Talk:Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing

Guardian reference, retaliation

Regarding this edit.

User:NoCal100, let me quote from the Guardian article:

Israeli security forces had been dreading a horrific attack, retaliation for their strategy of assassination that last week moved to the political echelon of Hamas, when Israeli guided missiles struck down the organisation's two most senior leaders in the West Bank town of Nablus.

That attack stoked demands for revenge among Palestinians, and appears to have spurred efforts to unite Islamist militant groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Mr Arafat's Fatah under a joint military command.

Can it be more clear than that?

As for the reliability of the Electronic Intifada, go to WP:RS/N and get some support there before removing them here.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.10.2008 07:28

You imply a direct connection between the two, but the simple fact that the terrorist attack in Sbarro follows a previous assassination of two Hamas members in no way proves such a connection. It is merely speculation unless Hamas itself has claimed any such thing. A number of things could have happened in between those ten days that made the terrorists think they were right to bomb the restaurant, or the terrorist attack could have been planned long time in advance or any number of other things could have happened. We just don’t know. Rune X2 (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada is as is written on its wikipage ("aimed at combating the pro-Israeli, pro-American spin"), a political institution rather than a reliable news site. It is not reliable as an unbiased source. If Honest Reporting made their own material, these would probably not be reliable either. Rune X2 (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't imply a connection between the two events: The Guardian, a reliable source, does. In every article on Israeli military incursions the context, i.e. the previous attacks or last steps in the cycle of violence are given. It is only right if we give them here too. It doesn't make the Palestinians or Hamas look any better, mind you...

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.10.2008 14:03

You are implying a connection, here, and on at least 3 other similar articles. The Guardian article says "Israeli security forces had been dreading a horrific attack, retaliation for their ...assassination ...last week" " - it does not say "This was a retaliation for their ...assassination ...last week" - which is what you are claiming. NoCal100 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so your reading of the Guardian article is that they just mention that in passing with absolutely no connection to the attack which is what the article is about? You're really trying to twist things here. Sorry, that won't go.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.10.2008 15:06

I am reading what the Guardian article actually says, not what you wish it may have said, or what you imagine it may be implying. What won't go is your attempt to violate WP:SYNTH here, and on other similar article, where you explicitly acknowledge that the sources you are adding do not make a connection between events, yet you insist on adding them based on your personal research. NoCal100 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you're getting things all mixed-up. The other source, in the other article (to which you didn't reply on the talk page, mind you, but just kept on reverting), had two sources. One on the details of the Israeli attack and the other linking it to the suicide bombing. If you would actually read the sources instead of just reverting whatever you don't like, you wouldn't get confused like this.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.10.2008 16:05

back to this article, the Guardian article does not claim any of the things it is used for as a reference. If you would like to use it, please stick to what it actually says. NoCal100 (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, 1) Electronic Intifada is political advocacy website; please review WP:V. 2) The source from the The Guardian doesn't make the claims you attribute to it, nor can you combine it with other sources to build a novel argument. Please review WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

$\leftarrow$ Ok, I've replaced The Guardian and Electronic Intifada with an article from The Independent that makes the link very succinctly:

But when Hamas or Islamic Jihad "strike back" at "Israeli terror", the whole Israeli policy falls apart. Last week, after eight Palestinians were killed in Israel's assassination campaign – the dead included two Hamas political leaders, a journalist and two children – Hamas promised revenge. Yesterday, the revenge came. Indeed, Islamic Jihad said, it was "only just beginning". Now Israel is promising "retaliation" for the massacre of 18 Israelis which was "retaliation" for the slaughter of eight Palestinians which was "retaliation" for Palestinian "terror." Etc, etc.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.10.2008 07:54

An op-ed by Robert Fisk? I’m not sure that counts as a reliable cite. What I miss to make this direct connection is a statement by Hamas or an official Israeli source. Hamas hasn’t usually been shy about making public statements. If there is a direct connection between the two incidents I’m sure it must be possible to find such a Hamas statement. Alternatively the connections could be made in a more defensive manner. Fx. "Some commentator have speculated the attack came as a response to an Israeli attack 10 days earlier." But I’m not sure what it adds to the article. Rune X2 (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's two questions in one. Let me tackle them separately:

• Unlike Israel, Hamas doesn't have a really good PR setup. There is no official organ and the mainstream press is usually very reluctant to relay Hamas' statements. Is there any direct Hamas statement out there? I don't know, I haven't found one (Fisk quotes Islamic Jihad, trying to follow that...). Is there anybody denying such a link? No, nobody.
• Why is this relevant? Well, these attacks don't come out of the blue -- much in the same way Israel's attacks on Hamas or the PLO don't come out of the blue. In almost every article about an Israeli attack much importance is given to "context" to fit whatever happened into the spiral of violence. In this case it is interesting that the Sbarro bombing marked the end of a two-month cease-fire, which ended after Israel decided to take out two Hamas figures. This information helps understand how or why the attack happened.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.10.2008 11:28

• There have been plenty of cases where Hamas put out press releases or otherwise notified the world of its actions, and claimed they were responses for this or that. You yourself have included several of these in other articles. So regardless of the original research excuses you are making for their PR, Rune X2 is absolutely right - unless we have an official statement from Hamas which states "action X is a response to action Y", the most we can say is that Fisk believes this was retaliation.

• The "two month cease fire ended" myth is not in the Independent article, and for good reason, check out [1] NoCal100 (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

$\leftarrow$Man, talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater... You've got a problem with the cease-fire, so you dump the whole paragraph? I've re-inserted the EI reference for the cease-fire. The article you quote says nothing on the 2001 cease-fire, sorry... Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.10.2008 14:33

the article I quoted shows at least 2 deadly attacks by Hamas in June and July 2001, the period alleged by EI to be a 'cease fire'. Please use only reliable sources in this article. If you want to rewrite the other sentence along the lines of "Fisk believes this is retaliation", I won't object. NoCal100 (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert without comment -- hit the wrong button. If you think EI is not a reliable source in this context, go take it up wit WP:RS/N as I have asked you to before. Constantly reverting everything you don't like with some vague comments and excuses is not the way to go.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.10.2008 15:10

Three different editors have told you that EI is not a reliable source - yet you persist in edit warring against this consensus. It is slightly amusing when you are doing this in order to include a claim from EI which is demonstrably false. You have the burden of proof reversed - editors who wish to include new material need to get consensus for such inclusion - please do so here on the talk page before reverting yet again. NoCal100 (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh*... Have you even bothered reading the stuff you're edit-warring against? Cease-fire on Israeli civilians. There are two attacks on that page that are a) against IDF soldiers and b) not inside Israel. Anything else? Let's wait for other people to weigh-in...

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.10.2008 16:01

• sigh*, indeed . Please read ceasefire, which says "A ceasefire (or truce) is a temporary stoppage of a war or any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions. ". Israel agreed nothing with Hamas during this period, and there is no such thing as a "Cease-fire on civilians". If you want to continue with this sort of apologies on behalf of Hamas, find a reliable source that says Hamas stopped attacking civilians for the brief period between June 1 and August 9, AND ties the August 9 bombing to the end of such attacks. NoCal100 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to end this particular bit of pro-Hamas apologies: "in early July both Islamic Jihad and Hamas formally declared an end to the truce" - The Middle East and North Africa 2004, Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge, 2003, p.995915. This is from an academic publishing house, which contradicts the non-reliable political advocacy website you are quoting. Please edit in accordance with Wikipeia policies. NoCal100 (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any book under that name... Can you give a more complete reference, i.e. one that can be publically accessed? Google books has it, but the page you reference is just missing... Also, who are the authors of the text you're quoting? In what context is it said?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 30.10.2008 16:39

Google books has it: [2] NoCal100 (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It is actually page 915, I mis-typed earlier. NoCal100 (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

More on the Guardian reference

I'm surprised that this quote fromt he same article hasn't been raised:

From the Gaza Strip, an exultant Hamas claimed yesterday's suicide attack was just retribution. "I believe this was the retaliation of the Palestinian people for the terrorist Zionist attacks," said Abdel Aziz Rantissi. "They must understand that the blood of our people is not cheap."

Given what Pedrito has quoted from the same article above:

Israeli security forces had been dreading a horrific attack, retaliation for their strategy of assassination that last week moved to the political echelon of Hamas, when Israeli guided missiles struck down the organisation's two most senior leaders in the West Bank town of Nablus.

That attack stoked demands for revenge among Palestinians, and appears to have spurred efforts to unite Islamist militant groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Mr Arafat's Fatah under a joint military command.

I don't think it is OR to say that some sources consider this attack to be retaliation for the attacks on Hamas organisers.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

if we leave out the nonsense about the 'two month ceasefire", I am ok, as I wrote, with stating that some sources consider this attack to be retaliation, citing the above Guardian article, or the Fisk op-ed. NoCal100 (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A Fisk op-ed? Dubious. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to say "some sources consider this attack a retaliation" when you have a quote from the head of Hamas saying so outright?

I also think that if you want to say that the the attack ended a Hamas ceasefire, you need to attribute it to someone. It was a long time ago, but I don't remember any ceasefire. I may be wrong, I would just like to see a source. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the bit about the cease-fire until I find a good source for it. I also re-instated the Guardian source as per Peter's comments.

Cheers and thanks to all, pedrito - talk - 31.10.2008 09:45

I suppose I went for consider as Rantissi said "I believe". The Gruaniad piece is actually stronger than the tone of the quote. Okay Rantissi might a) be applying the belief to its being revenge of th whole Palestinian people and not just his organisation, b) not be aware of operational details and just believe this was a retaliation or c) want to distance himself from implying knowlede of operational aspects in view of the Israeli assassination policy, in which case it didn't save him in the end. Ps I don't think he was head of Hamas at the time. In any case the Gaurdian ia a RS and it is clear cut about stating that amas says it was "just retrubution". (oops forgot to sign earlier) --Peter cohen (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. We've just had blocks to the last two editors to the article, ignoring the, to my mind, suspicious-looking IP.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, I just reverted the IP before seeing I had been blocked over the weekend... WTF? No notice on my talk page or even here... What's going on?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 03.11.2008 07:29

Ok, just added a new WP:RS ref which states:

Hamas said the attack was to avenge Israel's assassination of Palestinian militants, including two senior Hamas leaders in Nablus last week.

There. Can we let this lie now?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 03.11.2008 09:19

I am very confused about what is happening to this article. I thought there was some agreement to use the Rantissi quote that "I believe this was the retaliation of the Palestinian people for the terrorist Zionist attacks." NoCal100 agreed and other complainers were silent. Yet, with all the vituperations and patchkeying, this quote never shows up. Am I missing something? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Rantissi quote is in the first Guardian reference (currently reference [3]) and is still in there. It was never part of the article body, but part of the discussion as to whether the Sbarro bombing is or is not a retaliation of the Israely attack in Nablus.

The last few exchanges in the article were User:NoCal100 throwing out the entire sentence because he disagreed with the cease-fire bit. The cease-fire is now out and I hope this version is ok with everybody. If not, I hope we can discuss it here first without butchering the article further.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 03.11.2008 13:22

okay, if that's the way you like it. If it were up to me, I would put the quote into the article, and not leave it in a newspaper article refered to in a footnote. But that's just me. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to give it WP:UNDUE... What's important is the fact that the attack was a reprisal for another attack. This kind of context helps to understand the cycle of violence, which is why I think it's important to have it in here. What Rantissi said exactly is a matter of detail -- perhaps too much detail for this article.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 03.11.2008 14:27

Break

And if we mention this assassination in detail, then we could also mention the Dolphinarium bombing and then we could mention whatever happened before and so and so on. We only know for sure that Hamas claimed that this was in retaliation for the assassination of their commanders, nothing more. Everything else is speculation, at least going to what the Guardian says. I also removed one source, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, which is not exaclty a non-partisan source in this conflict. Furthermore, although six civilians were killed Hamas did not cite this as a reason for their bombing attack, as their claim was only concerned with the premature death of their two commanders. Hence once again, whether the alleged death of innocent bystanders was the reason for this attack is speculation, and not covered by the sources. Novidmarana (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get your argument... You're forgetting the Rantissi quote above, which is also given by the Guardian, regarding the blood of the Palestinian people not being cheap. There is also no need to go back to Adam and Eve, as this is also not done in other articles on Israeli attacks.

On a further note, what brings you here? You've never edited this article before or even participated in the discussion here. The current state of the article -- before your edit -- was a consensus formed after several days of discussion and editing. If you want to reverse that consensus, you'll have to do it here on the talk page first.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 06.11.2008 09:07

In view of the fact that editors of various stripes continue to futz with this article, your contention that there is consensus is being overpowered by what the Israelis would call "facts on the ground." But I certainly second your suggestion that changes be discussed on the talk page first. So here goes:

I think you could avoid a lot of this disagreement if you were to include the actual Rantissi quote. I suggest something like the following:

The Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, and Hamas leaders said it was in retaliation for an Israeli attack 10 days before, in which two Hamas leaders and six bystanders were killed. "I believe this was the retaliation of the Palestinian people for the terrorist Zionist attacks," Abdel Aziz Rantissi told the Guardian newspaper(footnote). "They must understand that the blood of our people is not cheap." The Islamic Jihad movement also claimed responsibility for the attack.

and so on. I think this will clear up any disputes over Hamas's justification for the attack. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no problem with changing the order. The problem is more that some information got lost on the way... I also think the sources speak for themselves and the relevant quotes don't need to be in the article, as they would make the passage far too large. causing some WP:UNDUE concerns. I would suggest the following:

In the blast 15 people (including 7 children) were killed, and 130 wounded. Both Hamas and the Islamic Jihad initially claimed responsibility. Hamas claimed the bombing was in response to Israel's assassination, ten days earlier, of two leading Hamas commanders in Nablus, Jamal Mansour and Omar Mansour, in which 6 bystanders, including two children, were killed.Several Hamas members were subsequently captured by Israeli authorities, tried, convicted and imprisoned. The suicide bomber who died in the course of carrying out the attack was later identified to be Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri from the Palestinian West Bank town of Aqabah. Izz al-Masri was 22 at the time and the son of a successful restaurant owner, and from an affluent land-owning family. He was escorted to the restaurant by Ahlam Tamimi, a 20-year-old female university student and part-time journalist, who had disguised herself as a Jewish tourist for the occasion. Ahlam Tamimi was sentenced to 16 life terms. She later commented that "I am not sorry for what I did" and does not recognize Israel’s existence. The person who constructed the explosives was a man named Abdallah Barghouti. For his part in this and a string of other attacks, in which 66 civilians were killed, he was handed down 67 life sentences in 30 November 2004.

which is short and fixes the concerns regarding the order of events. It also gives the ref for the victim count.

As a side-note, the article doesn't say too much else about the bombing. More ink is spent on the Palestinian exhibition than on the bombing itself. Would anybody be interested in adding more background information? It would also make the context information a lot less prominent...

Any thoughts? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 06.11.2008 14:38

The problem with this proposal is the sentence 'Hamas claimed the bombing was in response to Israel's assassination, ten days earlier, of two leading Hamas commanders in Nablus,'- which is not supported by any of the 4 sources cited for it. The closest the sources get to this is the Rantissi quote from the Guardian, which says ""I believe this was the retaliation of the Palestinian people for the terrorist Zionist attacks," but doesn't mention nay specific attack, certainly not the one 10 days earlier. He could be referring to Dir Yassin, for all we know. So, if we reword that sentence to 'Hamas claimed the bombing was in response to "terrorist Zionist attacks", I'd be ok with it. NoCal100 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, short-term memory issues? Scroll up a page? The Guardian article, the fourth reference, the one titled "Who carried out suicide bombing?" says

Hamas said the attack was to avenge Israel's assassination of Palestinian militants, including two senior Hamas leaders in Nablus last week.

Can it get any more specific than that? And what's up with disappearing from the discussion when you run out of good arguments, only to swoop in a week later with claims that have already been debunked? Not good form, my friend...

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 06.11.2008 15:24

I am also ok with Hamas claimed the bombing was in response to Israel's killing of Palestinian militants, including two senior commanders who were killed a week before the bombing". NoCal100 (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha, now I think we're getting somewhere... So what you're not ok with is the mention of either the exact event or the dead civilians?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 06.11.2008 16:06

what I am not ok with is the use of original research to claim something which is not in the cited sources. NoCal100 (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What I am not ok with is to present the Hamas claims as if they are a pure fact, and given the sources your claim that Hamas cared about the death of civilians is contested at best, after all what the source is that they care about the death of their "militants". I guess there is some eagerness to include the alleged death of civilians, but if we go that way then we should also include the Dolphinarium discotheque bombing, because after all the Sbaroo bombing was not an isolated incident, but part of a larger wave of attacks, a fact that is mentioned in several newspaper sources (for example, New York Times, August 10, 2001) and thus is relevant for the article.

Also, using the quote is very much preferable as different newspaper reports have different interpretations of this quote - some newspaper draw a connection with the assasination ten days earlier, other newspaper draw only a connection with the assasinations in general, whether Hamas was referring to the assasination ten days earlier is not clear if we are willing to use more than just the Guardian as a source (and giving the verbatim quote it is not even clear where the Guardian statement "Hamas said the attack was to avenge Israel's assassination of Palestinian militants, including two senior Hamas leaders in Nablus last week" comes from). Novidmarana (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV language

Two version of describing the Israeli actions are:

• "the attack was in response to Israel's targeted assassination of two leading Hamas commanders", or
• "the attack was in response to Israel's killing of two leading Hamas commanders". Are you seriously suggesting that 'assassination' - a term that implies criminal action is more neutral than "killing", which is just as factual, but carries none of that baggage?. The Guardian reference, which is the only one to actually make the connection between the Israeli action and the Hamas action, and attribute a cause and effect relationship to a Hamas statement actually says Hamas said the attack was to avenge Israel's assassination of Palestinian militants, including two senior Hamas leaders in Nablus last week.. NoCal100 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in this argument, but the two versions don't mean the same thing. A targeted assassination means you know who you want to kill, you plan it, and you carry it out. It has, indeed, connotations of cool-headedness. Whether it suggests necessarily that the assassins are the bad guys is unclear. Were the would-be assassins of Hitler bad guys?

The word "killing", on the other hand, contains none of that information. You can kill someone in a traffic accident, or a lover's quarrel. That is certainly not an assassination.

My point, I guess, is that everyone is being really hypersensitive about this article, reading in intentions where there are none. A little calm, a step back, maybe a long slug of Chivas, and things won't look so bad. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ravpapa. The term "assassination" is further both

• what is used by the sources (since people have been so sensitive to what the sources say exactly recently)
• what is used by the Israeli press (see Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, YNet, etc...)

Even Alan Dershowitz uses the term nonchalantly [3]. This term is nothing to be ashamed of and definitely not non-neutral and, most importantly as Ravpapa points out, it is better that the far less precise term "killing".

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.11.2008 07:30

On the other hand, "targeted assassination" is redundant. I mean, is there such a thing as an untargeted assassination? a random assassination? --Ravpapa (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You could also assassinate somebody only after you've gotten your hands on him/her by chance. I think the "targeted" refers to the fact that they went out to get these people specifically, i.e. they were a target.

But I don't want to get into the semantics here. I used the phrase because it is the phrase used by virtually everybody in the media and elsewhere. I think using the most common term is more important than semantic precision.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.11.2008 10:05

Well, looks like User:NoCal100 is ignoring this discussion and will probably do so as long as his preferred version is up there. I've re-inserted the term "assassination" as per the consensus (User:Ravpapa and I) and NoCal100's refusal to participate in the discussion.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.11.2008 07:20

Commentary in the 2011 prisoner exchange section

I removed the following from the subsection:

Frimet Roth said in October, "We feel desperate. We beg Mr. Netanyahu to grant us a few minutes of his time and hear us out. In any sane country with a fair judicial system, even paroled murderers are not released without granting the victims' loved ones a chance to address the parole board."[49] Chaya Schijveschuurder, whose parents and three siblings were killed in the attack, protested with a sign that read, "My parents' blood screams from the grave!" Her brother, Shvuel, vandalized the Yitzhak Rabin memorial and commented, "My opinions are all right compared to [Chaya's] and compared to how she feels about the deal. She was badly wounded in the [Sbarro] attack, she feels that releasing the terrorist is as if she were raped and then the rapist went and murdered her parents and is now being released. For her it's like being raped twice."

It doesn't add anything informative to the article other than journalistic commentary that's meant to provoke emotions. To say that Tamimi's release was vehemently opposed by relatives of the victims and that a petition was circulated to pressure Netanyahu not to include her in the list of prisoners to be freed is currently sufficient. More info could be added, but avoid material that clearly violates WP:NPOV and doesn't improve what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing. 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:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:H-vIgmkBX4QJ:www.kerenmalki.org/Press/IrishSBP_Death_of_Innocents.htm+psagot+life&cd=28&hl=en&ct=clnk with https://web.archive.org/web/20141006080000/http://www.kerenmalki.org/Press/IrishSBP_Death_of_Innocents.htm on http://www.kerenmalki.org/Press/IrishSBP_Death_of_Innocents.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) 03:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018235354/http://www.education.gov.il/children/page_34_b.htm to http://www.education.gov.il/children/page_34_b.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018235354/http://www.education.gov.il/children/page_34_b.htm to http://www.education.gov.il/children/page_34_b.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813084542/http://www.partnersinkindness.org/aboutus.php to http://www.partnersinkindness.org/aboutus.php

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) 20:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Heritage

I recently made a small change in the article, removing what I and some others believe to be irrelevant for this article. I cannot see how the heritage of Mordechai and Tzira Schijveschuurder contribute in any way to this article. Can anyone enlighten me on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midtkandal (talk • contribs) 09:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request - Israel is in the Middle East, not in Asia

The article Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing has

• Category:2001 murders in Asia
• Category:August 2001 crimes
• Category:August 2001 events in Asia
• Category:Israeli casualties in the Second Intifada
• Category:Terrorist incidents in Jerusalem
• Category:Mass murder in 2001
• Category:Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine
• Category:2000s in Jerusalem
• Category:Attacks on restaurants in Asia
• Category:Al-Qassam Brigades Operations
• Category:Hamas suicide bombings
• Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in 2001
• Category:Terrorist incidents in Jerusalem in the 2000s

Israel is not in Asia. Perhaps it's in the Middle East.

An airport sign for a room marked "Prayer room for Middle Eastern travelers"

after a Jewishly-dressed traveler was refused entry

was changed to ""Prayer room for Islamic travelers"

I'd like the "in Asia" Category tags to be replaced with counterparts reflecting that Israel is not on the moon. (:)

e.g. Category:Attacks on restaurants in Israel

Nuts240 (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The "Middle East" straddles two continents – one is Africa and the other is Asia. Every location in the Middle East is either on one continent or the other. The border between Israel and Egypt is generally considered the boundary, with Egypt on the African continent and Israel on the Asian continent. The only "disputable" territory is the Sinai Peninsula belonging to Egypt, which could arguably be considered on the Asian side. The bottom line? Israel is in Asia, whether or not it is in the Middle East, which lacks a precise definition. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 19:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The number of dead increased

On 5/31/2023 a 16th person died as a result of this terror attack, after spending 22 years in a coma. 24.191.68.66 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Map

Someone removed the Palestine map claiming "Attack took place in West Jerusalem" but west Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel. And if the map of Israel is included, so should Palestine's as the city is disputed. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Berkowitz, Shmuel. The Status of Jerusalem in International and Israeli Law. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2018. https://jcpa.org/the-status-of-jerusalem-in-international-and-israeli-law/

Finds Israel to hold valid sovereignty over the entirety of Jerusalem. Snorka2 (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

According to a Basic Rule in International Law which is called uti possidetis juris (“as you possess under law”), Prof. Avi Bell states that Israel has territorial sovereignty over all the disputed areas of Jerusalem.

https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/israel-zionism/2016/03/according-to-a-basic-rule-in-international-law-the-west-bank-is-part-of-israel/ Snorka2 (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thats the opinion of two pro-Israel advocates. See this article: Status of Jerusalem. The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over west Jerusalem.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reference, I looked into the article "Status of Jerusalem", it does not mention there that "The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over west Jerusalem".

I refer you to the following article where it is stated that - "an international consensus has developed since 1967 that gives implicit recognition to Israel's claim to sovereignty. This recognition was manifest in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 War, when the Security Council passed Resolution 242, calling on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict. " By seeking an Israeli withdrawal only from territories occupied in the 1967 War, the Security Council seems to have acquiesced in the legitimacy of Israel's presence in and claim to West Jerusalem".

The only resolutions that have the potential to be legally binding are those that are adopted by the Security Council.

https://uwlaw-omeka.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/original/a1044f71f037a3ad9f2bbdd23fc35c462439eac5.pdf Snorka2 (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

Under the heading "Palestinian Exhibit" the 25th and 26th sources have been removed from the internet.

Internet archive has the following links which can replace the dead links, respectively: Citation 25: https://web.archive.org/web/20120317055844/http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/24/gruesome_exhibit_marks/ Citation 26: https://web.archive.org/web/20120402133116/http://www.kerenmalki.org/Press/NYT_Sbarro_Recreated.htm Connornorvell (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI quote

MEMRI is well known to be exceptionally biased and to carry this bias over into its work by means of inaccurate, selective or cherrypicked translation devoid of context. It is not a neutral translation service or fact checker, but a highly partisan primary source for its own original research and translation with no weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Last time there was an RfC, I saw no examples of inaccurate translation. The selective translation is irrelevant, they are biased but it doesn't mean they are not reliable.

I'm actually happy to remove MEMRI translation and cite the original (Al-Aqsa TV) and have someone independent do the translation. Alaexis_¿question? 08:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there's no issue with MEMRI, don't think an independent translation is necessary… Thmymerc (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI is not a reliable source. It should not be used. It's translations are often biased and can not be considered reliable. WP:RSP does not list it as reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 12:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't list it as non-reliable either. What does "biased translation" mean at all? A translation is either inaccurate - and I'm still waiting for examples - or accurate. Alaexis_¿question? 15:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

From WP:RSP: "If your source is not listed here, the only thing it really means is that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion." Seems clearly like a reliable source, especially for something as simple as a translation. Thmymerc (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It's actually listed there, there were a few lively discussions about it. Alaexis_¿question? 21:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI is a garbage source with well documented instances of fabrication. nableezy - 21:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide just one example of a fabrication? Ideally with a link to the original, so that we can compare it. Alaexis_¿question? 18:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Le Monde: Memri is frequently criticised for the quality, and sometimes even the integrity, of its translations. After the 7 July 2005 London bombings, an Islamist living in Britain, Hani al-Sebai, was invited to take part in an Al-Jazeera programme, More Than One Viewpoint. Sebai said of the victims “there is no term in Islamic jurisprudence called civilians. Dr Karmi is here sitting with us, and he’s very familiar with the jurisprudence. There are fighters and non-fighters. Islam is against the killing of innocents. The innocent man cannot be killed according to Islam.” The Memri translation read: “The term civilians does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I’m familiar with religious law. There is no such term as civilians in the modern western sense. People are either of dar al-harb or not” (9). Note the introduction of the contested term dar al-harb, which is Arabic for house of war (denoting the part of the world populated by unbelievers), a term not used by the speaker. In a country at war on terror, the use of that term implies that anything goes. Memri also omitted the condemnation of the killing of innocents.. There is also the half-truth propaganda technique seen in some of their other translations, including one I went through here. There is also coverage of their mistranslations in peer reviewed journal articles, calling one translation a "blatant mistranslation". nableezy - 23:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There's also pure invention above - note the insertion of "There is no such term as civilians in the modern western sense." - out of nowhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

An opinion piece by an activist nearly 20 years ago is hardly attributable to Le Monde. And the additional reply smells like original research. Thmymerc (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no disclaimer stating that it does not represent Le Monde's views, so you cannot assume that it is an unreliable editorial. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy, thanks for providing an example. Please note that currently the translation reads differently and doesn't mention dar al-harb The term "civilians" does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr. Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as "civilians" in the modern Western sense. People are either combatants or not. [4]. So either they fixed the translation (good) without adding a notice (not so good) or Mohammed El-Oifi is lying.

So if the worst thing they've done was a mistake in 2005 that was eventually corrected, even if they didn't issue a notice, I think we can consider them reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 13:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Completely fabricating ‘dar el-harb' isn’t an issue lol. And no that is not the worse thing, I’ve provided other examples as well. And, once more, if you review the rfc without the participation of banned users who were socking around their ban you will see a very obvious consensus for generally unreliable. You can keep ignoring that but a, you don’t have consensus, and b, I don’t have to ignore it. nableezy - 14:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The dar el-harb thing was either fixed or never happened. As for your other examples, the translation of Abbas's interview is selective but the translation itself is accurate. As for the Mickey Mouse example, there are other sources which say that he wanted to wipe out Jews [5] rather than was shot at by them. So it's possible that Mona Baker's well-known biases got better of her. Alaexis_¿question? 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You seriously accusing a living person of making this up? That Der Speigel has not corrected their unattributed MEMRI propaganda is an interesting tidbit, but doesnt change how wrong the translation verifiably is. And no, the translation of Abbas is not accurate, half-truth is not accuracy, sorry, it is definitionally deceptive (ie a lie). nableezy - 16:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It also does not satisfy weight in any way, if no secondary source has noted this quote then it has no weight to be included. ONUS also requires consensus for inclusion, and you have none for either MEMRI or this quote. Also, if you remove the now blocked socks of banned users who were banned at the time of their participation in that RFC listed at RSP you will find a pretty obvious consensus that it is at least generally unreliable. nableezy - 21:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, since MEMRI is simply translating, I would say the due weight originates with the original source: Al-Aqsa TV. A Hamas propaganda outfit (like Al-Aqsa) is also not acceptable as a source for due weight. Re: MEMRI, they do have a point of view but they are a valid source for translations. They do have a point of view so it shouldn't be viewed as some sort of objective source for any original publication by them, but that's not what they do and a translation has more evidence of due weight if it's picked up by a mainstream publication.

That said, I'm not seeing any evidence that their translations are inaccurate. Even the opinion piece you provided from Le Monde notes the wide use of MEMRI translations in the media. In a quick search, I found uses of MEMRI translations without any sort of caveat about translation accuracy by New York Times, Fox News, Christian Science Monitor, National Review, Washington Post not to mention numerous credible Israeli publications which I don't think would be helpful here. I even found The Economist using a MEMRI translation to correct another translation.

A 2006 New York Times report (vis a vis the opinion piece by an activist in Le Monde) states:

On this front, Memri, the largest translation service, may have drawn the most criticism. It was founded in 1998 by Col. Yigal Carmon, who had spent more than 20 years in Israeli military intelligence and later advised two Israeli prime ministers. Its 60 staff members scan Arab and Muslim media and send translations by e-mail to 100,000 subscribers, including journalists and officials. Critics have long said it focuses on translating the most dangerous-sounding material.

"They say they highlight liberal voices along with the dangerous radicals, which is fine," said Marc Lynch, a scholar of Arab politics at Williams College who has criticized Memri on his own blog, Abu Aardvark. "But what that conceals is the entire middle ground, where most of the political debate goes on in the Arab world."

Mr. Carmon, in a telephone interview, dismissed this criticism, noting that Memri has expanded its translations immensely over the years, and now highlights Arab reformist views. Some other analyst groups focus almost exclusively on terrorism. They include the Project for the Research of Islamist Movements, founded in 2002 by Reuven Paz, who is also an Israeli; the Virginia-based Terrorism Research Center, founded in 1996; and the Jamestown Foundation, founded during the cold war to study totalitarian societies but now focused on terrorism.

In other words, there's a valid argument that MEMRI picks and chooses what to translate based on its POV (which gives some validity to arguments about weight) but I don't see any reason based on the numerous reliable sources using MEMRI translations to doubt the accuracy of its translations. Thmymerc (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is widely used. But it is also a propaganda outlet and its translations have been shown to be fraudulent. You can say you don’t see a reason to doubt the translations but I have provided examples of fraudulent translations that provide reasons to doubt their translations. nableezy - 12:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

With due respect, all you've shown is that an activist has claimed (20 years ago, in fact) that some translations are inaccurate. You've also acknowledged that it's widely used by reliable sources. It seems pretty clear that MEMRI is widely accepted in terms of accuracy of translations. That's a separate discussion from whether simply being translated by MEMRI constitutes due weight. Thmymerc (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I’ve given multiple reliable sources showing blatant lies in their translations. nableezy - 12:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, with due respect, you linked to a Le Monde editorial by an activist, a discussion where you argued strenuously and achieved no consensus, and an article by an individual with the majority of their Wikipedia article devoted to being an anti-Israel activist. Meanwhile, you've acknowledged that MEMRI is widely used by actual reliable sources and I've provided the New York Times, Economist, and others using its translations. Thmymerc (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a shit source, Baker is an unquestionable expert in the field and you would do well to mind that WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia. nableezy - 12:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You keep making assertions without basis. I am keeping BLP in mind, do you have a citation for an extraordinary claim like "unquestionable expert in the field"? She's quite literally the definition of a polarizing figure and hardly someone that can be used as the basis for consensus. Thmymerc (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Professor in translation studies at the university of Manchester and holds the chair of the department editor of Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, author of a large number of peer reviewed works. She is an expert source, and it is asinine to even question that with her credentials. Though my wording was poor, she is unquestionably an expert not an unquestionable expert. nableezy - 13:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI has been shown to not be simply translating. Much like hack journalists such as Avi Yemini and Andy Ngo, who edit video footage to display events in the worst possible way for those they wish to demonise, MEMRI has been know to take interviews and selectively edit parts out so that there is no context to what is left in before translating it so that it appears in the worst possible way. In no uncertain terms that is dishonest and fraudulent. TarnishedPath^talk 12:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Again - shown by who? Activists? Because that's all @Nableezy has provided. Personal feelings aside, it's widely used by mainstream media that we consider reliable sources. Some activists complaining about translations does not make a source that's widely accepted as valid in the media suddenly invalid. Thmymerc (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A peer reviewed journal and an article in Le Monde are both reliable sources. You can keep saying activist but that has nothing to do with reliability even if it were true, so I see no need to rebut it. nableezy - 12:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

An opinion piece by an activist is reliable only to verify that activist's opinion. Same with a research paper published in a journal, just a reliable source to verify that academic's conclusion.

All you have done is verify that Mohammed El-Oifi and Mona Baker agree with you.

Didn't catch this initially, but worth noting that Le Diplo is distinct from Le Monde and simply a publisher of opinions.

If you have an actual reliable source that impeaches MEMRI's translations, that'd be interesting. But all you've done is confirm that their translations are widely accepted by everyone except activists. Thmymerc (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

She is an academic expert, there appears to be zero point in engaging with you here. She is an expert, you are not, and Wikipedia follows the experts. Not the random people on the internet that try to denigrate them. nableezy - 14:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I could say the same. I agree that Wikipedia follows reliable sources. She is just one expert with an opinion, mainstream sources utilize translations from MEMRI because it is a reliable source. You've done nothing to dispel that. Thmymerc (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

An academic expert source writing in the area of her academic expertise is not providing "opinion". And, again, absent the participation of banned users at the MEMRI RFC there is a clear consensus for generally unreliable. Anyway, you dont have consensus for inclusion here, you are welcome to try an RFC to gain that consensus if you wish. nableezy - 14:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think there's a consensus that it's unreliable, feel free to try to seek it since as you acknowledge there is no such consensus at this time. Thmymerc (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS requires consensus for inclusion, not exclusion. And no, I did not acknowledge that, I said the exact opposite, absent the banned editors the last RFC had a clear generally unreliable consensus. nableezy - 15:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Engaging with you seems to consist of repeatedly having already-debunked arguments repeated to me as if they aren't already discredited.

I'm not arguing for including anything so ONUS does not apply. I am that translations from a source that is widely accepted by reliable sources should be acknowledged as such. Thmymerc (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No, you just edited to that effect. If you are not discussing the topic of this article then please stop misusing this talk page. nableezy - 16:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I reverted because I disagreed that MEMRI is unreliable which was the basis of that edit. If you're arguing that it's not due weight in the article, that's another discussion entirely (and one I'm at this point not inclined to disagree with). Thmymerc (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And parts of what many consider mainstream media aren't reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes either. Go look at WP:RSP, it's not listed as reliable. Sources which are reliable should be preferenced. TarnishedPath^talk 12:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I've provided reporting by the New York Times and Economist which both clearly identify MEMRI translations as accurate. Again, separate discussion from weight, but I'm not seeing where their translations have been "shown" to be inaccurate. Thmymerc (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thmymerc That would be the same New York Times that told us that definitely, 100% for sure there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq right? As per my previous comments refer to WP:RSP, MEMRI is not listed as a reliable source. TarnishedPath^talk 13:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not listed as unreliable either. Also, see my response to the supposed fabrication above. Alaexis_¿question? 13:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Without the participation of banned users there is a clear consensus for unreliable. You can ignore that if you like, I choose not to. nableezy - 14:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, there were many other users who !voted Option 1 or 2. In any case, you can reopen the discussion at WP:RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 16:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And many more who voted 3 or 4. There are, absent the 4 banned socks, 11 users for options 1 and 2, and 19 for options 3 and 4, with 15 of those for deprecate alone, and an additional two of them 3 or 4. Thats 17 for deprecate in total. To 11 for either 1 or 2. And you want to pretend that this doesnt have a consensus for unreliable? (based on quick pattern matching, could be mistaken but youre welcome to count yourself). nableezy - 16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, if a "consensus" is only clear to you (and perhaps a few others who agree with you) then I'd posit there's no consensus. Thmymerc (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus isn't counting of votes. There were arguments like "they’re the bottom of the barrel" without any supporting evidence.

Anyway, this is a long-standing content, and if you want to argue that the source isn't good, RSN is the right venue for that. Alaexis_¿question? 19:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Im well aware it isnt counting votes, but a supermajority is still something that requires something extraordinary to overturn, and 63% is such a thing. I think there is already a consensus MEMRI is unreliable, and regardless ONUS requires consensus for inclusion. And nobody has demonstrated it has any weight to be included anyway. You are welcome to try to establish that, but it stays out absent a conclusion for inclusion. nableezy - 20:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, WP:ONUS requires consensus, and WP:BURDEN requires reliable sourcing, and WP:DUE requires secondary sourcing to demonstrate weight. You have none of that here. I have re-reverted your disruptive revert. nableezy - 20:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis, you do not have consensus in this discussion for the inclusion of that material and WP:BLPUNDEL applies. Do not continue to revert to re-insert the material, like you did in this edit. MEMRI is not marked as a reliable source in WP:RSP. TarnishedPath^talk 23:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you @Alaexis. Unfortunately, it seems a team of editors believes they own this article. Thmymerc (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Check WP:RSP again for MEMRI. nableezy - 17:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we'd need outside input, whether in the form of RfC at WP:RSN or not, to resolve this.

Another option would be to find the original interview. MEMRI only has done the translation after all so it's not necessary. @Nableezy, @TarnishedPath, could you do it? Alaexis_¿question? 19:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not interested as it lacks any weight to include anyway. A point not even attempted to be addressed by yourself despite your happiness to revert such a garbage source back in to the article. nableezy - 19:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't look like constructive editor behaviour... If you agree that the translation is accurate I'm happy to discuss the due weight aspects. Possibly it should be trimmed. Alaexis_¿question? 20:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It deserves 0 weight, it has not been discussed in any secondary source. If you think I am behaving disruptively feel free to report me. Me declining to look for a primary television interview on your behalf isnt that though, and what is not constructive editor behavior is continuing to use a shit source without any weight given to it and without any consensus. So, feel free to look for whatever you want to look for. I however do not work for you and I choose not to spend my volunteer time doing your bidding. I expect this source, now agreed to be "between no consensus and generally unreliable" (which is generous and you know it), will not be edit-warred back in disruptively. Toodles, nableezy - 20:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Where did anyone say anything about agreeing that MEMRI is accurate. MEMRI is clearly not a reliable source as is indicated at WP:RSP. Weight is another consideration to take into account given the content of the alleged translation, which goes into details of the alleged behaviour or third parties who are not subjects of this Wikipedia article. TarnishedPath^talk 01:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That's actually a hysterically funny position to adopt. MEMRI is no more and no less than a translation service that monitors Arabic-language media sources and publishes English translations of text and puts English subtitles on videos. The question of whether or not their sources are accurate needs to be addressed to the Arabic sources, which are always clearly identified, not to MEMRI itself.

Accusing a translator of being unreliable is akin to us arguing over whether a printing house is reliable or not. It's not the printing press that created the content, and neither is MEMRI. In fact, MEMRI will probably be reduced in operation as automatic machine translation becomes better and better. Will we then start arguing over whether Google Translate is an RS or not? --Eliyahu S ^Talk 19:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Take it up at WP:RS/N. WP:MEMRI clearly indicates that it is not considered to be a generally reliable source. It should not be used for any contentious content. TarnishedPath^talk 00:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Typo on image caption

I can't edit due to the protection on the page; under the image of Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri, it says "His banana" where it should say "his bandana". Aristaeusapiculturist (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 12:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Breaking News Update

Today the Israel Hebrew media just reported that the Jerusalem District Court finally reached a verdict in a case and found that the Palestinian Authority was guilty for inciting the blast, and ordered a victims compensation fund of tens of millions of shekels be established for the survivors and the families of the murdered. When the report hits the English press I will update this article if another editor hasn't beaten me to it. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)