Talk:2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steinberger (talk | contribs) at 23:54, 6 September 2009 (→Al Aharam dispute). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:54, 6 September 2009 by Steinberger (talk | contribs) (→Al Aharam dispute)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

International relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

Page moved

The page was moved for a number of reasons. Apart from those mentioned in the move summary, this title is most neutral. I don't like titles including "organ harvesting" as the claims made by Aftonbladet are so vague and unsourced that no organ harvesting has been proved or even made suspiscious. Such titles are a bit pro-Aftonbladet POV. I also dislike titles involving antisemitism, since they per se conclude that antisemitism was an issue in the publication and thus are anti-Aftonbladet POV. The current title makes it clear that this was a controversy involving Aftonbladet and Israel but does not take sides on the topic itself.Jeppiz (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

could someone translate the article title in swedish wikipedia --Osm agha (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Putting Isreal in the article name is misleading. The Aftonbladet criticism has moved far beyond the Isreali FM and is being discussed way beyond Israel's shores. Indeed, this is not so much an Israeli issue, but a Jewish issue. Although are plenty of conspiracy theories going around, this specific libel struck the cord of Jews worldwide because of Jews' history of suffering from these types of blood libels. Thus, this is much more about antisemitism, then about Israel per se. Granted, that at this time, the evidence that this article arose from antisemitism is only circumstantial, but its antisemitism that is the bete noir and main undercurrent here and should properly be represented in the article name.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Indeed, this is not so much an Israeli issue, but a Jewish issue." That is your opinion and I dare say that it is not correct. The allegations were made against the IDF. It's the an Israeli army, not a Jewish army. There are people of different religions and ethnicities in the IDF, they are all Israeli but they are not all Jewish. For all we know, the soldiers having killed the boy mentioned in the articles could have been, say, Druzes. Liberman is a state representative of Israel, not the Jewish people of which the majority live in other countries that Israel. So having Israel in the name is in no way misleading.Jeppiz (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I support Jeppiz' reasoning and think the title "Aftonbladet-Israel controversy" is quite resonable, and also short. Tomas e (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Brewcrewer that putting "Israel" in the title is a bit misleading. This is not just a controversy between Aftonbladet and Israel. There has also been strong reactions in Sweden and several other countries for that matter. /Slarre (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a reporter at Aftonbladet who raised questions about IDF (Israel's army) practices. Israel's government officials publicly condemned Aftonbladet. They demanded Swedish government intervention; that government has chosen to remain uninvolved. Aftonbladet has stood by its right to freedom of expression. An Israeli lawyer has filed a suit against Aftonbladet for "'racist blood libel' against Jews and Israeli soldiers." I'd say that Aftonbladet-Israel controversy pretty much sums up the main actors here, no? Tiamut 18:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The controversy mainly concerns allegations of antisemitism against Aftonbladet. Those allegations were made by many different individuals and organizations in Swedem, Israel and in other countries. /Slarre (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

With no offense intended, that sounds rather like the position of the Israeli lawyer putting forward the libel suit. For most of the world, I think, this is about a report that was published in Aftonbladet that the Israeli government has taken deep offense to and is making a big stink about. Personally, I think its unwise and offensive for the Israeli government, or anyone else, to equate the raising of questions surrounding the practices of its army with blood libels against Jews everywhere. Certainly, I will not agree to titling this article in a way that predetermines a libel suit on that very issue that has yet to be heard. Tiamut 18:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is true that organ harvesting as well as antisemitism have been mentioned in the discussion. However, those who defend Aftonbladet and criticize Israel have focused on organ harvesting while those defending Israel and criticising Aftonbladet have focused on antisemitism. Neither of these topics satisfy WP:NPOV. As for my own view, I try to treat the matter in a neutral way. That's why I moved the English article from the former title mentioning only antisemitism and why I moved the Swedish article from a title mentioning only organ harvesting in Israel. I know that both sides can make claims as to why the main topic is "Aftonbladet's antisemitism" or why it is "Israel's organ harvesting", but both of those titles reflect only the view of one side in the conflict, making them guiltu of POV.Jeppiz (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"However, those who defend Aftonbladet and criticize Israel have focused on organ harvesting". Incorrect. Anyone in the mainstream that has defended Aftonbladet has defended them on the grounds of free press. There's no mainstream view that there's anything valid about the claims. WP must be in the mainstream as well and ensure that the correct frame of reference is presented. The consensus-less change to "Aftonbladet-Israel controversy" does not do enough to show that there's zero basis to any "organ harvesting" claims. It gives the impression that there's sort of debate between the paper and Israel whether organ harvesting took place. We don't want WP to come off as fringe-esque by representing these claims as somewhat valid. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"There's no mainstream view that there's anything valid about the claims." Absolutely correct, and that is why I moved the Swedish version of this article from "Organ harvesting controversy in Israel". However, I fail to see how you go from that very valid point to claiming that the title "gives the impression that there's sort of debate between the paper and Israel whether organ harvesting took place". That is your own interpretation. Having said that, we could of course discuss other alternatives for the title, but the previous title was only marginally less POV than the Swedish title. The title should be as neutral as possible, not taking sides on the issue. Arguments for different views should be made in the article, not in the title itself.Jeppiz (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"There's no mainstream view that there's anything valid about the claims." Dear Folks, in thirties there was also no mainstream view concerning the controversy between Nazis and Israel (as a nation). So let's hope this so called "controversy" would be less bloody then the last one. So far nothing suggests that. Not even this place. 23:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not that organ havesting is unknown. There have also been simmilar stories about organ harvesting in China (we even have Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China), but I don't remember anyone calling it racism. // Liftarn (talk)

