While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the
scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please
Join,
Create, and
Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Definitions of mass shooting vary, but the usual minimum when describing & categorising attacks on WP is at least 4 people shot (regardless of number killed).
Jim Michael (
talk)
16:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
An editor removed the citation required tag, we cannot link to an article defining a mass killing in one way when the article details don't fit that definition, a usage which appears to have been invented by WP editors ie OR.(the cat as well is problematic).
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
For now, I agree with The Turtle Ninja. This isn't a mass shooting and the tag should be removed. @
Jim Michael:, if you believe that the usual standard on WP is at least 4 people shot, can you pull up some sort of reference or precedent for that? --
Bob drobbs (
talk)
19:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Jim Michael: Thanks for sharing precedent. The only group who seems to use that definition is the Mass Shooting Tracker, and they no longer exist. There's no need for us to follow that precedent here, especially as it seems questionable. --
Bob drobbs (
talk)
19:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
It's the way WP has defined mass shootings for years. We have dozens of articles about them & it makes no sense to make an exception on this little-viewed article. Categorising mass by number of victims makes sense. To categorise as (mass) murder obviously requires victims to have been killed, but the death toll for a mass/spree shooting can be very low (for example,
Darkley killings: 10 shot, but only 3 killed) or even zero (for example,
2018 Moss Side shooting: 12 shot, but none killed).
Jim Michael (
talk)
20:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I did briefly look through some of the country cats under that heading and the only one I saw with an explanatory text in the cat description was the Israel entry, it says, ambiguously, "Shootings that murder and injure multiple people" Again, I didn't look at all of the Israel entries but the ones I looked at were multiple deaths. So short of going through them all for every country trying to find a clear cut unambiguous explanation I would say that it firstly is misleading to wikilink an article with a different definition to an article where the circumstances are different and secondly, while the categorization may have been set up differently, I can't find any evidence for how it was set up. Even if there was a WP definition somewhere (a centralized discussion or a cat discussion) it would likely be OR if it did not agree with the article for mass shootings. So I think it best if we stay away from that for now.
Selfstudier (
talk)
21:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Mass murder being a minimum of 4 killed & mass shooting being minimum of 4 shot has been standard for years on WP. It makes sense, although I don't know whether or not discussions were had about it.
Jim Michael (
talk)
22:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
If it's a standard, then there is a record of that somewhere and to me it makes no sense at all because it directly contradicts our own article on the subject which would likely make it OR even if there was an agreement written down someplace. I assume mass murder is the FBI definition mentioned at
Mass murder.
Selfstudier (
talk)
22:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Then this silent consensus must have developed across several early articles and they could be located. >4 people dead by shooting is both a mass shooting and mass murder, some (or even all, I didn't check them all) of the articles in the shooting cat are mass murders. So the division seems a bit arbitrary. If it was just me, well, it confused at least three editors and it would probably confuse more if they had seen it. Do the FBI have a definition for mass shooting?
Selfstudier (
talk)
23:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
It's more likely that consensus developed over a period of weeks, months or years over many articles, as more articles & cats were created.
I gave examples in this section of 2 articles about mass shootings that weren't mass murders, because their death tolls were 3 & 0 respectively.
Jim Michael (
talk)
14:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
No-one's saying that this shooting is a massacre. I raised the point of massacre being difficult to define because it's a similar issue to defining mass shooting.
Jim Michael (
talk)
19:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
If the conclusion is that there is no way to show any prior consensus (besides yourself asserting that one exists) for what appears to be a somewhat arbitrary definition, I cannot see how it can be applied here, tbh (or anywhere, I would also object if I saw it somewhere else). The other way is to find rs calling it that and dispense with the contradictory wikilink. This seems something that could be addressed via a centralized discussion somewhere and a "noisy" consensus established. I am intrigued by it all the same, I will dig about a bit and see what I can find.
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
This came up quite quickly on a first pass, seems to mix shootings/murders, note "For example, if 10 people are shot but only 2 dies, the incident is not a mass shooting." (second line, second para).
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
What counts as a mass shooting? The dangerous effects of varying definitions, researchers trying to get the US gov to make a definition, generally "Since then [2013, Sandy Hook], mass shootings have been generally understood to mean four or more people shot and killed, excluding the shooter, in a public place." they instead "recommend that the definition of mass shooting should be four or more people, excluding the shooter, who are shot in a single event regardless of the motive, setting or number of deaths."
I agree a definition is desirable but it either needs to agree with the article or a consensus that can be pointed to. Else it's just made up by Wikipedians (OR). Which is what the Guardian article is going on about, made up definitions by different databases. 3 editors found it confusing and there are not that many here. In IP area, massacre does not get used unless RS use it which they rarely do and so the usual thing is a massacre altname sourced to the Arabic press. If there is local consensus for US lists (I'll take your word for that) it is not automatically applicable at this article where we have in fact reached a different local consensus which cannot be ignored absent some policy or formal process (RFC, centralized discussion, policy page/guideline).
