| Revision as of 13:48, 3 April 2011 editMbz1 (talk | contribs)22,338 edits →Unbalanced: r to Gato← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:14, 10 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,842,479 editsm blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB | ||
| (96 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Old XfD multi| date = 18 March 2011 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Stoning murder of Israeli teens }} | ||
| {{DYK talk|31 March|2011|entry=... that the ''']''' on the outskirts of their ] in the ] in 2001 led to U.S. legislation cracking down on killers of Americans overseas?}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|collapsed=yes|class=C|1= | |||
| {{ARBPIA}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=Low|importance=Low}} | |||
| {{sanctions|<br>'''See ] for details'''}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Death|importance=Mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Israel| |
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=Low}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Palestine}} | {{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Low}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Death}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} | |||
| {{dyktalk|31 March|2011|entry=... that the ''']''' on the outskirts of their ] in the ] in 2001 led to U.S. legislation cracking down on killers of Americans overseas?}} | |||
| {{Merged-from|Koby Mandell|26 March 2011|target=Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran|date=26 March 2011}} | |||
| {{Annual readership|scale=sqrt}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 2 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old(90d) | |algo = old(90d) | ||
| |archive = Talk: |
|archive = Talk:Murders of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archives|age=90|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} | |||
| == Sources == | |||
| Relevant sources not yet used in the article (please add more to the list): | |||
| == Proposed rivolous deletion request == | |||
| * http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Dozens-hike-in-memory-of-child-terror-victim-326870 | |||
| —] <sup>(])</sup> 06:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I am not sure how one could claim this article to be ], if there was a new Act passed by US Congress and named for one of the victims! | |||
| I am not sure how one could claim this article to be ], if there was a foundation and a comedy tour created for one of the victims. | |||
| I am not sure how one could claim this article to be ], if the article is sourced for 2001,2010 and 2011! | |||
| May I please recommend you to take the template off ASAP. It is a bad faith edit.--] (]) 19:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :You can always take it down without discussion, but than a discussion of the AfD begins. Also, the things that followed seriously lack notability, where I'm from when someone dies there is a very good chance a trust is started in their name- awards, grants, parks, buildings, scholarships, and so on, so these don't really add notability. ] ] 19:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? What about US congress Act? Is there "a very good chance" for that to occur too? Listen, please don't take neither mine time not yours, better take the template out, or nominate the article on deletion, and let the wider community to decide.--] (]) 19:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::. Really your template for this article was added with the only reason: ]--] (]) 19:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The US congress act which was made a year or two later, has no mention of the murder victim outside of the title. It is a quite general act which does not appear to be in response to the incident. It would be like naming a car-safety bill after a random person who died in a car crash, the bill was needed regardless and is in response to the whole situation, not just one small event. Oh, oops I put the template for 'uncontroversial page deletion'....uh, how do I add the correct one that starts the !vote?? ] ] 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've no idea. I usually write articles, and do not nominate ones on deletion.--] (]) 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The event already has an article, it's called ]. The information is largely the same. They should just be merged, problem solved. —] <sup>(])</sup> 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I saw the article ], but I am '''strongly oppose''' merging the articles. Koby should has an article on his own, but this article should be a separate one. --] (]) 19:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to ] they should be merged. But that would be if the people/event was notable enough to survive deletion under ],], and ]. ] ] 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I removed the merge template for now. First we have to see what will be the result of DRs. Merge template just adds to confusion.--] (]) 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Mbz1, I will accept your suggestion to wait for the end of the AfD, but please don't remove merge templates in the future. Merge templates should only be removed if either the request if obviously frivolous (i.e. can be considered vandalism), or there's a consensus not to merge over a long enough period (usually 1 week, similar to AfD). —] <sup>(])</sup> 21:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I '''support''' the merge per ] - to be coarse, the kid did nothing aside from get killed that would merit a separate article on him and on the murder. Please note also that the Koby Mandell Act never passed and as such does not confer notability. ] (] ⋅ ]) 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like the Act --] (]) 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::That source doesn't support that claim, but I found a ''Forward'' blurb about Congress passing it and a JPost opinion piece which indicates that it was signed, so I'll add those. We should be able to do better than this, though. Is there no actual news coverage of its being signed? ] (] ⋅ ]) 01:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] (] ⋅ ]) 01:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Final clarification (as I wrote in the article): the bill itself was never passed, but elements of it were added to an omnibus spending bill, which passed. Per ''Jewish Journal'' source. ] (] ⋅ ]) 02:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Really== | |||
| You must know that "Scottish Friends of Israel" is not a WP:RS. Must I take it to WP:RSN? ] ] 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Please go ahead.--] (]) 22:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't recall seeing a response from an experienced editor that has seemed more intentionally disruptive to me. Anyone who's been active here for more than a month or two would instantly recognize that isn't even ''close'' to being a reliable source, and Passionless was right to credit you with that knowledge. | |||
| ::To cite to such a source in the first place, and then to abuse our process by forcing another editor to start ] to expunge it speaks volumes about your priorities here. You need to exercise ''far'' more respect for the integrity of the encyclopedia and the policies designed to protect it, and you need to let that overrule your private political interests and motivations. I'm sorry to have to speak this directly about so basic a matter to an experienced editor, but if you can't do that for some reason then you have no business editing here. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 11:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just noticed that before Mbz1 cited "Scottish Friends of Israel", the same passage to ], "a moderated Internet forum, activist, and chat site for self-described conservatives." I regret speaking as heatedly as I did in the foregoing, but she does give the impression that she thinks any source supporting Israel's interests is admissible, and it's that apparent belief that I was so upset by, and was responding to above. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Unexplained removal of sourced information == | |||
| ] that was sourced by ] because ... who knows why. Please revert yourself and discuss any feature substantial edits to the article before you make them.--] (]) 02:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I did explain that edit, it was located in the edit summary which said- "coatrack, synth, not sure, but I know it has nothing to do with the murders from 2001." And as I said that section has no relevance to the murders of 2001. ] ] 02:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Accusations spouted as fact== | |||
| There is no source which says Palestinians committed the attack, many say they believe Palestinians committed the attack, but of course this is only an accusation and people are innocent until proven guilty, which I believe no was has been, correct? The anonymous phone call also adds nothing as the phone call might have come from anywhere, even Sharon himself could have made that call which blamed Palestinians. ] ] 02:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :It sure is , and ]?--] (]) 03:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's way out of line, dude. Stick to discussing the sources and don't make gratuitous racist comments. ] (] ⋅ ]) 03:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Where do you see a racist comment? Yes, I hate terrorists whatever nationality, ethnicity and religion they belong to. Any problems with that?--] (]) 04:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"Who else but a Palestinian could dip his hands in blood" is racist, yes. ] (] ⋅ ]) 04:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, not Palestinians, Palestinian ''terrorists''. Are you capable of seeing the difference? And yes, I do not know about anybody else, but Palestinian ''terrorists'', who did in all the curse of I/P conflict. --] (]) 04:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Then perhaps you shouldn't have brought up this random thing in response to problems in the sourcing of "Palestinians" - it suggests that you don't see a difference, and since you claim that you do, it's an odd connection to make. Are we done here? ] (] ⋅ ]) 04:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Did you see anywhere in the article that it accused Palestinians of doing this? No,in two or three places it is talking about the attackers, it says "Palestinian ''terrorists''". And, no, we are not done with that until your comment is not stricken out.--] (]) 04:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Ah well. ] (] ⋅ ]) 04:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Anyone with a hand could of course. Mhhh, personally I don't trust information from non-textbook books anymore than I trust facts comnig out of fiction novels. They have no legal duty to supply the truth, well to the extent of causing harm, unlike news sources, and they do not rely on respect or have peer reviewing like many other sources do. ] ] 03:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Review of conflicting sources does not support a conclusion == | |||
| No one has been charged by a prosecutor with this crime, never mind convicted. And despite the same-day wholesale arrest by "security forces" (does that mean the IDF?) "of 20 Palestinians from villages in the area, seeking to determine if they were involved in the brutal murders," as the ''Jerusalem Post'' put it, it's my understanding that the Judea and Samaria police, who were in charge of the case, never claimed to have a viable suspect, and that no proof was presented that even identified the perpetrator or perpetrators as Palestinian. | |||
| And while my ''guess'' is that this probably ''was'' an ethnically-motivated hate crime, any number of alternative suppositions are plausible as well. To identify just one example, in an area that wasn't rife with sectarian violence the first conclusion that would be supposed in the murder of two 13 or 14-year-old boys (reports differ re their age) in a secluded area would have been that an attempted seduction or rape by some pervert had been escalated to murder when the intended victims refused, resisted, or threatened to inform authorities. | |||
| Despite the scarcity of actual facts, speculation was rife, and most of it was hostile to Palestinians. Although the investigation had barely begun, and as the ''Daily Mail'' observed, "The circumstances of the boys' deaths, which shocked the local community and heightened tensions, were unclear", | |||
| * Spokesman Raffia Yaffe ( some sources describe him as a "police spokesman", and as an Israeli government spokesman ) is variously cited by different news organizations as having said (pick one) he ''suspected'' Palestinians were responsible, that they ''appeared'' to be responsible, or that they ''were'' responsible. Some sources also report him as saying that Palestinian militia were responsible. None of the sources mention him as having provided any evidence at all to support whatever it was he actually said. He made his statements the same day the bodies were found, 9 May, 2001, just hours into the investigation. | |||
| * Raffia Yaffe also seems to have been the first person to introduce the idea to the media that the boys were "stoned to death", a description which suggests a very different image than that of an assailant using a rock as a bludgeon to crush a victim's skull, which appears to be what happened based on the actual details reported. | |||
| * , "Israeli police believe that they were killed by Palestinians in a chance encounter." | |||
| * that an unnamed police commander told Israel Radio from the scene that there was no doubt that this was "a murder for nationalistic reasons," but the same article also cites a settler security chief, Dov Weinstock, as saying "the killers may have been thieves who, acting impulsively, killed the youths using 'natural weapons' such as stones." Settlers said 100 goats were stolen from the adjacent village that same night, one-quarter mile away from the cave in which the boys' bodies were discovered; this is the theft alluded to. The paper added that the police also suspected thieves, but that the circumstances of their deaths "were unclear". | |||
| * that "Israeli police said Mandell and Ishran may have been killed in a chance encounter with Palestinians. Police spokesman Rafi Yaffe said it was not clear whether the killings were linked to the theft of dozens of goats from the settlement early Wednesday." | |||
| * also reiterated the "chance encounter" idea, reporting "The police said that they believed the two boys had died in an apparent chance encounter with their attackers," and also reported the theft of 100 goats. But the NYT also wrote "the police said they did not know whether the theft was related to the killings," a statement that was also reported by other sources. | |||
| * The ''Jerusalem Post'' article cited below disputes this, however, saying "Police said they did not believe there was a link" between the crimes. | |||
| * said anonymous calls were made to foreign media outlets (but apparently not to the ''Jerusalem Post'') claiming the caller's group, which he identified as "Hizbullah-Palestine", was responsible. This appears to be the only source presently cited in our article that mentions any such call or calls. Perhaps the other sources cited in our article didn't consider the assertion credible, or couldn't determine that any such calls were actually made? One could reasonably suppose that if a media outlet received such a call, and considered it credible, that they would have reported it themselves. The JP article gives no details about the timing of the call or calls it says were made to other media outlets, but it's my inference from that article and others that Israel radio, and perhaps television news, too, had already reported the murders ''before'' anyone claimed responsibility. | |||
| * that's ''not'' currently included in our article , Caroline Glick asserts that "Bedouin shepherds" may have been responsible. It makes no mention of the earlier assertion in the same paper that someone had made an anonymous call to other news outlets to claim responsibility. | |||
| * The same day the bodies were discovered, Ariel Sharon, asserted it as a fact that "Palestinian terrorists" were responsible. He also reiterated Raffia Yaffe's "stoned to death" characterization. Some media outlets report it as fact that "Palestinian terrorist stoned the boys to death", others merely quote Sharon and, in one way or another, Yaffe. No evidence was claimed or presented for the assertion that the murderer(s?) were Palestinian, or to show that the unknown perpetrator(s?) acted out of a political/terrorist motive. | |||
| * The Palestinian Authority says it had no idea who was responsible for the murders, and condemned the killings, as did chief Palestinian negotiator, and member of the Palestinian cabinet, Saeb Erekat: "The Palestinian Authority regrets the loss of life of these two boys and all children, be it Israeli or Palestinian, Jewish, Muslim or Christian." He added that, "killing civilians is a crime whether on the Palestinian or the Israeli side", and that "the short way for peace and stability is finishing the Israeli occupation". | |||
| * where the boys lived says, , "Kobi and Yosef went for a walk one spring day. They were murdered by Arab shepherds who came upon them 50 yards from Yosef's house in the beautiful canyon surrounding our village." Not a wp:rs, of course, but relevant, nevertheless. | |||
| * Palestinian minister for Jerusalem, Ziad Abu-Zayyad warned against premature conclusions based on speculations, saying "Let's wait and see what are the real reasons as to what happened". ( See quotation and Realplayer audio link at the left margin of . ) | |||
| * Despite the initial wholesale arrests, no one was ever charged in the murders. | |||
| * in 2003 book by Harvey Kushner said "Islamic Jihad and a Palestinian splinter group of Hezbollah" were responsible. | |||
| * in a different 2008 book by Barry and Judith Rubin claims ] was responsible. | |||
| * with apparent omniscience (or alarming creativity) that the boys "came upon a group of Palestinian cattle rustlers (sic) who attacked them ... then hiding their bodies in a nearby cave, using the boys' blood to write anti-Semitic screeds on the cave's walls." It's possible I missed something, but this appears to be the only source cited in the article for the claim of any anti-Semitic writing in blood or in any other medium. As regards the other statements made by Leibovitz that aren't supported by any source I'm currently aware of, I can only guess that the fact-checkers at St. Martin's Press were all out sick that day. | |||
| <u>The only legitimate conclusion from all this is that no one knows who killed these two boys, and no one knows why</u>. All we really know is that they were murdered, and that their deaths were tragic. We can report the assertions of Israeli political figures that it was Palestinians acting out of terrorist motives who were responsible, and we can report the media reaction that echoed those assertions so prolifically. But I maintain that it would be absolutely irresponsible to report those assertions in Misplaced Pages's voice as if they were established facts when they are so very obviously just speculation made by persons who cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be called uninvolved or impartial observers. Can anyone really dispute that? – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I wholly agree, no one has been charged with the murders, no one is even a wanted suspect in the murders, therefore we can not say who dunit or even allude to who dunit. Even if some books write that Palestinians did it well I think that by stating such a fact that makes them into a NRS as it must be a lie. ] ] 17:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Two murderous and antisemitic Palestinian terror groups claimed responsibility for the horrific slaughter. ] (]) 19:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::okay...do you have a reliable source that says this? Right now the article is saying that an anonomyous phone call blamed the attacks on Palestinians, and in reality no one has been found guilty of committing the crime. ] ] 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == How the foregoing applies to this article == | |||
| The statements I made in the preceding section apply directly to this article, in its current form. For example, in our article relies much on . But the only content currently included from that source is that Ariel Sharon apologized for the death of a Palestinian infant, and an accusation by Sharon that the Palestinian Authority encourages violence against Israelis. That exact same ABC News report, however, also says that | |||
| <blockquote>"The two Israeli teenagers were the latest victims in more than seven months of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that has claimed the lives of 143 Palestinians under the age of 18", and although "Sharon blamed the Palestinian Authority for the killings", the Authority's response was as follows: "But while expressing regret for the loss of life, a Palestinian official today said he had no idea who was responsible for the attack."</blockquote> | |||
| The same ABC News article reports, "Since September, the fighting has claimed 437 lives on the Palestinian side and 73 on the Israeli side." That, too, was passed over by those who have edited this article so far, as was the mention in the ''USA Today'' article of the most common mainstream media view that it was Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, an area known to Muslims as Al-Haram Al-Sharif, that touched off the wave of violence that these murders have been presumed to be a part of. ''USA Today'' also reported that Sharon's vow to continue building Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza has also fueled Palestinian anger. But as our article is currently written, Sharon is presented only as the spokesman for an outraged Israeli public. | |||
| These were horrific murders, no one denies that. But even if we accept the unproven claims of Israeli spokesmen that they must have been committed by Palestinians as acts of calculated terrorism, it's fair to say that they didn't happen in a vacuum, either. Our current article presents so little context as to give the false impression that they did. | |||
| The death toll statistics for kids reported by an article from ''The Guardian'' that our own article also cites are different from those reported by ABC News. But our current article doesn't mention the stats from ''that'' article, either, which report that far more Palestinian kids were killed in the then-current wave of violence than were Israeli kids: "In the past seven months of violence, dozens of Palestinian minors and at least six Israelis under the age of 18 have been among the victims." | |||
| Further, and quite disturbingly, our current article presents it as an absolute certainty that this was politically-motivated terrorism committed by Palestinians. That's certainly possible, and it may well have been the case. But our current article neglects to mention that the murderers were never identified by the police, despite the fact that, according to a ''Jerusalem Post'' article our own article cites, Israeli "security forces had arrested 20 Palestinians from villages in the area, seeking to determine if they were involved in the brutal murders." Nor is it disclosed in our article that the multiple news sources it cites also mention speculation by Israeli police that the killings might have been related to the theft of "dozens of goats" or "around 100" (depending on which source one believes) from a village half-a-mile away, that same night. This information, too, is excluded from our article, presumably because it would detract from the view it presents that these murders were a calculated act of politically-motivated terrorism. | |||
| Apologies for the long comments here, but I know this is a place that many of my friends on both sides of Misplaced Pages's I/P wars will notice. My hope is that these comments might cause at least some editors to reconsider the way they edit here in light of their own deeply-held values of honesty and integrity, without which we all become something less than fully human. | |||
| ] re that last sentence, if you please, and thank you for undertaking the difficult challenge of considering views that you might, incorrectly, and at first glance, be inclined to dismiss out of hand as merely being opposed to your support for the policies of the current government of Israel. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 08:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Your comments are far into TLDR territory. Please raise specific concerns in a concise manner. Also stop whining about editors, especially if it's only about editors from "one side."--'']] ]'' 13:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm deeply concerned that my whining might have been viewed as uncivil, Brew. I'll try to keep it in check. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 17:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::@Brew, In very short, Ohio said that no one has been found guilty therefore we must say that the perps are unknown. He also states that there is a lack of context, namely that many children are dying in this conflict and this must be presented within the article. ] ] 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Who did it? == | |||
| A few sources that confirmed that two Palestinian terror groups claimed responsibility for the murder were discussed . Three users confirmed that all those are reliable sources. Yes, a few sources that describe the murder at the time it happened say that Israeli soldiers checked (arrested) a few Palestinian villagers and a few Kurdish people. I did not add that info to the article in purpose because the books that were used to source the identity of the murderers were written a few years after the murder with much more information available to the authors. I would not like to put even a shadow of suspicion in this horrific murder neither on Palestinian villagers nor on Kurdish people. They could not have done it. | |||
| About claiming responsibility. Yes, a few sources reported an anonymous caller, who claimed it was done by a terror group, but if that group did not do it, what prevented them from calling to news papers and explaining that the caller lied? They were accused in horrific crime, why not to say they did not do it, if they did not it? Besides the fact that murders were never caught indicates that the murder was not committed by an accidental person. It is one way to steal a sheep or two, or even to shot somebody, and quite another to stone somebody to death over and over and over again.--] (]) 01:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :A single article in the Jerusalem Post said that some foreign news agencies were called anonymously by someone claiming to be a representative for "a group called Hizbullah-Palestine." The ''Jerusalem Post'' did not claim to have received any such a call itself, and no other news agency appears to have reported receiving such a call. And that initial JP report wasn't even upheld by a subsequent ''Jerusalem Post'' article, written in 2008 by Carolyn Glick. She suggested that Bedouin shepherds were responsible. You say "a few sources" reported the anonymous caller. Perhaps I missed some: Are you aware of any news report aside from that one JP article that made the claim, or, more importantly, any news agency that reported actually receiving such a call? | |||
| :Re the books you cite: We have a single unreferenced sentence about the event in the 2002 book ''Encyclopedia of terrorism'' that attributes it to ''both'' Islamic Jihad and a different group, described as a Palestinian splinter group of Hezbollah. A 2003 book, ''The New Anti-Semitism'', which you added as an external link, mentions it in one sentence, but without speculation as to motive or perpetrators. A 2004 book, ''Dilemmas Of Weak States'' includes two sentences about the killings, the first of which incorrectly identifies one of the boys' place of residence. The second one says that both Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah-Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack but, again, no reference is provided for the statement. Another unreferenced single-sentence mention in the 2007 book ''Chronologies of modern terrorism'' blames Islamic Jihad. A short passage in a fourth book you introduced into the article, ''Aliya'', also published in 2007, attributes the murders to "Palestinian cattle rustlers" that the boys came upon by chance, and the author describes this imagined encounter from the perspective of an omniscient observer, as if it were fact. That's a high-quality source if ever there was one. | |||
