Talk:2011 Itamar attack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2011 Itamar attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | A fact from 2011 Itamar attack appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 March 2011. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | On 21 April 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Itamar massacre. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Decapitation
The JC source does is not by any politician, and does not quote any politician. Removal of this with a misleading edit summary that says "politicians are not reliable sources" is bad enough, doing it a second time without any edit summary or discussion on the talk page, and misleadingly marking this as a "minor" change is probably enough for an AE case. I am now adding another source, from a peer reviewed academic journal, which will hopefully put a stop to the disruption. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but claiming that someone was decapitated is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources. I have been completely unable to corroborate this claim from quality reliable sources. The only sources you have added are an opinion piece written by a British politician, Louise Bagshaw, and an opinion piece from a jewish journal citing the Bagshaw claim with a follow-up piece posted by the same author. Neither politicians nor opinion pieces are considered to be reliable sources. The fourth source you added, to ME forum, actually contradicts your claim as it states only that the infant was "nearly" decapitated. This simply isn't solid enough sourcing for such an exceptional claim, particularly as there appear to be no quality news sources supporting it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- See & .--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, claiming that Islamic terrorists behead people is not an exceptional claim - it is a standard mode of operation for them. Regardless, the article originally had an op-ed making this claim, but I added 2 NEWS pieces, not op-eds,, which repeat the claim in the context of complaining about the lack of coverage, and a 4th source, which says nearly the same thing. I will shortly add several more (), and let me warn you that further disruption - removal of well sourced information, misrepresentation of what the sources say (e.g: clamming they are quotes from politicians when they are not), misrepresentation of what the sources are (claiming they are op-eds when they are not) etc.. -will be taken to AE where such behavior has been found to be worthy of topic bans. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- See & .--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is not an "exceptional claim" to state that a person who used a knife to kill a bunch of children actually decapitated one of them.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it is, because it is adding a charge of mutilation to one of murder. Regardless, I can accept the Jerusalem Post statement provided it is properly attributed and not in the lede per wp:undue, ie, it should say something like "according to David Ha'ivri of the Shomrom Liason Office". If any such mention is made however, it should also be mentioned that several sources have only said the infant was almost decapitated, while mention should also be made that major news sources reported the crime differently. Personally, I think the article would be better off without such details, but if you insist on adding them they should be reported in accordance with what the various sources have said. Gatoclass (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, we can also make it clear that major news sources have stated that the baby was almost decapitated instead of actually decapitated. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
There's exactly one source that says "almost decapitated", and 5 reliable sources (JC, JL, WJD, NR and JP) that say decapitated , one of them attributing the claim to Ha'ivri. There's no need to attribute claims when 4 different sources state it as factual in a news report, but if it makes you happy, I'll include the attribution in the lead, and also clarify, in the body, that there was one source that said "almost decapitated". Note that you are now edit warring against the opinion of two editors. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The lede says this, and it is not good.
According to David Ha'ivri[4], and as reported by multiple sources[5] the infant was decapitated.[6 Of the sources given DH and Louise Bagshawe say that the child was decapitated, and the world jewish daily acount says that the child was decapitated by some accounts. This does not constitute multiple sources, and neither DH or LB give any indication that this is anything other than a personal opinion.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not following what the issue of simply saying that "the infant was decapitated." That's the news plain and simple (unfortunately).KenPAdams (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
BBC coverage
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Itamar 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/20160306225108/http://worldjewishdaily.com/fogel-suspects.php to http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/fogel-suspects.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129091300/http://competitiveedgesite.org/speakers/reverend-jacques-andre-de-graff/ to http://competitiveedgesite.org/speakers/reverend-jacques-andre-de-graff/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 01:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 21 April 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
2011 Itamar attack → Itamar massacre – Per WP:COMMONNAME the title of Itamar massacre is the most common English-language term used to describe this event. Searching up "2011 Itamar attack" in quotes will reveal 512 results compared to in 4,380 for "Itamar massacre." And this is excluding the possibility the wording could be rephrased to, say, "Massacre in Itamar." Looking at most news articles on this event show that most seem to refer to this as a massacre:
- Washington Post, Haaretz, Business Insider, Openedition.org, Times of Israel, Ynet News, The Guardian (albeit as "Fogel Family massacre", The Atlantic, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Eurasia Review (a chapter of the Jamestown Foundation) and The Jewish Chronicle. A move would be most appropriate. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - to begin with the Washington Post article is a blogpost by Jennifer Rubin, not a news article. What the Washington Post actually says in its news articles is killing. The NYTimes calls it a fatal stabbing, the BBC calls it killing, again BBC killings, the Guardian once used massacre, but also used killing, and again killings. It is simply not true that most third party reliable sources use massacre, and the ghits argument above is fatally flawed in that it uses "2011 Itamar attack" in quotes but just "Itamar massacre" without any date. Yes, Israeli sources predominantly use "massacre", just like they predominantly use "terrorist" for any Palestinian committing an act of violence but not any Israeli doing the same. We should follow the international usage and call this "killings" or some variant. nableezy - 23:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- All these articles (with the exception of one of the BBC links) were written shortly after the attack happened. A WP:COMMONNAME doesn't usually pop up in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
- Look how English-language newspapers covered the Tiananmen square massacre right after it happened, for instance. Notice the apparent lack of the words "Tiananmen square massacre."
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/06/03/heres-how-the-washington-post-covered-tiananmen-square-25-years-ago/
- https://graphics.latimes.com/tiananmen-pages/
- https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/local-history/story/2020-06-05/remembering-the-1989-tiananmen-square-crackdown
- http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1950_tiananmen_newspapers.htm Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- That international sources generally dont pay any attention to this at all after the immediate aftermath suggest more that this is a WP:NOTNEWS violation as opposed to having developed a common name later. The NYT for example never once refers to an Itamar massacre. Neither does the BBC, neither The Times of London, or the LA Times. The reliable books that I find using it generally do it in their references to some Israeli news article about it. If we are using a descriptive title because this event has no common name, and I think it very clear that there is no common name for this event, then it needs to be neutral. I'd support 2011 Itamar murders, as attack is a bit understated, but massacre is as identifiably POV as 2011 Itamar settlement operation would be on the opposing side of things. (And actually, look at your WaPo link on Tiananmen. Youll find it uses massacre almost immediately.) nableezy - 04:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not seeing widespread use of the term massacre. This may potentially be because this would usually refer to a larger-scale attack involving more organised groups. Coverage from April 2011 by France24 for example refers to the crime as a "murder". Coverage about the sentencing of the perpetrators in 2012 by Haaretz did not use "massacre". I feel the sources using the term massacre tend to be more POV sources, such as the Washington Institute or the Israeli Foreign Ministry. AusLondonder (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 17 August 2026
| It has been proposed in this section that 2011 Itamar attack be renamed and moved to Fogel family murders. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
2011 Itamar attack → Fogel family murders – In line with how similar articles are titled. Sources refer to the victims collectively as the Fogel family, and its much better described as a family being murdered (they were attacked in their beds) than a settlement being attacked. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 16:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- Comment If that's the case, then 2002 Itamar attack should be moved to Shabo family murders as well. 162 etc. (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I was not aware of that one. I only stumbled upon this one while looking at old RMs about events. Indeed, I do think that should be moved. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 19:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I feel like the "family murders" titles carry the implication that it was a member of the family that did it, rather than an outside actor. AFAIK most of the "family murders" titles we have use it that way? Hesitant oppose. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- I haven't really thought about that. Just haven't noticed a tendency to restrict it to families murdered by members of them. I will go have a look. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Family member(s) did it:
- Family member widely considered to have done it, but they evaded capture so there is no conviction:
- Mixed (Family members and a relative did it):
- Relative but not member of family did it:
- Someone unrelated to the family did it:
- Mixed (two perpetrators; a juvenile family member and an unrelated adult):
- Unsolved:
- So yeah, most involve family members doing it, but not all of them, and then again most murders are committed by relatives of the victims so that isn't entirely surprising. I would not be opposed to establishing some ad hoc practice of titling family murders committed by someone outside of the family "Murder of the [Name] family" (still used for some articles) instead though, so Murder of the Fogel family for this article. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 15:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Agree with the need for standardization. We also have "an (unspecified) number of members of the same family were killed in the same event:
- Longhornsg (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- I haven't really thought about that. Just haven't noticed a tendency to restrict it to families murdered by members of them. I will go have a look. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)