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
We can just change this article's title. Anyways, I would personally not be opposed to more articles about shootings in the area, no matter whether or not Jews or Palestinians are the ones being shot.
Dunutubble (
talk)
21:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
There is debate about this, some consider this kind of article as memorializing and not that notable, routine even. Assassinations of notable figures are obviously notable but this sort of thing is arguably not, most murders are not recorded in WP except perhaps as a list entry or something of that sort. It is generally unclear for a recent event if there will be any long term effect/coverage or whether it will be forgotten by the next news cycle. Others think differently. I am in two minds about this one atm.
Selfstudier (
talk)
22:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
This shooting is notable because the gunman acted for Hamas. Had this been an ordinary case of someone shooting their family or colleagues, it's unlikely it would have an article, or much media coverage.
Jim Michael (
talk)
22:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
We differ on "ordinary", the IDF kill people as well, 76 so far this year including 16 children, and excluding the large numbers killed in the Gaza flareup, none have an article, perhaps they should, it's a conflict, people get killed, that's what I meant by routine.
Selfstudier (
talk)
23:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
By ordinary I mean without an ideology; typical when someone kills several of their colleagues at work or family members at home.
A crime's notability is significantly higher if committed by a
designated terrorist group. If this gunman had been a 'lone madman' or someone acting out of personal revenge or a workplace dispute rather than a Hamas member, this would be unlikely to have an article.
Jim Michael (
talk)
14:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
That's an arbitrary label applied by the Western democracies for the most part (UN designated excepted), the outcome is the same, someone is dead. Whether Hamas killed them or the IDF did, if there is notability it is the circumstances that give rise to notability not a label. It's a bit like saying its notable because the killer was a communist. Which bit of
WP:GNG do you refer to?
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
What Jim appears to be saying is that this was carried out by an armed militant group whereas killings carried out by an army military group like the IDF, without provocation, out of thin air, with no known motivation, are not notable. One is a partial state actor (Hamas, being the elected representative of the people at least of Gaza) the other a full state actor, Israel. Essentially, if Israel shoots dead some fellow in the street, without provocation, it is ignorable. If Hamas does the same, it becomes major news. Jim's POV is of course neither logical nor legal (in international law, both types of killings are subject to criminal proceedings in theory) but it does reflect the systemic bias of the Western press, which in turn reflects the natural bias of the Israel press and military authorities.
Nishidani (
talk)
15:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Of course but some of the IDF killings do get international diverse coverage (like that 13 year old) and so are "notable" (WP style) but we usually don't do articles on those. On balance I am in the camp that would rather do away with all such articles and I definitely think there should be a cooling off period period before a rush to an article, someone dies, WP article an hour later when no-one has a clue whether it is really notable. I exaggerate, you know what I mean though.
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not using POV - I'm using WP notability as a guide. This isn't a Western thing - many non-Western countries designate various
VNSA groups as terrorist. Most killings by state actors aren't notable - those which are have usually received a lot of media coverage (such as the
murder of Sarah Everard) &/or have a high death toll (such as the
Rann bombing).
Jim Michael (
talk)
17:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
As a general thing, I don't disagree but this is the IP "conflict", where an occupier gets a free pass for his crimes while the occupied get the blame for fighting back while the death tolls are in no way comparable. I still say a terrorist designation does not add to notability per se, what you mean is that RS like to pick up on such angles and thus there is relatively more RS. Of course, Israel is well aware of this which is why your average Israeli spokesman can't go 5 minutes without mentioning Hamas or terrorism (and probably Iran for good measure). This and other factors lead to a systemic bias but we won't solve that here.
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Targeting civilians isn't fighting back - it's attacking. Incidents being categorised as terrorist adds a significant amount of notability - articles have been deleted due to a lack of ideology because they were ordinary shootings, stabbings etc. Articles are significantly more likely to be posted to ITN if they have an ideology. We have articles such as
List of terrorist incidents in 2021 & cats such as
Category:Terrorist incidents in 2021.
Jim Michael (
talk)
19:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
The IDF targets civilians too but when they do it its called fighting terrorism, let's not continue this because its a POV question and ours obviously differ.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Some issues raised on this talk page aren't specific to this article & few people are going to read this TP, because this article has only had about 5,000 views.
Jim Michael (
talk)
18:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
DW (a reliable source) says it was a "Carlo-type" SMG so I amended the infobox to say that. We can't really use the source you provided, sorry.
Selfstudier (
talk)
13:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)reply
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the
scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please
Join,
Create, and
Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Definitions of mass shooting vary, but the usual minimum when describing & categorising attacks on WP is at least 4 people shot (regardless of number killed).
Jim Michael (
talk)
16:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
An editor removed the citation required tag, we cannot link to an article defining a mass killing in one way when the article details don't fit that definition, a usage which appears to have been invented by WP editors ie OR.(the cat as well is problematic).
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
For now, I agree with The Turtle Ninja. This isn't a mass shooting and the tag should be removed. @
Jim Michael:, if you believe that the usual standard on WP is at least 4 people shot, can you pull up some sort of reference or precedent for that? --
Bob drobbs (
talk)
19:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Jim Michael: Thanks for sharing precedent. The only group who seems to use that definition is the Mass Shooting Tracker, and they no longer exist. There's no need for us to follow that precedent here, especially as it seems questionable. --
Bob drobbs (
talk)
19:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
It's the way WP has defined mass shootings for years. We have dozens of articles about them & it makes no sense to make an exception on this little-viewed article. Categorising mass by number of victims makes sense. To categorise as (mass) murder obviously requires victims to have been killed, but the death toll for a mass/spree shooting can be very low (for example,
Darkley killings: 10 shot, but only 3 killed) or even zero (for example,
2018 Moss Side shooting: 12 shot, but none killed).
Jim Michael (
talk)
20:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I did briefly look through some of the country cats under that heading and the only one I saw with an explanatory text in the cat description was the Israel entry, it says, ambiguously, "Shootings that murder and injure multiple people" Again, I didn't look at all of the Israel entries but the ones I looked at were multiple deaths. So short of going through them all for every country trying to find a clear cut unambiguous explanation I would say that it firstly is misleading to wikilink an article with a different definition to an article where the circumstances are different and secondly, while the categorization may have been set up differently, I can't find any evidence for how it was set up. Even if there was a WP definition somewhere (a centralized discussion or a cat discussion) it would likely be OR if it did not agree with the article for mass shootings. So I think it best if we stay away from that for now.
Selfstudier (
talk)
21:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Mass murder being a minimum of 4 killed & mass shooting being minimum of 4 shot has been standard for years on WP. It makes sense, although I don't know whether or not discussions were had about it.
Jim Michael (
talk)
22:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
If it's a standard, then there is a record of that somewhere and to me it makes no sense at all because it directly contradicts our own article on the subject which would likely make it OR even if there was an agreement written down someplace. I assume mass murder is the FBI definition mentioned at
Mass murder.
Selfstudier (
talk)
22:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Then this silent consensus must have developed across several early articles and they could be located. >4 people dead by shooting is both a mass shooting and mass murder, some (or even all, I didn't check them all) of the articles in the shooting cat are mass murders. So the division seems a bit arbitrary. If it was just me, well, it confused at least three editors and it would probably confuse more if they had seen it. Do the FBI have a definition for mass shooting?
Selfstudier (
talk)
23:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
It's more likely that consensus developed over a period of weeks, months or years over many articles, as more articles & cats were created.
I gave examples in this section of 2 articles about mass shootings that weren't mass murders, because their death tolls were 3 & 0 respectively.
Jim Michael (
talk)
14:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
No-one's saying that this shooting is a massacre. I raised the point of massacre being difficult to define because it's a similar issue to defining mass shooting.
Jim Michael (
talk)
19:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
If the conclusion is that there is no way to show any prior consensus (besides yourself asserting that one exists) for what appears to be a somewhat arbitrary definition, I cannot see how it can be applied here, tbh (or anywhere, I would also object if I saw it somewhere else). The other way is to find rs calling it that and dispense with the contradictory wikilink. This seems something that could be addressed via a centralized discussion somewhere and a "noisy" consensus established. I am intrigued by it all the same, I will dig about a bit and see what I can find.
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
This came up quite quickly on a first pass, seems to mix shootings/murders, note "For example, if 10 people are shot but only 2 dies, the incident is not a mass shooting." (second line, second para).
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
What counts as a mass shooting? The dangerous effects of varying definitions, researchers trying to get the US gov to make a definition, generally "Since then [2013, Sandy Hook], mass shootings have been generally understood to mean four or more people shot and killed, excluding the shooter, in a public place." they instead "recommend that the definition of mass shooting should be four or more people, excluding the shooter, who are shot in a single event regardless of the motive, setting or number of deaths."
I agree a definition is desirable but it either needs to agree with the article or a consensus that can be pointed to. Else it's just made up by Wikipedians (OR). Which is what the Guardian article is going on about, made up definitions by different databases. 3 editors found it confusing and there are not that many here. In IP area, massacre does not get used unless RS use it which they rarely do and so the usual thing is a massacre altname sourced to the Arabic press. If there is local consensus for US lists (I'll take your word for that) it is not automatically applicable at this article where we have in fact reached a different local consensus which cannot be ignored absent some policy or formal process (RFC, centralized discussion, policy page/guideline).
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
We can just change this article's title. Anyways, I would personally not be opposed to more articles about shootings in the area, no matter whether or not Jews or Palestinians are the ones being shot.
Dunutubble (
talk)
21:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
There is debate about this, some consider this kind of article as memorializing and not that notable, routine even. Assassinations of notable figures are obviously notable but this sort of thing is arguably not, most murders are not recorded in WP except perhaps as a list entry or something of that sort. It is generally unclear for a recent event if there will be any long term effect/coverage or whether it will be forgotten by the next news cycle. Others think differently. I am in two minds about this one atm.
Selfstudier (
talk)
22:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
This shooting is notable because the gunman acted for Hamas. Had this been an ordinary case of someone shooting their family or colleagues, it's unlikely it would have an article, or much media coverage.
Jim Michael (
talk)
22:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
We differ on "ordinary", the IDF kill people as well, 76 so far this year including 16 children, and excluding the large numbers killed in the Gaza flareup, none have an article, perhaps they should, it's a conflict, people get killed, that's what I meant by routine.
Selfstudier (
talk)
23:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
By ordinary I mean without an ideology; typical when someone kills several of their colleagues at work or family members at home.
A crime's notability is significantly higher if committed by a
designated terrorist group. If this gunman had been a 'lone madman' or someone acting out of personal revenge or a workplace dispute rather than a Hamas member, this would be unlikely to have an article.
Jim Michael (
talk)
14:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
That's an arbitrary label applied by the Western democracies for the most part (UN designated excepted), the outcome is the same, someone is dead. Whether Hamas killed them or the IDF did, if there is notability it is the circumstances that give rise to notability not a label. It's a bit like saying its notable because the killer was a communist. Which bit of
WP:GNG do you refer to?
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
What Jim appears to be saying is that this was carried out by an armed militant group whereas killings carried out by an army military group like the IDF, without provocation, out of thin air, with no known motivation, are not notable. One is a partial state actor (Hamas, being the elected representative of the people at least of Gaza) the other a full state actor, Israel. Essentially, if Israel shoots dead some fellow in the street, without provocation, it is ignorable. If Hamas does the same, it becomes major news. Jim's POV is of course neither logical nor legal (in international law, both types of killings are subject to criminal proceedings in theory) but it does reflect the systemic bias of the Western press, which in turn reflects the natural bias of the Israel press and military authorities.
Nishidani (
talk)
15:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Of course but some of the IDF killings do get international diverse coverage (like that 13 year old) and so are "notable" (WP style) but we usually don't do articles on those. On balance I am in the camp that would rather do away with all such articles and I definitely think there should be a cooling off period period before a rush to an article, someone dies, WP article an hour later when no-one has a clue whether it is really notable. I exaggerate, you know what I mean though.
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not using POV - I'm using WP notability as a guide. This isn't a Western thing - many non-Western countries designate various
VNSA groups as terrorist. Most killings by state actors aren't notable - those which are have usually received a lot of media coverage (such as the
murder of Sarah Everard) &/or have a high death toll (such as the
Rann bombing).
Jim Michael (
talk)
17:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
As a general thing, I don't disagree but this is the IP "conflict", where an occupier gets a free pass for his crimes while the occupied get the blame for fighting back while the death tolls are in no way comparable. I still say a terrorist designation does not add to notability per se, what you mean is that RS like to pick up on such angles and thus there is relatively more RS. Of course, Israel is well aware of this which is why your average Israeli spokesman can't go 5 minutes without mentioning Hamas or terrorism (and probably Iran for good measure). This and other factors lead to a systemic bias but we won't solve that here.
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Targeting civilians isn't fighting back - it's attacking. Incidents being categorised as terrorist adds a significant amount of notability - articles have been deleted due to a lack of ideology because they were ordinary shootings, stabbings etc. Articles are significantly more likely to be posted to ITN if they have an ideology. We have articles such as
List of terrorist incidents in 2021 & cats such as
Category:Terrorist incidents in 2021.
Jim Michael (
talk)
19:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
The IDF targets civilians too but when they do it its called fighting terrorism, let's not continue this because its a POV question and ours obviously differ.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Some issues raised on this talk page aren't specific to this article & few people are going to read this TP, because this article has only had about 5,000 views.
Jim Michael (
talk)
18:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)reply
DW (a reliable source) says it was a "Carlo-type" SMG so I amended the infobox to say that. We can't really use the source you provided, sorry.
Selfstudier (
talk)
13:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)reply