Talk:Murder of Rina Shnerb

Land issues

• In current from its a POV violation meant to give one sided view by partisan journalists meant to justify the murder.Most of the stories about the murder doesn't mention those issues --Shrike (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The claim that only "jews" could visit the spring is simply not true as Israli Arab have every right to visit it--Shrike (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You are not a reliable source. The reliable source cited says The landscaping and renovation work at about half of them has been completed, the dispossession made absolute, the Palestinians blocked from even approaching the springs and their lands. Other springs targeted by the settlers are in various stages of takeover. As far as the Haas article, you are approaching a BLP violation. Haas writing in Haaretz is a reliable source, and she directly relates the two topics together. You may not censor material you dislike on spurious grounds. The article was kept, cool. It will contain material that reliable sources find relevant, regardless of how it makes your feel. nableezy - 15:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Shrike, you can't have it both ways. Fiercely defending a stub that,-everyone in the know knows this - breaks wiki rules on notability, and then, try to keep it a murder-terrorist-trial stub by erasing the background and context of the murder that numerous RS provide. That is blatant political abuse of the encyclopedia, as even blind Freddy and his canine cobber can see. None of your objections have any purchase on policy. You assert Israeli Arabs can visit it (i.e. you admit that Palestinians who are not Israeli can't) - well, RS don't state that. It's a personal view.(b) that many Israeli sources reporting on this do not give relevant details (for the usual political reasons) does not mean that those which do provide the missing supplements can't be cited, either. That is not an argument at WP:RS. If editors persist in making stubs, as at the Death of Yehuda Shoham way back, then they must be aware that per NPOV, all sides of the incident will be covered per RS, and the ghastly skeleton will assume some documental flesh, and be more recognizable as a real tragedy, not as a sketchy obituary screaming for revenge against terrorists.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why this material is again being removed without a single comment here? nableezy - 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, request seconded. The reverts a month ago were partial. These reverts, acquiescing in the superior judgment of a probable sock take out the lot. No explanation.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This is directly related per a reliable source, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV demand it be included. nableezy - 16:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, because it's UNDUE. We have a background section on where the murder took place, we don't need an entire section about the whole spring issue, we have a biased article that discussed that elsewhere on wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Undue based on what? The source directly relates the murder to the seizing of the spring by settlers. You cant just say I dont like that these things are related so it is undue. How is it undue when there is a reliable source directly tying the two things together? Here is the NYT tying the two together:

Springs on the West Bank have become flash points between Palestinians who bathe or water their flocks in them and Jewish settlers who have increasingly sought to prevent them from doing so. A 2012 United Nations report identified 30 springs that had been completely “taken over” by settlers and another 26, including Ein Bubin, that were “at risk” of takeover, whether by frequent tourism or by the presence of armed patrols seen as intimidating to Palestinians.

What is the basis for claiming this material is undue? nableezy - 16:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'm not going to engage in sophistry with you. You know very well that Nishidani's edits to this page went well above a simple background section, into making it the focal point of the article. We already have an article that he created about the springs. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Im sorry, what? Im going to revert your baseless revert as you refuse to justify it, calling it sophistry when I provide sources that directly relate the two topics together. You dont get to hound users to articles to make reverts and then refuse to discuss them. That is not how this works, and it is tendentious editing to do so. nableezy - 16:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

So far we have an IP revert (ARBPIA4 vio), and a revert made without an edit-summary or comment here, and now an editor who says it is sophistry to provide further sourcing demonstrating DUE weight when he claims it is undue weight. Wow. nableezy - 16:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

ARBPIA

Ibn DaudNY

My revert was obligatory under two rules. (a) The anonymous editor had no right to edit this page under ARBPIA restrictions and (b) in any case it was reverting WP:VANDALISM - blow ins cannot just strike out significant sourced content without good reason, and this is all the more beholden on experienced editors. Neither should you second the abuse by redeleting- Neither of you have any talk page presence here.Nishidani (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As both @Sir Joseph: and I have pointed out, the backround sectioned needed to be revised. It justifies the murder and demonstrates an obvious WP:POV. There is no reason to increase the page size with such a large and unnecessary background. Ibn Daud (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That isnt an argument, multiple sources discuss the settler takeovers of the springs in the context of this attack. You dont get to decide that because you dislike something it is "POV". I am returning this material that has been unchallenged for weeks now when allowed to do so. WP:NPOV requires the inclusion of all significant viewpoints, and there are multiple reliable sources showing such a significance. Whether or not you think that justifies the murder is not relevant here. Your personal feelings about this do not matter on this website. What matters is that reliable sources discuss this event in the context of settlers taking over Palestinian springs. Im sorry that makes you uncomfortable. nableezy - 18:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There is only two partisan op-ed that discuss the murder in such aspect most of the sources don't do it.Clearly WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

What? Are you even looking at the sources? This is not an op-ed. This is not an op-ed. That is a blatantly false statement. Yall want to include that her mom decided to name a new baby a different name in this article lol, but no, cant include what actual sources say is directly related. Never that. nableezy - 18:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You are not looking at what was done, Shrike. You made a partial revert, with one other editor, of this passage. This was about a month ago, and the restored matter remained. As usual an IP/sock comes, and this time made a section excision, not a partial revert, and was seconded by two established editors, who ignored any comment on the preceding talk page section or here. This is not how Wikipedia works. There are rules here. And, unless someone comes up with a policy-based objection (your's isn't: since there is no explanation of why background reportage is undue) it stays. No one objected until the ARBPIA abuse occurred, so it goes back, and only if you continue to object and gain consensus, it will be removed.Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This is nonsense, with people making such plainly obviously untrue statements that I struggle not to call them lies. But I've taken it to NPOVN here. If need be will do an RFC. You dont get to make a pet article and refuse to include any material you personally dislike, sorry. nableezy - 18:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Is that necessary? There has been next to zero response on the talk page for a month, but simply reverting. Yes, one tries to main all of the formalities, but there's no evidence of reciprocity here in respecting standard editorial practice. Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Again such long background section is WP:UNDUE as most of the sources that dealt with the murder didn't include this background --Shrike (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself without explaining polioy, or responding to requests for clarification. A month ago you hazarded a partial revert, taking only Amira Hass out. Now you have sided with a sockpuppet to take everything out. What changed in the meantime?Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, indeed, proof by assertion is not a proof here. And beyond that, that is not what UNDUE means. Not even a little bit. It does not mean that more in-depth analysis are ignored because some others were less so. nableezy - 22:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I will cut down a bit from the material as I return it, but WP:NPOV demands this be included as a significant viewpoint. nableezy - 22:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, how is that not a violation of 1RR? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Its more than 24 hours? Is your objection on undue weight addressed? It is half the size it previously was. Its sources are directly relating the topics. It is not sourced to merely an op-ed as claimed repeatedly without basis above. nableezy - 04:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

About the introduction of the article

In the introduction of the article it is implied that the attack was paid for with funds given directly by the Dutch government. This is factually incorrect, and the source (the NOS article) does not support this view.

In fact what the news article states is that the attack was organized by two people who were also employed by the UAWC. The Dutch subsidies are being used for water project in the Palestinian areas, but where stopped in reaction to these events in awaiting further investigation to the case.

I would advise to change the wording of this sentence.

109.36.136.227 (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. The lead stated:

The attack was further notable for being paid with funds from the Union of Agricultural Work Committees given by the Dutch government.

The article said that the terrorists were employed by a Palestinian organization which received funding from the Dutch. There is absolutely no suggestion, as the WP:OR inference made out, that the Dutch funded the attack. To the contrary, the article states that the subsidized body, the Palestinian Union of Agricultural Work Committees, had them on its payroll but fired them while notifying the Dutch government, when their complicity in the attack emerged. The funding itself was for a future project in which they would not have been employed.

Secondly, the whole relevance of this to the attack or page is dubious. It is an extraordinary claim and would require multiple mainstream sourcing. Thirdly, ledes summarize, and there is no detail in the sections elaborating on that sentence, so it fails lede policy.

The person who add(l)ed this report (MatryoshkaNL) should probably be reported if they continue to wildly distort sources with no other purpose than, apparently, to spin defamatory crap against a state.Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the incorrect information and the unwikipedian-like conduct. Instead, I will re-add the source in the 'Aftermath' section to better reflect the situation. MatryoshkaNL (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2021

The background is completely bias and off-point. A girl was murdered and the “background” of the incident is taking about Israeli control over water springs in the area? You can clearly see who wrote this and you should do better to be unbiased- particular when talking about a young girl dying from a roadside bomb planted by Palestinian terrorists. The background should be an objective over of tension in that region. This is unacceptable- do better. 93.173.205.26 (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)