| :It's my opinion that these single-sentence assertions in compilations of Israeli victims, with no indication given as to what the assertions might be based on ( that one ''Jerusalem Post'' article, perhaps, that wasn't confirmed by any agencies saying they actually received such a call? ) cannot be taken as proof of anything. If, as that one JP article reported, other news agencies received such calls, they would certainly have reported them if they'd found them credible. And if the books you cite have any evidence besides that JP article, or beyond preceding books that might also have been based on it, then they should have presented that. | |||
| :One other source I saw said the cave where the boys' bodies were found had been claimed by Palestinian kids for their exclusive use; it was a popular hangout, just a couple hundred meters from the village. It suggested that as a possible motive, and of all the many that have been suggested, it seems the most plausible to me. That's just a guess, as are all the other suppositions that have been advanced. It would be consistent with the use of improvised weapons (rocks), and with statements made by several sources, including the police and settler security personnel, that this appeared to be a crime of opportunity rather than some well-planned militia-led attack. Are you suggesting that militia from outside the village knew in advance that the kids would skip school that day, and targeted them intentionally? That doesn't seem plausible to me. | |||
| :''Israeli political figures rushed to announce accusations against Palestinian militia immediately after the bodies were discovered, when the investigation was just hours old''. The announcement of such very premature conclusions as if they were facts was very irresponsible. News agencies tripped all over themselves to run with those very accusations, but they're not what the local police chief who was actually in charge of the investigation said. He said it was a complex investigation, there were many factors that needed attention, and it would take time to complete, as I recall. <u>The police simply don't know who was responsible, a fact that has been completely excluded from the article in its current form</u>. | |||
| :I'll close by asking you to remove the external link you added, to ''The New Anti-Semitism''. That the book states, in a single sentence, that the boys were killed is not a sufficient basis for its inclusion as an external link. Besides that, it gets the boys' ages wrong, saying they were both 14, and book reviews describe it as not being a scholarly work. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 03:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: | |||
| ::--] (]) 03:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Otherwise as it is seen from the link I provided above RS/N decided the sources are reliable, so your opinions on this aren't relevant--] (]) 03:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::My opinions aren't relevant? You've been reading ] again, I suppose? I notice you left out "The call could not be authenticated" from the ''Independent'' article. If Reuters had believed the call was credible they would have reported it themselves. One news agency reporting that another one received a call that it apparently didn't believe in doesn't impress me much. | |||
| :::And you apparently overlooked this, in that same article, which supports speculation made by settler security personnel that the theft of 100 goats ( only a couple of sources say "sheep" ) that night was related: | |||
| ::::''Israeli police investigators believe the boys were killed by Palestinians in what may have been a chance encounter. Tekoa residents said sheep had been stolen not far from the site of the killing.'' | |||
| :::Further, reliable source reports have explicitly stated that the police don't know who killed the boys. | |||
| :::And you're seriously trying to uphold the case that is a reliable source? ''Seriously?'' That's as absurd as the claim you made above that the list of unreferenced quotations given at the "Scottish Friends of Israel" site was a reliable source. I find it impossible to believe that you don't know better than that. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 04:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course "The call could not be authenticated". If it were authenticated, it would not have been anonymous call. | |||
| ::::I am not sure if Reuters did not report the call. I do not believe I saw an article by them. | |||
| ::::Here's that names terror groups responsible. | |||
| ::::About your attacking the used sources and me, I have known for a long time you have difficulties ], and you have been asked to tone down your comments at this very page already. | |||
| ::::I am not interested in continuing this discussion with you. Because if somebody like is telling that I have it sounds not only uncivil, but also laughable. | |||
| ::::The article was nominated on deletion and kept 15 to 1 (2 with the nominator counted). | |||
| ::::If you have a problem with me using particular sources, you're welcome to take me to ae and try to make me topic banned. Otherwise I am done with you here. --] (]) 05:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd much rather have my editing history than yours, so your criticism on that basis leaves me entirely unmoved, and I won't respond further to that. I will stand by my assertion, however, that if you can't or won't put respect for the integrity of the encyclopedia and the policies designed to protect it above your own political motivations then you shouldn't be editing here. | |||
| :::::Brewcrewer characterized my objection to your claim that hosted at "Scottish Friends of Israel" was a reliable source as "whining". Was that what you meant by saying I'd been asked to tone down my comments? | |||
| :::::As for assuming good faith, I'm genuinely sorry to have to tell you that you lost me in that regard when you told user Passionless, above, that he'd have to take "Scottish Friends of Israel" to RSN. As I said above, any user who'd been around more than a month or two would immediately know that wasn't a source that could be properly cited, and I didn't and don't see how such a response from so experienced an editor could reasonably be considered as anything other than intentionally disruptive. | |||
| :::::Likewise with the book, at least. It couldn't be more obvious that the author of that book has reported as fact something that she only imagined, or perhaps something she misremembered from earlier media reports. You insisted on escalation for your cite to "Scottish Friends of Israel", and now you're doing the same over a source that's clearly simple fiction reported as fact. I'd suggest that you'd do well to reconsider that. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 06:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Apparently Mbz1 did reconsider based on the above or on my post to the concurrent RSN thread about these sources: I just noticed that the ''Aliya'' book and, earlier, the external link to ''New Anti-Semitism'', as I'd also requested. Although they should never have been introduced into the article in the first place, I appreciate that, and would like to ask whether or not she's willing to discuss problems with the other book sources she's cited? – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 18:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| It seems to me OhioStandard has a fair point. The way the article currently reads, it appears as if there is no doubt the killers were Palestinian "terrorists", and that does not seem to conform with the commentary in third-party reliable sources. ] (]) 15:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Gato, it is confirmed by not just one, but by a few reliable sources. It is also confirmed by US and Israeli government sources. You do not suggest that US Congress adopted Koby Mandell Act that is specifically targeting terrorists who kill Americans overseas, if they had a shadow of a doubt the boys were murdered by terrorists, don't you? There's not a single RS that claims that the murder was committed by anybody else, but Palestinian terrorists. As I explained before I did not use some info from initial reports in purpose. I did not want to put even a shadow of a doubt on innocent Palestinian villagers. Yes, some of them were detained and questioned, but they were released as they should have been. The article is the way it should be. Anything else is just ].--] (]) 16:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: Politicians are not reliable sources. In regards to your other comments, I haven't had time to look closely at all the sources but the sources listed by OhioStandard do seem to indicate that there is at least a degree of doubt over the identity of the killers, and if that is so the article should reflect that. But I'm afraid I can't pursue this debate any further today as I am about to log off. ] (]) 16:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Politicians are not reliable sources, but Koby Mandell Act is a legislation and it is RS. Israeli Government is RS too.--] (]) 17:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Firstly: who allegedly claims responsibility for a crime has often nothing to do with it in reality; see cases like ]. | |||
| *Secondly, Israel, and Israeli politicians have a history of blaming Palestinians; even when they ''know'' that the Palestinians were not the guilty ones. The ] (read: http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/the-beita-incident-of-1988-shines-lasting-light-on-a-cruel-occupation-and-its-halfhearted-coverage.html), which took place close to the Itamar settlement, shows that clearly. | |||
| *Thirdly, Israel do not arrest "some" Palestinians when a settler is killed: they routinely do mass arrest. So they did in the Mandell/Ishran-murder, and so they did in the latest Itamar killings (They arrested/detained 400 men of one village (Awarta) alone, and 40 are still in detention after more than 2 weeks: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-dozens-of-palestinians-arrested-in-connection-to-itamar-murders-1.352578). ] (]) 21:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, thanks. I don't want to get too far away from this specific topic, but I admit I'd found it hard to understand why only Palestinian areas were cordoned off, and over 20 Palestinians were arrested. In my country groups of people don't get arrested so police can "determine if they were involved", as the Jerusalem Post put it. | |||
| ::You've also helped me understand how Israeli spokesman Raffia Yaffe came to call this a "stoning to death", a phrase which implies a dozen or so people encircling a victim in a premeditated, quasi-judicial execution. That's not what happened here, of course, but I see from your links that the phrase has been used before when a rock has been used as a bludgeon. It's about as honest as saying a Palestinian who is shot by the IDF was "executed by firing squad". | |||
| ::I also begin to see how it came about Ariel Sharon and (possibly?) Raffia Yaffe asserted that "Palestinian militia" were to blame, ''immediately'' after the bodies were discovered, and despite statements by the local police chief that his hours-old investigation would be complex. One of our sources said Sharon launched a missile attack on Arafat's compound in response, injuring 20, despite the Palestinian Authority having emphatically condemned the murders and having said they had no idea who had committed them. The hatred on both sides must make the angels weep. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 02:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I've had a look through the sources now. What is puzzling is that no media outlet, either at the time or since, have blamed a particular Palestinian terrorist group, and it seems neither has the Israeli government. But there are three books which briefly mention that "Islamic Jihad" or a splinter group were responsible. One wonders, then, where the books derived this information. I guess I'll have to do a google search to see what other sources are out there. ] (]) 05:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :In the absence of a footnote to say so, I can only guess that the earliest of the books, the 2003 ''Encyclopedia of Terrorism'' took from the ''Irish Independent's'' of that group, and took to a "splinter group of Hezbollah" from the . I suppose the later books did the same thing, or just used this earliest one, the ''Encyclopedia of Terrorism'' as their source. | |||
| :Interesting that no news agency we've been able to learn of so far actually asserts that it received such a claim of responsibility ''itself''. So we don't even have a firsthand report of any such call. We just have a couple of reporters writing that ''other'' news agencies received a call that none of them apparently published anything about, and that "could not be authenticated". Nice. You might like to look at the current ] discussion about these book sources, as well. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 08:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: I am in the process of rewriting the section in question. I should be finished fairly soon. ] (]) 08:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| a 2008 article which states that "the killers have yet to be caught". saying the killers were "a Palestinian mob". from 2004 states that "there has been no meaningful investigation or prosecution" in the case. I think it should be clear at this point that nobody knows who was responsible for these killings. Most likely the books that briefly mention particular groups have simply passed on the speculation that occurred at the time in one or two media outlets. I therefore think some sections of the article should be rewritten accordingly. ] (]) 06:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I have rewritten the "Responsibility" section per the concerns raised in the above discussion. Also added a few sources and done a little reorganization of headers and so on. I will probably add a few more sources later. ] (]) 09:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Refused to condemn?== | |||
| Mbz added to the lead that "Yasser Arafat,President of the Palestinian National Authority, refused to condemn the killing". I don't see that in the source at all, it simply says he spoke about Palestinian children hurt in the conflict. ] (]) 13:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :No, he not just spoken about Palestinian children, he spoken about Palestinian children, when asked about the murder of 2 Jewish boys, but if you are not satisfied with the source, please give me some time to find another reference on the matter. --] (]) 13:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I added New York Times source. It states: --] (]) 14:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That's still OR. It doesn't say he "refused to condemn" the killings. It doesn't even say he was ''asked'' to condemn the killings. It shouldn't be in the article. ] (]) 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I could offer to you to change it for a direct quote from New York Times "But Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, avoided a direct response to a reporter's question about the killing of the Israeli boys, saying that a Palestinian baby who was wounded in fighting today ''was exposed to the same tragedy.''".--] (]) 14:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: That's still just the opinion of one commentator. It doesn't belong in the lead, but it might be acceptable in the "Reactions" section. ] (]) 14:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, not just one commentator. ] also pointed this out too --] (]) 14:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I seem to recall at least one other source that said something similar, maybe even "refused to condemn". That phrase doesn't seem strictly permissible, based on this NYT source alone, but it's not ridiculously far off either, imo. I don't have time right now to look for the way other sources quoted Arafat's response, but we probably do need to conduct that search. OTOH, Hamas did say something that I thought was pretty evil, something like "We applaud the killing of two more so-called 'settlers' intent on taking Palestinian land." That's a rough quote from memory; I'd have to find ''that'' source, too, but if I can, it probably belongs in the article. I don't like having all the "reactions" in the lead, though, but if we're going to say there that this was assumed to be a Palestinian crime then I suppose we're obliged to include the PA spokesman's disavowal there as well. And then, of course, a case could be made that candor requires some notice there of Arafat's avoidance of a "direct response", too if we include the disavowal in the lead. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 14:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Okay, if you can find a reliable source or two which says Arafat "refused to condemn" the killings, then we can talk about it. If Hamas made any such statement, I have no objection to it being included in the "Reactions" section. ] (]) 14:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We cannot say in the lead that the Palestinian Authority condemned the killing without specifically saying that Arafat did not condemned the killing at all.--] (]) 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yes, I agree. You found the ref from the ''Daily Mail'' that I'd also seen, but hadn't been able to find again. I'm not sure why chose to top-post that ref above my 14:16 30 March entry above, but no harm done, and good on you for finding it, and for formatting the url so carefully, too. I've added the cite to the "refused to condemn" sentence of the lead. I think that's fine, but if you disagree and would like to change the language to say "refused to express regret" instead, I can't see how anyone could reasonably find fault with that, unless possibly on the basis of a lame plagiarism objection. I'd certainly have no problem with it. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 20:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Materials == | |||
| :::::::::: It's still an opinion not a fact, and at the very least should be attributed. And it still looks very undue to me in the lead. ] (]) 01:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Relevant sources to the article that are not yet used (please add more here If you have them): | |||
| :::::::::: Also, that source is a paysite, which makes it difficult to verify. ] (]) 01:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4393955,00.html | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::::: I managed to view the article in question. It's an opinion piece, basically an attack on Arafat. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead, and if it's used at all, should be attributed. But I see no point in using it in any case, because it's just one commentator's opinion. I would however accept an attribution of the phrase "avoided a direct response" in the "Reactions" section, since there is at least some corroboration of that point now. ] (]) 01:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Review of sources stating that some group claimed responsibility == | |||
| There's currently a minor edit war going on over whether claims that some group or other, eg "Hizbullah-Palestine", can be represented in our article as having taken responsibility for these murders via one or more phone calls that have been mentioned. This has been discussed at considerable length already, but since it's understandably a controversial point, I don't mind summarizing the facts, provided people will also read the previous material about this. | |||
| :::::::::::Well, if we're going to say in the lead that the PA condemned the killings it seems unfair not to disclose that their leader didn't. That would be the normal reaction of a healthy human being when asked about such an atrocity, after all. I agree the column was "basically an attack on Arafat", however, and that it would be better if we knew exactly what question the reporter had actually asked. | |||
| :::::::::::But the only way that keeping Arafat's tepid response out of the lead would be justified, in my opinion, would be to have no responses there at all, i.e. to present "reactions" only in the section so named. In any case, I've modified the lead to say, ''"Both the Israeli government and the spokesman for Palestinian Authority condemned the killings, while Yasser Arafat, the President of the Palestinian National Authority, responded to a question about the killings only with mention of Palestinian children who have suffered or been killed because of Israeli actions."'' That seems reasonably balanced to me, and I really don't see how any less could fairly be said in the lead. Does it seem acceptable to you? – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 08:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| For reference, ] used to support the claim that one group or another called some news agencies saying his group was responsible. Please review that RSN thread before commenting further here, and please review the discussion in previous sections about this, too, especially please review ] entitled, "Review of conflicting sources does not support a conclusion", which also speaks to this question. | |||
| ::::::::::::I wasn't entirely happy with that edit, particularly the word "only", because it's framing Arafat's response according to a particular viewpoint. So I've substituted more neutral language. Also trimmed the sentence back a bit for conciseness. ] (]) 11:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The overall conclusion at RSN was that the books cited were tertiary sources for their one or two line, unreferenced statements as to claims of responsibility. For that reason, and because even those brief sentences included multiple errors (apparently reproduced from secondary sources that also got the details wrong) the consensus there was that they should not be used as sources, or if they ''were'' used, they should at most be presented with some strongly-worded disclaimer as to their accuracy. | |||
| :::::::::::::Well, I do think that "only" is called for, myself. It's unfortunate that we don't know exactly what Arafat was asked, but published reports do indicate that reporters ( I'd like to know how many heard his answer firsthand ) felt he'd deflected the intent of the question. The edit you made leaves that out entirely, which I think isn't quite fair, since the reporters thought it salient enough to comment on. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 06:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Everyone who was previously involved in this article's development ''very'' extensively researched the matter as to who, if anyone, had called whom to claim responsibility for "their" group. As is discussed in previous sections, and at RSN to a lesser extent, the assertion that someone called someone to claim responsibility is not corroborated by any agency that claims to actually have received such a call. What we have are three news stories out of the approximately twenty reliable-source reports about this that say so, the day after the murders. | |||
| :::::::::::::: Not "the reporters". ''Some'' reporters - or rather one reporter and one (obviously hostile) commentator. The JPost piece, for example, doesn't mention any deflection, so it appears to be an angle that one or two media outlets decided to take. ] (]) 11:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| To quote from an uninvolved RSN participant in the discussion about this: | |||
| (intend) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| :"] says this: '<u>The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context</u>.' Isn't it saying that we, as editors, can examine a source, irrespective of whether it's otherwise reputable, to see how well it supports the assertion?" <small>''(emphasis added)''</small> | |||
| *] | |||
| Now I would really appreciate, if somebody could come up with a few sources, but BBC, that reported that somebody from Palestinian side "condemned" the murder.--] (]) 15:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| So let's do that (again); let's do that exactly: | |||
| : Thankyou for making my point for me. Three of the five examples you quote do not make any claim about Arafat "avoiding" the question or "refusing" to respond to it. To that you can add the JPost piece which also makes no such claim. That clearly demonstrates that the media outlets who made this claim were ''framing'' Arafat's response in a particular way, which is just what I said they were doing. There is no legitimate reason why the perceptions or prejudices of one group of reporters should be favoured over others, as you did by adding these comments to the lead - particularly when those perceptions appear to belong to a minority of commentators. ] (]) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::"prejudices"? Well, if somebody is asked for example what date is today, and instead he's responding "today is cloudy", would it be a "prejudices" to say he's avoiding the question? | |||
| ::Anyway, if you are satisfied with this piece as it is now let's leave this subject and concentrate on finding a few RS that reported somebody from Palestinian sight "condemned" the murder.--] (]) 18:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| It seems Mbz has completely ignored this discussion by adding an extended "clarification" which contains precisely the content I have objected to above. Mbz, I am going to have to ask you to revert the Arafat additions to the intro, you know I have an objection to them and this is not an appropriate time to initiate a content dispute. ] (]) 14:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * ''A group called Hizbullah-Palestine claimed responsibility as revenge for the killing of four-month-old Iman Hijo, who was killed in Khan Yunis on Monday. An anonymous caller claiming to represent the group told foreign news agencies it would continue to attack Israelis until they are forced off Palestinian land.'' ( ) | |||
| :I am afraid I cannot revert it, because I have an objection to the introduction you wrote. I cited the RS. If you'd like me too I could add something as "according to NT's observer" and "according to Globe and Observer" , but that's about it. Arafat refused to issue regret, and to condemn the murder, when directly asked about murder of Jewish boys, he avoided response, and instead talked about Palestinian children.--] (]) 14:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| This day-after-the-event article gets the boys' ages wrong, and completely omits what the great majority of other sources that reported on this said, that the murders appear to have been the result of a chance encounter. Instead it presents and repeatedly reinforces a decidely contrary view, primarily by quoting Sharon, Ben-Elizer, and Rabbi Riskin, that the murder was a pre-planned terrorist attack that, in Riskin's words, deliberately "picked out innocent children to destroy them." Please remember that the boys skipped school that day to spend time in the area of the cave where they were killed. It's unlikely that any terrorist group could have had advance knowledge of their presence there, a notion that further lends support to the ubiquitous "chance encounter" characterization. | |||
| :: I've explained why I have an objection to this material in the lead. It would be ] to add ''any'' commentators' opinions to the lead, let alone a couple of cherry picked assertions like this. Once again, I must ask you to revert. You know the article is about to go to the main page, it looks very much like gaming to turn up shortly before its promotion to make wholesale changes you know are contested. ] (]) 15:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Further, please note that the Jerusalem Post article in this instance is relaying, on the day after the murder, a reporter's rumor. The authors of the article do not say they received such a call, nor that the Jerusalem Post received such a call, just that some unnamed person told them that some other unnamed person called some unnamed "foreign news agencies" at some unnamed date and time. It is, in my opinion, irresponsible to report such a claim as if it were fact. None of us who researched this could find any claim made by a news agency that they had received such a call, as they certainly would have done if (a) they received such a call, and (b) they had reason to believe the claim was credible. | |||
| :::Gato, first of all about "gaming". It is 8 a.m. where I live. When do you believe I should have added my edit, at night? So, could you please ]? | |||