Mess

The article needs to be rewritten, I suggest to write first an introduction, followed by the israeli reaction and allegations of antisemetism, then the swedish government reaction --Osm agha (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

antisemitism templates

I am sceptic of trying to link antisemitism to this article. We can discuss it in the article, but having it in the title or in categories is, in my view, quite strong. I am not saying that we cannot discuss having it there as well, but that it precisely what we should do. Discuss whether the controversy is antisemitic or not, not having one user decide that it is so. Even most critics of Aftonbladet have stated explicitly that it is not antisemitic, no matter how ill-adviced they consider the publication. If users want to present arguments for this view they are most welcome to do so, but please stop doing this without prior discussions.Jeppiz (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As it's not possible to change one's edit summary, I'd like to state that my last edit summary at this article was very unfortunate and I apologize to Brewcrewer for it. Although I stand by my view that we should discuss before making claims that will be felt to be insulting by those at which we direct them, I should not get personal like I unfortunately did. I do not agree with Brewcrewer on this issue, but he is of course as entitled to his view as I am to mine.Jeppiz (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Aftonbladet writer is an antisemite before adding the antisemitism template. The main criteria of template inclusion is whether antisemitism is discussed in this context. It clearly is. The templates do not decide that this was an antisemitic incident they only represent the fact that there is antisemitic discussion surrounding this incident. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very unfortunate praxis of using the category and template. As soon as someone pops out and shouts "Antisemitism!" we slap it on. // Liftarn (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If by "someone" you mean reliable sources, then yes, that's the way things work around here. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Err... No. It's enough that a reliable source says that someone have called something antisemitic. It doesn't matter if the person making the original statement is a total nutcase as long as the source reporting it is reliable. // Liftarn (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is unclear. Have reliable sources mentioned antisemitism (whether comparing, denying, questioning, etc.) within this context? If the response is in the affirmative, there's no good reason to delete to elide the antisemitism templates from this article.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is short and clear;anti semitisn by any definition.Examine any blood libel in history and I am sure you will see clear similarities. Of course many called is a blood libel including prominant Israeli figures. Aftonbladet article =Blood libel= anti Semitism. Read farther:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Blood_libel_against_Jews#Contemporary --Rm125 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In the article there were no words saying that it was JEWISH soldiers that carried out the oragan harvesting, it said it was ISRAELI soldiers. The Israelian army is nowise a jewish army, it is the army of the nation Israel, which inhabitanta are not only Jews, but also bigger minorieties of e.g. Arabs and non-jewish immigrants. Even if there has been false accusations about blood libel in the history, you must still be allowed to write critical articles about the israeli army, about the occupation of Gaza, and so on, without beeing accused to be antisemetic. The history is no excuse to do wrongdoings today!

Also see Posner-Korosi, leader of Sweden's Jewish community in this article claiming it is anti semitism.--Rm125 (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the problem here that are two different opinions whether the newspaper article constitutes antisemitism? One group of people think it is antisemitism, another group think it isn't? How should we decide whether to use that category or not? Ulner (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RS

Brewcrewer has twice removed external links from this article claiming they do not meet WP:RS. The articles are by Khalid Amayreh and Alison Weir, published in Al-Ahram and Middle East Online. Would others mind commenting on whether or not these meet RS? Tiamut 16:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Both articles are Op-Eds, written by well known partisans, and published in outlets with a known bias. They are obviously not WP:RS for anything other than the opinion of their authors. I don't object to their inclusion as external links, though, so long as that inclusion does not violate this. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are both op-eds, but there are other op-eds cited in the external links section as well, by Bernie Farber and Gideon Levy (I added them as well - I tried to make sure I included a variety of views to avoid POV).

The two articles Brewcrewer is removing are these:

Israeli Organ Harvesting by Alison Weir, executive director of If Americans Knew, published by Middle East Online
Horrid beyond words by Khalid Amayreh, published in Al-Ahram

This limits the viewpoints represented in the external links section in a way that seems rather arbitrary. Tiamut 17:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both LoveOfTheRussianQueen and Tiamut. It's true that both articles are very partisan, but so are a few of the other links as well. Personally I'd be glad to remove all four of them, but to remove only two, regardless of which "side" we remove, is not NPOV.Jeppiz (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the links are partisan. There are no objective sources on this issue or any other. The only relevant considerations are WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I think including a wide variety of links helps interested readers to determine for themselves what they think of what has been said. Our job is not to proscribe information but to disseminate it. Tiamut 18:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. For external links, the relevant guideline is WP:EL. Applicable elements of the guideline are WP:ELNO, specifically #1 (which these links almost certainly violate), and possibly #2. Another relevant section is Misplaced Pages:ELNO#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view. The majority view is that the allegations have not been supported with any credible evidence (this includes the viewpoint of the author of the article himself, who states he has no idea if the allegations are true) - so care must be taken not to include links that give the allegations credence at the same proportion of those decrying the claims as baseless. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If the opinion piece is notable, it can be included in the main text with a short summary (and linking to the article in a Footnote using the reference system)? Also added a template concerning the external links. Ulner (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal is totally justified; both are extreme partisans --Rm125 (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125

This user seems to be very new to Misplaced Pages and not knowing the principles. Looking at the edit history of the user, it mostly consists of removing sourced content that the user objects in rather clear violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While it is possible that it's a troll, I suspect it's just an over-zealous user who still doesn't know the rule and doesn't understand the disctinction between not agreeing with a claim and not respecting it. As long as claims are sourced, we try to respect them and if we want them removed, we argue the case for removing them rather than just deleting them.Jeppiz (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This user seems to be very new to Misplaced Pages and not knowing the principles. Looking at the edit history of the user, it mostly consists of removing sourced content that the user objects in rather clear violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.<< Not legitimate criticism.This is NOT a matter of new or "old"s, smart- or-stupid issue. I would suggest to you to be more careful with labels and personal evaluations>>> While it is possible that it's a troll, I suspect it's just an over-zealous user who still doesn't know the rule and doesn't understand the disctinction between not agreeing with a claim and not respecting it.<<<Once again I don't understand your patronising attitude Thanks, judge but I respectfully deny your verdict and ask the jury to comment here...>>> As long as claims are sourced, we try to respect them and if we want them removed, we argue the case for removing them rather than just deleting them.<<< All my claims are justified but if His Majesty the Judge will kindly talk to the point He might get a "pointed" answer.Please talk to the point, Your Honor>>> --Rm125 (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have reported you for vandalism. I've never seen a user muster up such an amount of warning for blatant vandalism in less than a month. While you've been reasonably well-behaved here compared to your rampant vandalism of other articles, your edit-history says it all.Jeppiz (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reactions

Some users seem very eager to fill the article with reactions from various people, the juicer the better. I suggest we remove comments from people who are not speaking on behalf of organisations, countries or similar. The chairman of the Jewish community in Sweden is of course very relevant, some American lawyer without a direct connection is not, neither is a rabbi without a Misplaced Pages article. It's not the lack of a Misplaced Pages article that make him not-notable, it's the lack of connection to the case. We don't need a host of people stating their opinion on the issue, especially not as Rm125, true to form, is not looking for people with an opinion but for people who have express THE right opinion.Jeppiz (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bias

I'd like to remind all users that an article can be perfectly well sourced and still be 100% POV and I fear this article is heading in that direction. It is true that much criticism has been directed at Aftonbladet, not without reason, and that should of course be covered just as it already is in the article. However, at least as much criticism has been directed at Liberman, I've seen many papers in many countries, including Israel, accusing him of blowing the whole thing out of proportion for personal political gains, for not understanding how free media works in a democracy and for isolating Israel. I know that sources can be found for very harsh criticism of Aftonbladet, and a few users are very eager at seeking out an including every such source they can find. I don't mind including it as long as it's sourced, but it does make the article very one-sided and biased towards one view-point rather than presenting a more neutral and balanced view.Jeppiz (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to add such criticism .I personally don't mind --Rm125 (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, and I don't blame anyone for adding sources to criticize Aftonbladet. Nobody has done anything wrong here, but it's a fact that the article leans quite heavily to one side.Jeppiz (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I added criticism of Avigdor Lieberman as you suggested as well as Palestinian doctor and created a Palestinian section with PA reaction and also Palestinian family from the article. let me know what you think. --Rm125 (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with the POV tag, but for the opposite reasons set forth above. The lede currently does a bad job reflecting the real controversy. The lede gives the impression that the controversy is regarding the truthfullness of the claims. The real controversy is about Aftonbladet's decision to publish a hoax remnant of ancient blood libels that in historic times killed thousands of Jews, Aftonbladet's refusal to repudiate the article, and the Swedish governments refusal to denounce the publication of the article.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

By the lede you mean these two sentences "The Aftonbladet-Israel controversy refers to an article in Sweden's largest tabloid, implying that the Israeli Defense Force stole organs from dead Palestinians. This evolved into a diplomatic controversy between Israel and Sweden."? Ulner (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You take words out of my mouth. This is precisely was my feeling and I thought about adding a section about this point. I thought a lot why Swedes and Jews- while being sincere -can not understand each other's mentality. For a Swede it is an issue of "freedom of speech and quality of journalism" Foe a Jew-his relatives and family were slaughtered because this kind "freedom of speech" for thousands of years. So yes it is not a theoretic exercise- it is engraved deep in the soul. Jews carry all their history on their shoulders for better of for worse. It is strange for some to understand because we don't share the same experiences. So yes there is a need to answer a simple question: "What this controversy is all about"? Freedom of speech, national pride, religion, quality of journalism, I/P conflict or is it about bloody history, pogroms, thousands of years of rape, expulsions, murder, Christian anti Semitism Inquisitions, blood libels, Holocaust, subconscious deep fear, phobia and more. --Rm125 (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's two issues. 1) freedom of speech and quality of journalism 2) parallels to antisemitism (or should we just use the old "they hate freedom"?). The current header is just two sentences and it actually does a good job of summarising the issue. // Liftarn (talk)

Not sure what you mean since the current header makes no mention of the two issues you mention.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is not possible to agree about what this controversy is about (that can perhaps depend upon your point of view), is it possible to rename this article? One idea is "Reactions to Boström article". I guess everyone can agree that this article describes different reactions to the article by Boström. Perhaps one can describe the reactions according to two sides: one side thinks the publication of the article was justified, and the other side thinks the publication wasn't justified. Ulner (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I deleted the see also link to Race card - if someone wants to make that connection I think it is appropriate to cite an opinion article in the text instead of using the "See also" section. Ulner (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mattias Gardell, link in foreign language

The link in not in English. We can not read it I would like to ask you to provide a translation. BTW what is the policy in Misplaced Pages regarding foreign language references? --Rm125 (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:NONENG "sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available". The key part of the article is "Det är välbekant att israeliska talespersoner och de självutnämnda Israelvänner som agerar den militära övermaktens apologeter rutinmässigt försöker dribbla bort berättigad kritik mot israelisk kolonialpolitik genom att spela ut antisemitismkortet." and that roughly translates to "It is well known that Israeli spokespersons and the self appointed Israel friends who acts as the military superiority's apologists routinely tries to obuscate (dribble away) justified criticism against Israeli colonial politics by playing the antisemitism card.". Google translate does a quite good job, but you have to past the text yourself. // Liftarn (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,Liftarn. Great news. I just realized that I just waste another 3 perfectly good European languages to "spice up" this Misplaced Pages with.--Rm125 (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article chapter

I think there are too many quotes and descriptions. I provided a English translation of the article. so now it can be shortened out.It can present the article since you can read it yourself in the link provided. Also the a palestinian family responses has been put on the separate section respecting the original structure of this article.--Rm125 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Jeppiz (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

External links

If no-one objects, I plan to remove all external links (except for the video), because there is no reason to include a newspaper article describing this issue as an external link (it can better be published in a footnote to an appropriate section of the article). A big number of opinion pieces in the external links section is confusing for the readers in my opinion. What do other think about my suggestion? Ulner (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand what is your suggestion. If you can give a specific example-problem-solution I will be happy to form an opinion. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean for example the first external link "Bernie Farber: Sweden's embrace of the blood libel" should be moved to somewhere inside the main article, explained in a context and with a footnote where the link is given. Ulner (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I moved this external link into the main part of the article with a footnote. Perhaps it is possible to move all external links which are notable and delete all the other? Ulner (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC

I don't mind if I understood you correctly. --Rm125 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed Al Aharam link- this is a mouthpiece of the government of Egypt-dictatorship with no free press --Rm125 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, once again. You really need to stop removing sources based on what you think of them. You have already been blocked once for it. Freedom of speech is certainly very restricted in Egypt, but that is not a reason to disqualify everything that is published in Egypt.Jeppiz (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I base my opinion on sourses like this: ] and this:] and this:] It took about 30 seconds of my time. You on the other hand decided to slander and defame me without any justification. All the best. --Rm125 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That isnt how we decide whether or not a source is reliable. Here on Misplaced Pages a "reliable source" means it meets the requirements of WP:RS. Al-Ahram meets those requirements (specifically WP:RS#News organizations). Al-Ahram is a major news source in the Arab world and you cannot just disregard whatever they write. nableezy - 21:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is relevant and who is not?

I would like to repeat my question, who should we include here. There are, in my opinion at least, far too many people with little or no relevance to the case. I don't think the editor of Electronic Intifada is particularly relevant to this case, and I don't think reactions of individual congressmen in the US are relevant either. Reactions from inside Sweden and Israel may be relevant, likewise persons representing organizations that are relevant. I do not think, however, that just because a person is relevant enough to have a page on Misplaced Pages, such as the congressmen, Alan Dershowitz and others, their personal opinions are of much relevance here. Please discuss.Jeppiz (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Electronic Intifada thing because it is not RS, however this opinion is legitimate in my view. If you want to remove-there no protest from me. Members of Congress are important for following reasons:(a) US is a major authority on issues related to freedom of speech in the world (b) The article connected American citizens to this story, claiming that they some how connected.(c) Look what commities they belong to-the name says it all (d)This is a mojor international story- not limited to Sweden and Israel.(e) I am not sure if some members of parlament of South America or Africa are that important. When America talks-the world listens.And this is the difference. Google it out and you see the amount of articles in all major and minor publications. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should treat American reactions (in general) as more important than say South American. The fact that the article talks about American citizens is a good argument why american reactions matter a bit more for this case, though. Ulner (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to offend anyone, but the claim that the US is a "major authority" on freedom of speech would cause a laughter in many countries. Of course it's better than many countries, but according to the latest Worldwide Press Freedom Index, the US shares place 36-41, so there are at least 35 countries where members of parliament would be better suited to comment if we went by your "reason (a)". As for reason b, it is more valid but the link was very weak and the congressmen doesn't seem to even acknowledge it. "Reason c" is the same claim as "reason a", that the US somehow is better placed than other countries to comment on world affairs. That is not the case, certainly not in stories in which the US isn't involved. "Reason d" is the same one once again, and so is "reason e". So in short, you have given two reasons. One is that Bodström made a completely unfounded claim in which an American citizen was involved. All your other claims are focused on the reasoning that the US would have a higher authority than any other country in the world. That is perhaps your personal opinion, but there's nothing to support it. Once again, the US is behind many other countries in rankings of Freedom of Press and certainly doesn't hold any special authority.Jeppiz (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

American importance influence and "weight" for better or for worse is a fact.This is what I meant. Of course this or that issue is a matter of interpretetion.The author of the article connected certain American Jews cought in organ trafficing to the IDF conduct. This is the connection to America. Plus, look- if some African parlament would issue a letter on the subject I would be glad to unclude it here- no discrinination. Generally, Jeppiz I think the more information the better provided it is relevant and educating. I don't nassesarily think that being short for shortness sake-there is a value there. People want to be educated so why be stingy? In a book the amount of space is limited so this is the reason there is limitation there. In wikipedia case we are not limited and it is good. All the best. --Rm125 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these are good points, much better than the earlier. However, most of the people here have been speaking as individuals. Let me take some examples. Some Palestinian doctor called Mazen Arafah is included. Who is Mazen Arafah and why is his personal opinion notable? I think any doctor could have said that. Same thing with Alan Dershowitz. I have the highest respect for his brilliant intellect and he is of course a notable person, but his personal opinion is of no interest. Same thing with Matthew Cassel, he is not notable himself and neither is his personal opinion on this issue. Abraham Foxman is a different story, he was clearly speaking on the ADL's behalf. I think the paragraph can be shortened, as the only relevant information is the complaint, but that could well be considered relevant so I wouldn't remove it, just shorten it. Same thing with Dror Feiler, he is also a spokesperson who made a statement, and that paragraph is already quite short. I would definitely remove Bernie Farber, there is no connection at all to Canada in this case.

As for the congressmen, the question is whether the letter they have sent have been sent by them personally (not notable) or whether they sent them as statement of their committees. In the latter case, I could see a case for notability, just as I do with ADL.

In short, yes, we can definitely have other reactions, but reactions from individuals who give their personal opinions and are not connecter are hardly relevant.Jeppiz (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at the link I provided --Rm125 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian doctor is important because he is the only doctor fro Palestinian side of the issue It is not a "private" opinion.This is an opinion of an expert- MD and is based on his expertize as a doctor. --Rm125 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is a private opinion, even if it comes from an MD. Being a doctor is very far from enough for being notable and he has no connection to the case. Once again, who of these people I mentioned have been publishing their opinions as the official opinions of an organization or committee. The ADL is a clear case, that should definitely stay in. Same thing with Dror Feiler. As for all the rest that I mentioned, please provide links that establishes that their statements were on behalf of their organizations/committees. If that is the case, they should stay. If not, they should be taken out. As for Matthew Cassel, Bernie Farber and Masen Arafah, neither of them belong here by any stretch of imagination. Two of them are neither notable nor related to the topic, the third is notable but with no connection to the controversy.Jeppiz (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the personal opinions of people who are not involved in the case, most of whom are not even notable. I didn't remove the congressmen yet, but if no link can be provided that they spoke on behalf of their committees, their statements are also just personal opinions that aren't really relevant here as they are not involved in any way.Jeppiz (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Look about this Palestinian doctor issue. Personally I agree with you that it is his personal opinion and as such it is not very important. Notice! 100% agree. However, I read somewhere on Misplaced Pages that in some cases when there ios no other opinion and to create some balance it is OK to include it to create some perspective. May be I am mistaken here, but this is how I ubderstood it.If there are different opinions from Palestinian side it should be considered for balance. Unfortunately so far there is nothing I can find.This is THE ONLY my consideration. If we remove this link people will say that Palestinians don't have a take here and therir side is not presented. If you find this consideration non valid then by all means remove it and I hope we can find another from palestinian side. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to the Palestinian doctor - we still have the reference to the Palestinian authority and also to Arafat? Ulner (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi all! I have now made some major changes where I deleted sentences which describe the opinion of persons not representing organizations. I do not think these opinions are relevant enough for this Misplaced Pages article. In addition, this will keep the article shorter, and also help us avoid undue weight to some perspective. If someone disagrees, you can just put the old version back - I am open to discussion. I tried to be bold making these edits, so I don't mind if you disagree. Ulner (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about your edit, I let others decide in that matter. But there is one thing: There are more people then the Palestinian doctor who have stated that it is medically improbable that Bilal was taken for organ harvesting. However, non of the doctors who states that opinion does represent anything other then themselves as professionals. But, this subject is somewhat different, so I think that it would be nice if the medical improbability argument where to be discussed in its own section. Steinberger (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC) PS. You forgot Mårten Schultz in your bold attempt, he is not representing any organization either.

I'm going to reinsert Mattias Gardell as it is well within his field of research. // Liftarn (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand - he's an expert on "religious racism". This problem of deciding who's comments/arguments/opinions to include is getting harder and harder unfortuantely. Ulner (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Several different "reactions" sections

As it looks right now we have some different "reaction" headings.I think we need to clarify this issue because others will add more headings like separate "IDF reaction"for example.The way it looks right now- we have separation to media and government and "other reactions" Now I see an edditional heading with 'edditional Swedish reaction" I think we need to establish a certain structure and stick to it. Ideas? --Rm125 (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps main heading "Swedish reaction, Israeli reaction, Palestinian reaction, European reaction, American reaction"? If needed we use subsections for each region/country? Ulner (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mhm, and once again, why would we need European reactions (the majority of which are from other Nordic countries and which have been focusing on Liberman's lack of respect for democracy) and American reactions (the majority of which are from American Jews and have been focusing on Aftonbladet's lack of respect for Jewish sufferings). Do not get me wrong, I agree with those reactions. Aftonbladet published an increadibly stupid story and Liberman reacted to in in an increadibly stupid way. All that is already found in the Swedish and Israeli reactions, so why do we need a lot more reactions. Especially from private individuals in countries that aren't even involved?Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the inportant point for inclusion is if a person represent an organization of some kind of weight and/or writes articles and opinon pieces in major newspapers. If a person is a politician especially not a local one and has a connection to this is one of consideration.Regarding too many divisions( european,sweedish, israeli, american etc) I think the reasonable thing to leave 3 sections for responses since it involves their citizens ( Israel and Jews, Sweden and the author, Palestinia Authority and the family and US) and "other" section for responces of Arabs, Muslims, Europeans and others)

How does it look? --Rm125 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

See my response above. Most of the people here have been speaking as individuals. A Palestinian doctor called Mazen Arafah is included. Who is Mazen Arafah and why is his personal opinion notable? I think any doctor could have said that. Same thing with Alan Dershowitz. I have the highest respect for his brilliant intellect and he is of course a notable person, but his personal opinion is of no interest. Same thing with Matthew Cassel, he is not notable himself and neither is his personal opinion on this issue. Abraham Foxman is a different story, he was clearly speaking on the ADL's behalf. I think the paragraph can be shortened, as the only relevant information is the complaint, but that could well be considered relevant so I wouldn't remove it, just shorten it. Same thing with Dror Feiler, he is also a spokesperson who made a statement, and that paragraph is already quite short. I would definitely remove Bernie Farber, there is no connection at all to Canada in this case.

Look at the link-it is official --Rm125 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose to move a chepter: other Swedish opinios to "other opinions. Otherwise we need to create " other Israeli opinions" and other Palestinian opinions here. --Rm125 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I an trying to create some kind of situation when all different opinions arer presented in a balanced way.--Rm125 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments please

It seems Rm125 and I don't agree on whom to include here. Both of us have made our cases, so rather than resorting to an edit war, I'd ask other users to comment. In my opinion, personal opinions of individual persons outside Sweden and Israel are not very relevant. At present, we have a reported statement by a completely unknown Palestinian doctor who has not studied the deceased person and isn't involved in any way. We also have the personal opinions of an American intellectual. He is at least a notable person, but he is not involved in this controversy in any way and has just presented his personal view. In my view, neither of these reactions, nor reactions from other individuals just expressing their personal opinion, belong in the article. I know what Rm125 thinks, but I welcome input from others!Jeppiz (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Al Aharam is not RS

He writes mainly for Iranians Egyptian Al Aharam and Al Jeezira. He is a propaganda writer and falsifies facts. This type of writer is considered non RS on Misplaced Pages. No major newspaper would publish him. Jeepiz, frankly I am puzzled why this sourse is important to you. This is not even news, just opinion in a mauthpiece of dictatorial regime of Egypt. As you know Egypt doesn't have freedom of press. I assume that you live in a free country and this is clear to you. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at the quote of his in Al Aharam: "During an interview with Al-Jazeera in 2002, late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat accused Israel of murdering Palestinian children and harvesting their organs for transplant operations. "They murder our kids and use their organs as spare parts. Why is the whole world silent? Israel takes advantage of this silence to escalate its oppression and terror against our people," said an angry Arafat"

In Arab "newspapers" they spread the same blood libels we are discussing here. In those contries with oppressive and restrictive press they manipulate our freedoms and USE us to spread their evil conspiracy theories. Please reconsider your revert. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

His article at Khalid Amayreh says nothing about him being an extremist. Do you have any sources to back up that claim? // Liftarn (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, please read WP:BLP. You are making a series of unfounded accusations against Amayreh and you should stop, unless you have evidence from WP:RS to support what you are saying. Tiamut 09:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Strike extremist, This is my private opinion. The reason I object is (1) Al Aharam is not a free newspaper- it is a mouthpiece of Egyptian regime (2) No western major newspaper publishes his "articles" (3) The quote in the Alharam that I provided constitutes a blood libel by definition-even worse that the swedish newspaper.(4) RS As mentioned there is no free press in Egypt= no such thing.--Rm125 (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that there are no sources calling Amayreh as an extremist, and for striking your comments to that effect. 1) Do you have reliable sources saying that Al Ahram is a mouthpiece of the Egyptian regime? 2) I don't care if western people have never heard of them; this is the world's encyclopedia, not the West's. 3) That's your opinion, unsourced. 4) It doesn't matter what the state of press freedoms in Egypt is, for Misplaced Pages purposes, Al-Ahram is a reliable source. Tiamut 11:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiamit, I must give you a compliment. I don't agree with you but you have a good point. I will try to scratch my head a little. I might come out with something for you --Rm125 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiamit, can you back up your (4) point for me, please ?--Rm125 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rm125 for your thoughtfulness. I am basing my comments re: Al-Ahram consituting a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles on this. To be safe, you will notice that I directly attributed the material presented to Khalid Amayreh (this is because even though I think its a news piece, others may view it as a opinion piece). If you have any questions about whether a source is reliable or not, there is a reliable sources noticeboard linked at the top of the page I linked you to where you can ask and other editors will offer their opinions. I hope I answered your question. Tiamut 13:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

First off the link you provided talk about reliable sourse-right but it does not gives an indication about Al Aharam. Second if you go to Al Haram in Misplaced Pages you will see it says it is controlled by Ministry of Information. Third. Look - forget Misplaced Pages for a moment and look deep inside yourself and answer yourself- Is Al Ahram r-e-a-l-l-y free newspaper independent of the government? You and I know the answer. And finally let me shoot straight, Tiamut. I think Palestinians shoot themselves in the foot when they touch all those conspiracy theories. They loose lots of good will from some good people.And more. Palestinians have pretty good arguments to advance their case. Why then they need to go so low? As I says they shoot themselves in the foot.Their leaders( Arafat too) have been decieving them too long time.That;s righttoo long time.--Rm125 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, the guideline outlined in the link I provided you does not mention newspapers names specifically, except by way of example. The fact that Al-Ahram is not listed though, does not mean we cannot use it. It fits the description provided there to a tee.

I don't think the Egyptian government interfered in any way in the publishing of the article by Khalid Amayreh. And whether or not they interfere with what is published there is really irrelevant to this discussion. The material is sourced, cited and attributed to its author. People can decide for themselves what weight to accord it.

About Palestinians shooting themselves in the foot ... your opinion is shared by some. Some others think that the people actually shooting them in the feet should be held to account sometimes too. But I don't really want to get into that discussion, because its not related to the article. So thank for sharing, but no thanks. Tiamut 13:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at what I mean when I say they shooting themselves in the foot. Let me demonstrate that lies will not hold and are exposed. Eventually Palestinians are not benefiting from it:

“Israel is well known for its harsh and cruel treatment of Palestinians. Hence, the notion of Israeli authorities extricating organs from the bodies of Palestinians for transplant or sale is credible.<<< Look at this deception. So Israelis are cruel and this is the reason they kill Palestinians and steal their organs! Amazing piece of propaganda . Indeed a reliable source>>>Indeed, in January 2002 an Israeli cabinet minister tacitly admitted that certain organs from the bodies of Palestinians might have been used for Jewish transplant patients without the knowledge of the victims' families.<<< This is a total lie from a sick brain of “reliable source: from “democratic” Egypt>>> The minister, Nessim Dahan, said he couldn't confirm or deny that organs taken from Palestinian victims were used for transplant or in scientific research.<<< Well, I can not confirm or deny that I don’t rape neighborhoods girls every day, what a pity>>>

Look- you can believe this crap if you want ( I am sure you don‘t) but not everybody are so easily fooled, my friend, Tiamut”--Rm125 (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should be so fast to judge, when you seem to be misinformed about some basic facts. Yehuda Hiss, the chief pathologist and former director of Abu Kabir institute, the only autopsy institute in Israel, has twice been investigated for removing body parts from people's bodies (Palestinians and Israelis alike) without permission for sale to medical schools in the last 10 years. (See But did it happen? and Illicit Body-Part Sales Present Widespread Problem.) It was the families of Israeli soldiers who first complained about it. It seems that when Israelis complain, the government is quick to put on the appearance of having done something about it, though I should note that Hiss is still the chief pathologist at Abu Kabir, he only lost his position as director. When Palestinians complain of the same thing, they're just anti-Semitic liars. No surprise there. Being a Palestinian that lives in Nazareth I've gotten used to the double standards. Tiamut 14:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember that we should try to discuss how this Misplaced Pages article should be written (and not the truth/relevance/bias of Donald Boström's article). It would be really good if someone posted a question about whether Al-Ahram is a reliable source on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and we can get input from more Misplaced Pages contributors. Best regards Ulner (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry about the diversion. I will post a request at RS noticeboards now. Thanks for the reminder Ulner. Tiamut 14:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ulner, good point. I have a lot to say in responce but you are right. We discuss if AlAharam is RS or not. It is not of course. Here is the link to Freedim of speech in Egypt

http://en.wikipedia.org/Human_rights_in_Egypt#Freedom_of_speech_and_freedom_of_the_press

You can do even better research if you don't know already. Rgypts jails are full of journalists no questions about it.

As to Noticeboard it is a great idea. If you or somebody else can arrange it I appriciate it. Unfortunately i need to leave nowbut there is lots of info already . It just needed to be organized in a logical way for outsider to make it easy to get. I can do it but now I have to go, see, you guys. --Rm125 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The link to the posting at WP:RS board is here. See you around Rm125.Tiamut 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, Tiamut in this post you say that Mr Hiss got accused of certain thing( he can be guilty or not it doesn’t matter ) You claim that if an Israeli complains things get done but when a Palestinian complain-they are accused of being anti Semites? I understand your accusation but we can not connect Mr Hiss ( without getting into his specific deed) to this issue. This is two different issues. One is an accusation of discrimination and another a specific accusation against an individual. Another issue you rase is your difficulty as a Palestinian in Israel ( since Nazareth is a city in Israel). First of you are an Israeli citizen and live in democracy. Like in any democracy you can and should fight for your rights in court and ballot box.. You claim that you are a Palestinian. I don’t have a problem with you identifying yourself this way. But you know that before 1948 the term Palestinian meant a Jew. Arabs never called themselves “Palestinians” They called themselves Arabs or South Syrians but never Palestinians. This terminology or identity only was created mainly after 1967. By no means I want to hart your feelings but we are talking facts here. I don’t think that if you make a reasonable argument somebody will call you an anti Semite. True, Jews are sensitive to anti Semitism because our history but this is real, Tiamut, Most of my family were wiped out during the Holocaust. During 1905 many of my family died in Russia during pogroms. I am not giving you this info in order to compare who suffered the most - I am sure you’ve got your share-but to show you that there is a valid reason for this sensitivity.

Let me tell you a story. Here in LA a couple of years ago I noticed a black guy touching stuff outside my house. I asked him what he is doing on my property. He got very upset and started accusing me of racism. I was surprised at his allegations. I didn‘t care if he is black, white or yellow- he was trespassing my property. Anyway ,I realized he works for a phone company but for some reason he didn‘t wore an uniform with a name tag. He thought I am a racist because I was upset. Why do I tell you the story? Because we can understand his perspective. The guy has lots of history related to discrimination. He heard all the stories from his family and relatives He experienced it himself. Can we blame him for seeing a racist on every street corner? The point is we all sensitive and everybody has his own sensitive buttons. But guess what; if you try to put yourself in the other guys shoes it becomes easier to understand. Nobody will understand your pain the way you feel it, but if you realize that everybody has a different baggage to carry- life becomes easier. --Rm125 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns Rm125, but we should try to only discuss the Misplaced Pages article here. The question is whether "Al-Ahram is a RS". Perhaps we can wait for input from other users, and continue with some new perspective. Best regards Ulner (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with much of what you (Rm125) said, but I fully understand the need to vent sometimes. My bad, for straying into off-topic conversation above, but let's try to keep the discussion focused from now on, as Ulner is suggesting. Tiamut 18:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Papers which promote blood libel

The "newspapers from Iran and Syria are not RS. Those quotes you provided are worse then the Swedish newspaper.Unfortunately this is another example of the blood libel that are spread in certain "free" coutries.

I have to get rid of this garbage. If you object we will go to the outside opinion for feedback--Rm125 (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You cannot simply eliminate sources based on your opinion that they are not reliable sources. Tiamut 11:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mistake. I didn't chech the sourse. The sourse is fine- nojustification to erase- take my words back, still checking --Rm125 (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything is OK but Al Aharam must go - this is not RS. It is funny given the fact that RSes spread the same garbage. There is important difference though. You have to present the garbage anyway to put it on the table, otherwise even more conspiracy theories will be invented. However Al Aharam link gives the appearance as a respectable paper which is not true. What do you think, Tiamut? --Rm125 (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using Al-Ahram as a source. The material I added to the article is attributed to Khalid Amayreh's reporting in Al-Ahram. Have a little faith in th intelligence of our readership. They can make their own conclusions about what they want to believe after being presented with a wide array of views. We don't arbitrarily remove views simply because we think they are unreliable. Tiamut 12:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I noticed this quote in the article:

"During an interview with Al-Jazeera in 2002, late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat accused Israel of murdering Palestinian children and harvesting their organs for transplant operations. "They murder our kids and use their organs as spare parts. Why is the whole world silent? Israel takes advantage of this silence to escalate its oppression and terror against our people," said an angry Arafat"

What do you personally think about this quote? --Rm125 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think Arafat said this (that is, the source is correct)? If so, do you think publishing Arafat's comment in this article is acceptable/unacceptable? Ulner (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me I personally believe he says that ( of course my personal opinion doesn;t count here) however the quote is almoust identical to the article we are talking about. This is the same type of occusation no more and no less.Your question is if it acceptible or unecceptable. Depends on intentions.If it is to promote the blood libel it is one thing but if you put it against another opinion-this is completely different. Intention. This is what is important. --Rm125 (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers needed

The reference section can be inproved if somebody not as lazy as me can take on himself to make it look like it belongs to encyclopedia. Thanks. --Rm125 (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#References —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede expansion

The lede is basically bare and I've expanded it according to WP:LEAD by incorporating the major points of the topic. It could still use some work and there will probably be some editors that disagree with some of the wording. I beseech those editors not to pull off blanket reverts, but to collaborate in a constructive manner to create a lede in accordance with WP:LEAD.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you plus as we discussed here

Are you ready to try? I am all for it. The thing it is one of the most important parts and this is the reason I am sure you can help here. I am at your disposal, maestro. --Rm125 (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn has already made some changes, and I added a couple of sentences too. I still think its premature to write a lead, which is why I initially reverted the additions by Brewcrewer. (Plus they were one-sided). I think its too hard to avoid OR and POV in the framing of this controversy at such an early stage (Deciding who is involved and how to describe them). But hey, I'll go with the flow. Tiamut 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rm 125. You deleted this. Would you care to explain why? That information is in our article. Its strange to me that we would mention all the players in this controversy in the introduction, but ignore what Palestinians have to say. Is there any particular reason for excluding their views from the introduction? Tiamut 18:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent

ATTENTION:CONTERPOUNCH IS NOR

] WP:NOR --Rm125 (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Halid from Al Aharam- this is a issue of WP:NOR--Rm125 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Counterpunch is no good, but not exactly for the reasons that you describe. In general, if something is claimed by a reliable source we don't question how they got that information - whether its their original research or based on something more valid. Reliable sources can basically say what they want. However, Counterpunch, which describes itself as as "muckraking with a radical attitude", is in no way considered a reliable source per WP:RS. Their "muckrackings" don't deserve entry into an encyclopedia, especially when its furthering their anti-Israel agenda, and especially when its perpetuating nonsense.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree 110% with you. This is just ONE of the reasons WP:NOR. It is overriding reason and I agree with you. Look, if you have a toolbox with a hammer but you need to kill a bug...you know the rest.. :) --Rm125 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW the same thing with Al Aharam newspaper. The claim is it is WP:RS however it is mess to prove it. So WP:NOR is the tool for the task in hand. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Brewscrewer. another consideration for mr here. I went to arguments and fights with people here in the past. Some people don't have prior knowledge about the sourse and for them it is RS. Sometimes- Ithink_ it is better to be patient with them and present your argument in a mild way. People don't have the same backround and this can be a problem. I admit that I myself sometimes overreact. I see it this way: If you drive your car and you know you are right you have 2 options: euther to craxh your car and still be right or to let the other driver be right but come home to your kids in one piece. Why can't we just get along?

People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the Wikipedians and the Wikipediasses?...It’s just not right. It’s not right. It’s not, it’s not going to change anything. We’ll, we’ll get our justice....Please, we can get along here on Misplaced Pages. We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to work it out! :) --Rm125 (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

More edit comments

Please make even more comments in the edit summary - this makes it easier to follow your arguments. (People here are generally good but even more comments would be nice). Ulner (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This article and how Misplaced Pages should function

This article exists in two languages, English and Swedish. Reading the two articles, you cannot but notice that they are very different. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, because they are both very bad, but for very different reasons. It might be an idea to try to bring them somewhat more in line with each other and to improve them in the process. The worst things with this page (a heapload of redundant and irrelevant information, such as reactions from American congressmen and a looney lawsuit) is missing from the Swedish page. The excessive reporting on how Aftonbladet itself perceive the controversy and the redudant information from just about every Swedish newspaper is luckily missing from this page.Jeppiz (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article needs lots of work still. When you talking about English/Swedish versions you mean the translation or Misplaced Pages versions? If the translation is bad the it can be corrected by someone who is knolegeble. I don't speak Swedish ( just 2 words and all of them bad) so I have nothing to say. Generally let's stick to what we know. I can contribute with Hebrew or Russian versions in which I am equaly fluent, but Swedish?-nada.All the best--Rm125 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper

More and more, this article starts to incorporate everything that has been written about this controversy. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and an article should not try to include everything. I have already pointed out that personal opinions on non-involved individuals are not relevant. I've just removed text about a law-suit. It's not new, it appeared in the news about two weeks ago. However, it is an individual who has filed the claim for himself in the US, and it has no chance of succeeding nor even appear before a judge. While a court process would be notable, rumours about such a process or a looney claim that has no chance of being dealt with simply are not notable. Once again, the challenge we face in this article is to select what we should remove, not add.Jeppiz (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jeppiz; personal opinions on non-involved individuals should be removed. Ulner (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper however it is helpful to reason why this or that piece belongs or doesn't belong here. So in any perticular case when objections are rased the criteria upon which they are based upon needs to be presented. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede once again please read carefully

I just want to clarify couple of points here.

lede is supposed to present the controversy and thats it. It supposed to btiefly present the essense of an argument and to answer the question" what;s all this about" After all we have the whole article to dedicate to various other points and arguments. Generally guys we have to cool down and to think WP:NPOV here.

Some people like Steiberger I tried to answer here ]but looks like Tiamut wants to go with the same line.

Tiamut, you can also see the previous reasons and WP:CS and WP:NOR,WP:SOURCES and also the other point already mentioned inside the article. Generally guys we need to struggle here with our natural tendency to persue our personal point of view. Let's try to rise above it and present the story from WP:NPOV as much as possible.

Let's leave the lede as is. Revert it please.All the best --Rm125 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you click on the link I provided in my reversion of your edit. It goes to a section within the very article that we are discussing here. In that section you can read about the things you deleted but spelled out in greater detail and with sources. So what you deleted could impossibly be OR and if you try to make the point of CS, well, why didn't you delete the whole lead as nothing in it has adequate sources right there? When it comes to "the essence" of this controversy, we do yet don't know what that will be. The controversy is still ongoing. And, to me, if some of the top officials of the PA are to head an investigation into organ harvesting because of this article, I think that would be relevant. Take it back! Steinberger (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Lead sections do not need inline citations if the material is cited in the body of the article (see WP:LEAD), but so there is no confusion I reinstated the material with the citation from the body. Lead sections are meant to summarize the article and the response from the PA is certainly a relevant part of both the article and the lead. nableezy - 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Steinberger, just because you linked to another badly written article doesn't proove your point. The article you mentioned is a big mess. The same argument is applicable to the other one, hovever I don't have time to correct all sins of humanity now. All the best. --Rm125 (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What other article? Steinberger (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"I suggest you click on the link I provided in my reversion of your edit"

--Rm125 (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Is it you? Marhabbah, I am happy you follow me and even make same sense.. --Rm125 (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I got here from the RS/N where some people were oddly trying to say al-Ahram is not a reliable source. Aint no following so please do not suggest that I am. nableezy - 21:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Aftonbladet-Israel controversy#Palestinian Authority is a link to this article. "#" in wikilinks is used to refer to a certain section within an article, in this case where what you deleted as lacking sources had sources... if you follow. Steinberger (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Al Aharam dispute

Some claim that Al-Ahram is a reliable sourse-it is not for this reason Nableezy and I updated Al Ahram. I hope you are satisfied. I hope to put this issue to rest. all the best --Rm125 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, being state owned does not mean it is not reliable. There are other venues for such a discussion, in fact one has already taken place, and most uninvolved editors say al-Ahram does meet the requirements of WP:RS. Al-Ahram is a major news source and you cannot just disregard whatever they publish. nableezy - 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing things cited to al-Ahram just because you do not like it. Your last edit summary cited WP:SPS. The article at Al-Ahram is not a self-published source. It cited WP:BURDEN. The material is cited to a secondary reliable source with an inline citation. It cited WP:PSTS. Al-Arham is a secondary source. Please stop trying to remove a major news source because you dont like what they have to say. The RS/N discussion seems pretty lopsided with the argument that it does meet WP:RS. nableezy - 23:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy it. Find me one instance when this newspaper critisized Mubbarak-there is non.

You can claim that Pravda and Izvestia used to be reliable sourse during soviet times since they used to be state owned... It used to be a joke in Russia; In 'Pravda'(truth} there is no "Izvestia"(information) and in Isvestia (information) there is no "Pravda"( truth)

How sad and pathetic that in 21 century and in 'encyclopedia' from all placed I need to explain the gentelman from Saudi Arabia what a realfree speech means

What i am saying here is that AlAharam is not a reliable sourse-period. You connect to this something that relates specifically to that porsion. You mix things up. Reread first. This is ONLY about Al Aharam and if it is a reliable sourse. Look at the title.All the best to the confused. --Rm125 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As a comment on what is written above, and knowing of that it is an unfair comparison: One of the most reliable and well-thought of newspapers in Sweden is Riksdag & Deparement. Few in Sweden would even question a comma in it, even though it is state owned. I might be naive, but that a paper is state owed is in itself not enough to call it off as unreliable. Neither is apparent bias. That might be your opinion, RM125, but neither is enough for me. Steinberger (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories: