Talk:2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack

Images

Stop deleting the images! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsdjfhkjsb (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

See [1]. It seems they have free images that we can use. I just dont have the time now to upload them. Thanks, -Reuvenk_{T C} 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they have "royalty free" images, which is quite different from licensing images for modification and use by others, which is what the licensing says now. These images will be deleted shortly unless someone can point out a licensing page where these are put under CC-BY 3.0. - BanyanTree 04:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It clearly states on the main page of the site Please use these freely, and if possible indicate to us whenever you use any of these materials by contacting one of the following persons : elio@theisraelproject.org

Feel free to contact him if you wish. Lsdjfhkjsb —Preceding comment was added at 04:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(We're discussing this in case anyone is interested.)

"Please use freely" is not "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0". They seem to be describing Template:Copyrighted free use provided that, with their optional specifications, or possibly Template:Attribution, if one is being generous. In any case, I'm convinced that the licensing problems are not such that they require immediate deletion, despite the problematic licensing.

Also, please sign your posts by either typing four tildes or using the little signature button above the edit window. - BanyanTree 05:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Name

I think "rampage" is a little strong. How about "attack"? -- tariqabjotu 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

agreed. rampage is hardly NPOV Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

nah, rampage sounds a lot cooler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.183.67 (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JaffaRoadTemplate.PNG someone please put the location on the map--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

location map is at the bottom here --143.239.215.33 (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done See Image:JaffaRoadBulldozerAttack.png -Reuvenk_{T C} 21:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusion on equipment...

Was the vehicle in question a bulldozer or a backhoe? Both are used in the articleas well as in the wikinews article. These are not the same piece of machinery... Tomer^talk 18:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A bulldozer is a tracked chassis tractor, for example the giant armoured Caterpillar D9 units which the zionists use to destroy palestinian homes and farmland in their quest to change the ethical standing of the Holy Land. 91.83.20.50 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There could also be tracked chassis front end loaders: see picture Image:Liebherr 631 Kettenlader 1.JPG. The machine used in this instance is a wheeled front end loader like the one seen on the loader page: Loader (equipment). A bulldozer does not have a bucket that can be raised to dump the load. However, I think the title is fine because peopel will more likely search for bulldozer. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 04:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Name

The vehicle used was not a Bulldozer, but a Tractor fitted with a front loader.--79.181.138.231 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ppl... Tomer^talk 18:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope that picture is clear enough- [2].--79.181.138.231 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the article calls it a "tractor", a "bulldozer", and an "earthmover". Where did the "backhoe" come into it? Tomer^talk 19:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, if possible, tell me how to change the article's name, or if it isn't, someone should change it according to my statement here above.--79.181.138.231 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To quote from bulldozer,

The term "bulldozer" is often used to mean any heavy engineering vehicle, but precisely, the term refers only to a tractor (usually tracked) fitted with a dozer blade.

Even though the vehicle in question does not fit that definition, mention should definitely be made of the fact that the vehicle is at least being called a bulldozer in the media. (Probably because "front-end loader" or "tractor" don't sound as sensational.) Tomer^talk 19:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How unfortunate that meta commentary in the mainstream media is unlikely to take place at all. It would be great to have a reliable source for the claim that they more or less intentionally used the term bulldozer for effect. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Media reports of the attack frequently refer to the front-end loader, erroneously, as a "bulldozer"" (from the article),"mention should definitely be made of the fact that the vehicle is at least being called a bulldozer in the media. (Probably because "front-end loader" or "tractor" don't sound as sensational.)" (from the talk page).

So how should the article's headline/name go about this? Should it go with the popular media definition, or the more correct one? I have actually no opinion, and am ondering what is done in a case like this..--79.181.138.231 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia uses the most common name by which a topic is referred to. In this case, all the news reports 'relied' on each other and erroneously called the incident a bulldozer attack, so that would be the most common name. Technically, since no one will type in 2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack, and since Jerusalem bulldozer attack is a redirect to this article, the title could be adjusted to reflect the accurate description. But imho the explanation given in the article is sufficient. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Eli Mizrahi - police officer or off-duty soldier?

Eli Mizrahi, the person who killed the perpetrator with two shots to the head has been named and called 'police officer' in this BBC article but this MSNBC article (which doesn't name Mizrahi) talks about an 'off-duty soldier'. Can someone help confirm which is actually the case? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

the CNN article says both. Spencer^T♦C 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just found that Hareetz clears it up as well. The perpetrator was first shot in the head three times by the unnamed off-duty soldier (the civilist in the footage) and then police officer Eli Mizrahi (the guy in uniform in the footage) fired two more shots. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Eli Mizrahi is a cop, as several on-line Hebrew articles reveal, I will not cite because it has already been confirmed. --79.181.138.231 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of perpetrator

This source, YnetNews, says that the perpetrator's name is "Hussam". Now, I don't know how you guys treat hebrew references, I actually don't even know how to make a reference, so I'll just change the name in the article, letting one of you do the reference. I have to get more seriously into Wikipedia.--79.181.138.231 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Let me add that all the English sources I've found call the perpetrator "Jabr", and all of the hebrew sources call him "Hussam". Am I missing something here?--79.181.138.231 (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's weird. I don't know. Spencer^T♦C 22:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Title

The article says: "Media reports of the attack frequently refer to the front-end loader, erroneously, as a "bulldozer"." ...so we do too?