| :::I do not believe my addition to be ].It is a very, very important piece, and it should be in a lead. Before you changed I simply said Arafat refused to condemn the murder, but after you changed it, I had no choice as to clarify your change.--] (]) 15:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I'm troubled by the JP's ommission of the "chance encounter" idea that they certainly would have been aware of, and that the great majority of other reports presented. I'm troubled by the certainty of the article's presentation that this was a pre-planned attack by a terrorist group, when the evidence presented by other news sources shows a very different picture. And I'm very definitely troubled by the JP's reporting of an unconfirmed, second-hand, unattributed rumor as if it were fact. I accept that others can disagree in good faith but in summary, I don't find this report reliable for the assertion it makes that someone called someone else to claim responsibility. | |||
| :::Here's yet another source that states: . I did not add because I am not very good to distinguish what is and what is not RS.--] (]) 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * ''An anonymous phone caller claimed the murders were in revenge for the death of a four-month-old Palestinian baby hit by shrapnel during bombardment of Gaza.'' ( by the ] ) | |||
| ::::All it takes is time, and usually not much of it. In this case you could have looked at the byline of "ICEJ NEWS" on the article at "Worthy Christian News" that you were considering, and plugged that byline into a search engine. That would have taken you to for "International Christian Embassy Jerusalem", and you would have seen, right at the top, ''Our Mandate'', which says the organization was founded "as an evangelical Christian response to the need to comfort Zion according to the command of scripture..." | |||
| ::::You would have learned, in other words, that this organization's focus wasn't to report news, exactly, but rather to support Israel, and that any news it did report would be subordinate to that goal. Saying the same thing another way, you would have concluded that the topics it chooses to report on, and the content of those reports, would be likely to be slanted in Israel's favor, and thus biased against the Palestinian cause. | |||
| ::::If you'd wanted to be doubly sure, you could have clicked on the "About Us" link from the home page, and from there found other links where you could have read that the group is "the world's largest international network of Christian supporters of Israel" or on the ''Objectives'' and that its purpose is "To show concern for the Jewish people and the reborn state of Israel." From this you would have concluded that because it was created to push a POV, this is not the kind of source we want to use on Misplaced Pages in any controversial subject area. The entire process would have taken you no more than five minutes. | |||
| ::::Since you've often said or implied that your edit history here so vastly outweighs my own meager contributions, it's interesting that I should have to explain so fundamental skill to you. Given that I have, I think it would be a poor idea to use that comparison to try to discredit my opinions or contributions again in the future. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 23:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| This is also a "day-after-the-murders" report; this unattributed statement is the only one in the Highbeam fragment that's relevant to the present question. | |||
| ::::BTW a spokesman for the Palestinian Authority never "condemned" the murder either. He just said that he "regrets any civilian deaths, regardless of what side they are on." Calling this statement "a condemnation" is a big overstretch.--] (]) 15:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Opinions expressed at RSN about the ] vary pretty widely: Some refer to its status as a "Fleet Street" tabloid ( a ] in the U.K. ) that, according to Highbeam, gives "special attention" to "celebrity news". But whatever you think about the paper, this single sentence is all the fragment has to say on the subject. The statement is not attributed to the police or any investigative authority: Like the JP article it's a report that some unnamed person (a reporter?) said some unnamed person called some ''other'' media property, also unnamed. It is, in fact, likewise just an unconfirmed reporter's rumor. It's hard to evalate this further without having access to the complete article; the ] isn't carried in any of the the proprietary databases I have access to. But like the JP article, the fragment doesn't mention what the majority of other papers do; that the murders were thought to be the result of a chance encounter. Also like the JP article, this one misreports the boys' ages. | |||
| :::::You're mistaken. Not only is "condemned" in reliable sources, one of those sources is both used in our article and even used as a cite for the claim, right where it should be, in the body of the artcle which the lead is summarizing. You're not even supposed to have to cite anything in the lead anyway; the lead is only supposed to summarize material that's already present and cited in the body of the article. See ] about that. | |||
| :::::The cite to the BBC source that says appears at the end of paragraph in our current "Reactions" section. You have to remember to look at the cites at the end of the paragraph; not every sentence has to be cited individually. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 22:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * ''An anonymous caller to Reuters claimed responsibility for the boys killings in the name of an Islamic militant group, saying they were to avenge the death of the four-month baby and an Islamic Jihad militant on Saturday. The call could not be authenticated.'' | |||
| :::::I have requested that the article be pulled from the queue since it's clear that there are still unresolved disputes. That should hopefully give us enough time to resolve the disputes fully before the article is promoted. ] (]) 15:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| This next-day report is the only one of the three that says a particular news property was called and, unlike the JP report, only says a single agency received a call, viz. Reuters. Again the source for the statement is unnamed, and despite assiduous searching, none of us could find Reuters itself having reported receiving such a call. As was discussed in previous sections above, it appears that they either didn't receive a call, or didn't believe in its authenticity if they did. ( And yes, news agencies ''do'' typically have procedures and back-channels by which they attempt to verify such anonymous calls. ) This article at least has the courtesy to report that this is a reporters rumor; the most we could reasonably infer is that someone probably said someone at Reuters received a call that they couldn't verify, and didn't believe in enough to publish about, themselves. | |||
| ::::::I would have seconded your request, Gatoclass, had I known of the pending DYK. It was really irresponsible to have unilaterally put this up for a DYK while there were so many unresolved issues under discussion here, while there was an open thread on its sources at RSN, and to not have disclosed the nomination here on the talk page. ( How did you learn of that, beforehand? ) And I agree entirely that it looks very like bad faith to have introduced the extremely contentious reverts and edits that Mbz1 did, shortly before it went to the main page, knowing full well that other ongoing contributors would object, but probably wouldn't have time to respond before it went up. | |||
| ::::::And then to have used the tag line "stoning murder" when that description has been a source of contention here, as well. I see the DYK instructions page says the "hook" should be neutral. Presumably that means that editors who've been working on the article consistently have reached some consensus on the part of the article the proposed hook depends on. Well. I hardly know what to say. I went out of my way to extend an olive branch, of sorts, to Mbz1, by providing some new sources in the "Ongoing collaboration" section below that we could legitimately use to add humanizing details about the boys lives. I won't be in a hurry to offer her another one. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 00:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Well, thankyou for the expression of support, even if it comes (through no fault of your own, clearly) too late to prevent contested content from reaching the main page. At DYK, there has been a longstanding convention that articles not be promoted until disputes are resolved, but sadly, at least where articles in the I-P topic area are concerned, it seems to be honoured more in the breach than the observance. ] (]) 03:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| This next-day report also gives the boys' ages incorrectly, and its assertion that they "were stoned to death and cast into a cave" is, based on every other source I've seen (all or nearly all of them, I believe) mere speculation presented as fact. The police said very clearly that they weren't sure where the boys were killed, in the cave or elsewhere. | |||
| The references to "Palestinian terror" groups should go. There is no reference to Hizbullah-Palestine as a "Palestinian terror" group in the cited source. And AFAIK, we still don't refer to groups as "terrorist" because it's considered POV. The ] page, for example, refers to the group as "militants" who have been ''designated'' a terrorist group by a number of governments. ] (]) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I removed "terror" yesterday. | |||
| :I did make clarifications in the lead. Many sources say that Arafat responded about Palestinian children specifically, when asked about the murder of Jewish boys.It is not an opinion. It is a report. It should be in the lead. | |||
| :Also the thing that a few sources assumed the murders were Palestinians should be explained somehow. What reasons did they have to assume it should be specified.--] (]) 14:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Overall, these next-day reports seem to have been prepared in a great rush to get the story out quickly, and to have relied on each other or, more likely some unnamed newswire service(s) for their duplicated errors, e.g. about the boys' ages. It's clear that no verification was done of even the very basic fact of the boy's correct ages. ( One was 13, the other 14. ) Further, this "somebody said somebody said" passing along of rumor, without verification from the one actual principal named (Reuters), is simply not reliable, especially given that the great majority of other news sources didn't report any claim of responsibility. | |||
| == Ongoing collaboration discussion == | |||
| Also, as I noted in a previous section, the JP story in 2001 is at least called into question and at most repudiated by written in 2008 by ] ( who nearly always writes strongly in favor of Israeli government policies, when she expresses an opinion ). She writes, | |||
| Mbz1, I don't think the addition you made, cited to the "" BBC report can remain. The BBC is certainly a highly reliable source in most cases, but this is obviously another single-sentence-from-memory report. That is, the reporter's one sentence that mentions the murders is a miniscule part of his main story, and it's also extremely inaccurate with respect to the details we already know. I don't mind so much that his one sentence has the boys' ages wrong. But I do mind, very much, that the reporter says they were "] from a West Bank settlement". We know that's wrong, of course, and it just destroys the credibility of the sentence entirely, in my opinion. If you agree, do you mind reverting that addition? – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 21:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * ''Feldbaum’s concern over the gathering was heightened because Bedouin shepherds are suspected of having carried out a number of unsolved terrorist murders in the area. These include the murder by stoning of 14-year-olds Kobi Mandell and Yosef Ish-Ran on May 8, 2001.'' ( ) | |||
| :I just noticed you removed that, Mbz1; thank you. I came across a very sweet and tragically moving ''Jerusalem Post'' article about the reaction Koby's mom has had, via the Internet Archive that you might like to look at. I couldn't find a ''current'' link, but I think this could be used to expand either the "reactions" section or possibly the "foundation" section. The article is entitled, . I was so greatly impressed, for example, by the humanity of the following: | |||
| Further, given the publication dates of these articles, and based on the context of other articles about this, it's my supposition that if any calls were actually made that they occurred ''after'' rather than before the news of the murders appeared on Israeli television and radio the previous day. | |||
| :<blockquote>''Sherri Mandell had no political response to her son's death. The family sent a message to the neighborhood synagogue on Shabbat telling their neighbors that they hoped their son's death would inspire love and not hate. "I didn't come here because of politics; I came here despite the politics," she told Katsav.''</blockquote> | |||
| So in summary, out of the twenty or so secondary sources that reported about this, we have three that mention that some unnamed person said some unnamed person at some news agency or agencies (one mentioned Reuters) received a call from an anonymous person claiming a group claimed responsibility for the crimes. ( Only one of the three names the group: the JP mentions "Hizbullah-Palestine" ). No agency that third-parties claim received such a call supports the statement. One of these sources, ''The Mirror'' is at least doubtful overall, and another of those sources, the 2001 next-day JP article, appears to be partially or wholly contradicted by a subsequent 2008 report in the same paper. All three stories get important facts wrong, e.g. the boys' ages, facts that could have been verified, but evidently were not. This mention of a call or calls to claim responsibility is an unverified reporter's rumor that got kicked around the day after the bodies were discovered; it simply cannot be presented in our article as fact. | |||
| :Also, did you notice the JPost article entitled at all? You probably know that ] is a name that most Americans would instantly recognize? He's very famous. I'd like to add what details we appropriately can that provide some glimpse into the lives and personalities of the boys, details that show them as more than just another gruesome statistic in the endless cycle of violence. Can you do anything with these sources, or would you like me to have a try? – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 08:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| If someone wants to offer language here to try to fairly summarize that, I'd not be opposed. I'd not be opposed, in other words, if the reasons these sources are best viewed with skepticism are included in any presentation of their claims. But without the least offence intended, it's my opinion that it's simply irresponsible to try to report the purported claim of responsibility, in Misplaced Pages's voice, as if it were fact. I've reverted the recent changes that do so. | |||
| :: I would caution against doing that right now, given that the article is only six hours away from display on the main page. We don't want to be having content wars breaking out at this point. In regards to the general principle, I am not necessarily opposed to the addition of a few lines of biography, but ] and whatever was added along those lines would have to be in accordance with ]. ] (]) 10:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The murder of these two kids was as reprehensible as can be, but given what the preponderance of sources have said about this, it almost certainly wasn't a pre-planned attack by an organized group. If anyone cares, my opinion, based on having read all the sources about this that I've been able to find, very carefully, is that the most likely murderers were Palestinian youths who had, according to the Boston Globe, claimed the cave area for their own exclusive "hangout", and who would have vehemently resented what they would have seen as an incursion into what they viewed as their territory. Specifically, the ''Boston Globe'' said, "a group of Palestinian youths had staked a claim on the cave during the seven months of violence, and that Israeli youths had been warned not to hike there." A microcosm of the larger conflict, most probably, and as tragic, albeit on a smaller and more personal scale. | |||
| == Unbalanced == | |||
| If anyone would like to comment on anything I've presented here, please do so following, rather than interleaving your comments in the above. – <span style="font-family:Cambria;">] (])</span> 04:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| This article as it is now is completely unbalanced, as it does not mention the consequences for the Palestinian villages in the vicinity. | |||
| Update: I see that ] has reinstated his preferred version, in , without any attempt to discuss this here, 25 hours and 5 minutes after his last reinstatement of the same material. His one nod to "discussion" was that he appended "please do not engage in the original research" to the "please do not remove sourced information" that he used as his edit summary in . Because of this action, the article now includes three book sources that were deemed unreliable for this purpose at RSN. It also presents as fact the reporter's rumor discussed above, claiming that "Hizbullah-Palestine" took responsibility, a claim made by a single secondary source of the 20 or so news reports about this, viz. only in a next-day Jerusalem Post article that is itself contradicted by a later (2008) article published in that same paper. – <span style="font-family:Cambria;">] (])</span> 12:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * As a direct consequence of the murder, the nearby village of ], a village of 8000 people, were in effect collectively punished, even if collective punishment of this kind is against the Geneva convention. | |||
| * There were also reports of stones thrown on the villagers by nearby settlers. | |||
| * 15 Palestinaians were arrested, all eventually released without being charged. | |||
| * And, most importantly: new land was stolen from the Palestinian village of ] during the "investigation" after the murder. | |||
| :I did discuss the sources. Did you saw? There are ''three'' sources that reported an anonymus call. Please do not remove sourced information, and please stop doing ].--] (]) 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| (Exactly the same thing happened to the villages nearby the Itamar-settlement 2 weeks ago, after the Itamar killings: a whole village was under house-arrest by the Israeli army, while settlers from Itamar simply stole another 20-25 dunum of privately owned Palestinian olive groves. There is a reason why Israelis call the occupied West Bank for the "Wild West Bank"!) | |||
| ::No, you didn't discuss the sources. You simply ''posted quotes'' from three to support your first revert, one of which is from a very questionable tabloid/redtop source and only a Highbeam fragment anyway, one of which is contradicted by a subsequent article in the same paper, and a third (non-Reuters) source which claims Reuters received a call that couldn't be authenticated from some unnamed Islamic group, a claim which Reuters doesn't support. When I made a good faith attempt above to present an analysis of their reliability for this purpose you simply didn't respond. You instead just reinstated your preferred version 25 hours and 5 minutes after your first revert. | |||
| * Worst of all: nowhere in this article does it mention that the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, and built on illegally confiscated (read: stolen) Palestinian land. | |||
| ::You've given no indication that you've read the above at all, nor ] which concluded that the three one-to-two line unattributed mentions in tertiary source books could not be considered reliable sources for this purpose. And now, when I pointed out that you haven't discussed this, all you've done is repeat your glib edit summary. I'll ask a second time that you read the above, and that you read the RSN thread. If you'd like to show that you're willing to proceed in good faith, then please remove the books that were held to be unreliable for this purpose at RSN from the article, along with the sentences that rely on them. We can discuss the balance of the problem separately. – <span style="font-family:Cambria;">] (])</span> 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Quotes: "Settlers stoned Palestinians on the roads through Gush Etzion." , "settlers threw stones at Palestinian cars and the Israeli army sealed off the nearby Arab village of Tuqu," , and . This article deserves a <nowiki>{{POV|date=March 2011}}</nowiki> tag. | |||
| ] (]) 17:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course I read . There was absolutely no consensus to your claim that the books are unreliable sources. ] (]) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Why don't you log in?--] (]) 17:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There was certainly consensus among ''uninvolved'' editors. But please make your position on this clear. Is it your claim that the three books ''are'' reliable sources? – <span style="font-family:Cambria;">] (])</span> 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :On a substance of the comment: Are you really going to justify horrific murder because the murdered boys were settlers? Are you? | |||
| :If we are to add what you said should be added then we need to add from the very same BBC source, and sadly so on, and so with no end in sight. --] (]) 18:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There was no consencus among ''uninvolved'' editors. I find those two books to be RS: . ] (]) 14:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whaw. This article has a section on "reactions", and a lot about the ''direct'' consequences of the murder. (including the Kobe Mandell act) When I try to say that this article is unbalances, as it did '''not''' at all mention at all those who bore the brunt of the consequences of the murder: namely the Palestinians in the vicinity....it gets labeled as ""! | |||
| ::Right. So it is "vandalism" on wikipedia to mention that as a direct result of these (undoubtedly gruesome) murders, some 8000 people got collective punished (btw: collective punishment of this kind is rated as a war crime). Also, as a direct consequences of the murder: that Palestinian villagers, who just happened to be unfortunate to live in their area, '''lost their land forever to illegal Israeli settlers.''' ] (]) 06:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for your reply. Perhaps I should have been more clear. There were just two editors who participated in the RSN thread who don't edit in the I/P area, ] and ], both very experienced contributors to RSN. Tim (evidently that's his name) disapproved of using the books at all, and Andrew expressed strong reservations about using them. Don't let's argue about that just now, though: Others can read ] and come to their own conclusions. | |||
| :::We'll get to a neutral presentation eventually, IP82+. This article started out as using the boys' terrible deaths to try to score points for political purposes, and was ridiculously biased in that sense, in my opinion. ( An effort I gather that Koby's mom would have deprecated, btw. ) It's becoming less so, and some of us, at least do want to bring it to a ] presentation of ''all'' the relevant facts, including the context and consequences. But you really do need to create an account ( or appeal a block, if that's applicable ) in order to assist in that process. As you've discovered, any editor who dislikes your contributions can revert them without penalty if you're editing as an anon/IP. I'd be interested to know, in any case, whether any reliable sources reported this seizure of land that you're talking about. It's not that I disbelieve you, it's just that we can't include what you're saying in the article without a verifiable reliable source to support it. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 06:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Of more immediate interest to me is that you appear to have neglected one book in your comment above. You for ''three'' books, not two: | |||
| :::Yes, I said "vandalism" and vandalism it was. | |||
| :::::::(1) | |||
| :::*If you claim that "new land was stolen from the Palestinian village" without providing any source whatsoever, | |||
| :::::::(2) | |||
| :::*If you are complaining about "collective punishment of 8000 people" without providing any source whatsoever, | |||
| :::::::(3) | |||
| :::*If you are complaining that "15 Palestinaians were arrested, all eventually released without being charged" with no noticing that the info is in the article already. | |||
| :::*If you came here to justify something that cannot be justified by saying "Worst of all: nowhere in this article does it mention that the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, and built on illegally confiscated (read: stolen) Palestinian land." | |||
| :::*And if according to all those bogus claims you tag the article that is at the Main page at the moment, it is vandalism | |||
| :::Now ], who clearly has not a slightest idea what she was doing, reinstalled your tag, but you know what I am not even going to remove it, because I do believe that there are lots of POV in the article installed by another side, for example I believe that the information that the murders is supported by a few RS and should have been represented in the article.--] (]) 15:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: |
::::::Since you restored references to them, I presume that means that you consider ''all three'' to be reliable sources for the information they present that's relevant to this article? – <span style="font-family:Cambria;">] (])</span> 03:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Update: I've left these three books in the article for now, pending your response and further developments, but have expanded the "Responsibility" section considerably to accurately reflect the wide divergence of reporting on that score. – <span style="font-family:Cambria;">] (])</span> 08:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's why I . Of course it was not a "relative, who made such claim". It was reported on Israeli TV. It is what police said.--] (]) 13:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, I consider all three book to be RS. ] (]) 17:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified (January 2018) == | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| :::::@Gatoclass: I saw a two or three sources that reported it, but my perception from trying to follow it was that the report started with a guest editorial Koby's dad wrote, that local TV news repeated it, and that a couple of other sources then picked it up based on that television report, or perhaps on the father's editorial. It's frustrating to try to figure out what's actually original reporting in this case, versus what's just one source parroting another. They all made so many mistakes in rushing to get the story out, mostly by quoting from or "borrowing" each others reporting, I think, that the issue becomes very confused. We either have to report everything they all said, or try to use our judgment as to what's credible and what isn't. | |||
| :::::@Mbz1: Accusing someone of vandalism because you don't like their edit has earned others a block before now. Likewise with your derogatory comment about Roscelese, that she "clearly has not a slightest idea what she was doing." That's just ''asking'' for trouble, as well. Stop addressing your fellow editors that way. You may not like or respect them, but you have no right to address them that way. I repeat, don't do that again. I'm going to copy this message to your talk page, to make sure you see it. – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 04:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| :::::: Per ], exceptional claims require exceptional sources. ] (]) 12:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713122209/http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/2001_05_09.html to http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/2001_05_09.html | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| == Archiving set up == | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| I see that with the less than ideally candid edit summary "maintanence" (sic) user for this talk page. I'm aware that archiving is recommended when a page exceeds 50 KB, or more than 10 main topics, and this page is currently at roughly 72 KB, if the templates are excluded. But it shouldn't be set up unilaterally, without disclosure or consensus, especially where there's any controversy. As the Miszabot help page says, "<u>Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there.</u>" | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 06:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Btw, archiving for a particular thread can be selectively delayed or prevented, as mentioned on the : "Archiving can be delayed for a particular thread by substituting the template {{tl|DNAU}} into the thread. Use <code><nowiki>{{subst:DNAU}}</nowiki></code> to retain a thread indefinitely, or <code><nowiki>{{subst:DNAU|<integer>}}</nowiki></code> to retain a thread for <integer> days. see the template documentation for details about its use and function." | |||
| == "Part of the Second Intifada militancy campaign" == | |||
| Personally, I don't want to see any of the threads here removed to archives any time soon, certainly not within the next seven days as would have occured with the parameters Mbz1 chose. Instead of just reverting her, though, to prevent archiving from occuring soon, since I agree that it will be called for at some point. Please note that doing so does not count as a revert for 1RR purposes. So do we want archiving set up at this point? – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 06:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The infobox states that the murders were "part of the Second Intifada militancy campaign". While it is true that the murder has occurred during the Second Intifada, since no perpetrators have been found and to this day it is not known who killed the boys and what their motives were, I think this sentence should be removed, as there is no evidence that the murders were part of a militancy campaign. Thoughts? ] (]) 12:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : I don't think talk pages are covered by 1RR, it's just articles. ] (]) 11:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :The label "militancy campaign" makes little sense to me actually, I think it can just be shortened to "part of the Second Intifada". I don't think that's really disputed, as the intifada was largely organized but there were lone wolf attacks as well. —] <sup>(])</sup> 08:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::It can be disputed on the grounds that the perpetrator of the attacks were never found and motives are unknown. The murders happened to have taken place during the Second Intifada, but since we don't know who committed the crime and why, attributing them to the Second Intifada is incorrect in my opinion. ] (]) 12:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::], I completely agree. AFAIK, there is nil−nix−nada evidence that this was a terrorist attack: no perpetuators have ever been found. ] (]) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The perpetrators not being caught does not negate this being a murder and an act of terror. {{tq|He and Yosef were both killed that day by Palestinian terrorists, their skulls shattered with massive rocks and their bodies stabbed, bludgeoned and then dragged into a cave in the Judean desert.}}. , {{tq|Koby Mandell’s family after he and his friend Yosef Ishran were killed by terrorists in 2001}}. The bodies were found - bludgeoned beyond recognition - are we going to dispute their deaths as well? ] (]) 06:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Nobody's disputing that they were brutally murdered, but a brutal murder is not automatically a ]. The motives are unknown, because the perpetrators are unknown. It's that simple. We're already including what Israeli officials think, but we can't unequivocally state anything until the murderers are identified. ] (]) 23:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Your assertion above is ]. We have RSes stating in their own voice this was a terror attack. Catching the perpetrators is not a necessary condition for an act to be an act of terror. The 9/11 terrorists were never caught nor convicted - and even if their identities would've remained unknown (and there is a certain degree of uncertainty regarding some of them) - it would still be a terrorist attack. ] (]) 08:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: What a terrible comparison. We know the exact identities of the ], the exact motives, circumstances of the planning, setup and execution, and on top of that, a specific group claiming responsibility. We know nothing about this murder, other than the victims, time and place. Also, how on Earth saying that we cannot determine the perpetrators of this murder is ]? The perpetrators are unknown, literally nothing is known about them - end of story - and because of that we cannot determine the motive. ] (]) 19:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: It is not our job to determine the motive - that is OR. We follow sources, which clearly state Palestinian terrorism.] (]) 19:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: But we already say what sources say: that the perpetrators were not found, and that Israel is claiming it was Palestinian terrorism. However we cannot state that it was, without a doubt, Palestinian terrorism. That's why we've removed this statement from the Infobox. We want to stick to the truth. ] (]) 22:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: ]. ] (]) 08:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: That policy literally supports my point. ] (]) 13:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:14, 10 November 2024
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | A fact from Murders of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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:
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.
|
 | The contents of the Koby Mandell page were merged into Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran on 26 March 2011. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Sources
Relevant sources not yet used in the article (please add more to the list):
—Ynhockey 06:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Materials
Relevant sources to the article that are not yet used (please add more here If you have them):
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynhockey (talk • contribs) 07:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Review of sources stating that some group claimed responsibility
There's currently a minor edit war going on over whether claims that some group or other, eg "Hizbullah-Palestine", can be represented in our article as having taken responsibility for these murders via one or more phone calls that have been mentioned. This has been discussed at considerable length already, but since it's understandably a controversial point, I don't mind summarizing the facts, provided people will also read the previous material about this.
For reference, here's the RSN thread about the sources used to support the claim that one group or another called some news agencies saying his group was responsible. Please review that RSN thread before commenting further here, and please review the discussion in previous sections about this, too, especially please review the section above entitled, "Review of conflicting sources does not support a conclusion", which also speaks to this question.
The overall conclusion at RSN was that the books cited were tertiary sources for their one or two line, unreferenced statements as to claims of responsibility. For that reason, and because even those brief sentences included multiple errors (apparently reproduced from secondary sources that also got the details wrong) the consensus there was that they should not be used as sources, or if they were used, they should at most be presented with some strongly-worded disclaimer as to their accuracy.
Everyone who was previously involved in this article's development very extensively researched the matter as to who, if anyone, had called whom to claim responsibility for "their" group. As is discussed in previous sections, and at RSN to a lesser extent, the assertion that someone called someone to claim responsibility is not corroborated by any agency that claims to actually have received such a call. What we have are three news stories out of the approximately twenty reliable-source reports about this that say so, the day after the murders.
To quote from an uninvolved RSN participant in the discussion about this:
- "WP:RS says this: 'The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.' Isn't it saying that we, as editors, can examine a source, irrespective of whether it's otherwise reputable, to see how well it supports the assertion?" (emphasis added)
So let's do that (again); let's do that exactly:
- A group called Hizbullah-Palestine claimed responsibility as revenge for the killing of four-month-old Iman Hijo, who was killed in Khan Yunis on Monday. An anonymous caller claiming to represent the group told foreign news agencies it would continue to attack Israelis until they are forced off Palestinian land. ( The Jerusalem Post, 10 May 2001 )
This day-after-the-event article gets the boys' ages wrong, and completely omits what the great majority of other sources that reported on this said, that the murders appear to have been the result of a chance encounter. Instead it presents and repeatedly reinforces a decidely contrary view, primarily by quoting Sharon, Ben-Elizer, and Rabbi Riskin, that the murder was a pre-planned terrorist attack that, in Riskin's words, deliberately "picked out innocent children to destroy them." Please remember that the boys skipped school that day to spend time in the area of the cave where they were killed. It's unlikely that any terrorist group could have had advance knowledge of their presence there, a notion that further lends support to the ubiquitous "chance encounter" characterization.
Further, please note that the Jerusalem Post article in this instance is relaying, on the day after the murder, a reporter's rumor. The authors of the article do not say they received such a call, nor that the Jerusalem Post received such a call, just that some unnamed person told them that some other unnamed person called some unnamed "foreign news agencies" at some unnamed date and time. It is, in my opinion, irresponsible to report such a claim as if it were fact. None of us who researched this could find any claim made by a news agency that they had received such a call, as they certainly would have done if (a) they received such a call, and (b) they had reason to believe the claim was credible.
I'm troubled by the JP's ommission of the "chance encounter" idea that they certainly would have been aware of, and that the great majority of other reports presented. I'm troubled by the certainty of the article's presentation that this was a pre-planned attack by a terrorist group, when the evidence presented by other news sources shows a very different picture. And I'm very definitely troubled by the JP's reporting of an unconfirmed, second-hand, unattributed rumor as if it were fact. I accept that others can disagree in good faith but in summary, I don't find this report reliable for the assertion it makes that someone called someone else to claim responsibility.
- An anonymous phone caller claimed the murders were in revenge for the death of a four-month-old Palestinian baby hit by shrapnel during bombardment of Gaza. ( A Highbeam fragment of a 10 May 2010 article by the Daily Mirror )
This is also a "day-after-the-murders" report; this unattributed statement is the only one in the Highbeam fragment that's relevant to the present question.
Opinions expressed at RSN about the Mirror vary pretty widely: Some refer to its status as a "Fleet Street" tabloid ( a "redtop" in the U.K. ) that, according to Highbeam, gives "special attention" to "celebrity news". But whatever you think about the paper, this single sentence is all the fragment has to say on the subject. The statement is not attributed to the police or any investigative authority: Like the JP article it's a report that some unnamed person (a reporter?) said some unnamed person called some other media property, also unnamed. It is, in fact, likewise just an unconfirmed reporter's rumor. It's hard to evalate this further without having access to the complete article; the Daily Mirror isn't carried in any of the the proprietary databases I have access to. But like the JP article, the fragment doesn't mention what the majority of other papers do; that the murders were thought to be the result of a chance encounter. Also like the JP article, this one misreports the boys' ages.
- An anonymous caller to Reuters claimed responsibility for the boys killings in the name of an Islamic militant group, saying they were to avenge the death of the four-month baby and an Islamic Jihad militant on Saturday. The call could not be authenticated. The Irish Independent, 10 May, 2001.
This next-day report is the only one of the three that says a particular news property was called and, unlike the JP report, only says a single agency received a call, viz. Reuters. Again the source for the statement is unnamed, and despite assiduous searching, none of us could find Reuters itself having reported receiving such a call. As was discussed in previous sections above, it appears that they either didn't receive a call, or didn't believe in its authenticity if they did. ( And yes, news agencies do typically have procedures and back-channels by which they attempt to verify such anonymous calls. ) This article at least has the courtesy to report that this is a reporters rumor; the most we could reasonably infer is that someone probably said someone at Reuters received a call that they couldn't verify, and didn't believe in enough to publish about, themselves.
This next-day report also gives the boys' ages incorrectly, and its assertion that they "were stoned to death and cast into a cave" is, based on every other source I've seen (all or nearly all of them, I believe) mere speculation presented as fact. The police said very clearly that they weren't sure where the boys were killed, in the cave or elsewhere.
Overall, these next-day reports seem to have been prepared in a great rush to get the story out quickly, and to have relied on each other or, more likely some unnamed newswire service(s) for their duplicated errors, e.g. about the boys' ages. It's clear that no verification was done of even the very basic fact of the boy's correct ages. ( One was 13, the other 14. ) Further, this "somebody said somebody said" passing along of rumor, without verification from the one actual principal named (Reuters), is simply not reliable, especially given that the great majority of other news sources didn't report any claim of responsibility.
Also, as I noted in a previous section, the JP story in 2001 is at least called into question and at most repudiated by a subsequent JP story written in 2008 by Caroline Glick ( who nearly always writes strongly in favor of Israeli government policies, when she expresses an opinion ). She writes,
- Feldbaum’s concern over the gathering was heightened because Bedouin shepherds are suspected of having carried out a number of unsolved terrorist murders in the area. These include the murder by stoning of 14-year-olds Kobi Mandell and Yosef Ish-Ran on May 8, 2001. ( A 2008 Jerusalem Post story, by Caroline Glick )
Further, given the publication dates of these articles, and based on the context of other articles about this, it's my supposition that if any calls were actually made that they occurred after rather than before the news of the murders appeared on Israeli television and radio the previous day.
So in summary, out of the twenty or so secondary sources that reported about this, we have three that mention that some unnamed person said some unnamed person at some news agency or agencies (one mentioned Reuters) received a call from an anonymous person claiming a group claimed responsibility for the crimes. ( Only one of the three names the group: the JP mentions "Hizbullah-Palestine" ). No agency that third-parties claim received such a call supports the statement. One of these sources, The Mirror is at least doubtful overall, and another of those sources, the 2001 next-day JP article, appears to be partially or wholly contradicted by a subsequent 2008 report in the same paper. All three stories get important facts wrong, e.g. the boys' ages, facts that could have been verified, but evidently were not. This mention of a call or calls to claim responsibility is an unverified reporter's rumor that got kicked around the day after the bodies were discovered; it simply cannot be presented in our article as fact.
If someone wants to offer language here to try to fairly summarize that, I'd not be opposed. I'd not be opposed, in other words, if the reasons these sources are best viewed with skepticism are included in any presentation of their claims. But without the least offence intended, it's my opinion that it's simply irresponsible to try to report the purported claim of responsibility, in Misplaced Pages's voice, as if it were fact. I've reverted the recent changes that do so.
The murder of these two kids was as reprehensible as can be, but given what the preponderance of sources have said about this, it almost certainly wasn't a pre-planned attack by an organized group. If anyone cares, my opinion, based on having read all the sources about this that I've been able to find, very carefully, is that the most likely murderers were Palestinian youths who had, according to the Boston Globe, claimed the cave area for their own exclusive "hangout", and who would have vehemently resented what they would have seen as an incursion into what they viewed as their territory. Specifically, the Boston Globe said, "a group of Palestinian youths had staked a claim on the cave during the seven months of violence, and that Israeli youths had been warned not to hike there." A microcosm of the larger conflict, most probably, and as tragic, albeit on a smaller and more personal scale.
If anyone would like to comment on anything I've presented here, please do so following, rather than interleaving your comments in the above. – OhioStandard (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Update: I see that the user who signs himself "Broccolo" has reinstated his preferred version, in this edit, without any attempt to discuss this here, 25 hours and 5 minutes after his last reinstatement of the same material. His one nod to "discussion" was that he appended "please do not engage in the original research" to the "please do not remove sourced information" that he used as his edit summary in his previous reinstatement of this material. Because of this action, the article now includes three book sources that were deemed unreliable for this purpose at RSN. It also presents as fact the reporter's rumor discussed above, claiming that "Hizbullah-Palestine" took responsibility, a claim made by a single secondary source of the 20 or so news reports about this, viz. only in a next-day Jerusalem Post article that is itself contradicted by a later (2008) article published in that same paper. – OhioStandard (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I did discuss the sources. Did you sawthis? There are three sources that reported an anonymus call. Please do not remove sourced information, and please stop doing WP:OR.--Broccolo (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, you didn't discuss the sources. You simply posted quotes from three to support your first revert, one of which is from a very questionable tabloid/redtop source and only a Highbeam fragment anyway, one of which is contradicted by a subsequent article in the same paper, and a third (non-Reuters) source which claims Reuters received a call that couldn't be authenticated from some unnamed Islamic group, a claim which Reuters doesn't support. When I made a good faith attempt above to present an analysis of their reliability for this purpose you simply didn't respond. You instead just reinstated your preferred version 25 hours and 5 minutes after your first revert.
- You've given no indication that you've read the above at all, nor the RSN thread which concluded that the three one-to-two line unattributed mentions in tertiary source books could not be considered reliable sources for this purpose. And now, when I pointed out that you haven't discussed this, all you've done is repeat your glib edit summary. I'll ask a second time that you read the above, and that you read the RSN thread. If you'd like to show that you're willing to proceed in good faith, then please remove the books that were held to be unreliable for this purpose at RSN from the article, along with the sentences that rely on them. We can discuss the balance of the problem separately. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Of course I read this thread. There was absolutely no consensus to your claim that the books are unreliable sources. Broccolo (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- There was certainly consensus among uninvolved editors. But please make your position on this clear. Is it your claim that the three books are reliable sources? – OhioStandard (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- There was no consencus among uninvolved editors. I find those two books to be RS: Encyclopedia of terrorismChronologies of modern terrorism. Broccolo (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Perhaps I should have been more clear. There were just two editors who participated in the RSN thread who don't edit in the I/P area, Andrew Lancaster and TimidGuy, both very experienced contributors to RSN. Tim (evidently that's his name) disapproved of using the books at all, and Andrew expressed strong reservations about using them. Don't let's argue about that just now, though: Others can read the March 2011 RSN thread and come to their own conclusions.
- Of more immediate interest to me is that you appear to have neglected one book in your comment above. You restored references for three books, not two:
- Since you restored references to them, I presume that means that you consider all three to be reliable sources for the information they present that's relevant to this article? – OhioStandard (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Update: I've left these three books in the article for now, pending your response and further developments, but have expanded the "Responsibility" section considerably to accurately reflect the wide divergence of reporting on that score. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I consider all three book to be RS. Broccolo (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Update: I've left these three books in the article for now, pending your response and further developments, but have expanded the "Responsibility" section considerably to accurately reflect the wide divergence of reporting on that score. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Murders of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran. 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/20110713122209/http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/2001_05_09.html to http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/2001_05_09.html
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) 06:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
"Part of the Second Intifada militancy campaign"
The infobox states that the murders were "part of the Second Intifada militancy campaign". While it is true that the murder has occurred during the Second Intifada, since no perpetrators have been found and to this day it is not known who killed the boys and what their motives were, I think this sentence should be removed, as there is no evidence that the murders were part of a militancy campaign. Thoughts? BeŻet (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- The label "militancy campaign" makes little sense to me actually, I think it can just be shortened to "part of the Second Intifada". I don't think that's really disputed, as the intifada was largely organized but there were lone wolf attacks as well. —Ynhockey 08:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- It can be disputed on the grounds that the perpetrator of the attacks were never found and motives are unknown. The murders happened to have taken place during the Second Intifada, but since we don't know who committed the crime and why, attributing them to the Second Intifada is incorrect in my opinion. BeŻet (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:BeŻet, I completely agree. AFAIK, there is nil−nix−nada evidence that this was a terrorist attack: no perpetuators have ever been found. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The perpetrators not being caught does not negate this being a murder and an act of terror.
He and Yosef were both killed that day by Palestinian terrorists, their skulls shattered with massive rocks and their bodies stabbed, bludgeoned and then dragged into a cave in the Judean desert.
. TOI, 2014,Koby Mandell’s family after he and his friend Yosef Ishran were killed by terrorists in 2001
. The bodies were found - bludgeoned beyond recognition - are we going to dispute their deaths as well? Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)- Nobody's disputing that they were brutally murdered, but a brutal murder is not automatically a terrorist attack. The motives are unknown, because the perpetrators are unknown. It's that simple. We're already including what Israeli officials think, but we can't unequivocally state anything until the murderers are identified. BeŻet (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Your assertion above is WP:OR. We have RSes stating in their own voice this was a terror attack. Catching the perpetrators is not a necessary condition for an act to be an act of terror. The 9/11 terrorists were never caught nor convicted - and even if their identities would've remained unknown (and there is a certain degree of uncertainty regarding some of them) - it would still be a terrorist attack. Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- What a terrible comparison. We know the exact identities of the hijackers in the September 11 attacks, the exact motives, circumstances of the planning, setup and execution, and on top of that, a specific group claiming responsibility. We know nothing about this murder, other than the victims, time and place. Also, how on Earth saying that we cannot determine the perpetrators of this murder is WP:OR? The perpetrators are unknown, literally nothing is known about them - end of story - and because of that we cannot determine the motive. BeŻet (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is not our job to determine the motive - that is OR. We follow sources, which clearly state Palestinian terrorism.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- But we already say what sources say: that the perpetrators were not found, and that Israel is claiming it was Palestinian terrorism. However we cannot state that it was, without a doubt, Palestinian terrorism. That's why we've removed this statement from the Infobox. We want to stick to the truth. BeŻet (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOTTRUTH. Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- That policy literally supports my point. BeŻet (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOTTRUTH. Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- But we already say what sources say: that the perpetrators were not found, and that Israel is claiming it was Palestinian terrorism. However we cannot state that it was, without a doubt, Palestinian terrorism. That's why we've removed this statement from the Infobox. We want to stick to the truth. BeŻet (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is not our job to determine the motive - that is OR. We follow sources, which clearly state Palestinian terrorism.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- What a terrible comparison. We know the exact identities of the hijackers in the September 11 attacks, the exact motives, circumstances of the planning, setup and execution, and on top of that, a specific group claiming responsibility. We know nothing about this murder, other than the victims, time and place. Also, how on Earth saying that we cannot determine the perpetrators of this murder is WP:OR? The perpetrators are unknown, literally nothing is known about them - end of story - and because of that we cannot determine the motive. BeŻet (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Your assertion above is WP:OR. We have RSes stating in their own voice this was a terror attack. Catching the perpetrators is not a necessary condition for an act to be an act of terror. The 9/11 terrorists were never caught nor convicted - and even if their identities would've remained unknown (and there is a certain degree of uncertainty regarding some of them) - it would still be a terrorist attack. Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody's disputing that they were brutally murdered, but a brutal murder is not automatically a terrorist attack. The motives are unknown, because the perpetrators are unknown. It's that simple. We're already including what Israeli officials think, but we can't unequivocally state anything until the murderers are identified. BeŻet (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- The perpetrators not being caught does not negate this being a murder and an act of terror.
- User:BeŻet, I completely agree. AFAIK, there is nil−nix−nada evidence that this was a terrorist attack: no perpetuators have ever been found. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- It can be disputed on the grounds that the perpetrator of the attacks were never found and motives are unknown. The murders happened to have taken place during the Second Intifada, but since we don't know who committed the crime and why, attributing them to the Second Intifada is incorrect in my opinion. BeŻet (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- C-Class Terrorism articles
- Low-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Death articles
- Mid-importance Death articles
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- Low-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Low-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles