Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The murder of Yehuda Shoham

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The murder of Yehuda Shoham[edit]

The murder of Yehuda Shoham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to this some 952 Palestinian and 84 Israeli children were killed in the conflict, just between 2000-2008. Each of those deaths is obviously tragic, but shall we have an article on every single one? Sorry, no. It fails WP:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event. This is not WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Also, note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Siam + Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Shaar + Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar + Ibrahim Muhammad Ismail: if those were non-notable, why should this be notable? Huldra (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"According to B'tselem" are the key words in that sentence --Activism1234 17:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominator (my arguments are listed above), Huldra (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You already made your vote as nominator you don't need to do it twice.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial service for the dead, nor a venue for using tragedies in order to create political capital in this encyclopedia. We're dealing with the fact that 1331 Palestinian and 129 Israeli children, i.e., 1460 children have been killed in the conflict so far (B'tselem). We have a general page Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict for this, and one or two forks classifying types of death could be created for anyone interested in listing the victims. I have expressed elsewhere my view that several articles on specific events (Shalhevet Pass, Khalil al-Mughrabi and Faris Odeh) like this should all be removed. Those that received a high international media profile for a variety of reasons, and continue to be mentioned - like the Fogel family slaughter (Itamar attack), a mass killing, the Muhammad al-Durrah incident or Iman Darweesh Al Hams - are justly written up because court trials followed up, forensic complications emerged and the incidents received intense and prolonged international coverage.
One-off events should be merged into articles that deal with general patterns, like Child suicide bombers in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict etc. (The corresponding Palestinian page would probably be entitled Palestinian children killed by headshots from Israeli snipers, which would, it has been calculated, cover the deaths of 255 Palestinian minors over the last decade. One always should ask, why this child and not hundreds of others (Palestinian or Israeli), and highlighting one or two as if they were exceptional to the masses of kids murdered on both sides looks like (as it is with the disgracefully written Shalhevet Pass article, which suppresses or distorts a notable amount of information) a particular community using wikipedia for propaganda purposes.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is written as a memorial, and has no other apparent value. We can't cover every death of a child. If it had a profound significance or consequence beyond the personal tragedy of an innocent death, that could be reconsidered. But it didn't, and the article doesn't even claim it did. Zerotalk 09:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there are sources that discuss the effects of Shoham's death, such as this, this, this, this, and this especially as a short list, but there are so many other sources. And I haven't even gotten into books. Considering your argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalil al-Mughrabi, don't you think you should be voting Keep here too? SilverserenC 08:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The attack is mentioned by variety of sources: the Independent, the New York Times, Jerusalem Post, the Washington times and this is a bad faith nomination. Compare this with Khalil al-Mughrabi which has worse sourcing but has not been nominated. Crystalfile (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a 'they-have-one-so-we-should-have one (or two or three or ten') style argument, i.e. a POV logic. I sugguest we co-nominate three other suspect articles as coming within the remit of this discussion. If this goes, then the negative verdict should apply also to the Shalhevet Pass, Khalil al-Mughrabi and Faris Odeh) pages (with their information carried over to some talk page of an article dealing collectively with these incidents, so that the gist of this kind of material on all four is conserved), while the principle is applied evenly to both Israeli and Palestinian victims.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt generalize. Each case should be examined for notability and coverage. e.g Al Dura was very notableCrystalfile (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems to be all in line with RS and notable (something which not every death is). Soosim (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Wikipedia supports Palestinian country (another Arab state) so better to keep this !. פארוק (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a prominent event that made major headlines in Israel, but also made international news, as seen by references in The New York Times and The Independent. The article is well written and well referenced, unlike some other articles on the topic. --Activism1234 14:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it is misleading to say that now we will have an article on each child's death. That's outrageous. Most of the deaths occur in battles or bombings, and are either listed on that article or the #s are listed on that article. Only a few incidents are actually single-murder events. --Activism1234 14:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. There is clearly sufficient coverage in reliable sources. The nominator's tacit linking of this with other deletion discussions makes me doubt good faith. WP:OTHERSTUFF is bad enough for !voters, but should most definitely not appear in a nomination statement.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The question here is whether this was a tragic single news event or an incident with broader and lasting historical significance. The fact that the PM spoke at the funeral indicates the latter rather than the former. I wish also to voice my objection to the invalid rationale advanced by User:פארוק. Wikipedia is not the place for OTHERSTUFF arguments or POV-driven content wrangling... Carrite (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The PM also visited the hospital to see Yehuda Shoham, apologized for an Israeli tank shell killing 3 Bedouin women in the Gaza Strip a few days after this incident according to this source, and probably did all sorts of things around that time in his role as PM. All of these other things happen to fall outside of the wiki-editor created frame around this event that defines how RS are sampled and reflected in the encyclopedia. I'm not sure what the PM did or said is useful as part of the decision procedure in this AfD although I second your comment about User:פארוק's odd and unhelpful remark. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. The visit to the hospital has been added. However, the apology had nothing to do with the hospital visit. Hence the source writes "earlier said.." --Activism1234 16:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the apology had nothing to do with the hospital visit", yes, that is exactly my point. What is reflected in the encyclopedia is defined by how editors define their search spaces, the sampling frames. Partisan editors define partisan search spaces and therefore the way the encyclopedia reflects information present in RS, all of the events and narratives about the conflict and many other things, becomes partisan. It's a pity especially given that that the ARBCOM sanctions urge editors to "aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict". Often editors seem to be doing the opposite of that. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to include something unnotable he said unrelated to the actual article inside the article. The part about Sharon in the hospital forms one sentence and one reference of the article, out of many others. Just because one thing isn't mentioned doesn't mean another article should be deleted. --Activism1234 17:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compare it with Palestinian_Security_Council_Resolution,_2011 I still don't understand what so special.There were many failed resolutions.But apparently in AFD discussion people said if its mentioned in mainstream press is notable enough to get a Wiki article. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting you include or exclude anything, nor have I provided a delete/keep opinion here, and I won't be doing that. I'm suggesting that this article, and consequently this AfD, is an example of what happens in this topic area when editors don't do what the sanctions encourage editors to do. I think it is possible for content like this to be encyclopedic and neutral but that probably won't be possible for several years until all of the people who care have forgotten about it. Right now, it seems to me that it's about memorialization and demonizing the enemy. Existing policy facilitates rather than prevents this kind of thing by allowing the use of a carefully chosen sampling frame to highlight one pointless death or injury amongst thousands. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which enemy are you referring to? I don't have any enemies. Also, you may like to voice your opinion as well on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalil al-Mughrabi. --Activism1234 19:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, it's not traffic. Perhaps your next article can deal with that if you are interested in writing articles about the death of Israeli children. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not odd that I don't consider "traffic" as my enemy. And I doubt that the rest of the world gives a damn about traffic deaths in Israel. It would never survive AfD. --Activism1234 01:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable. multiple sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it would be a crime to delete it.

Exx8 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm voting keep in both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalil al-Mughrabi, because the notability of both is very, very evident (with Khalil al-Mughrabi having a slight higher amount of notability than Yehuda Shoham, in my opinion). The references and coverage are clear here for meeting notability standards. And I must say that all of you Israel/Palestine editors are horrible. This whole thing is the most obvious bias in regards to the topic area that i've ever seen, voting to keep the one that is from your country and delete the other. You should all be topic banned from this subject area. SilverserenC 04:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All haven't voted to keep one, and delete the other on partisan grounds, if you actually check. Some have tried to be coherent in applying policy, and please note that the nominator cited several precedents where the wiki community elided, on strong policy grounds, articles like this.Nishidani (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. It appears to be more the Wikiproject Israel side that is voting in a inappropriate manner. As for the "precedents", while I can't look at the articles themselves, the AfD discussions seem to indicate that they didn't have all that much news coverage or aftereffects, unlike how these two do (though, again, Khalil more than Shoham). SilverserenC 07:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Firstly, the two articles aren't connected in any way. They're very different from each other. That said, I have a great respect for Nishidani's opinion of delete both, although I disagree, and agree with him that if even one of these remains (as I feel this should), it will be tough deciding in the future what is ok to stay and what is not, and therefore perhaps certain criteria should be set forth based on what the results of this AfD are. Also, I'm sure that I can find many articles for some of those AfDs, and it appeared (to me at least) that they were deleted because they can't possibly include every child's death during the Second Intifada. My interpretation of this was relating to those children killed as part of a bombing, military campaign, conflict-area, or shooting scene. To me, I don't see why Yehuda Shoham would be any different than say Asher Palmer and his infant, who were also killed by Palestinians but last year, as opposed to a period of violence, and during a single-event attack, like this one (in fact, the cases are nearly identical - both were killed by stones that were thrown at their car). Palmer/infant don't have Wikipedia pages, and thus don't have AfDs either, but if one was created, I'd imagine it would stay, for both the amount of notability and the fact it occured outside of a period of violence. That said, the only difference with Yehuda Shoham is that it occured during the Second Intifada, but like Asher Palmer/infant, occured while driving a car on the street and not during a specific conflict or incident, and the same thing happened last year as well, intifada or not. That's my analysis of it anyway. --Activism1234 01:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was in different state when people voted "delete" [2].--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then they should clearly be changing their votes now that the article has been improved. SilverserenC 08:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone should notify them--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The technical problem which made me think both articles require deletion still requires clarification. Given that 1460 children have been killed on both sides, and given that when a child dies in a conflict it becomes noteworthy momentarily, and like almost everything, then drops off the radar, are we going to determine how many of these one-off articles can be written? We all know, or should know, that both sides in a conflict use these baby stories to push an agenda with emotive detonative power The war of the children The meta-media noted this years ago, even in the case of Yehuda Shoham, Mohammad Durrah and many others. We all know that in western media, Israeli child deaths get bigger coverage (this has been studied by Marda Dunsky pp.201-259, esp.205ff.) and many others. We don't use the Arab media, in Arabic, local or otherwise, which gives the kind of broader coverage for these events the Western media ignores. So it's a systemic bias, and, I think, an example of using wikipedia for non-encyclopedic ends to exploit google-hits to write up one-off events that have no wider reverberation than what media manipulation provides in pushing agendas. My argument is that both parties here should not associate their names with article creation on one-off events like this, unless secondary developments occur which gain media coverage.Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis Sources: 11 Event 5 June 2001

  • (1) Jerusalem Post June 7, 2001 details of event.
  • (2)MFA June 11 Government death notice.
  • (3) The Independent 12 June, 2001 the child died and it has outraged settlers and upset truce.
  • (4) Telegraph 12 June, account of funeral a bare notice of the death, in a short article on tensions and talks.
  • (5) New York Times, 12 June 2001, mentioned as one of many deaths on both sides in months of violence, deaths that make Tenet’s truce difficult.

1-5 consist of 2 articles with details at the time. 3 in which the event is mentioned within the context of larger events. All over 5 days 7-12 June 2001

  • (6) Haaretz, August 24 2001. Mentioned in a list of dozens
  • (7)Washington Times Sept 11.2002. Mentioned in a list of dozens
  • (8) American Jewish Year 2002. Mentioned in a list of dozens.

6-8 are 3 death notices recapping the event in one or two lines, among many others in lists. 3 times in one and a half years.

  • (9) Giulio Meotti (2009), pp.378-9 reprints a short paragraph, as part again of a long list of casualities. It is a copy and paste of bits from the sources above and the Shilo site below, and not written by Meotti (he does this all of the time, as I have mentioned elsewhere, and his book is not RS. It’s published by ReadHowYouWant.com)
    • See below. Meotti is a serial plagiarist whose contracts with two major newspapers/magazines have been apparently terminated after complaints and documentation to that effect were produced in May this year. Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPS sources-

  • (10)Shilo settlers’ homepage. Not RS. A family document
  • (11) The Yehuda Fund webpage. A family document. January 2002. It’s almost totally devoid of any relevant information.

In short, there's virtually nothing outside the time frame of his agony and death. Essentially we have 2-3 articles, for 3 days contemporary with the incident and death over five days (7-12), 2001, and the rest of the 9 are snippet mentions in lists, or articles mentioning the death, with others, en passant, as part of the casualties for that year. There is no way this observes wikipedia notability or sourcing standards for an article. It has despite the artful Potemkin village effects of apparent multisourcing as little independent references as those which determined the deletion of the pages noted by the nominator. It was notable for some days, as one of many incidents of killings on both sides.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this too as one example. you shouldn't be looking just in the article, but actually searching for sources yourself. SilverserenC 12:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry, refactored. Distracted by an Olympic evbent and rushed a response)
Thanks. That's an important source (Knight Ridder usually carries details most of the other mainstream sources NYTs,WP, WSJ etc. ignore on these incidents by the way). It provides several details not in the other sources, for example (the revenge burning of Palestinian fields etc). This is absent from the article as several other things omitted from what the existing refs say, such as the the fact that the father publicly asked Sharon to visit the child. (Shoham, who said he was disappointed by what he termed the "government's great weakness in response to the terror," called on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to visit Haim Yehuda in his hospital bed.)
There's a long story to this request, as any one who knows the parallel Shalhevet Pass case would notice. Settlers used the media to ask PMs and MKs to show solidarity by turning up at the scenes. In the earlier Pass case this pressure was so intense, most Israeli politicians simply refused to go, as settlers delayed the funeral for a week insisting they wouldn't bury her until the PM or someone with similar status turned up. This is not mentioned on that page either, and there is only a vague allusion to the virtual pogrom (the actual word used by an Israeli politician) the Hebron settlers executed in retaliation. Things like this are in sources for all these events yet as mmemorial articles that emphasize one person and family's suffering, they are written to focus on tragedy and avoid any information which contextualizes one tragedy in the wider conflict and grief of numerous other parties. Just as here context is lacking (Bedouin or Palestinians killed before or after, what was happening on the military front at the time, for it was war, what international pressures and measures were being taken in the context of this event (George Tenet doesn't figure here, though we have a mention of that on the al-Mughrabi page). The omission of context, the omission of consequences - settlers ran riot against the fields and homes of Palestinians in both this and the Pass case, and the focus on agony, is precisely what I object to. The article has the hallmarks of a memorial, and is not encyclopedic. Activism, with that source, should add all the elements now omitted, but unless material is forthcoming outside of that 5 days time frame, I still think it unencyclopedic, if only because no different from the vast majority of 1460 children reported killed in the last decade there.Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You`re equivocating. If only two or three children had died, would the article be okay then? Your other objections now seem to be entirely solvable by editing. Darryl from Mars (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please look equivocate up in the dictionary, because the way you use it is meaningless here. I am doing my work as an editor. My fundamental objection is to the time frame of the sources, which are limited to 5 days, which means this almost certainly is not notable for wikipedia as a one-off event.
My second objection is that the person who wrote this, though reading a lot of material which provides (a) details on Tenet's truce negotations (d) deaths of others, including Palestinians (c) claims by the father that the West Bank, land and roads, is owned by the settlers not Palestinians (d) criticisms by the father of the weak response of the government to the terror (e) a declaration by the father that the baby in his death cot was evidence for what Ariel Sharon's political accomplishments amounted to (f) criticism of the ceasefire being arranged, requesting that as a 'false cease-fire' it must be abandoned (g) accusations by the father that the ceasefire implied 'our blood (that of settlers) was not important (h) the incident put the ceasefire agreements in difficulty (i) the atrocity will be added to those Israelis are using for taking tough military action against Yasser Arafat (j) settlers have been asking Israel to abolish its policy of restraint and strike the Palestinians harder.(k) the event is akin to others, like Tthe Palestinian sniper killing of Shavhelet Path in in Hebron, that of four-month-old Palestinian girl killed by an Israeli tank shell in Gaza, of 3 Bedouin women near Gaza hit by tank shells, for which Sharon apologized (k) Palestinian outrage at a possible target assassination of a Palestinian activist which violated the ceasefire (l) In the negotiations while the child lay dying, Israel demanded an end to Palestinian violence and arrests by the PLO of dozens of militants while the PLO replied Israel wants a ceasefire yet won't accept the recommendations of the Mitchell report, such as a stop to settlement building the blockade.(m) The Palestinians wanted international monitoring of any ceasefire agreement but Israel adamantly refused. (n) Yehuda's death was preceded by a suicide bombing 11 days earlier in Tel Aviv in which 21 died. (o) the stoning took place in Israeli-controlled territory far from anywhere where Palestinian security forces had authority.
If you add the Knight Ridder report Silver Seren kindly found, we lack
(p)the fact that 300 settlers in response to news of Yehuda's injuries, retaliated by running amuck in Assawiya burning 25 dunams of olive groves and firing two school buildings, a day before Tenet arrived
(q)At the same time, settlers demonstrated in Jerusalem and Hebron and in Hebron attacked Palestinian shopkeepers, leaving 9 wounded.
Of course, I'm a realist. Little if any of this, all events related to and occurring in the span of time between reports of the death, and his actual death, will be edited in, because it detracts from the abstract vignette of a family with a child to mourn after Palestinians killed him, and the stub will be approved against all policy by sheer numbers. The function of the article is simple that, to get more wikipedia coverage of one of the 129 odd Israeli children killed, without mentioning the context, or that 10 times that number of Palestinian children were killed at the same time. That's the way this place works, and it's the reason very good wikipedian editors generally stay clear of it, for the rules are never applied impartially.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided On the one hand, there is sufficient though not very abundant specific international attention and some evidence of continuing though non-specific notice. On the other, I agree with Nishidani that the article is non-neutral in what part of the context it chooses to include. The context is relevant, because the article is about the death, not the individual, and the events surrounding & related to the death are relevant. I consider the context mentioned by him to be of very great relevance, and the omission of such material in this and similar articles a drastic and continuing violation of NPOV. The question is then whether we must remove an article because we cannot make it neutral, I've always argued otherwise, that NPOV can be enforced. I've just been rereading the many enforcement actions for ARBPIA, and I must admit that this rather discourages such optimism. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, overnight, what's the response? I see that Activism is now preparing just one more page, since if this is approved (in defiance of notability) (s)he will take it as a precedent to produce another article on the death of Asher Palmer and his son.
So we have here a programmatic attempt to make a series of articles on one-off events in which an Israeli, esp. dies in the West Bank. None of these articles deals with deaths of Israelis by Palestinian terrorists in Israel. They all focus on settlers, while expunging the fact that these incidents occurred in a very violent area where conflict between illegal settlers and indigenous Palestinians is endemic. I should also note that in both Activism's new articles, though the press coverage accepts the Israeli definition of "terrorism", we are dealing with stone-throwing at cars which led to deaths. We have to go by sources, but the POV slant here is evident.
What is the consistent theme? All three articles deal with settlers, many in communities with a high public profile for aggressive theft of land, and violence towards their Palestinian neighbours,(to take just one example, this from Shiloh 1988, where the family of Yehuda settled) are victims of "terrorism".
In all 3 cases The murder of Yehuda Shoham, Murder of Shalhevet Pass, and now our new The Murder of Asher and Yonatan Palmer , we are dealing with the creation of articles that eliminate context, focus on the death of a Jewish child, and then close. All three were written with 'The Murder of' implying preemptively an attempt to murder a child which the sources show is not proven, and improbable.
Activism hasn't changed the title, which as Silver Seren noted, should be per WP:NPOV, The death of Asher and Yonatan Palmer. The intent in prejudicing perceptions by titles that push a POV, murder for death, is self-evident. Note that we do not use 'Murder' in the article dealing with another Shiloh 'activist', the multiple murderer Asher Weisgan.
That the two main editors do not understand attribution, or NPOV, is clear from the overnight edits.
(a) this, and(b) this
Apart from the horrible syntax, this ignores all of the critical suggestions made, except that it adds one element of the lacking context, selected because it insinuates Yassir Arafat was somehow involved, because he failed to honour his obligations to stop terrorism (even if his jurisdiction did not extend to that area, as sources show)
WP:NPOV would require something like this

In a letter to the United Nations, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Yehuda Lancry outlined Israel’s position, which affirmed that the death of Yehuda Shoham constituted a “represensible act of terrorism” that took place just over two week after Israel had declared that it would refrain from initiating military action against Palestinians, and barely a week after Yassir Arafat had undertaken to fight violence and terrorism.

If you put that in, however, you are obliged to mention the Tenet visit in sources, the surrounding events of violence by both parties, and the breakdown of the agreement. Activism won't apparently. I don't think this shows any interest in encyclopedic writing. I think there is ample evidence that these articles are being created to highlight an image of settlers being victimised by terrorists. If proof were needed that this is what Activitism is doing, look at this in the Reactions section:-
Yehuda's father said:

If we are afraid of driving here, we will also be afraid in Tel Aviv or Netanya. The Jews are in danger everywhere in the State of Israel.[7]

What did Jerusalem Post,the source say?
"This is our land, these are our roads and ( if we are afraid of driving on them we will be afraid of driving to Tel Aviv and Netanya also," he said.)
The father here is asserting that all of the West Bank is Jewish land. That the road system there is for the exclusive use of settlers or Israelis, and Palestinians should be nowhere there.
Fair enough. It's the sourced settler perspective. But the way Activism has carefully edited it, this disappears, and the way Activism repressed context (my notes) means that it stands out as a hidden POV agenda.
The point is underlined in another quote which uses Eretz Israel, but, pointedly that term, which will not be familiar to the average reader, is left without the necessary link.

'(Yehuda) was a Jew at home in Eretz Yisrael.’

By not linking Eretz Israel, the strong edge of settler claims to exclusive use of anywhere in the West Bank they set up their communities is lost from view. It's an example, very subtle, of WP:BATTLEGROUND, of choosing to add to wikipedia articles purely for their value in a propaganda war. It would be easy to mirror, 10 Palestinian victrim articles for every Israeli/Jewish one in this area, but I strongly oppose any attempts to do this. These articles are, I repeat, not encyclopedic. Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're making an assumption (and seemingly stalking) that I'm going to make that article, at least soon. Too many other things as well going on. Just stuck it in my sandbox since no such article was created yet, and was a pretty notable event that occured last year, if I ever get around to it and decide on it. I'm also unaware of any Wikipedia law against creating articles about settlers (see Itamar massacre). Of course, I've created loads of non-related articles, such as one about a Nigeria church shooting, or one about an Israeli scholar (not a settler) who finished a 30 year quest to correct grammatical Biblical mistakes. Then there's my first one, about Lee Zeitouni, which I'm sure you'll admit was a tragic death as well, but has nothing at all to do with Palestinians. I created it because there was no such article, and it received coverage for months (and still is). And of course, there's that other one about an Egyptian minister of tourism I created, Hisham Zazou, which has nothin to do with Palestinians or settlers. And although another article I created, 2012 Olympics one minute of silence campaign is sort-of related to Palestinians (but only because they were responsible for the Munich massacre that led to it), it has nothing to do with settlers either, and only mentions Palestinians briefly as part of background and in a paragraph on reactions. From 6 articles I've created, only one has to do with settlers, and only 2 have to do with Palestinians. So please, don't try to smear me like that. It's just offensive. So no, it isn't a "programmatic attempt" or 3 articles related to it, and thinking this is really paranoid. And are you really mentioning the Shalhevet Pass article, an article I haven't edited in my life, in connection with me??? Ridiculous. Really. Sorry. You're attempting to draw a non-existent connection to prove a conspiracy.
You go on talking about terrorism, but it has no relevance. The word "terrorism" is mentioned in that article only as a quote or connection to a pledge made by Arafat. Not about the specific attack. And like most of the rest you said, it doesn't have relevance to an AfD on whether it should stay or not. --Activism1234 15:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You go on talking about NPOV and link to two edits. These edits are about a letter written to the United Nations - NPOV?? The first edit was inserted by an editor. All that I did, which you linked to, was put it under "Reactions." You're calling that NPOV?? As I said before...
"Activism hasn't changed the title, which as Silver Seren noted, should be per WP:NPOV." See talk page. When you make edits like this without mentioning either I support changing the title, it seems like you're just trying to smear me.
"The father here is asserting that all of the West Bank is Jewish land. That the road system there is for the exclusive use of settlers or Israelis, and Palestinians should be nowhere there. Fair enough. It's the sourced settler perspective. But the way Activism has carefully edited it, this disappears, and the way Activism repressed context (my notes) means that it stands out as a hidden POV agenda." Really? More conspiracies? How many more? I have things to do. You're assuming that the father is referring to that - maybe he's saying that Shilo, where they were driving to, or where they were driving from, belongs to them, as it currently does. I didn't feel that's so important to include, and yet now I'm being smeared with some conspiracy theory.
I wish I had time to go through the rest and see what else I've been accused of, but have to prepare for a presentation this week. Perhaps, if still interested in discussing this, you can respond on my user page or talk page of the article, as the current state of it (smearing me with conspiracies) isn't exactly for an AfD, and is just cluttering this up. --Activism1234 15:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for documenting my point, that in articles regarding settlers you systematically disinclude background details which you include in non-Palestinian articles you create:
  • Deeper Life Church shooting. Fine. We need that article about an Islamic fanatic killing, I agree. But please not how there you included from sources a background paragraph, giving context, as you did covering the aftermath in the improperly titled ‘Reactions’ section. I.e. on that article you give all the details in sources which you systematically ignore or repressed in the Murder of Yehuda Shahom article, where Palestinians are involved.
  • Menachem Cohen. Good work, but again, note you provided there a background section, which is precisely what you ignore or suppress in this article (where Palestinians are involved). You failed to write quite a few things correcting, for example in repeating Cohen’s words ‘Cohen also stressed that unity and accuracy in the Hebrew Bible were important in order to distinguish the sacred Jewish text from those used by break-away sects,’ That requires attribution, since the Samaritans are not a break-away sect of Judaism. But that can be fixed.
  • Lee Zeitouni. Fine, but again you give a comprehensive background account, and follow up. Context is given, which is precisely what you ignore or suppress in this article (where Palestinians are involved)
Conclusion. Your editing consistently includes background details in non-Palestinian articles you create, but ignores them in articles dealing with Palestinian terror. That is where you fail your commitment to neutrality, and it is most conspicuous in this article, and the other you are planning to write.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hisham Zazou is a go nowhere stub that should be deleted, based on one incident and one declaration about the effects on tourism of a terrorist incident, and patently silly. No relevance.
  • 2012 Olympics one minute of silence campaign. There you left out, though it was in the accessible sources, comments from rabbis and other Jewish people who were rather disgusted by the pressure put on Rogge and the IOC in what looked like a smear pressure campaign (to some). I noted that, User:Crystalfile tried to get rid of it. You eventually accepted it. But it was background material you yourself did not add. You 'planned to get to but didn't get a chance'. Well, what chance? You had the article to yourself, and I didn't interfere. I just sat round watching and waiting to see if these things would be mentioned. They weren't, when they occurred.
  • Munich massacre. I beg your pardon but you write

related to Palestinians (but only because they were responsible for the Munich massacre that led to it

  • Palestinians were absolutely not responsible for the Munich Massacre. Black September was responsible for that, and perhaps even someone in the PLO. You really let your POV show here, by writing that what an extremist element in a certain national or ethnic group does can be attributed as a symptom of collective guilt to the whole of that group. Imagine the outcry (I'd be the first to report it) if someone wrote here Jews were responsible for the murder of Folke Bernadotte, or Lord Moyne or Deir Yassin massacre. They weren't: small fanatic groups like Lehi and men like Yitzhak Shamir, the future Prime Minister of Israel, were responsible for these acts, and you attribute these things absolutely neutrally by specifying who did what, not what ethnic group was involved. Get it? Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ps. You still haven't answered or edited in, in response to my on-point notes about lacunae in the text, the detailed list of things you have failed to mention in your stub. They all form a background you include in the articles you worked into the articles above, but which you fail to work into articles you write touching on acts of violence to Israelis committed by violent Palestinians. Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We still have a time-frame problem, which is worsened by the discovery that the key book used to source several statements, that by Giulio Meotti, is ruled out because it fails RS. Meotti's contracts with two conservative newespapers were terminated after proof was forthcoming he was a serious serial plagiarizer. See Marc Tracy Italian Journalist Also Plagiarized in U.S. Outlets. Ynet, ‘Commentary’ have severed ties with Giulio Meotti at Tablet, 22 May 2012 and Max Blumenthal, Giulio Meotti. Serial plagiarist or common hasbarist?.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're shifting the conversation from whether to delete this (which only you and two others support, while 9 people support it staying, and 1 undecided) to a personal attack on my editing. If so, feel free to take this to my talk page, where you'll discover your smear attempts are gravely wrong. This is cluttering up this page, and no need for that. --Activism1234 20:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely covered by reliable sources. Any neutrality issues can be resolved by editing. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do some extensive edits to the page to correct all of the missing details which, since this cannot be a memorial to a child, but a description of the event (policy) and its context. All of the reconstruction of the event in the week while argument raged will be based exclusively on sources which mention Yehuda while contextualizing his agony in the political events which news of the wounding sparked off or exacerbated. These memorial stubs, as most of them start up as, and languish as, can only survive policy, in my view, if they are accorded what Carlo Ginzburg, a master of microhistory, calls the thickening details of context. They are all in the sources, yet few have been used. It's the same method used by Ariel Toaff, and when all relevant material is mustered, the reader can see how complex things are, and how deceptive stub reporting of anything is. Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, another diagnosis of my notorious psychomental lability.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having done a preliminary revision, incorporating much of the material I saw being excluded from what struck me to be a memorial page for Yehuda Shoham, what do we get. An impressively footnoted article, not a memorial stub. But it is nonsense. Why? Because we are supposed to recount events in articles like this.
If the event is limited, as Activism's draft, did, to tragic details of a one-off event, a child's death and her family and her community's grief and anger, then it abuses the encyclopedia, being just a memorial.
If we fill out the story with all of the circumstantial detail sources add to their accounts of that single death, a tension is created between the memorial function, and the historical details. Sources speak in far greater depth of the week's events, the clashes prior to it, the ceasefire arrangements, the mutual suspicions, Tenet's visit, the settlers' assaults and Palestinian retaliations, all things of which his death is one of many emotive moments, etc.etc. At the end, forced to do this work per WP:NPOV, and to save the article, you can't avoid getting an article in which Yehuda Shohan's death sounds like a leitmotif to larger events, a basso ostinato rumbling behind larger events, giving it a relevance that drowns out all other killings in the period. Ultimately to do amend an article based on a false premise, you end up with an article about, in this case, a week's events in the I/P conflict, which means the title itself is deeply flawed. How to fix this is beyond me. But it's proof enough that articles focusing on one child or person's death in a conflict, as this tried to be, do not allow satisfactory writing to WP:NPOV, or encyclopedic ends. Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, fill the article with tangential unrelated events to his death, ignore anything similar on Palestinian articles, and all the while that you're reverting and editing, do so by violating 1RR repeatedly. How to fix it? Leave it as an article on his death. It wasn't an article on Week X of 2001. It was an article on a person's death. Just because you and 2 others favored deleting it, doesn't mean that calls for a complete twist up of the entire article into a different article, when we had another 10 people commenting on this AfD that they supported the article staying and were fine with it. This is absurd, but I have better things to do than get caught up in this. Cheers. --Activism1234 15:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:EVENT and WP:BLP1E. As per WP:EFFECT, there is nothing in the article that indicates any lasting significance. The event does not appear to be a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance that is notable. I'm also concerned at the title - using the term "Murder" in the title is not NPOV, and is not supported by references. --HighKing (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Reply to Activism

Um, you caught me up in this nonsense and caused me to waste a lot of valuable time at my age on what is a non-article. I reaffirm that, notwithstanding the work done on it, it should be deleted, because the time frame is a week, and virtually all sources are related to that one week's events. The material can be easily included into a general casualty list article of Israeli victims of terrorism, without loss (actually it's to your advantage, that way my and others' contextualisation would disappear!).
You just don't understand the policy problem. Please read the policy regarding notability and a person's death. Once you start an article, it is not yours. It is in the purview of every wikipedian who may edit it according to her lights and WP:RS/WP:NPOV. Do this, and what you will get is the kind of article that is shaping up. It is in the nature of wikipedia that you cannot create articles, and define them in the way that only the intended subliminal POV of the drafter's intent is conserved (WP:OWN). I mean it's so easy to play this game, and the pro-Palestinian side would win hands down since the kill ratio over two decades is 10 to 1 in Israel's favour. But even that is absolutely no ground for playing these memorial cards here.
I could do it every day for the next 5 years and still not exhaust the death list for Palestinians. For example off the top of my head I could write an article "Rape and Death in Nirim (1949)" using Chris McGreal's Israel learns of a hidden shame in its early years: Soldiers raped and killed Bedouin girl in the Negev, at The Guardian, Tuesday 4 November 2003, then using Benny Morris on rapes of Palestinians in the period (the tip of the iceberg) in his 2004 book, as Morris's point is connected to the Nirim case by Ahmad H. Sa’di, ‘Reflectiuons on Representations, History, and Moral Accountability’ in Ahmad H. Sa'Di, Lila Abu-Lughod (eds.) Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory, Columbia University Press, 2007 pp.285-314, p.299-300, and Mohammad Shahid Alam, Challenging the new orientalism: dissenting essays on the "War against Islam”, Islamic Publications International, 2006 p.157; The original Haaretz article (October 29,2003) and the many responses it elicited in the Hebrew Press. It would easily pass the criteria for adequate notability in RS, but it would be wrong, anti-encyclopedic, playing emotional politics in wiki space to make such an article. So, rethink your project, since to judge from your sandbox you are minded to repeat this mistake. Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to voice what you want, in this case delete, without repeating it all over this page. Once again, it's 3 people for delete, 10 people for support. That's just how it is. And even if you want to edit the page, you can't edit whatever you want - the edits have to fit the article, and all Wikipedia policies, and you need to refrain from violating 1RR. If you want to repeat your opinion again right below here, go ahead. It's pointless, but go ahead. --Activism1234 18:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No skin off my nose, whatever way it goes. But it is no longer the patently POVed abuse of wikispace for political ends it was before a few others touched it. IR? I notified people I'd edit it from top to bottom. If someone edited in the meantime, and something went wrong, I missed it. I have absolutely no idea I reverted anyone, I was adding to the page, not subtracting other people's work. All of my edits on the context come exclusively from articles that mention those events in the context of Yehuda Shoham's death, and therefore I did not edit in what I wanted: I added what you appear reluctant to use, and in not using the available material you created a POV article dealing with just one perspective. All of this litigation and the obligation to improve pages that should not have been created is an immense waste of time.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll explain the 1RR on your talk page, it's not relevant to an AfD. --Activism1234 19:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like the explanation but I won't probably understand it. I had no idea in the world anyone was editing as I made consecutive edits. Just restore whatever may have accidently been removed.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a technicality. Nearly all references enter the week time-frame between the wounding and death, and mainly cover other events. ongoing coverage or treatment would not I think cover the Washington Times for September or the Jewish Year Book for 2002, since both are merely casualty lists which list the death among many others, and do not cover or treat it. They simply join Yehuda's name to a memorial list. The reportage died with the child's death, and it remains thus a one off event. Perhaps this, from another perspective, satisfies marginally my objection, though I disagree. But thanks for making a detailed policy-based judgement.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can chime in over here: Talk:The_murder_of_Yehuda_Shoham#Title_of_article about the title if you'd like.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it'd be changed either way. Only 1 person so far opposes. --Activism1234 03:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course it got news coverage at the time, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The lack of reliable sources/significant coverage from more than a week or two after the event (ie. the failure of WP:PERSISTENCE, in WP:EVENT) - which is an unusually short timeframe - demonstrates a lack of encyclopedic notability. Keep !votes that simply cite the amount of coverage are fundamentally missing the point. Moreover, while the editors of the article have made a valiant effort to satisfy WP:EFFECT, the events discussed in "Aftermath," "Negotiations" are by and large things that happened around the same time rather than significant results of the event. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While reading today's news, I looked up one possible source suspected for the firebombing, structurally not dissimilar to this incident, and came across Bat Ayin ax attack. Check the sources. Fails all notability criteria as well, like this. But this showcasing of one-off incidents goes unnoticed. How many of these articles are there? Is this programmatic? Shouldn't the rules be applied irrespective of votes. Here no wiki policy is observed. It is just voted over policy, and were the others listed for deletion, I presume the weight of votes would be determinative, not policy. Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, believe me, I know. But in my experience, there is little to no chance an article will a) fail to be created or b) get deleted if certain users think it makes Palestinians look bad and Israelis look good, regardless of WP:EVENT and other policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for pointing out the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_murder_of_Yehuda_Shoham&oldid=1136107496"