Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Icewhiz (talk | contribs) at 19:12, 3 December 2018 (→Notability). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was nominated for deletion on November 30, 2018 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Close and reverted article back to before being hijacked.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Is this real?

While I am assuming that the article was written in good faith and the subject is real, the whole article strikes me as odd, for the following reasons:

• There is no mention of this group anywhere in Hebrew (or English for that matter) on the Internet, from what I can see, beyond the TRAC site
• I'm not familiar with TRAC, but it doesn't contain any real information on the group, and it also lists Agudat Israel as a terrorist group (or maybe that's another Agudat Israel?), which is very strange
• The other source is offline and there is no reference even to the existence of an article with those parameters anywhere

Even if the content is accurate notability remains an issue if the group was only responsible for one major attack and it's not even clear if it was an actual group—but before arguing that I'd like some additional source (preferably online, but if it's offline I'll make an effort to find it) to make sense of the subject.

—Ynhockey 14:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Ynhockey: stumbled into this page, and had a similar reaction: Never heard of the group and it's very sketchily sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I blanked the page after attempting to source it. Reason is that while it is clear that a number of arson attacks and one shooting were claimed by "sicarii", as we know from claims by ISIS and similar groups, it is easy to publish a claim that your group committed a particular crime. Police were trying, they even arrested an individual, but let him go for lack of evidence. I can find no evidence that there was a terrorist group "sicarii". It may be that only the the claims, the crimes, and the allegation existed, not the group.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ynhockey Here is the original source I used for the original article, found in the the Globe and Mail's April 28, 2018 edition.Emass100 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory See above. I will not hide that I am a bit frustated that you changed the page completely, and then argued for the deletion of the subject you changed the article to. A terrorist (organisation? group? vague affiliation between isolated individuals?) which recieved so much national press, and then international press, is certainly notable. Emass100 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• That old Globe & Mail article is part of the problem. It was the first thing I read (because www.trackingterrorism.org is an unverified list.) I accessed it on Proquest "Underground group targets Jewish leftists". As I'm sure you know, the article does not establish that the group actually exited: "Little is known about the Sicarii, which surfaced earlier this year by setting fire to the cars and homes of Israeli leftist figures. Some police officers theorize that the attacks were not carried out by an organized group, but by isolated extremists who seized on the name of the group that resisted Roman rule in Jerusalem two millennia ago, slashing Romans and Jewish collaborators alike." E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Notability

From what I can tell, this was used in flyers/phones to take responsibilty. No one was ever convicted for being a member, and they stopped using this label in 1990 (going through a number of others). Post 1990 coverage seems to be limited to a paragraph or so of coverage in borderline sources (one of them turns the April 89 Jaffa gate shooting to a bombing). There is no indication this was an actual group (as opposed to being one of many names Kach's armed wing used).Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• This article claims that : "Sicarii is a defunct Jewish terrorist group formed in 1989 in Israel." But this is precisely what we have no evidence of. A series of real attacks where made arson mainly, and mostly minor. Then there was a man dressed in the uniform of an Israeli soldier who opened fire on a group of Arabs at Jerusalem's Jaffa Gate. One of the men he shot died. But the shooter was never identified. These crimes were real. A person or persons phoned in allegations that "Sicarii" were behind these attacks. A panic certainly seized Jerusalem during the spate of attacks, and a spate of press coverage ensued in the spring of 1989. But my searches of news archives show do not show any evidence that a "group" of "sicarii" existed. What I find are a handful of articles like this, Jerusalem Post, 12 April, 1989: : POLICE PONDER THE EXISTENCE OF SICARII The lights burned through the night at Tel Aviv district police headquarters as senior officers analysed the latest information collated on the mysterious Sicarii underground. Earlier Monday evening four Arabs were shot by a man, apparently in army uniform, who used an Uzi submachine gun and fled before he could even be identified. An unknown caller contacted journalists claiming that the attack had been carried out by the Sicarii. The first question facing Assistant Commander Mishne Yehuda Vilk, head of the elite interrogation division, is a rather odd one - does the most sought after undergound in Israel really exist? Not necessarily, says a senior police officer. All the attacks for which the Sicarii claimed responsibility had only one common element. Their execution was amateurish. Some of the post-incident telephone calls to newspapers could have been made by people unconnected with the crimes, who got their information by keeping an ear close to radio newsflashes or by tuning in to the police wavebands. Some incidents however were reported to journalists even before the police knew about them, such as the recent arson attack on former Petah Tikva mayor Dov Tavori. One of the callers claimed the arson attacks were not meant to kill, only to intimidate. This means that the previous attacks were actually designed to fail. And if this is true, says one officer, Monday night's attack shows that the Sicarii, if they exist, have now gone beyond intimidation to attract attention." The police kept looking,

E.M.Gregory Thank you for the new sources you provided. We can now all agree that:

1. Some people claimed to be a terrorist group called "Sicarii" and claimed responsability for multiple attacks of similar nature in Israel in 1989/1990;

2. These people recieved extraodinary media coverage nationally and internationally, and;

3. They were never caught.

If we all agree with these facts, we are now no more debating the notablility of the group, as it is established, but the nature of the group. Maybe calling them a defunct Jewish terrorist group formed in 1989 is giving them too much credit? What do you suggest we put in this article's lead to define it's topic?Emass100 (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The sources added, being PRIMARY or lacking depth - do not satiafy GNG. Reintroducing Yoel Adler as a section is a BLPCRIME issue - he is innocent.Icewhiz (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Emass100, you have violated WP:BLPCRIME by adding the name of a man who was - briefly - suspected of a crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Rich, coming from the person who transformed this article into a BLP violation so that he could attempt to delete it. nableezy - 18:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I came upon an articl ewith a single RS. I searched, seemed to find a valid perp, and began to write the page to be about something I could source, and actual criminal. Moved the page to the name of the criminal, then, to my horror, realized that despite the flurry of news coverage that popped up at the top of searches, all charges had been dropped due to the fact that investigators could not establish anything - neither that they had identifire d acriminal nor that the "gorup" to which he allegedly belonged existed. Please WP:AGF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you, as your very first edits to this page (here and here) changed the article from one covering the group with no mention of Adler anywhere to one about a living person, the same living person that you now admonish another person for naming. That is, you titled the article after the person you say cannot be named. And then you nominated your own transformed, or hijacked in the words of the admin who closed the AfD, BLP violation for speedy deletion. AGF is not a suicide pact, and honestly Im still tempted to bring such bad faith editing to the attention of AE and/or ANI. That was an obscene sequence, I havent seen much more purposely bad faith editing in a good ass minute. nableezy - 22:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Emass, I do not agree. I see only a brief, flurry of coverage, and no evidence that such a "group" existed; (false claims of responsibility for attacks are common.) You seem to have missed the fact that the "international" consisted almost entirely of a single article by Carol Rosenberg ran in the Globe & Mail, The Chicago Tribune, and several other papers in May 1989. The flurry of coverage in Israel petered out because police could not identify suspects.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• The most we can source is that: In 1989-1990, a series of claims of responsibility for violent attacks were made by a self-styled person or persons using the name "sicarii." No evidence was found linking identified persons or attacks to such a group.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, if you would like to challenge the notability of this article, there is a process for that. It is called WP:AFD. By all means, take it there (again). The tag serves no purpose, there are now ten reliable secondary sources in this article. Absent an indication that those are not reliable secondary sources, I intend to remove the tag. Finally, please familiarize yourself with what a primary source is. It is not any source you dislike. It is a source directly connected to the event or group in question. A newspaper article is a secondary source, full stop. A book is a secondary source, full stop. nableezy - 17:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

No, most newspaper items close to an event are PRIMARY for historical events/groups - that's rather basic. Removing the tag without consensus is edit warring. If you want to show establish notability please produce 2-3 secondary sources from after 1995 with more than 2 pages of content on this groups (to demonstrate LASTING, SUSTAINED, INDEPTH coverage). This article is probably going to AfD ot to a merge discussion per ATD absent such sourcing. Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Lustick source

Ian Lustick, Unsettled States, Disputed Lands (1993,) describes the "Sicarii" as a "shadowy group (or groups.)"(p. 411) He asserts that "teh Sicarii specialized in "arson attacks and bomb and murder threats." Lustick sources this to to a pretty shady footnote (footnote 47, p.554,) that begins "In the spring of 1990 the police arrested Yoel Adler on suspicion of being a leader of the Sicarii." The footnote then lists crimes claimed by the "Sicarii," sourced to the flurry of 1989/90 press coverage. The footnote is misleading because it does not mention that police found no evidence linking Adler or any other person to the messages, or to a crime. And it is misleading because the news articles to which Lustick sources these statements claim only that messages purported to come from "Sicarii" claimed responsibility for attacks, not that there was evidence establishing that a group of Sicarii existed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is not about Adler. Despite the bad faith efforts to make it into a deletable article, this article is about Sicarii, which Lustick covers. nableezy - 18:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• The point is that Lustick offered no evidence of the existence of a 1989 "sicarii, but disingenuously implied that evidence existed in the form of this arrest - wihtout mentioning that there were not charges brought.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You are not a reliable source. Lustick's book is. I dont see the need to respond to your challenge of what a reliable source says. nableezy - 18:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Lustick faila INDEPTH, regardless of questions of reliability. Not much more than a paragraph was written on these guy after 1991.Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

So what? nableezy - 19:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• So Lustick did no research into the topic, and did not attempt to contextualize or analyze it, no INDEPTH. Merely, he cited (inaccurately) a handful of news accounts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, so what? And your contention about what he did is based on nothing but your imagination. nableezy - 20:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

And also, yall notice what WP:INDEPTH is about, right? Notability guideline for events. Events. nableezy - 23:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

notices

Which sources are disputed to be reliable? What is disputed as far as factual accuracy? Specifics please. nableezy - 18:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• the fact that a "group" called sicarii existed is in dispute because sources. 12 March 1989 Jerusalem Post article:

What? There are several sources listed that say this group existed and did this. Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. The books listed in the references demonstrate that. Which specific sources are challenged for reliability? nableezy - 18:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Please link to those sourced, becasue I am not finding such.19:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• For comparison, take a look at White Flag, "The exact nature of the White Flags is disputed," but the existence of the group is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

They are in the article, but since you cant be bothered, here:

• Ami Pedahzur; Arie Perliger (2011), Jewish Terrorism in Israel, Columbia University Press, p. 93, ISBN 978-0-231-15447-5
• Martha Crenshaw; John Pimlott (22 April 2015), International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Routledge, p. 369, ISBN 978-1-135-91966-5

Either of those not reliable? nableezy - 19:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Boy, you just can't even trust encyclopedias these days. The Crenshaw/Pinlott encyclopedia states: "In 1989 they placed a bomb near Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, that killed two Palestinians and wounded two others." Nableezy, can you find any sources on this alleged "bombing?" I ask because I assume that it is a wildly inaccurate distortion of the an April 1989 shooting attack at the Jaffa Gate in which one Arab was killed and three wounded. reporting on that attack, (Shootings spur Israeli probe of right wing: Bushinsky, Jay. Chicago Sun - Times; Chicago, Ill. 12 Apr 1989: 20.) stated that ""There still is no concrete evidence that the Sicarii really exist," said Chief Supt. Adi Gonen of the national police force. Gonen would not rule out the possibility that the fatal shooting of Khaled Shawish and the wounding of the three other Palestinians may have been a criminal rather than a political act."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• As for Pedahzur and Perliger, can you access the sources they cite for this statement?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do I need to? nableezy - 20:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• To show that it is accurate and INDEPTH; Crenshaw/Pinlott and Lustick are neither - as demonstrated above, however, I had Lustick right on my bookshelf, so I could check it, but I cannot access Pedahzur and Perliger online and thought that you might be able to do so, since you have cited it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That isnt even a little bit how this works. We are not in any way obligated to fact check for reliable sources. Absent a reliable source directly disputing what a reliable source says, the material supported by reliable sources are facts for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, and so far undisputed ones. Again, I opened this section to discuss the tags on the article. If you or anybody else (well it shouldnt be you given the previous bad-faith editing here in "hijacking" the article and turning it into a BLP violation and then requesting speedy deletion) wants to say that the GNG is not met they can nominate the article for deletion. The factual accuracy and unreliable sources tags however need specific justifications. What sources are challenged for reliability and what facts are disputed (by sources, not Misplaced Pages editors). nableezy - 20:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Relying on sources that are blatantly inaccurate is NOT the way to build an encyclopedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH. You either have sources that dispute what these say or you dont. The end. nableezy - 22:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Contradicted by primary news reports from 89 and 90 - e.g. JTA you just added which describe a shooting, not a bombing.Icewhiz (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I see a minor error in one of the sources (and note I never used the material I think is in error in the source). Nothing contradicting anything in the other source. And the JTA source supports the existence of the group, doesnt it? nableezy - 22:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Supports the name being in use in phone calls/flyers in 89. Kach cycled through a number of these names in the 80s and 90s. Icewhiz (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The Jewish Terrorism in Israel source says Sicarii was a group of Kach activists, not that it was a name used by Kach itself. nableezy - 23:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy, this is exactly the sort of wall that I have been crashing into since I first stumbled onto this topic/page. A statement by a journalist, such as the arrest of a likely -looking suspect, is made, only to have teh suspect releases for lack of evidence on the second page of the search. The old news articles make a variety of conflicting claims, all of which crumble into nothing upon examination. Nothing, that is, beyond the fact claims were made in the name "sicarri" by unidentified person or persons, and the fact that various of the attacks claimed actually took place. The very few secondaary sources that have been found get a great many details wrong, but show nothing that reliably established who, what or even "if" the sicarii were.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

We'll probably have to trawl through archives of printed press to uncover more details behind the story. But just because the event happened before internet became prevalent doesn't make it not noteworthy. There is probably some WP:POLICY saying as much in more eloquent manner than I'm able to. But consider if the story had happened in another small country, say Norway? Some deranged individuals claim they are part of a revived ancient Viking sect and stabs people in Oslo. That would have been noteworthy even if the police were unable to prosecute any alleged members. ImTheIP (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, no, your examination is literally not relevant here. Jewish Terrorism in Israel says there was a group named Sicarii that was made up of Kach activists and that they chose that name based off the Sicarii. That by itself is enough for our purposes to say, as a fact, that they existed and named themselves such for this reason. JTA says they claimed responsibility for the shooting at the Jaffa Gate. That is enough for our purposes to say that they claimed responsibility for that. Hate Crime: The Global Politics of Polarization reports that they took responsibility for that shooting and that they claimed it in response to some stoning incident the week prior. That is enough for us to say as a fact these things are true. You dont get to make these requirements that we fact check these sources. WP:V is fairly clear on that point. nableezy - 03:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The primary sources (refuted to a large extent by a police investigation - lots of coverage when Adler was arrested, little coverage afterwards) and the very brief coverage in a few secondary sources (some of which get basic details wrong) are sufficient for us to say they took responsibility. It might have been a real group. It might have been a wierdo or two with a fax machine. We don't really know - no one has ever found out.Icewhiz (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry, but what primary sources? You said that, I assume about the State Department report, at the AFD, and it was just as wrong there. A primary source is one that is from an involved party. The US State Department is a primary source on the view of the US Government in foreign relations. It is a secondary source on an act of terror in Israel. And what refutation? On Misplaced Pages it is a real group because reliable secondary sources say it existed and dis x y and z. Sources trump speculation here, last I checked with the rules. nableezy - 04:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

News reporting from close to the event (in this case - 1990 or 1989 - reporting on arrests and so on) - is usually considered WP:PRIMARY 30 years later. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Lol, no. nableezy - 17:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Back to the point of this section though. What sources are challenged for reliability? That should be an easy one. @Ynhockey:, you placed the reliable sources tag in this article. Which source are you challenging? nableezy - 04:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the arguments made by E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz above are pretty solid for the purpose of disputing some of the sources in the article, as well as for placing tags. I originally placed the tag referring to the TRAC source (as stated in my comment at the top), which at the time constituted 1/2 (50%) of the sources used in the article. In any case, it's hard to dispute that while the article is not strictly about an event, it is intertwined with some events which, even collectively, fail WP:EVENT. But that's relevant to the notability tag, not the unreliable sources tag. —Ynhockey 06:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

For the love of anything you hold holy, which sources? And no, WP:EVENT does not apply. If nobody says which sources are unreliable I am removing that tag. nableezy - 17:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If it is just TRAC, I will remove that later, with the tag. nableezy - 17:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

maybe merge?

thinking aloud here, maybe the best way to handle this is with a brief subhead at Sicarii about later groups that have borrowed the name. It would include a brief description of the Sikrikim with a link to that page, and this 1989 phenomenon could be redirected there and described.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason whatsoever to do that. You first tried "hijacking" the article to speedy delete it, then that "hijacked" article was brought to AFD. If this article distresses you so much there is a simple solution here. Unwatch it. nableezy - 17:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Bad idea. The Sikrikim are described as an ultra-orthodox group, it says in this article that the Sicarii sent threatening letters to Ultra-Orthodox party leaders. They are also two different organisations separated by 15 years, whose goals, context and political affiliations were different.198.103.249.201 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since the only thing they share is the origin of their names I don't think that is a good idea. The guy we now refer to as "the suspect" (although I'm not sure if that is necessary according to policy) was briefly associated with the Tehiya party. But merging that way seem dubious too. Better let the article stay as it is and be worked on ImTheIP (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I did NOT propose merging or conflating the two groups. I proposed creating a subhead, where we could have a sentence or two about the shadowy "sicarii" being discussed on this page; and a sentence about the Sikrikim, and also a sentence about the Sicario.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics