Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meir Ettinger

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Icewhiz makes compelling arguments (some of which are resonated in the discussion); the BLP issues (brought out by EM Gregory) are also worth further discussion. At the same time, there is a significantly weighty consensus that is evident towards keeping the article. With no current view on the matter, I would suggest further discussions on the talk page of the article (perhaps even an Rfc) to discuss whether WP:PERP applies on the subject or not. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 07:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meir Ettinger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly qualifies for WP:G10 in current form (several issues, see talk), however even if rectified, the subject fails notability due to WP:BLPCRIME, WP:PERP. The subject is primarily notable for being suspected by Israeli authorities and media to be a "ringleader" or "inspiration" of violent Jewish hill-top elements (including being labelled as the "number 1 Jewish terror suspect"). However, subject was never charged let alone convicted for these suspicions. Other people were charged (and in one church attack - convicted) for the 2015 events that led to Ettinger rising to the spotlight. Ettinger, however, was held in administrative arrest for several months before being released, but has not charged prior to or since his release. He does a previous 2012 conviction for a minor charge of collecting (with 4 others) information on military movements, which led to a time served 6 month plea-bargain sentence - however this would not confer notability on Ettinger himself. While widely covered since 2015, this is due to him being labelled as the "number 1 Jewish terror suspect" - which did not actually lead to any formal charges or conviction. Per PERP - A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured - which applies here - since he was not even subsequently charged let alone convicted.Icewhiz (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G10 obviously does not apply: the article is neither poorly sourced not unsourced. As I said on the talkpage, the article is indeed negative in tone, but the underlying sources are also negative in tone (as are other sources I Googled). One can't help but reflect the underlying sources. There are so many sources on Ettinger's ideology and practice that WP:BLP1E does not apply: for instance, see this book which has a big section on Ettinger and Meir Kahane. I suggest the best course of action is to add some responses by Ettinger or people close to him, like his lawyer. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ettinger is more famous than many other Israelis who have articles. Also, BLPCRIME does not apply since he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE by our definitions. Israeli newspapers alone provide hundreds of articles. With care in attributing opinions, there is no reason at all that a good article can't be written on this person. Zero^talk 08:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was he a public figure prior to reporting of said suspicions (and administrative arrest)? Is he a public figure via reporting independent of these suspicions? To my knowledge, he hasn't held any official position, and he is allegedly popular in "hilltop youth" circles of a few hundred people at most. The vast majority of reporting and writing I've seen on the subject (in the current article and elsewhere) is based on these suspicions (marking his as "suspect #1") from 2015. Reporting on him pre-2015 doesn't give him notability or public-figure status - it is very sparse - around 10-15 GNEWSHITS - mainly on a single issue and mentioned with other people. post-2015 - reporting is very wide (in Hebrew, outside of English, and even a few books), but all based on the publication of this suspicion (and admin arrest) by Shin-Bet.Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um..It's a fundamental premise of analytic philosophy that sentences of the type: 'was A known before A was known' don't make sense. Of course in Zen Buddhism, it would be a useful koan, but it's hard to edit Wikipedia thinking in terms extra-territorial to standard logic.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he were a public-figure prior to being marked as "suspect #1" by Shin-Bet (but not charged or convicted) - then there would be no WP:PERP issue. As evidence of his non-notability before this suspicion: the Jan 2014 Qusra incident (the capture and beating of a group of settlers) was widely reported (at least in Israeli press - was a front-line item) - [1] [2] [3] [4] - none of the Hebrew reports from the day of the incident bother to mention Ettinger by name - and he's photographed (e.g. - [5] [6] [7]) and appears in the video reports in most of the reporting - but none of the reporters in Jan 2014 bothered to mention this was him - instead mostly saying "group of settlers" (in English - Time of Israel does give him a photo-caption - [8] - and nothing else). There is a single Walla! report from 2 days later (9 Jan) which does mention him - but only because he gave a video interview (saying they "were taking a hike" to Hakol Hayehudi) - and they report on the interview - this wasn't picked up by anyone else in Hebrew.Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make the slightest difference when he became a public figure. If he is a public figure NOW then WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies to him NOW. Zero^talk 16:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided There do seem to be seem serious BLP issues; coverage starts after he is ~~accused~~ of crimes of which he is not convicted. We have an article about one of the crimes - which, interestingly, does not focus on Ettinger; but to have an article about someone who is accused but not convicted is problematic. I also Note that some of the text and many of the articles are about articles of the Hilltop youth as a group, but that they single Ettinger out because of who his grandfather is. Do any of Meir Kahana's other grandchildren (I assume that there are others) have pages? I ask because, while an ancestor like Abraham Lincoln can provide notability to several generations of descendants, in general we only mention ancestors when an individual passes notability for other reasons. (I recently participated in an AfD during which only the name of Jim Carter's grandson James Carter IV (the entire text was deleted, not merged) but the name was redirected to grandpa's article on the grounds that Jimmy IV has had several rounds of publicity, making his name is a useful search term.) I don't see why having Kahana as a grandfather would confer notability when Jimmy Carter doesn't. Mostly, I am troubled by the circularity of the coverage. Ettinger is said to be a "leader" of the Hilltop youth, but they seem to be an ardent but inchoate group with no formal leadership, similar in this to "groups" like Black bloc. On the page Hilltop Youth(which, by the way, should not have a cap for the second word) Ettinger is the sole member listed under #Notable Exponents. Problem is, the coverage in the articles sourcing that section and in this article often singles him out among an array of "hilltop youth" being discussed r accused, on the grounds not of his leadership, but because he is "the grandson of..." all of which seems extremely circular.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Ettinger was not accused of any of the major crimes in 2015 (Duma and the church)- others were. He was just suspected (of inspiring/directing, IIRC he did have an alibi for his own whereabouts due to movement restrictions on himself), placed in admin arrest, and subsequently he was not charged. I don't think there is an article on another grandson, though I may be wrong. There is an article on a son (uncle), Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane, who is clearly notable on a number of grounds (led the kahane chai branch) and is also dead.Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So he's not even accused of the bluelinked arson attack, although others are. This does appear to prove the point that Ettinger's notability is tenuous, that because of who his grandsire is he provides a handy focus for stories that are actually about an inchoate group of revolting "youth".E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware, notability in Wikipedia is determined by coverage in reliable sources. It has nothing whatever to do with whether we think that coverage was justified. Zero^talk 20:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which sources EMG is reading, but absolutely nobody, including Icewhiz here, is arguing that Ettinger's notability is inherited from his grandfather. Ettinger is not notable because of he is Kahane's grandson; he is notable because there are a million news sources discussing him, his statements, his ideology and his actions. This is the simple reason for Ettinger to have a BLP page, while his siblings don't. Kahane is mentioned because their ideologies and statements share many similarities. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some of the sources on the page, it seems as though exactly th opposite is true, that is, it it seems as though Ettinger is being singled out from other youth, because his grandfather gives these journalists a better story that they would have if they wrote about other hilltop youths who hold the same opinions and have behaved similarly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the very scant (around 10 GNEWS hits, mostly passing and with others) coverage prior to 2015 was due to him having a famous grandfather (some was limited to Kahane's grandson). Coverage since becoming Jewish suspect #1 in 2015 is mainly about him (Kahane is an anecdote). The idelogical comnection between the Hilltop Youth and Kahane is not such an obvious thing (it has been mentioned, not by all), the roots and idelogy of this movement are quite different (eg the Jewish underground is more relevant) and it is not a Kach offshoot (in terms of present day movements - Lahava, Otzma Yehudit, and other Kach alumni orgs are pretty clear offshoots). The sole question to me, in terms of notability, is whether coverage frome being suspect #1 (without being even charged, and with the cases ending with others being charged and tried) falls foul of PERP - which is an issue on enwiki.Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of how Ettinger first came to public attention, he has ridden the wave of fame/notoriety and become a columnist for a right-wing website. He thereby gave up any presumption in favor of privacy. He is clearly notable, regardless of whether he has been convicted of any crime. Extreme care should be taken to ensure that his article always satisfies WP:BLP and doesn't make unfounded assertions, and that it doesn't become a target for POV pushers; depending on the level of activity, a request for pending changes protection may be appropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a blog on hakol hayehudi (a fringe site catering to a certain fringe group (hilltop and others) of settlers (contrast with arutz7 which is mainstream settler)) might remove presumption of privacy, but it does not confer notability. He wrote there prior to 2015 - this is not a result of the arrest (it is one of the causes cited in 2015).Icewhiz (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to read more carefully. By writing the blog, Ettinger gave up his privacy. He is notable not because of his blog—such an assertion would be laughable—but because he has been the subject of tens of thousands of news articles around the world. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the blog notable? Because contributing to a non-notable blog doesn't make a person notable, we delete bloggers regularly. Just like we delete most pages about many, probably most, political commentators, journalists, and authors that come to AfD. And we keep very few "political activists" there. Writing on a non-notable blog doesn't make you notable any more than writing political commentary on your Facebook page does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you daft? Look directly above for my reply. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zero, Kingsindian, and Malik. --NSH001 (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources already on the article are more than sufficient to demonstrate notability, and the arguments for deletion do not address our deletion policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERP is a real problem, one that editors editing keep need to address.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm technically allowed to comment on an I/P AfD, but if the guy is notable for reasons beyond one singular event then I don't see how PERP (A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article...) is relevant. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, meets WP:GNG, BLP issues can be raised at BLP/n. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least trim down the article a lot. ImTheIP (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable because of the massive amount of coverage of him and his ideas in recent years. Of course, the article presents BLP challenges but so do thousands of other BLPs. The solution is ongoing editing by people who understand BLP policy, not deletion. He is not an otherwise non-notable criminal suspect who enjoys a presumption of privacy. He is instead a public figure who advocates quite openly for an extremist political/religious ideology. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.