant but I am not pressing to remove it anymore. Since the UN stats stay in the article, I think Ya'alon quote is DUE and relevant. (Even without UN stats I think there is no policy based reason to remove it). What do you think? Settleman (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont quite understand why it is you refuse to actually read what people are writing in response to you. The next day, after the reports on the suspects having been identified but not arrested, the defense ministry said they did not know who specifically was responsible. Your steadfast refusal to even engage with the arguments that people make, instead repeating the same easily disproven claims like some mantra that will become true by repetition, is getting more than a tad tiresome. And you are edit-warring against every single other editor that has expressed any opinion on this topic. To repeat the pertinent points. Yaalon did not say anything about the people responsible for this attack not being settlers. He made a general point about extremist right wing Jews, saying "most of them" are not settlers, and he said this without any particular evidence for that statement, but even that is besides the point. It wasnt about the people responsible for this attack. Where it is on the other widely reported that settlers are suspected of this attack, and an actual reliable source brings up how this specific attack fits into a broader history of settler attacks on Palestinian people and property in the West Bank. nableezy - 18:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article you just linked and does change things. Regardless, Since there is text which is WP:COATRACK about 'settlers violence' I see no reason whatsoever to not include this. You can't have it both ways. I will remove it if it is agreed that all loosely relevant info is remove. Obvious examples are UN stats and manual of incitement. Tight or loose. You choose. Settleman (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That, settleman, is a retaliatory threat. We simply do not do things that way. We work consensually and no one has a unilateral right to threaten to remove lots of stuff if he doesn't get his way on another edit. It's probably reportable as evidence of the deficient untutored side to your approach here.Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Somebody should revert that edit as the user refuses to do so. I think I technically can as it was reinserted by an IP sock, but all the same there is very clearly no consensus for the addition of that unrelated statement, and Settlemans belief that something positive about settlers that is irrelevant must balance something negative that is relevant is not in any way keeping with the policies of this website. nableezy - 19:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Why the drama? What I'm saying there should be a standard, if not at Wikipedia level, then at least at an article level. Why is the threshold for 'settler violence' is so low but for 'settlers uninvolvement/limited involvement' is so high. You you permit broaden what is considered relevant, then go with it. Now you see what I mean by double standards. Settleman (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed all 'loosely relevant' parts. Settleman (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The correction my Ministry of defense makes it a general statement but it is as general as the 'manual of incitement' and the UN stats. I'm taking it to DRN. Settleman (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This is another pointless argument by one person. Nableezy is grammatically and contextually correct in his construal of the English, which is not your first language I gather. The point you wish to make is not in the text except by reading it into it.Nishidani (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: 'has also been mentioned in connection with the Duma attack' - I can't think or a better sentence to describe a general statement. Settleman (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You are not focused, and blathering.Nishidani (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: And you are very handsome. Can you explain the difference. I find it hard to recall when you ever answered a question directly instead of deflecting it. Settleman (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: I saw your ping earlier but I forgot about it. In my opinion, this continued refusal to drop the WP:STICK will not end well. I see that you have opened an WP:DRN request for this, and hopefully it will lead somewhere. In my experience, WP:DRN over a single sentence is overkill, and WP:DRN is a very time consuming procedure. An RfC is faster and more appropriate. Regarding my opinion of the edit, I oppose it, in line with the reasoning Nableezy gave. NPOV does not work by randomly adding something favourable about settlers indiscriminately. However, I have not followed this issue closely. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Nableezy was right to point MoD announced they don't know who the attackers are which makes Ya'alon statement a generic one (That was told about this specific event so no OR). But... same is is true for UN stats and manual of incitement. Un stats of settlers violence??? who said it was settlers? Jewish extremists - yes. Settlers - maybe? b/c al-Jazeera wrote that it should be in? safe is true for the manual which is mentioned on Ma'an. All I ask for is a standard. So either all in or all out. I think that is reasonable. Settleman (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You are still trying to absolve a community without source support. Ledt me give an analogy. The number of youths involved in stone-throwing in the environs of Jabel Mukaber is estimated to be 200, 1 in 60 of the area's population. The terrorists in the Har Nof synagogue massacre were from there. Now when that was written up, no editor here ran about combing sources to find justification for a proposed statement: 'but most of the Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem/Jabel Mukaber are not involved in such behaviour'. It is not our job to write things to protect a constituency.Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And do you see the Har Nof synagogue massacre saying anything about 'Jabel-Mukaber resident violence'??? It mentions the fact they are from there, that it. Why is it different here? Either you let generic in or leave it out! Settleman (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A piece of advice. There is no necessity to keep coming back on a point that is already clarified. Most of us have other lives. Stick to each issue, and don't persist in confusing several, and returning over and again to something that has found no consensus.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And for the nth time you avoid answering the question, Is generic in or out? Settleman (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The reliable source explicitly relates them, using this as an example of a wider phenomenon. That makes it relevant. nableezy - 18:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And Ya'alon generic statement isn't relevant? It was made in a briefing about the case investigation. You have very flexible measurement of what is relevant? Settleman (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera specifically related this specific attack to a wider phenomenon. Yaalon however did not say anything about the people involved in this specific attack not being settlers. We included what he said that was relevant, that the attack damaged the view of the settlement project. nableezy - 06:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Nableezy your last edit makes Ya'alon generic statement even more relevant. There are no specific suspects and some RS throw arround settlers and the highest authority on the investigation tells us in those those people do not represent the community. Settleman (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

They arent throwing around settlers, they are reporting on who is widely suspected of committing the arson. And I still dont get why you dont understand what Yaalon was saying. He was saying that most extremist Jews are not settlers in the West Bank. He did not say the people who committed this attack are not. nableezy - 05:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If Ayalon statement is an analysis, it is not reliable given he is not a scholar on the question ;

If it is an opinion, it is not relevant to mention given the political context and explanations of this and we would need more sources about this.

I bring the attention of everybody that if "forum shopping" is indeed a technique that is explained in the courses provided to settlers to battle on wikipedia, it is not accepted by usages. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Pluto2012 new 'assessment' is nonsense. This is an going event and there is no-one more qualified than ya'alon to speak of it. It is also attributed. And there goes the circle again. Please update your DRN and hear a neutral opinion instead of keeping wasting time here. Settleman (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ayalon doens't talk about the ~event. He talks about who is an extremist and who is not.

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add this to the DRN you avoided so far. Settleman (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

NY times

This was removed from the article, with the edit-line "opinion-piece":

• Israeli Terrorists, Born in the U.S.A. Israeli Terrorists, Born in the U.S.A., Sara Hirschhorn, Sept. 4, 2015, The New York Times

...so how often does the NY Times has any opinion about what goes on in a village on the West Bank? About once every decade? And it is still not notable? Huldra (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not the NYTimes opinion, its an op-ed by A research lecturer and fellow at the University of Oxford and the author of the forthcoming book “City on a Hilltop: American Jews and the Israeli Settler Movement Since 1967.”. Also known as a perfectly reliable source for an attributed statement by an expert in her field. nableezy - 00:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The book is in press. Obviously a fellow of Oxford with a book on this topic is RS, and I have reintroduced it for the relevant points.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree but I would like to use this topic to bring a nuance in order to avoid future misunderstandings.

• When we use that source to report facts or events in taht area, she is a reliable source and there is no reason to attribute or to doubt about what she says.
• But this article also contents analysis and even opinions (eg "American Jews at home and abroad can no longer condone these blind spots and damning silences when it comes to Jewish extremism in Israel. It is the obligation of all who seek peace and justice to take up Mr. Rabin’s clarion call to spit out the terrorists and their sympathizers in our midst.").
• If we would have reported analysis from that source, we would have had (90% chance) to attribute them because we are in a "controversial" context.
• Regarding her opinions, we must -in more of this- consider if her opinion is notorious and worth mentionning.

The case is not discussed between us but I would have disagreed to report the opinion here above regarding what American Jews have to do or not. She is not a politician but a scholar. This a morale statement and she has no morale weight on anything ( whatever the cleverness or wiseness or not of what she says ).

On the contrary, if it would have been an important Rabbi in the USA who would have been the author of this article, I would have said the contrary :

• facts should be cross-checked and their report -if any- attributed
• the analysis on the situation and settlers would not be worth mentioning (90% chance)
• the same opinion should be reported because his mind about what American Jews should or should not do is relevant. As a Rabbi, he was recognize by his community and a "guide" for morale questions.

And this leads us to Defense Minister Ayalon :)

Ayalon is :

• reliable to report facts or police investigations ;
• not reliable to state who is an "extremist" or not in the West Bank. His analysis on the topic are doubtful ;
• his opinion, in the current political context and tensions, is clearly not reliable. He role is to calm down everybody and answers to population pressure. He may think the opposite and state the same anyway.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Not yet appropriately sourced information for this article but

There's a gag order on the suspects rounded up, which of course does not apply to foreign news outlets.

• The four suspects are Amiram Benoliel, Elisha Odess (a minor aged 17, resident in a hilltop youth occupied illegal outpost near Kfar Tapuach) and Hanoch Ganiram (19) of Hebron (he cannot be from Homesh since that has been demolished), and an American citizen, Israel Keller, according to the usually reliable (but not for wiki's purposes). Richard Silverstein,'U.S. Citizen, Israel Keller, Member of Jewish Terror Ring,' Tikun Olam 4 December 2015.
• Again according to Silverstein, the boy's father Nir Keller has just attacked Reuven Rivlin, with the following Facebook post:

I never saw a kippah on the head of Der Führer Rivlin when he lit candles with “the Arab” in the “Black House.” I’m sure he never said the blessings over the candles either. But even had he donned a kippah and said the blessings, there is no worse example of someone who goes down on bended knee and defiling God’s name in the history of the people of Israel.' Richard Silverstein, 'Father of Dawabshe Murder Suspect Calls Israel’s President, ‘Der Führer’,' Tikun Olam 14 December, 2015

Keller is a member of the Hasidic movement established in the name of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav. Silverstein can't be used. Electronic Intifada might be, because it directly cites Ynet's Hebrew article on the arrest of Ganiram, whose grandfather, Yitzhak Ganiram, formed part of the terrorist group known as the Jewish Underground. The grandson was placed under house detention on October 19, and arrested on December 1, precisely for this crime.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Kahanist allegation

The page says Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett, commenting on the flood of emails from people claiming they would no longer vote for his party because of his defense of the Shin Bet's Jewish Agency, which is investigating the crime, said Ben-Gvir, the suspects' Kahanist attorney

but there is no WP:RS to support that Ben-Gvir is a Kahanist attorney.

Removed for considerationj

In response to the Dawabsheh grandfather's comments during the interview, a settler from Hebron filed a complaint with the Israeli police against him for "incitement and sedition to harm Jews". Amira Hass, of the Haaretz daily newspaper, that the quotes the settler imputed to Hussein Dawabsha, which make reference to "Jihad against the Jews" and need for resurgence of a Islamic caliphate, do not at all appear in the interview. Readers of the online version of a Jewish nationalist newspaper which covered the complaint lamented that the Dawabsheh grandfather wasn't burned along with his "family of terrorists". This is garbled from an RS, and needs examination.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Remove mention of gag order from lead

Hi, the lead has a problem.

I suggest getting rid of the last sentence "In addition, the gag order was lifted." "What gag order?" (says the casual reader, not us following the talk page). The gag order isn't referenced earlier in the lead, or even anywhere else in the article.

If nobody else deletes it in a couple days I will do it myself, if the article isn't protected against anon edits, unless somebody thinks it's really important to have in the article mention of the gag order. 104.229.212.152 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duma arson attack. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160127152419/http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1167383 to http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1167383

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

BLPCRIME

No person is identified, and Haaretz explicitly says that He had also confessed to being involved in six hate crimes – including four arson attempts and two acts of vandalism and hate graffiti against Arabs, and finally WP:BLPCRIME does not say that such material may not be included. nableezy - 15:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

His identity is clear and known - and we are suggesting he committed what he said under torture. The confession was tossed as inadmissible by the court due to the manner it was obtained (torture). Including this in the article suggests that the BLP is guilty - in contravention of WP:BLPCRIME. Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Clear and known to who? It isnt in this article. BLPCRIME does not say that such material may not be included in the article. And no, what Haaretz says is The court disqualified later confessions the minor had made after he had been interrogated under torture, when he spoke directly about the part he played in the Duma murders. Not his confessing to "six hate crimes". And again, BLPCRIME does not, emphatically so, say that such material may not be included. It says editors should seriously consider not including. Pretending there is a prohibition on material where the policy explicitly does not support that is, uh idk I think Im gonna go with "dishonest". nableezy - 15:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Identity easily ascertained. Per WP:BLPCRIME - For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. The confession was ruled as invalid by the court (so - not only hasn't he been convicted due to the invalid confession - it was ruled as invalid). The incidents in the invalid confession are also unrelated to this incident. There's little to no reason to include this in this article (as these are separate alleged incidents), and on the other hand - we have BLP policy telling us we should seriously consider not to include.Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Must seriously not consider is not the same thing as not allowed now is it? And again, there is no person identified. And no, you continue to distort the source and the material in this article. From Haaretz

The court disqualified later confessions the minor had made after he had been interrogated under torture, when he spoke directly about the part he played in the Duma murders.

You see that? Later confessions. Not the six hate crimes you seem so desperate to expunge from here. The reason to include it is that a reliable source thinks that they are relevant. Not some random defender of Israel on Wikipedia trying to distort both the sources and our policies. nableezy - 15:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Please note that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. Haaretz quite clearly says "The court ruled the confessions of the second defendant, A., inadmissible. - all the alleged confessions - also the first one and also the later ones (Haaretz makes the distinction as the situation with the first accused is different). Regardless - the minor (yet another reasong to exclude) has not been convicted of a crime, and we should be very careful of suggesting that he was involved - particularly given the court ruling here and these being unrelated in any event. Icewhiz (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Lol, sure thing, noted. Please note nothing in my comment violates BLP. Also please note that your entire justification here is horseshit. Because it is a minor we should not include it? Based on what? Because the confession on the involvement in the Duma attack was inadmissible we ignore what the sources say about it? Nope, nope and nope. And still, there is no person identified here. BLP quite simply cannot be used to suppress material you dislike. nableezy - 17:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Also classified as horseshit is the contention the identity [is] easily ascertained. Really? There was a court order that banned "any detail pertaining to the identity of the minor"^[13] But here you are claiming that an unnamed person is "easily ascertained"? Based on what exactly? nableezy - 17:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I would be possibly violating WP:BLP policy (as well as, I suppose, a gag order) in providing links to said identity. Regardless, the minor is a BLP, he hasn't been convicted of anything, and these alleged incidents are unrelated. Icewhiz (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Then it isnt easily ascertained, its just the supposition of some random person on the internet. The person is not named, making any BLP claim pure wikilawyering. nableezy - 17:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

BLP would still apply. And yes - this is easily ascertained. I will but quote Haaretz: "However, in Ben-Uliel’s confession, which was accepted as evidence, A.’s name was explicitly mentioned."[14] (ain't it great when court documents break their own gag order?). It was also easily ascertained well prior to this (from... around the initial arrest actually). I suggest you self revert - contravening WP:BLPCRIME should not be done with a cavalier revert. Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No, there is no person named. And BLPCRIME does not preclude this material even if there were a person named. You can continue to dishonestly present policy as though it backs your position, but it plainly does not say that this material should be expunged. nableezy - 18:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2020

On 14 September 2020, Ben-Uliel was sentenced to life imprisonment by an Israeli court.source. 175.195.155.5 (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, I read your article and I found inaccuracies. First in the video I watched from Haaretz, it's not GuestS who stabed a picture, but one guest dancing with one picture.

Secondly this sentence is allusive :

" Such scenes are reported to be typical of many such weddings".

I don't think there is SUCH weddings. And I don't know what it means... What type of weddings?

Finally here is a reference about the trial of the accomplice of the murderer, to add in the article :

https://www.timesofisrael.com/teen-accomplice-to-deadly-duma-arson-attack-on-palestinian-family-enters-prison/

Please take note of my comment. --Frank Shuma (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I need to supplement this comment as I agree wholeheartedly but think a point was missed. To the editors, you need to do a better job of confirming the accuracy of the quotes in this article. Neither of the quoted sources in any way, shape or form indicate that "Such scenes are reported to be typical of many such weddings." This is antisemitism pure and simple. The articles indicate that dozens such scenes occur at weddings on a monthly basis. Considering the thousands of weddings performed each month, this accounts for a fraction of a per cent, a far cry from "typical." Simply checking the sources and confirming that the source in actuality says what it is purported to say is quite literally the lease that should be done before erroneous and hateful "facts" like these are allowed to be published. Wikipedia, do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.143.178 (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Please replace “refers to” with “is”

In accordance with WP:REFERSTO. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I modified the opening so as not to bold a descriptive title. nableezy - 17:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)