Talk:Murder of Shalhevet Pass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


NPOV[edit]

If this article is to be NPOV, it should cite sources other than the israeli government, I'm also sceptical about calling it a terrorist attack, the language has alot of "baggage". -- Tompsci 09:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It cites a US newspaper, an Israeli newspaper, a community source, a petition by supporters, and 2 Isr govt sources. Didn't think I needed to spell that out.
What would you like to call it if not a terrorist attack?
What language specifically do you object to? So fix it! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What is this article about?[edit]

I seem to find more information about Yitzchak Pass here than the actual subject of the article. May I suggest, if all this kid is notable for is dying, that the article be renamed Yitzchak Pass and the information about the attack be incorporated into that article? Fagstein 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The kid is way notable for dying! Her death caused an incredibly strong public reaction. The father information is strictly tangential. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Kid gets 364 unique google hits. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Not notable, should we list every person ever murdered? The prominance of this story seems to be purely of interest from a pro-Israel stance. I agree with Fagstein. -- Tompsci 16:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I have a final exam on Monday for which I am currently screwed, so I cannot spend mad time finding the many articles etc. written about Shalhevet Pass at the time. Please give me time to do so though before moving it to AfD or some such.
On the pro-Israel thing: You are correct and yet incredibly uh... (npa... npa... so hard...) offensive. Yes, this victim is primarily of interest to Israelis or people who have an interest in Israeli affairs. I.e., people in Fiji don't know/don't care about SP, just like people in the Ukraine have no interest in Natalee Holloway, for example. No, there's nothing "pro-Israel" in this article. SP is one of the most prominent casualties of that particular war, just like, say, Mohammed Al-Durra on the Palestinian side, and there's nothing partisan about that. I resent the suggestion and the suggestor. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You're the one who asked for a third opinion on this debate. If you don't agree with it, that's your problem. Fagstein 20:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Clearly. :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Wait, do you also think I have a "pro-Israel stance"? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
If information on the father is tangential, it should be removed (or probably more appropriately, moved to an article on him). Fagstein 20:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Natalee Holloway is a far more indepth and useful article that "A toddler got shot" and then a bunch of stuff about the father. The sources you cite are all pro-Israel, you studied in a Yeshiva and so I assumed you were pro-Israel. And yes the US is a pro-Israel state. I am pro-Palestine, we should all be honest about our own biases. We will wait until after your exams for an AfD/Merge. Don't forget WP:NPA. It seems like you're easily riled. -- Tompsci 21:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
If you think you can judge a person's POV based on where they studied - e.g, "you studied in a Yeshiva and so I assumed you were pro-Israel" you need to take a long hard look at the way your personal bias is affecting your ability to reason. If you are ready to nominate the Mohammed Al-Durra article for AfD, we can discuss AfD for this page. Otherwise, keep your bias out of WP. Isarig 22:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Tompsci, that's offensive, AND ignorant too. Many products of haredi yeshivas are not terribly fond of Zionism. I am pro-Jew and pro-human. And you're a [personal attack implied]. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be unacceptable if the only reason I assumed a bias was on the basis of studying at a yeshiva, but the fact is that I made the judgement on the content of the article. I apologise for the yeshiva comment, but the rest of what I said still stands. No implied personal attack. Looking at the Mohammed Al-Durra article, it needs to cite its sources, if it does not, then AfD would be appropriate. That is however not the topic of this talk page. Respond to critisisms of this article. -- Tompsci 00:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If you've looked at the Mohammed Al-Durra article, you've seen that it uses the unref template to indicate lack of source citing. If you feel this is a problem with this article, add that template here (instead of the NPOV one). I can only re-iterate to you that this is not true of this article - the claims have been sourced and cited. Isarig 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I placed the NPOV tag on the page becuase of both the lack of balanced external links and because of the use of the word terrorist and toddler, you've since changed these, so you must have agreed with me. -- Tompsci 18:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I also think this article should go up for deletion. While tragic, it is not terribly notable (and that's the true tragedy). The most notable aspect is that her father appears to have become a vigilante of sorts after her death (not judging- if a child of mine was killed I'd probably go completely nuts).

It is as notable as countless other WP articles that document the (sometime) tragic death of an individual, from Natalee Holloway through Iman Darweesh Al Hams. Isarig

Here is an news piece about him I don't see mentioned in the article. That said, if consensus is to keep this article, a few points:

1) Shalhevet was an infant, not a toddler.
2) I think the word "terrorist" should be replaced, probably with "sniper." Terrorism is a subjective term, and using it here decreases the level of neutrality we should be aiming for. Actually, in the first use (victim of a terrorist attack) it's not too bad, but the second use (the terrorists were intentionally targeting the baby) sounds POV. Perhaps (the snipers were intentionally targetting her) would be more neutral?
terrorism is not a subjective term, but a defined act, that some people with a POV don't like. Notice that you yourself feel the first use is accurate. I don't know what else you would term a intentional shooting of a 10-month old by a sniper.
3) I've not read anything that indicates her death caused "vocal outrage" abroad. Most Google hits on her name seem to be associated with Israel.
So? As was pointed out earlier, the death of Natalee Holloway did not make the news outside of the US. Let's not increase the skew toward US-based articles already existing in WP.
4) The ynet article above refers to her father as a member of the "Jewish Underground," an organization that ynet says carried out a series of shooting attacks, as well as "...four terror attacks, mostly near Palestinian schools..." This should somehow be included in that paragraph (reworded), as well as the info that he has already served his two years .
5) An online petition (with only 471 signatures) does not seem to be a reliable source. The link I included above would probably serve better, especially as it has more current information.

Isarig: I firmly believe that a tit-for-tat approach to nominating articles for deletion is highly inappropriate. Each article should be judged on its own merits, not by the position (or perceived bias) of other editors. Also, could everyone please calm down. I know the issues raised are close to many people's hearts, but ire and antagonism will not help us reach a consensus. Drink a cup of tea, eat a cookie, smell a flower. We're all here for the same reason: we want to make Wikipedia better. Just because we may disagree on how to do that doesn't mean we have to dislike each other. -DejahThoris 00:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not suggest the removal of the al-Durrah article as a tit-for-tat (and in fact I don't support its deletion at all, I think it is a fine article). It was a rhetorical device that I thought would help Tompsci appreciate his bias and double standards.
Appreciate my bias? I had never seen that article before and I admitted that it needed more and better sources. In what way have I had "double standards"? Remember criticise content not the person. -- Tompsci 18:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?[edit]

I've made some change to address the points raised by DejahThoris - (toddler->Infant; terrorists->snipers). I've added an external link which provides the original AP report on the topic, as well a critique of it by CAMERA, which indicates the uproar abroad, and adds yet another non-Israeli source. The original complaint was "If this article is to be NPOV, it should cite sources other than the israeli government" - this has been addressed. Let's remove the NPOV tag - there are too many WP articles around with that tag slapped on just becuase someone doesn't like the article. Isarig 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the changes. Sorry to be so picky, but I'm not pleased with the Aish link either. That article (which I agree with in its criticism of the A.P., 'dies' is too mild a term) specifically states "...Shalhevet Pass was in her mother's arms when she was shot..." Every other report says she was in her stroller, which makes sense, since the bullet passed through her and struck her father in the legs (from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Also, the link does not link to the original AP article (It just has a picture of the AP with the first couple of lines, hence the confusion).

Also, from above:

3) I've not read anything that indicates her death caused "vocal outrage" abroad. Most Google hits on her name seem to be associated with Israel. The article currently states her murder "produced vocal outrage in Israel and abroad." I've read nothing to that effect. The Holloway article is immaterial, and I wish you would stop comparing this to other pages, as I don't want to have to go and read them (and their talk) to fully understand what your objections are.
4) The ynet article above refers to her father as a member of the "Jewish Underground," an organization that ynet says carried out a series of shooting attacks, as well as "...four terror attacks, mostly near Palestinian schools..." This should somehow be included in that paragraph (reworded), as well as the info that he has already served his two years .
5) An online petition (with only 471 signatures) does not seem to be a reliable source. The link I included above would probably serve better, especially as it has more current information.
If you have no objections, I'll go ahead and make some changes to the article. Then you can add, delete, revert, or we can just keep going back and forth.  :-)
P.S. Please just leave your reply at the bottom of the page. I have a hard time reading messages interspersed through other comments, and I'm too lazy to go find my glasses. Thanks, DejahThoris 17:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You can go ahead and make the changes you refer to in (4) and (5). Regarding 3, the incident and its coverage by the media was picked up by CAMERA and Honest Reproting (which is what the AISH link quotes), both of which are US-based media watchdogs. Googling for Shalhevet Pass bring usp links from non-Israeli organzations such as the Orthodox Union of Brooklyn [1], as well as from the Arab American Institue[2], hardly a pro-Israel source, which says "The killing of the Israeli baby, Shalhevet Pass, made front-page news with photographs across the United States. It was also a multi-day story with additional pieces written about the reactions of parents and friends to the death." I think we can put this one to rest. Even if you have more issues like this, I hardly think any of them rise to the level justifying the NPOV tag. Please remove it once you're done with your edits. Isarig 22:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
After taking a break for the Lord's holy Sabbath, I can only marvel at the discussion that mushroomed. Two things I would like to say to put this matter to rest:
1. Shalhevet Pass is among the very top of Israeli intifada victims in terms of news coverage and outrage around the world.
2. The remedy for WP:V issues (not that I am saying there are such here) is not delete, it is finding sources. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
After taking a break to drink wine and play frisbee in the sun:
1) I would still like to see something verifying that she is "among the very top of Israeli intifada victims in terms of news coverage and outrage around the world." (Isarig's link the the Orthodox Union is simply a press release detailing their trip to Israel after S.P.'s death, and the Arab-American Institute is fairly POV, and was using S.P.'s coverage as compared to Iman Hijo to show that Israeli deaths are covered more extensively than Palestinian deaths. On a side note, Iman Hijo gets about nine times as many google hits as Shalhevet Pass, which is kind of at odds with the point they're trying to make. In any case, they're not exactly NPOV.)
2) I'm not suggesting this article go up for deletion because of it's lack of reliable sources. I'm suggesting it go up for deletion because of a lack of notability. -DejahThoris 19:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
So put it up, what more can I say? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like we're done claiming this article is POV, and are now just debating its notability. I'm removing the POV tag. Isarig 00:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No doubt about it: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natalee_Holloway. The votes speak for themselves. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the connection. Natalee Holloway is not Israeli, was not the victim of a terrorist attack, and as far as anyone knows isn't even dead. If you can find an Israeli reporter who has made a crusade out of finding this infant's killers and/or media coverage to the extent that there are stories about the media coverage of this incident, that would be different. Fagstein 08:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The connection is that Holloway is an equally notable or unnotable event - a tragic story, covered by the media, but with little global or historical significance. Yet as the results of the AfD vote on the Holloway articel show, WP editors are in favor of keeping such articles. Isarig 15:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
But they aren't equally notable. Holloway has, for example, 100 times the number of Google hits as Shalhevet Pass. (1 million to 10,000). This isn't statistical variation. Holloway is notable because she has received significant media coverage. All we need to do for this article is point to that significant media coverage here, if it exists. Fagstein 16:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
So first of all, I dispute "Google hits" as a valid metric for an item's encyclopedic noteworthiness. While Holloway gets a million hits, Nobel prize winnign author Shai Agnion gets less than 100,000 even when you combine 3 different spellings of his name. Holloway could get a billion hits, and it would not make her tragic disappearance noteworthy in an encyclopedia. Second, you are comparing a recent event to one taht happened 6 yeras ago, so it is little surprise that a current google search yeilds more hits for a "current event" than for a less current one. Shalhevet Pass's murder recieved significant media coverage - as you own research shows- 10,00 hits on an English Google search, she is referenced in 4 seperate articles on the Hebrew Wiki. Isarig 23:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh... not a big proof - her name is written in Hebrew! I don't know nearly enough hebrew to search hebrew google, but I am sure she gets lots of publicity on hebrew-language sites. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there articles about Arab babies killed by Israeli terrorists?[edit]

Robin Hood 1212 20:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Write them! - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
well there were about 2 Israeli terrorists in history compared to the thousands of palestinians. And yes, there are articles about Arab children getting killed .
I wonder how do you define "terrorism".... --Damiens.rf 18:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This artice about Shalevet is very important and should obviously not be deleted since it's a horrfic account of a premedidated murder of a baby, not a massacre that included babies. Amoruso 15:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability and importance tags[edit]

So AfD thought this was notable. So it still doesn't have any sources from more than a couple of months after the event. It needs sources attesting its continued importance, per WP:EVENT (see WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:EFFECT, etc.)

There's also no clear point to including her father's arrest on terrorism charges. The sources don't say that he did what he did because of this incident. Yes, he's related to the victim. But unless sources have connected the incidents (not said "coincidentally, he's the father of this baby") then we can't do so either, and the section is just an attempt to pad the article with original synthesis.

-- Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

SOFIXIT. But don't tag-bomb the article with a tag that is clearly wholly inapplicable. Taht is disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If you object to Wikipedia's practice of tagging articles to indicate problems, have you considered bringing up the issue at the village pump? Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No -- I'm objecting to you tagging an article, in disruptive fashion, with a notability tag that it is wholly inappropriate. I'm objecting to you tag-bombing inappropriately, not to you being a constructive member of the wp community. I'm objecting to you bringing baseless noticeboard complaints after editors point out your disruptive activity. I'm objecting to you leaving wholly unfounded messages on my talkpage. I'm objecting to you "rolling up" my conversation when I point out just how "unclean" your hands are. And I -- though I find you a wonderful person -- am objecting to your failure to edit in accord with wp policy, by instead doing the aforesaid. There's a big difference.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
At the time I tagged the article, it had no footnotes from more than a couple of months afterwards, meaning that the sources provided did not satisfy WP:EVENT. It is somewhat improved now. Please keep your personal issues with me off this talkpage - you are welcome to post on my talkpage, if you want. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no personal issues with you. I've made that clear, many times now. I have issues with your disruptive editing. I've made that clear, many times now. As to refs -- you're not a newbie. You know how to do a google search, and find the thousands of refs that were here for the finding. You know how to add them, if you wish to make constructive edits. You know how to follow wp:sofixit. Especially where you are editing an article that BC has previously edited, and where you know he/she feels you are wikihounding him, it would behoove you to be careful to not prove his/her point by tag-bombing the article w/an inapplicable tag, rather than taking some more constructive approach. Assuming, of course, that your goal is not to wikihound him. AGF only goes so far. It won't cover manifestly tendentious behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
How on earth is "This user has a tendency to toss out false accusations of stalking, so just avoid articles to which zie has made even minor edits" good advice? What kind of encyclopedia would we be building by letting users like hir control entire topic areas?
I'm choosing to ignore your repeated and false accusations of tag-bombing. Any editor can read the pages on tagging and tag-bombing hirself; it's quite obvious that tagging an article because it has problems, and beginning a discussion of those problems, is not a tendentious action. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Using a notability tag appropriately is appropriate. Here, it was absurd. On the back of the habit of showing up on BS's butt as you appear to have done at times, the simple error or an inappropriate tag is compounded. Following those two in turn with a baseless complaint ... well, there you have it. To answer your question -- no editor owns articles. But I assure you, that especially now that you have been warned repeatedly, further coincidences of the sort we've had in the past, coupled with tag-bombing articles for notability where no notability exists, will not be in your favor. Feel free to ignore me. I've spent some years at the project, and I'm just telling you how it works. In my experience. If I bore you ill will, I would just let you fall into your own self-created-trap at your peril, but I gather that you are a skilled editor who--if you choose--can be a significant benefit to the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Words, words. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

More on Yitzhak - the NYT piece referenced (and now linked) at the bottom of the page states outright that investigators have not linked the murder with Yitzhak's plans to blow things up, and indeed suggests that it was not motivated by the murder. The section really doesn't belong in the article. If it were notable, it could be a separate article. This is synthetic, though. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Palestine by Joshua Bloomfield and The Agony of the Promised Land by Joshua Levy are not reliable sources. One is published by AuthorHouse and one by iUniverse, both pay-to-publish services; having a book published through one of these publishers means that you have money, not expertise.

...Also, Bloomfield's Palestine appears to be a novel. What the hell? How can you even pretend to argue that this is a reliable source? Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The propositions that they stand for are well-referenced by other RSs. There is no reason to call them unreliable as to the propositions that they stand for. Given your practice of tag-bombing this article, which is being discussed elsewhere, I would suggest that perhaps it is a practice you may wish to consider avoiding.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The facts are not what is disputed here. If they're supported by reliable sources, you should have no problem removing the unreliable sources and replacing them with these reliable sources. On what planet do we accept a pay-to-publish novel as a reliable source for a historical event? Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The sources are clearly RS for the purpose for which they are used, as reflected in the other RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Discussion started at RSN here. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Who Dun it?[edit]

The intro states that a Palestinian did it, while the body of the article never says this and there are no sources which state a Palestinian did it, so of course this claim will have to be removed as wp:OR if not sourced quickly. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 22:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

the body of the article says she was killed by a Palestinian member of Tanzim and provides a source for that. If you are still skeptical, Human Rights Watch has a report titled " Center of the storm: a case study of human rights abuses in Hebron District" which says the same thing. (Page 64) Rym torch (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)e
User Rym has been blocked. See this block notice, for further background.
Agree w/Rym.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR violation consistently reinstated by whoever[edit]

The event shocked the Israeli public mainly because the Palestinian sniper was intentionally aiming for the baby.[2][3]

This is repeated from the lead in the main article. I elided it originally because the given source, Deborah Sontag, said no such thing. It was therefore to be removed per WP:OR.

This was immediately reverted, by an editor who did not change the boilerplate statement but provided two other sources for it: Peter Bouckaert and the Israeli Ministry of Education website. Nowhere in Peter Bouckaert's treatment (pp64-5,p.82) is there mention either of deliberately aiming or the idea that this ostensible fact was the cause of Israeli public shock. Nowhere in the Israeli website is there mention of a connection between Israeli public shock and the ostensible 'deliberately aiming for the baby. That site asserts (as a legitimate Israeli official view, hence requiring attribution, that 'The investigation revealed that it was clear the snipers aimed directly at the baby’s head.'

Therefore the revert restored the WP:OR construction I removed, and provided two new sources which fail WP:V. You cannot edit wikipedia if you do not familiarize yourself with its policy guidelines, which you have ignored so far.Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The reverter clearly read these sources, since he cites them. In doing so, he found nothing to justify the edit he restored, and ignored the fact that both new sources contradict the following additional mispresentation:-

On March 26, 2001, at 4:00 pm, Shalhevet was seated in her stroller 'in a playground at the entrance to the Avraham Avinu neighborhood in Hebron, where she and her family lived.[2][6] A Palestinian sniper opened fire with a high-powered rifle from the Abu Sneinah neighborhood on the hill opposite.[2][6]

On Wilder's own testimony, and that of the Israeli Ministry of Education, the baby was not killed in the playground, but while the Pass family was walking from a parking lot.

For these reasons, I have been forced to remove the WP:OR construction.Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

From memory, the article suppresses the controversy over the funeral, and says nothing of the anger shown in Jerusalem by politicians otherwise well disposed, when the funeral was delayed on the grounds that the settlers would not conduct it unless it was made a national event with the PM and other high-ranking figures present. The rhetorical pressure to use the tragedy to push a POV, got considerable coverage.
Secondly again from memory, the aftermath included what some reports called a "pogrom" as the settlers went on a rampage and shot randomly at Palestinians, wrecked stores and homes. Even the IDF got the wind up. This is all part of the narrative of that funeral, which is far more complex than the one POV account given here.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Israeli-occupied[edit]

Here the addition of the words "Israeli-occupied" was reverted with edit summary "not every mention needs political overtones". That the place of the event took place in occupied territory is not mentioned in the article.

My view is that the omission of any mention of occupation is a major shortcoming with this article. An uninformed reader could be left with the impression that this event took place in Israel, which is not the case. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Does the article erroneously suggest this? No. It is unnecessary to gratuitously include content to cater for the nescient incapable of clicking on a hyperlink. Ankh.Morpork 15:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
What's the shortcoming crime? It misleads readers, making them think it was unjustified, when in reality any attacks across a certain should be considered justified?? --Jethro B 15:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Duh! And if they're a settler, it's almost mandatory. Ankh.Morpork 15:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
AnkhMorport, the articles states
  • That the the baby was Israeli.
  • That the Israeli public was shocked.
  • That the murder became a "potent Israeli symbol".
  • That the murder produced vocal outrage in Israel and abroad.
  • That Prime Minister Ariel Sharon condemned the attack. (Note that it is implied that it is the Israeli PM).
  • That a military court convicted the killer. (Note that it is implied that it is an Israeli court).
With all these references to Israel, it is only logical to assume that the event took place in Israel. Two simple words ("Israeli-occupied") would prevent that misunderstanding. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you really aching for another discussion whether West Bank or the area in the West Bank where this took place should be considered part of Israel? That's inveitably what would happen. Just because a public is outraged over a murder that occured in an area that their authorities had control over, whether legitimate or not, doesn't mean that it's misleading in any form. I'm sure that there were people outside of Israel who were shocked too, yet no one would think that somehow means it took place in said country. --Jethro B 15:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
My concern was about how uninformed readers would interpret this article. Of course, more informed readers would not make the mistake of thinking the event occured in Israel. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems[edit]

  • As we discussed at the Yehuda Shoham deletion page and consensus affirmed, 'murder' in such instances is to be changed to 'death'.
  • 'The event shocked the Israeli public, partly because an investigation ruled that the sniper had deliberately aimed for the baby.' (Boukaert) It happens to be obviously queer because the shock the Israeli public experienced occurred from day one. Investigations into the incident were some time later, and had no impact on the shock.

So, where does the source say this? Exact wording please.Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well we have info below that it was shocking, but the wording can definitely be changed. Earlier versions had something along the lines of "The event shocked the Israeli public, mainly becasue the sniper had deliberately aimed for the baby," so we can rewrite it as "The event shocked the Israeli public, mainly becasue the sniper had deliberately aimed for the baby, as confirmed by an investigation." I mean, it is possible to be more shocked when the facts are uncovered afterwards. If a baby falls off a swing and dies, I don't expect the news to cover it. But if an investigation into it turns out that someone had actually rigged the swing to collapse and deliberately kill the baby, you may get some public reactions. --Jethro B 15:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
We write according to sources. The source does not have that in it. We don't adjust the page to conserve bits and pieces of what is unsourced. If there is no source, then the sentence goes out as WP:OR, which it is, like much else here. (b) please reply to the death/murder issue. You changed, following discussion, the titles to the two earlier articles, and this should comply.--Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I did indeed change those titles, based on a few statements by editors there asking to change it. But looking again on it, is there a place in the Wikipedia MOS or title guidelines that says to use specifically "death of" and never to use "murder of"? This was, in fact, a murder. --Jethro B 17:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about neutrality, but also editors being obliged to adhere to some coherence in the way they apply what policy or consensus suggests should be done. This is not policy, but you changed the articles which personally you labelled as 'murders' under the advice of people like User:Silver seren while one of them was being discussed for AfD, and applied it also to your Palmer draft. This article is not being AdF'd but though wider scrutiny by wikipedians is not pressuring for this necessary change, as Silver seren put it, there is no conviction in this case, which would normally qualify that kind of title. At the comparable Palestinian article on Khalil al-Mughrabi, this problem did not exist because editors exercised the proper regard for NPOV, as it does not exist for Iman Darweesh Al Hams, who, even if wounded by accident or error of judgement, was then summarily executed or murdered, as were most of the 250 other, Palestinian and 72 Israeli children that year. We just refrain from emotive language here. So please be consistent, and try to apply the same principle here, as per WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Someone can go the other way, say that saying "death" isn't neutral because it's minimizing the facts and making it seem like a natural slipping-away, while it's without a doubt that this was a murder. Regardless, I was willing to change the title of an article that I myself created after input from other editors, but before going ahead and doing this here, on an article I haven't created but rather has been here for years with this title, I would like input from other editors. If the consensus is to change it, great, then it'll be changed. --Jethro B 18:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Article on similar circumstances should observe some rule. 'Death' minimizes nothing. A rifle bullet from a Palestinian sniper killed an Israeli child. A shot from an Israeli force killed Khalil al-Mughrabi, shots deliberately aimed at Iman Darweesh Al Hams killed her. This is an encyclopedia, and works by rules and demands internal consistency over articles dealing with the same order of events. What is the rule here? Unless one has rules to apply, it becomes a numbers game, and wholly subjective. Could you clarify why you think the corresponding articles differ from the Shalhevet Pass article, in terms of cogent and coherent policy. Otherwise this is chaotic.--Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a difference, and I don't know whether those articles were required by the rules to be changed. All I know was that on those articles, there seemed to be consensus for the change. However, I don't know of any Wikipedia rule - if you know of it, please tell me - that mandates this change. Yeah, there may have been some support over there to change the title there - but I don't know of an actual rule that would make this across the board. You may recall I supported changing the title there. And if there was such a rule, I'd do it for each article and probably without such a discussion. But I'd rather get some editor input here, considering that this title has been in place for years on this article. --Jethro B 19:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
If you think there's some rule or requirement for an across-the-board change here, then go ahead and change the article title. But I'll probably revert, and ask for a discussion to be held first. Whatever the results of the discussion are, that's what we'd take. But as it is now, I'm certainly not doing this unilateral move, so asking me further is really futile. --Jethro B 19:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Murder of Shalhevet Pass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 16:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)