Though I have to agree, the current title sounds better than "2008 Jerusalem front-end loader attack." Spencer^T♦C 22:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We commonly use the title by which most people will most easily recognise the topic. And since virtually all media coverage erroneously talks about a bulldozer attack, it is the correct article title to be used. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I believe what WP:NC, WP:NC(CN), WP:NCON, etc. are talking about when they advocate using the "common" name over the "correct" name is, for example, using Marilyn Manson instead of Brian Warner, or Pluto instead of 134340 Pluto (the scientific name). In these cases, the two possible titles are synonyms for the same thing. As they say, "a rose by any other name is just as sweet." In this case, "loader" and "bulldozer" are not synonymous; a loader is what was used and a bulldozer is not, and therefore we should go with the former.

We can always redirect from what people may mistakenly use. What might be the best solution would be to come up with a name that avoids using either "bulldozer" or "loader," but still makes it clear which attack this is; I just haven't thought of one yet. Notice, however, that many of the media accounts do not mention the name of the machinery at all; or they call it "earthmover."[3] Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter it's a bulldozer or or loader.

For common man it's simply a bulldozer.This is not a eng. related article so there is no need of distinction.User talk:Yousaf465

Yes, there is: we strive for accuracy. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Change of title to "2008 Jerusalem bulldozer massacre"

You should change the title from: 2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack, to "2008 Jerusalem bulldozer massacre" - such a names is more appropriate, as with any case in which someone has gone on a fatal rampage e.g. Mercaz Harav Massacre, Columbine Massacre, etc. --124.190.244.83 (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We use a descriptive title which most people will recognise and likely look for. Media have predominantly referred to the incident as the 'Jerusalem bulldozer attack', so that's what we use. We even know for a fact that it wasn't a bulldozer, but that doesn't matter since people will be looking for that term. Also, we don't buy into propaganda of any kind. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A redirect works as well in getting people to the correct page based on what they are familiar with. I think given the fact that Wikipedia plays a leadership role (rather than merely following the media, despite the fact that we are a tertiary source), it is appropriate to use whatever is the most accurate name (I speak not so much in reference to the attack/massacre distinction but to my recent move of the article to 2008 Jerusalem front-end loader attack.) Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been moved to "front-end loader attack" now, with the rationale that that's more accurate. On a descriptive basis, though, that's not the term the media are using for it ("bulldozer" is what everyone else is saying), so not sure it's appropriate for us to use our own terminology. As for "massacre", I agree that's not the right term, both because nobody else is using it, and because three deaths is not a massacre. --Delirium (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern but there are also many people who come here first for their news (not to mention they may well look here for the story years from now), and so it's also important to consider, Are we perpetuating an inaccurate labeling of this event? Maybe the news media will follow us and others who begin using the correct description of what it was. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Google news search only has bulldozer. Also MOS says that most common name applies. Front-end loader is way too technical for an article title. Especially when virtually all news sources refer to it as a bulldozer. I mean what next? Do we have to describe the make and model of the "front-end loader" in the title for accuracy? I move to revert back to bulldozer. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong project. We are not a news source. We merely summarise what has been published in other sources. 2008 Jerusalem front-end loader attack is therefore unambiguously the wrong article title. Also consider that with our article titles we do not strive for accuracy, but for the most common usage already in place. Moving it back to the correct title. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It could just as well be called 2008 Jerusalem loader attack. Bear in mind, the media tends to get facts wrong a lot of times in their rush to disseminate the news rapidly, and only later gets the right story. I would compare it to a situation in which, say, 4,000 news articles came out with a headline of "Dewey defeats Truman" and then a few more up-to-date articles noted that more recent reports show that Truman actually won. In that case, we should go with the corrected facts in our article title (despite the story that the public is more familiar with), perhaps noting that earlier reports said something different. Nonetheless, the article title wouldn't be something along the lines of "Defeat of Truman by Dewey" unless it was specifically about the early mis-reporting. That's a slightly bad example in that in the real world our article title would simply be the more neutrally-worded United States presidential election, 1948, but you get the gist.

Also, I'm having a bit of trouble locating the place in WP:MOS that says we should use the term that was most commonly reported by the media, without regard to accuracy. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things. Ona related note: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), the page title should be Jerusalem bulldozer attack, since that title is unambiguous without the date. And it doesn't matter if the media are right or wrong when gauging the most common usage. Most common things are both wrong and stupid, but that's not what we're asking for when determine the correct article title to be used. We ask simply for the most common usage, which is without any doubt Jerusalem bulldozer attack. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) makes it pretty clear the application being made to this type of case (i.e. changing "loader" to the inaccurately-reported "bulldozer") is not what they had in mind, but whatever. I'll add it to my noticeboard and move on. Cheers, Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Details Section

Please, look at this video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486366.stm
At the beginning of it, you can see that when the bulldozer starts again both the unnamed policeman (blue t-shirt) and the other policeman (with the yellow jacket) are already in and around the cabin. At the end of it you can see how the policemen in the yellow jacket is helped descending the cabin, wounded or simply shaken by the shots fired near his head. I am not sure he fired any shots.
in this other video, uncensored, you can see and hear the 4 shots fired by the guy in the blue t-shirt:
http://video.corriere.it/?vxSiteId=404a0ad6-6216-4e10-abfe-f4f6959487fd&vxChannel=Dal%20Mondo&vxClipId=2524_c17e2eb2-4835-11dd-b8f1-00144f02aabc&vxBitrate=300
I see no shots fired by the policemen in the yellow jacket.

Comments? --Pmstar (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The guy in yellow didn't fire any shots. The guy in the blue shirt (the unnamed 'off-duty soldier') shoots first. He said afterwards [4] that he fired three shots, but in the footage 4 shots fired by him can clearly be heard. After that, the policeman in the black uniform (Eli Mizrahi) fires two more shots. This can be seen in the full footage, to which I couldn't find a legal link so far. Unfortunately, we cannot use a link to a copyright violation in our articles, but for information's sake, I'll give this link here (only on the talk page!) until a legal replacement can be found: [5] Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've edited the section to account for the unnamed soldier's own account as quoted by Hareetz. According to him, he and civilian Oron Ben Shimon, who happened to be armed, had climbed the cabin trying "at least to pull his feet off the accelerator". The soldier then grabbed the civilian's handgun and fired four (not three, as he later recalled) shots at the perpetrator's head. The man who can be seen struggling with the driver in the cabin (wearing a yellow jacket) is apparently Oron Ben Shimon. Eli Mizrahi, as can be clearly seen in the footage, only climbed up to the cabin when the vehicle had come to a halt again and then fired to more shots at the slumped body. Two questions remain: (i) whether or not yellow jacket guy actually is Oron Ben Shimon, which I assume, deducing from the soldier's account quoted by Hareetz and the video footage itself. (ii) a fourth guy, who isn't mentioned anywhere (with a black shirt), can be seen in the footage, who appears to have also been up at the cabin before Mizrahi climbed up. He is then seen leaving before Mizrahi fires his two shots, while others help the yellow jacket guy (who is hurt or shocked) off the vehicle. Opinions? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Struck. This latest release by Hareetz clears it up pretty well, edited accordingly. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• This video shows the shooting from a different angle, even if there is still a cut between the 2 shootings: reuters video--Pmstar (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The correct Reuters link is here (you must have waited too long and it switched to the next vid). Anyway, thanks for finding this. However, it's still not clear who of two other guys is who: There is the guy with the yellow jacket (is that a police jacket by any chance?) who passes out during the shooting and is seen first wrestling with the perpetrator and later hanging half out the tractor door. Then there is another guy with a black shirt (but not the uniformed cop) who doesn't shoot, but was also engaged in the cabin struggle before policeman Mizrahi (the cop with helmet and the rifle who fires the final two shots) climbs the truck. One of the two must be Oron Ben Shimon whose gun the soldier (blue shirt) used to fire the first shots (he and Ordo say three shots, but four can be distinguished); the other guy, according to Ordo (as quoted by Hareetz) was another policeman. It would be terrific if someone could confirm who is who. The best clue so far appears to be that yellow jacket. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

attempts to subdue attacker

Certain editors insist on having following sentence included into the article: Video footage of the incident shows no attempt at subduing the perpetrator instead of killing him. It's an obvious OR, as they're not able to give any references to such statement and prefer to use power in the argument. It is absolutely irrelevant comment and it's not clear why anyone would even attempted preserving life of an attacker. I suggest that this sentence be either removed or properly referenced. It would be great if one could participate in the discussion, rather than running for admins' help with ban requests. --143.239.215.33 (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the video footage? Did you see any attempt at ending the situation in an arrest? In fact, Hareetz quotes the off-duty soldier as saying that he never intended anything but to kill the perpertrator. This is a very relevant factoid, as would have been attempts to subdue him without killing him. Consider that Wikipedia strives for both accuracy and completeness of coverage. I'm going to include a non-copyvio reference to the footage as soon as I find it. It's out there, but I haven't found a legal link to the full footage (the BBC cut out the shooting). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wait. It has nothing to do what I've or haven't seen. If you want to quote Haaretz - that's great by me. But that would be only re actions/intentions of that soldier. You shouldn't derive/describe anything in this video. If it's so obvious what's going on, than anyone can see it for themselves. Right? --143.239.215.33 (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly speaks against mentioning it in a simple and straightforward manner? Otoh, I'm removing the statement for now. The policeman with the yellow jacket who was actually inside the cabin didn't fire any shots and so it seems the intention to kill is limited to the soldier who fired the first four shots to the perpetrators head at point blank range. That intention is implicitly included in the Hareetz quotation. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed inappropriate/OR to decide/derive from the video that no attempt was made to subdue the attacker. However it would be fine if there is a RS which mentions this issue provided it isn't given undue weight Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the statements of civilian Oron Ben Shimon and the young soldier are correct, they did indeed try to get his feet off the pedal and Oron in particular attempted to take over the wheel. To avert the acute danger of more people being run over by the speeding vehicle, he said he then shouted at the "young man next to him" (the soldier, an 18 year-old recruit) to shoot the driver. The soldier then grabbed Oron's gun and reached inside the cabin, firing four shots in total, three of which hit into the driver's head. What had me thinking that there was the an a priori intention to kill him was the soldier's statement: "I got closer to the bulldozer, the whole time looking for my weapon to shoot him." Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This last statement also strides with the other affirmation the unnamed soldier did: if he had his own gun, there was no need for him to take and use Oron's gun as reported in reference [8] in the current article, right?--Pmstar (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My best guess is that the soldier was figuratively speaking and that it was lost in translation that he actually meant he was looking for a gun, or the gun to use rather than his own personal weapon. Since he is an 18 year-old recruit, it's safe to assume that he doesn't have a personal firearm. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

An 18 yo recruit who was off duty, at that. Tomer^talk 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He most probably does have his own gun (unless he just finished basic training, and hasn't started the next stage yet). Soldiers carry a gun throughout basic training, and fighters carry a gun throughout their service. However, this would have been an M-16, not a pistol (which usually only officers carry). okedem (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

bulldozer, front-end loader, whatever

Can anyone verify that this is the exact same type of heavy machinery that is routinely used to destroy Palestinian houses?Amity150 (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not. This is a vehicle used for moving loads, sand etc, not demolishing building. I don't think it has enough power to demolish a house. The IDF used mostly the Caterpillar D9 when tearing down terrorists' houses. okedem (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian houses?. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I wish it was only Palestinian TERRORIST'S houses. Unfortunately, it is not. It happens without a trial, so no one to say if they are terrorists or not. Often it is just land that is wanted for Jewish settlement, or a family whose departure is desired. I have persoanlly known quite a few families who had no accusations at all levelled against them, but whose houses were demolished.Amity150 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI: this vehicle could demolish a house (in fact a tracked front loader may frequently be used for that purpose) but a wheeled front end loader is used for loading trucks and moving dirt, etc. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 00:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsworthy?

Four people died altogether, that many people died in the city I live in from road fatalities today, I'm very surprised that this is considered newsworthy, and a terrorist attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.54.73 (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, when it happens with intent to murder, and not because the roads in the city you live are of low quality construction, then it is newsworthy.--79.180.149.72 (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, big words! I wasn't having a go at you, just merely saying that the whole terrorist attack label is BS, what if the guy was just pissed off and went on a rampage? I'm sure more people died in America from malicious gunshot wounds in the time it took me to write this statement than people who died in this 'attack'. I am not pro muslim or pro jewish, just saying that this site shouldn't cater to the whole war on terror thing.211.28.54.73 (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The 'terrorist attack' label has been tried to pin on it very clearly for political purposes (but there's no reliable source for that, yet). As to newsworthy, you might want to ask that question to the various news agencies who have made it their headline news. We merely react to the immense media output regarding the incident, as we're just a tertiary source. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

perpetrator's name and age

So which is it? Jabr Duwait, Husam Duwait, Hussam Duwiyat or Hossam Dawyyat? All of those variants have been used by big media outlets. Similarly, his age has been quoted as 30, 31 and 32. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only do we not know that, but it is clear that the news organizations don't know that either. So we just report what is said. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Since it clearly isn't a bulldozer, can we change the name? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Y Done - wow I'm prompt. ViperSnake151 15:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, we cannot. We name article according to what the topic is most commonly referred to, and that is without a doubt "Jerusalem bulldozer attack. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I started a parallel thread at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#When_the_two_names_under_consideration_are_not_synonyms.2C_but_one_reflects_early_.28inaccurate.29_media_reports in an effort to attract input from those who are sufficiently interested (and thus perhaps more knowledgeable and experienced) with naming conflicts to have watchlisted that page. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• The article has been move protected (move:sysop) for 1 day on my request. Hopefully, the issue can be clarified until then. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If youre gonna say that its a Bulldozer.. then atleast get an admin to change hwat you put in the Main Page.. it says.. A Palestinian man drives a front-end loader into several vehicles in Jerusalem, killing three before being shot dead. .. change it.. so we're not confused.II MusLiM HyBRiD II (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Read the article, that may lift your confusion... Also, the title to which you moved the page is clearly inconsistent with our naming conventions, for reasons unrelated to the question of whether bulldozer should be in the title or not. Particularly consider that article titles are not striving for the most accurate name, but for the most common name. In the article itself, we strive for accuracy. Those are two different things on Wikipedia, please distinguish them accordingly. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In common English usage (i.e. not in specialist jargon), a "bulldozer" is a generic term for large earth-moving construction equipment. Consult your local dictionary. --Delirium (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Alternatively, to really split hairs, it's a wheel-mounted front-end loader. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of hero

As I wrote in the article and in my talkpage, the off-duty soldier asked and received a court injuction not to publicize his name. I guess you are complying with it, by writing a name which is not the correct name.... Happy138 (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that claim? The name Moshe Klessner has been published in at least two outlets, including Haaretz. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that only apply to media inside of Israel though? This is the global media. Also, the word hero is extremely biased, to some the dude in the bulldozer was a hero...211.28.54.73 (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's say I know the family personally, but that is OR of course. And I think each one of us should choose their own heroes... Happy138 (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Imho, the only heroism and bravery involved is that of the bereaved who now have to live with the loss of any of the four dead. Also, the perpetrator's exgirlfriend rightly asks why he had to be killed. How did a policeman, a soldier and a security firm employee together manage not to get him out of the cabin? Just saying, since this is about OR anyway, none of which will be included in the article. End of discussion? Everyme 22:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I rather doubt you'll find Haaretz publishing the name of the off-duty soldier who shot the guy. To quote from the JPost,

Realizing that the Arab behind the wheel was in the midst of a terror rampage, "M" (his identity and unit are barred from publication by a court order) threw his bike to the side of the road and began to chase the bulldozer. (emphasis mine)

Until the court injunction is lifted, it would be foolhardy of Haaretz to print his name. I'm sure there are people at the paper who are dying to print it, such is the nature of the endemic IBMS (Israeli Big Mouth Syndrome), but the editors have not, as yet, given into the desire to do so. If you can support the above statement, to wit, that Haaretz has published the name "Moshe Klessner", with a citation from Ha'aretz, please do so. Tomer^talk 13:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I said that Haaretz had published his name in error, they didn't. Everyme 14:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusing redirects

So... Jerusalem front-end loader attack is merely a redirect to Jerusalem bulldozer attack, but Talk:Jerusalem front-end loader attack is the real talk page, while Talk:Jerusalem bulldozer attack is just a CfD notice. Huh?! 216.235.8.118 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've requested move protection until the issue is sorted out. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Or we could just quit page move warring. In most cases, in the event of disagreement, it's better to leave it for awhile as the wrong version (which may only become evident as such through discussion). If we all do that on all the pages that we have disputes about, then half the time we will find that "the wrong version" actually favors the side we're on. If we edit war instead, then we end up with a situation in which it keeps switching between the "right version" and the "wrong version," and the result is the same: half the time we find pages in a state that reflects the view of our side of the dispute. So, might as well make our edits on the talk page instead. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call this move warring. I requested protection mainly because someone else had moved the page to yet another title at Jerusalem Front End Loader Attack, which is clearly not consistent with naming guidelines simply because of the wrong capitalisation. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is true. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What's with the picture?

The current picture that's being used in the infobox, the map of Jaffa Road, has no legend corresponding to the numbers, and means nothing at first glance (w/o seeing the enlarged version.) It would be best to replace it with an actual image of the wreckage, like we have in every other "attack" article, and move the map into the actual article, along with a legend. 216.235.8.118 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct name of the pepetrator

The confusion about the guys name is stunning. Almost every English source calls him "Jabr Duwait", while every Hebrew source call him "Hussam Duwait". A Haaretz article finally put things right- the perpetrator's name is "Hussam", while his uncle's name is "Jabr". Here is a link to the article (Hebrew)- [6]. The important sentence is the last one of the first paragraph- "As a replacement, the neighbors and relative have positioned chairs in the adjacent house, belonging to the perpetrator's uncle, Jabr.". (כתחליף הציבו השכנים והקרובים כיסאות בבית הצמוד, השייך לדודו של המחבל, ג'אבר.) I will edit the article, but have no idea about making references and the like (I am considering making a user and getting serious with Wikipedia), so please, add the reference to the article. Thanks.

About the spelling of the name, I believe it is most likely to be Duwait, since Duwiyat is less probable to be an arab name. Just my thought, I live in Israel and have some interaction with the arab language.

--79.182.107.146 (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks for the clarification! Everyme 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The Farsi version of this article transcribes his name as حسام دوایات. Using my 8months of lame 1000-level Arabic, it looks more like Hussam (or Hossam, the "u" sound is short) Duwayat (the long verticle lines often act as "a"s in the middle of a word, although that's not a hard-and-fast rule.) "Duwait" looks more like this: دوایت.
216.235.8.118 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible drug use and relation to act

Hi, I have found this article in Haaretz, with a quote of a relative of the perpetrator, talking about his (possible) drug use and the relation to the attack. [7]- Along with the drug related paragraph in the "Motive" section, this might add to it. --79.182.107.146 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Added accordingly, thanks again. Everyme 22:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulldozer, front-end loader, whatever, redux

I wish it was only Palestinian TERRORIST'S houses. Unfortunately, it is not. It happens without any trial, so no one is to say if they are terrorists or not. Sometimes just kids throwing stones, or often it is just land that is wanted for Jewish settlement, or of a family whose departure is desired. I personally knew quite a few families who had no accusations at all levelled against them, but whose houses were demolished.

I don't know much about heavy equipment, but it looks quite a bit like the same type of thing that was used Israeli Defense Forces in the death of Rachel Corrie. At any rate, the driver's inspiration in this bulldozer/ front-end loader attack seems clear enough. Perhaps Israel should stop bulldozing Palestinian houses -- as a security measure. Amity150 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a general chat forum about the topic of the article. Please focus your comments on improvements to the article itself. Everyme 18:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to expand the discussion from this particular bulldozer incident to bulldozer incidents in Israel generally, but I was amazed and frustrated that no one else seems to have gotten the obvious point. I'll back off now as long as no one else edits what I have written, as happened in the first posting. Amity150 (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the associativity is plausible and would certainly make a useful addition, if sources can be found for that. As to the point of the attack actually being "inspired" by house razings, imho that's very far-fetched, even for private speculation. People went on the record saying that he had been in trouble for his bad temper before (the family lawyer and the ex-girlfriend went so far as to clearly imply mental health issues, and also drug abuse) and since he normally worked with a front-end loader like that, it's indeed most probable (though still unsuitable OR to assert it in the article!) that he just snapped. Unfortunately, we may never know. Everyme 19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the "just snapping" theory probably explains all attacks on civilians that have occurred or will occur between 1948 and an indeterminate point in the future. It is a very mutilated society. Bulldozers are such a major cultural motif among Palestinians it would be difficult to believe that this man made NO association whatsoever.Amity150 (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please pontificate elsewhere. Thank you. Tomer^talk 13:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the attack and its copies are strikingly similar to the Israeli bulldozers attacking Palestinian homes. Yet, this lone instant gets its one section and is labeled a "terrorist attack"? Why not an article on the actual Israeli bulldozer attacks that are taking place far more often, even killing foreign aid workers. At the very least, we should point out the obvious motive for this attack. Coolgamer (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

article organisation

I've slightly reorganised the Motive section, splitting off the paragraf regarding the planned house razing into a new section Aftermath. There is a one-sentence paragraf I wasn't sure where to put:

The perpetrator, a 32-year-old father of two from the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sur Baher, was carrying an Israeli identity card, being hired by a local construction firm for the Jerusalem Light Rail.

I've left it in the Motive section for now, but it would probably be more suited for a new section about the perpetrator. Any ideas/suggestions? Everyme 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Moshe Klessner

Five times, the article uses the name "Moshe Klessner" as the name of the young off-duty soldier, citing two online news stories as the source for this name. The first (TotallyJewish.com, which can scarcely be described as a news outlet), does not cite a source for his name, and [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=68676 the second] (WorldNetDaily.com) can't even seem to figure out his age. The article further states "Haaretz quotes Klessner, saying...", yet a search of Haaretz.com turns up exactly 0 hits for "Klessner", and certainly the page cited for this claim never mentions his name. Verifiability from reliable sources is, at this point, looking pretty shaky. Beyond all that, however, the guy who shot the rampaging Arab driver, whatever his name might be, and how ever old he might be, has requested that his name not be released. Wikipedia may well be treading on dangerous ground (I don't know), by insisting that the guy's name is Moshe Klessner, but more importantly, in doing so, a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is being trampled here. The principle, so far as I know, doesn't have a name... but it undergirds policies outlined in WP:BLP and WP:HARRASS. Tomer^talk 13:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Imho, the verifiability issue far outweighs the BLP issue. If it is verifiable, it should be in the article. Is there anything in particular that suggests that they got his name wrong? Everyme 14:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular that suggests that they got it right? That, it seems me, is the more important question where verifiability is concerned... Tomer^talk 14:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the quality of those sources, but they did publish that name and unless there's a specific reason to assume they got it wrong, I wouldn't just dismiss it on the a priori grounds of who published the info. That's of course not to say the issue shouldn't be treated with care. In your opinion, should we simply remove the name, or rather adjust the article to truthfully reflect the sources according to WP:ASF, without asserting that it's actually the name? I.e., should we also not mention the clearly verifiable fact that that name has been published by those sources? Everyme 14:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the quality of those sources as secondary sources is arguably insufficient for us to assert the name as a fact. However, it doesn't logically follow that the sources cannot be used as primary sources to back up a simple formulation that that name has been published. How about this? That way, we avoid any possibly invalid assumptions. Everyme 15:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  That's a bit better. I would advocate removing his name altogether, given both the fact that he's requested and received a legal injunction against its publication, and the fact that knowing his name adds nothing substantive to the article. It's true, Wikipedia is not censored, but I hope it's also true that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for trampling individuals' right to privacy. Tomer^talk 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Friends, the young soldier doesn't want his name published. He actually went to the court, and got a gag order against it. A few articles were published (online) before this, and so they did say his name, but later removed it.

Though we are not in any way bound by Israel's laws, especially not this kind of injunction, maybe we should just respect his wishes in the matter, and don't mention the name. okedem (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote before, you've got the name wrong. In Israel he is known as M, you are safe if you say "Moshe", but the last name is just wrong. I know the family personally, which is OR of course. I say write only his first name. Happy138 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, several blogs mention the name as either Klessner or Plesser. As to including only the first name: In that case, I'm more for removing it altogether. At any rate, we're currently not wrong about the name since we're not asserting it as fact anymore but merely mention that that name has been published, which is obviously true as backed by the sources who did. Everyme 18:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Another bulldozer rampage in Jerusalem, 22nd of July

Please, if anyone can, search the news engines on the net and create a new article (or add a section to this one) about the bulldozer attack that occured today. --79.180.152.187 (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I added the tag because there are blatant biases in this article that are completely extraneous and unnecessary. For instance, the link in the see also section ("BMW terror attack") is labeled something other than what the actual article is labeled! The article is called "Jerusalem BMW attack. The infractions are numerous. This seems like one person or one group of people framing a historical event a certain way. It seems like a concerted effort to make this out to be a terrorist act but from my perspective it was just one crazed guy taking out his frustrations. Can we make this more neutral? Jiminezwaldorf (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was originally titled "BMW terror attack" and later renamed; however, links to it were not. I have changed the link in the "see also" section to reflect. Your perspective is your point of view, and is not necessarily neutral. What matters is what sources say. If you have any other specific concerns please raise them. Otherwise I'll remove the POV tag sometime later today. Rami R 09:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I changed the link in the "see also" section to reflect it before. You changed it back. Instead of automatically reverting my edits you might want to see if they're valid of not like that one was. Just because police and politicians called it a terrorist attack doesn't mean it was one and the article shouldn't assume as much. I'm going to be checking the guidelines to see what the policy is on that. Don't remove the NPOV tag until the dispute is resolved. I'll just put it right back on. Jiminezwaldorf (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. You removed another link, and as a result it wasn't immediately apparent to me from the diff that that wasn't the only thing that had changed.[8] As for the "dispute", if you don't have specific concerns to discuss, there is no dispute. I will however wait a bit longer before removing the tag. Rami R 10:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have many disputes, and I've already told you that. Do I have to make a list of them right this minute? I'm going to be addressing them one by one. For starters, there is no source for this statement: "A motive for the attack could not immediately be determined, but police at the scene referred to the incident as a terrorist attack." The link goes to a page that is non-existent. Also, the article states that authorities noted that the attack seemed to be spontaneous, though the most credible definitions of terrorism require premeditation for it to qualify as terrorism. Jiminezwaldorf (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK you haven't responded to anything I've said so I'm going to remove that statement. Jiminez Waldorf (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(o/d) Sorry for not answering sooner, had real-life stuff to take care of. I've restored the statement using an alternative link (it's a copy same article). As for "spontaneous" being incompatible with "terrorist", I've never heard the claim. I don't care what our article defines terrorism; Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. Also, due to WP:SYNTH, I don't care what other non-Wikipedia articles say, unless they specifically deal with this incident. Take note that never in this article is the event actually defined as a terrorist attack, and "terror/ist/ism" is only used to describe how individuals/organizations labeled this incident. Rami R 15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the issues are settled per lack of response. I've removed the NPOV tag. Rami R 11:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the constant use of the word 'Arab' in place of any other identifying noun more characteristic of hate speech? Someone will say it's just a word, but to me (a sociolinguist,admittedly) it seems to be, for one, treating the offender as some kind of representative of Middle Eastern peoples, and secondly, it is also seeming to imply that he committed the crime because he was 'an arab', not because he was a criminal. Come on, people. You wouldn't like it if you were on the receiving end. (Oh, before anybody calls antisemitism? I'm Jewish. I just despise racism.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.54.12 (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jerusalem bulldozer attack/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial review finished, and I made a few minor grammar corrections. This is almost a good article, with just some minor coverage problems that should be easily corrected. I will place this on hold for up to 7 days to allow time to fix the issue. Aaron north (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Looks good now. Aaron north (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• There is only one minor issue that needs to be fixed. As a result of the attack, the home of Hussam Taysir Duwait was demolished by the Israeli Ministry of Defense (MOD). This is indirectly referenced in a quote by Olmert, but this presents an interesting conflict between the desire to have a deterrence, vs the ineffectiveness and a possible human rights violation of collective punishment. This probably should be more prominently written, probably expanding on that first paragraph under "Aftermath". It may be worth another paragraph, at least. After that is done, a brief mention in the lead would also be needed. Aaron north (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  You're right, Duwait's house demolition is a glaring omission in the article. I've added the info as suggested. Rami R 19:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726186987&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161209213234/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%20Obstacle%20to%20Peace/Palestinian%20terror%20since%202000/Terrorist%20attack%20on%20Jaffa%20Road%20Jerusalem%202-Jul-2008.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%2BObstacle%2Bto%2BPeace/Palestinian%2Bterror%2Bsince%2B2000/Terrorist%2Battack%2Bon%2BJaffa%2BRoad%2BJerusalem%2B2-Jul-2008.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Bulldozer or Front end loader?

For the sake of accuracy I do not believe this page should be titled as Bulldozer attack. Instead it should be titled as backhoe attack or more precisely front end loader. Quite simply the machine used was not a bulldozer and I am unsure why the page even mentions a bulldozer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:C2CC:FF00:4113:AE65:D181:943A (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Correction

Hi, My name is Samuel Abucaya. The bulldozer stopped after I shot the driver through the back window with one 9mm bullet in his upper back. No police woman nor anybody else shot him at that time! I was the Security Guard at the bank the terrorist passed by. After the bulldozer stopped, the terrorist knocked out with big amount of blood comng out from his mouth, people were able to jump in it, which was impossible while running at some 30 km/h speed. The terrorist (who took ecstasy drugs, confirmed later on) came back to himself and stepped on the gas and managed to kill another woman in her car while fighting with people inside the bulldozer until they killed him by shooting him in the head... I have many other details who were occulted by the medias and the Police, but who are not important at that point. Just one last thing. Too many facts show us that the terrorist did not act on his own and that the true objective of the attack was to reach the big overcrowded food market Mahane Yehuda, some 20 seconds away from where he was stopped!... Interview Al Jazeera available on You tube...

Sign your posts with four tildas HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Fails criterion 2c: The article is overwhelmingly sourced by primary sources, which is an original research issue per WP:PRIMARY.
• Fails criterion 3a: The article provides little coverage outside of news-style reporting of the actions involved. No meaningful analysis or study is covered.
• Fails criterion 3b: The little content outside of that is a list of tangentially related events that go out of scope Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

re 2c: Your interpretation of 'primary sources' is kind of a stretch here - Everything is properly sourced to reputable news sources, the majority of which could not be considered "breaking news" as it wasn't even published on day of the attack.

re 3a, 3b: Not to be rude, but you're making up criteria here. 3a states that "it [the article] addresses the main aspects of the topic" (which it does), and 3b "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", kind of the opposite of what you're implying here. Rami R 11:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, have you seen the above from Rami R? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I have. I felt that no response was warranted to the claim that new information cannot be primary after something had been ongoing for more than 24 hours. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• News sources are secondary sources. So primary sources is not really the correct complaint here. Are there any secondary sources you think should be consulted? I did a Google search + Google Books search, and saw almost entirely 2008 articles coming back from Google, and nothing substantive on GBooks (references the attack happened, mostly, not in-depth dives). It's not great to be mostly sourced to at-the-time coverage, but if that's all that exists, then that's all we have. (But if something else can be found...) SnowFire (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  • WP:PRIMARY: For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.
  • WP:RSBREAKING: When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution

  Also, if all of the sources are from 2008, then this isn't a GAR issue, it's an AfD issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• • Notability is not temporary. This topic would obviously be kept at AFD, so I wouldn't suggest bothering. The matter reached the attention of both the PM of Israel at the time and the Attorney General, who had to respond to it.
  • Checking... that line in NOR was added just a few months ago. Granted, it's been at the RS guideline for longer, but I'm not sure it's ever come up much there. Regardless, suffice to say that this is just a case of a policy being poorly phrased IMO. It's not worth quibbling on this too much, since I agree that heavy sourcing to contemporary news reports is not ideal, but IMO calling them "primary" sources dulls the meaning of just what a "primary" source is. Primary sources would be, like, interviews with people at the incident or the like. Breaking news stories might be inaccurate and outdated, but that doesn't make them primary, in the same way that a published book by an independent amateur on a topic who makes factual errors might be unreliable, yet still secondary.
    • EDIT: Also, per your own link, Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Examples_of_news_reports_as_primary_sources suggests that by "breaking news" it really means precisely that: like, news that is happening right-the-hell-now. So I don't think it would be nitpicking to say that sources from a few days later after things have calmed down wouldn't necessarily qualify as a primary source by this definition. SnowFire (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Back to the merits: So are you saying by the AFD comment that you agree no better sources exist than what's currently used? The best outcome is just to find the better source and save the article, after all. I checked the Hebrew WP article and it seems its sources are from 2008 as well (although, to be clear, not all breaking-breaking news, i.e. stuff from the day after, but rather the weeks after). It's possible there's a better source in some unknown Hebrew work, but it might be worth verifying whether such source exists. SnowFire (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Thebiguglyalien, have you seen the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.