Misplaced Pages

Talk:2002 Hebron ambush

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jethro B (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 3 September 2012 (→Distortions by user:Activism1234). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:24, 3 September 2012 by Jethro B (talk | contribs) (→Distortions by user:Activism1234)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.
WikiProject iconIsrael C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A terrorist act?

I find it absurd to label this incident as a “prominent terrorist attack against Israeli targets”. I have no problem in defining the Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing, where 21 civilians were killed, as a terrorist attack. But in this attack only Israeli soldiers and security personnel were killed or wounded. Does that mean that Misplaced Pages considers every Palestinian violent act as a terrorist attack? Even if it is directed at, what Palestinians consider, soldiers of the army of occupation?Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Although the Palestinian militancy organizations' propaganda has constantly stated that any violent acts directed by their armed militants (commonly reffered to by them as "freedom fighters") towards Israeli soldiers or Israeli settlers (including innocent children and babies) is legitimate, in practice, as of yet, the Palestinian militants do not belong to an official military body of a country. Therefore any assault carried out by Palestinian paramilitary forces against forces belonging to a military body of a country (Such as IDF military forces), and especially a well planned fatal ambush against trapped targets, is considered to be an "act of terror" and not a legitimate "battle" between two armies. In any case I suggest we wait and see what the other users think about this matter. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You cannot seriously suggest that your definition of terrorism could ever be applied universally. That "any assault" committed by militants "not belong to an official military body of a country" on "forces belonging to a military body of a country" - and "especially a well planned fatal ambush against trapped targets" - should be described in Misplaced Pages as an "act of terror". And that your "Perpetrator/Victim" dichotomy should be applied on casualties from such assaults. I cannot image you trying to impose this definitions on - to take an extreme example - the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Waffen-SS soldiers described as "victims" of ambushes by Jewish terrorist "perpetrators".
That leaves us with the strong impression that you consider the Israel-Palestine conflict as some kind of special case. Which of course is a legitime personal point of view but I fail to see why Misplaced Pages should reflect this.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I should add that I'm not sure about the legal status of the Kiryat Arba Emergency Response Team. But since it is an armed unit fighting in civilian clothes in an occupied territory I doubt that its status in international law differs much from that of the Palestinian fighters from Islamic Jihad that also took part in the battle. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Since TheCuriousGnome does not seem to have succeeded in rewriting the history of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as an act of terrorism, using his own definition of terrorism, I have changed the structure of the article from that of a terrorist act to that of a battle. I don't like the the terms "victims" vs. "perpetrators". But since I myself used the term "perpetrator" in my original version of the article I will not try to "cleanse" it.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Victims and perpetrators?

TheCuriousGnome is again reintroducing the non-neutral terms "Victims" (for Israeli soldiers killed in battle) and "Perpetrators" (for Palestinian militants killed in the same battle).

Why? This was not a terrorist act and not a massacre, it was a battle between combatants, where – quite unusual for the Israel-Palestine conflict – no civilian casualties were claimed, not even as collateral damage. I think this is a clear violation of the Neutral Point of View and should be removed. Please compare with the Battle of Jenin where the dead Israeli soldiers are not called "perpetrators" or Palestinian militants called "victims". And this for very good reasons. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that TheCuriousGnome has made similar changes in 2006 Hamas cross-border raid, which was another purely military conflict with no civilian casualties, that cannot be described as a terrorist act. I think that Misplaced Pages should take NPOV more seriouly than this. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See my comment in the above section. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, if an incident can be described accurately without using inflammatory words, then there is a very strong (but rebuttable) presumption that no such words should be used.
Please remember this: Deciding not to use the phrase "terrorist attack", does NOT mean it wasn't a terrorist attack. It simply means that it was possible to describe the incident accurately without using those words. Jsolinsky (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
But this is not what Jokkmokks-Goran is asking for us to do. Jokkmokks-Goran is actually asking us drop the phrases "terror attack" and/or "attack" AND reorganize the entire article in such a way that it would be implied that this militant ambush and attack was actually a legitimate battle between two armies (completely false) in which there are no victims or perpetrators (completely false). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead and make edits that you think present this in an NPOV way. You've attracted enough attention to this article, that I'm sure any potential issues will be flagged. You and J-G have so many recent edits, that I can't tell exactly which language is proving contentious. Jsolinsky (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I take that back. My bad. Clearly "victims" and "perpetrators" are the words at issue. I think that "perpetrators" is clearly a problem word. Why not attackers? It provides the same information without suggesting a viewpoint. On the other hand, "victims" is a common word to describe individuals killed in an ambush, even in traditional war time situations. Jsolinsky (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it is valuable to use the article about the Battle of Jenin as a model for this article. The battle of Jenin is described in neutral terms without dividing casualties into “victims” vs. “perpetrators” or as “attacker”s vs. “defenders” or categorizing the battle as a “terrorist act” or “war crime” (or indeed as a “legitimate battle”, whatever that is). It presents the facts and different interpretations and points of view of the violent clash. The article also discusses at length the validity of the “massacre claim” and “war crime claim”. I’m sure we all can have personal issues with the details but I do respect this general approach. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain that different language MUST be used than in the battle of Jenin. But there are significant differences between the events, which would make the use of different language understandable. Although Israeli forces were ambushed in Jenin, they were actively involved in the forceful suppression of the camp.
I find that my own natural tendency is to write "casualties in the battle of Jenin", but "victim of an ambush during the battle of Jenin", in some cases referring to identical deaths. In other words, the word I choose changes based on the context, and in particular based on whether the incident is being described as a two sided battle or an ambush. I'm not saying this is correct. But I am certainly not the only person to describe ambushes in this manner. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
A quick review of other articles about ambushes (in less controversial corners of Misplaced Pages) shows that, while the word victim is occasionally used, it is much less common than the word casualty. On that basis, I would support such a change. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

External links

I deleted all external links which may have been a mistake, and somebody has restored them. In general I think more information is better than less. I thought they were very misleading. All the five articles were published the same day or the day after the attack, before the true nature of the attack became known. They all adhere to the initial official Israeli line that the attack had targeted civilian settlers returning from prayer. This allegation was subsequently proven false and these basic facts are not – to my knowledge – disputed by anybody anymore. No single civilian/non-combatant settler was harmed in the attack.

I don’t mind adding external links but I think they should add some information, which none of them does. I also welcome additions from Israeli or pro-Israeli sources but I don’t think we should include in this section anything published before the facts became known. I also included two sources in this section that somebody has deleted. I included a report from the settler site “Arutz 7” and one from an Islamic Jihad site, but they were in Hebrew and Arabic. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Classification of victims

I think it is highly misleading to call the members of the Kiryat Arba Response Team “civilian security guards”. In my country a civilian security guard is a middle-aged guy with a bunch of keys and a baton, checking locks and looking out for burglars. Not the well-trained professional anti-terrorist force we are talking about here. They were civilians only in the sense that they were not members of the IDF and were not wearing uniforms. They were certainly not civilians in the sense of “non-combatants”, which is how many, probably most, of the readers of Misplaced Pages will understand the term. The distinction between military and civilian or combatants and non-combatants should not be blurred. The killed and wounded Response Team members were all taking part in the hostilities. They certainly were no more civilian than the three Palestinian fighters. Yet no one would ever suggest calling the Palestinian victims "civilian students".

Liberal Haaretz called all the Israeli victims (including the Response Team) “armed fighters” who were killed in combat. http://www.haaretz.com/news/analysis-the-attack-in-hebron-was-not-a-massacre-1.28114 Right-wing Maariv likewise called them ”lochamim” (combatants, fighters, soldiers,…). http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART/932/957.html

To prove that I am not unreasonable, however, I have changed the term to “combatants” and “non-combatants”, which is used at least by several Israeli sources. Reasonable compromise?

But I wish someone could clarify the status of the Kiryat Arba Respone Team. Are they subordinate to IDF or are they an independent settler militia? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

TheCuriousGnome's recent changes

user:TheCuriousGnome, please explain why you have included this battle, where no non-combatants were harmed, in the category of "murder". Do you propose to include every violent act in the Second Intifada involving fatalities as murder?

Please also explain why you have tagged the title of the article with "citation needed".

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Distortions by user:Activism1234

You are misrepresenting the facts. The initial Israeli version of the battle as a massacre of civilian worshippers was a distortion of the facts. Nobody today claims that any civilians were killed or indeed were targeted in the attack. Certainly not the Israeli government. Don’t try to resurrect this myth or cast doubts about the events.

Moving Powell’s and Annan’s reaction to a separate section is also disingenuous. Their reactions was not to what actually happened in Hebron but what they thought had happened, by believing the initial official Israeli propaganda spin.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you can still condemn a terrorist attack regardless of who was killed. Nothing in their statements indicate it was only because it was a massacre, and that they discarded this afterwards.
Secondly, your editing is explicitly biased. My version was very neutral. Consider "International media outlets and world leaders quickly picked up this official Israeli terminology." Or more explicitly, "The true nature of the battle became clear the following day when the identities of the victims were made public." That's more of a personal statement and bias than something for Misplaced Pages. Or "The only settlers" also hints at bias, as well "The Palestinian fighters only targeted." firstly, referring to them as "fighters" when they're from Islamic Jihad, as opposed to writing say militants, shows your bias. Secondly, it gives the assumption that Islamic Jihad is a legitimate organization that doesn't seek to target civilians, except for the other terrorist attacks that target civilians. It also gives the impression that the IDF soldiers were engaged in combat, and instead were simply walking home.
The version now isn't as biased as it was before, but is still pretty biased. I hope others will see that. --Activism1234 21:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, Powell and UN are already in the article below, we dont need them again. --Activism1234 21:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't differ between facts and points-of-view. You are trying to conceal facts to promote your very extreme point of view that have been disproved.
Facts (as far as I know not disputed by anyone outside Misplaced Pages)
1) Palestinians ambushed Israeli soldiers and killed a lot of them
2) Israel claimed that civilian Jewish worshipers were killed
3) Many International media and politicians condemned the killing of Jewish civilians
4) Israel admitted that no civilians were hurt
I see no reason why Misplaced Pages should not reflect these facts.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Jokkmokks, do you understand what WP:NPOV is. It would seem you do not. WP:NPOV means that you can't portray the attack according to your own personal beliefs. It's sad if you really think that calling terminology "misleading" on an encyclopedia conforms with neutrality.
WP:NPOV means that you can't write "Official Israeli spokesmen initially tried to portrait the battle as a massacre of civilian Israeli settlers returning from Sabbath prayers. This version was subsequently disproved." Firstly, that's not even comprehensible English. Secondly, you're writing info based on how you perceive later references, and violating neutrality by saying that they tried to do this and this is what they attempted to portray it as. WP:NPOV would just be reporting the statements that were made, that it was a massacre, and then what followed - certain media outlets changed this wording after initial reports. My version reports all of that - but without attempting to portray any of them as the fact, because that's your view, it may not be mine, and it sure as hell wasn't the Israeli official's. Regardless of whether they were soldiers, they weren't in combat, they were returning home, and the official who said it was a massacre may very well still agree with that statement, and if he doesn't, others will. Since there are conflicting views, we need to report it in a neutral way - again, NOT what you claim to be facts. I'm sure that many people would still agree that it is a massacre - so writing that "they tried to portary it" as something is false, original research by interpreting this from other refs below, and violates WP:NPOV. Stop with the POV. It's your own unreferenced personal biased opinion. You're also removing information from "international reactions" to a different section, contrary to how we format such articles, in what I can only perceive to be another attempt to minimize the event, and portary it as a legitimate battle between soldiers to conform to your POV.
Also, you've gone through the article and deliberately changed many words or added words or sentences for which there are not references, in order to conform with your POV that this was some legitimate battle between legitimate soldiers who marched into battle for a tactic. We don't put this on Misplaced Pages.
Again, we don't need to conceal anything, as long as it's mentioned in a reliable reference. But we can't write it to conform with your own POV. If an Israeli official said they weren't civilians, we can write that, and attribute it to that official. But that doesn't mean we go throughout the article, and use that statement as the basis for saying it wasn't really a massacre and that such terminology is obviously misleading. Writing that it's "misleading" is your own POV, no matter what other people have said - those can be written, with attributions. This is a fundamental concept of Misplaced Pages. If you can't grasp this, I'd suggest not editing such contentious articles.
And lastly, when you open a section on the talk page to discuss NPOV, don't just make major changes while this discussion is going on without consensus. Especially when you're going to violate NPOV by deliberately calling the termionology "misleading" or saying that "media outlets picked up on this misleading terminology" or by attributing an op-ed to an entire newspaper. Feel free to think that, doesn't mean we write that on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. --Activism1234 20:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not the first time that you're violating WP:OR - for example, please show me where in the sources it stated "Official Israeli spokesmen initially tried to portrait the battle as a massacre of civilian Israeli settlers returning from Sabbath prayers"?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Shrike, please read the article.
Gilad Millo, spokesman of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs said:"This sabbath massacre is the second time in a week that innocent civilians have been senselessly murdered either in their beds or on their way to prayers. No political process can take root while these atrocities continue to be carried out by terrorists."
Activism1234, what you call POV are facts. Israeli spokesmen lied about the identity of the Israeli victims to enlist foreign sympathies and cover up an embarrassing military defeat.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes he said that of course, but your conclusion of his words shouldn't appear in the article at all.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying that a person "lied" becuase you don't think it's a massacre is POV and BLP violation. As said, many would surely think it was a massacre. It's your POV that it isn't a massacre. There are conflicting views. For example, you may say that Scandinavia is the most awesome place in the world filled with radiant goodness and tolerance, but that's a POV, not a fact, and simply saying "it's a fact" doesn't make it one. In such a case, we simply say what happened as it went along, without any POV nonsense. --Activism1234 16:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There were no "innocent civilian" victims, as claimed by Israel, only combatants who were killed in battle. These are facts, disputed - as far as I know - by no one. You are trying to create a false impression that there are conflicting views about what happened. You have repeatedly deleted relevant information, including well-sourced material such as the Haaretz article.
I will not agree to a move Powell's and Annan's comments to a separate section for Reactions. These were reactions to Israeli disinformation and not to the actual deed.
I have tried to change the wording to accommodate your views but you delete everything I write, including a correction of a link. You deleted the fact that three high-ranking officers were killed. You falsely claimed that the article from Journalisten was an op-ed. It was not. If you understand Swedish you can make that out from the link itself. "Nyheter" means news.


Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere is it given that Powell and UN only replied becauase an Israeli official termed it a massacre. Their responses appear to be a reaction to the attack. There isn't any evidence to the contrary, other than your "gut" or your POV.

And yes, it is an opinion by a person - that's why there's a picture of a guy next to it and his email address on the bottom. Perhaps it's an editorial by someoen on their board, but it's still an opinion. I don't recall deleting it and I'm fine with keeping it, but your POV issues that whatever you want to say is true is a major issue. If you think it's a massacre, you feel we should add unsourced OR statements and change the passage to fir that POV, rather than remain neutral. Even if a poll was held and everyone in the world said that it wasn't a massacre, including every Israeli, it wouldn't call for the POV that you put on a Misplaced Pages article. Because simply put, that's not how Misplaced Pages is written. --Activism1234 18:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you consult Google Translate which will give you a rough idea about what the article is about. It's a news report written by one of the magazine's reporters, Paul Frigyes. He has no photo byline as you claim. That's a - ever changing - link to other stories. It is not an op-ed.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjournalisten.se%2Fnyheter%2Fdodade-soldater-blev-israeler
The key question is not whether it was a "massacre" or not. Every lost battle may be perceived as a massacre by the losers. The key question is whether non-combatants were targeted or hurt. In this case the answer is no. Israel deceived the world by claiming this. But of course Islamic Jihad has targeted Israeli civilians many times before and after this incidentJokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC).

Once again, even if we assume that these were non-combatants, and even if we assume that calling it a massacre was a deception, that wouldn't mean that we can use POV terminology and weasel words throughout the article, because again, you view it as a deception, others don't. So we simply report it as it is. --Activism1234 19:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to assume anything about "non-combatant" victims. We know. There were none, according to official Israeli information. Denied by no one. Except you. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
"By no one" is a bit of an overstatement no? That's the reason we need to be so careful on Misplaced Pages - such statements simply can't be true, and we need to preserve neutrality. That's also a reason why we do our best not to call a person terrorist in the lead of an article - look at Osama bin Laden for example. I believe he was a terrorist, and I hope you do too. But Misplaced Pages policies say to avoid such terminology in the lead of such articles - and let's be honest here, many people in the Middle East don't view him as a terrorist. Misplaced Pages's whole goal is to preserve neutrality, regardless of majority-minority disputes. --Activism1234 20:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems obvious that the Colin Powell statement on the day after the attack about the "killing of Israeli worshipers" and the Kofi Annan statement on the day of the attack about the killing of "Jewish worshippers on their way to the Sabbath eve prayers" should be integrated into the article text so that they appear in context and in the correct place on the timeline. These statements were clearly made before all of the facts were available and they shouldn't be decontextualized. "contrary to how we format such articles" isn't a legitimate argument because there is no "we" relevant to this kind of decision and there is no "format". We can and should do whatever is best for the readers, and I think in this case, presenting those statements out of context isn't helpful to the readers. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Obvious? Perhaps to you... But perhaps not to me? Perhaps not to my neighbor. We can't write a Misplaced Pages article based on our "gut" or what seems "obvious" to us. --Activism1234 16:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
What specifically is unclear to you ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
How do we know that these reactions were only due to the statement it was a massacre, and weren't lasting, permanent reactions? A bomb blows up in Afghanistan and kills U.S. troops, it sometimes does gets condemned, regardless of whether they're civilians or troops, so I don't see how we can conclusively say that their reactions were only because of the statement it was a massacre (and that would also be assuming they heard that as well), and they rejected this afterwards. --Activism1234 17:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Jokkmokks-Goran. User:Activism1234 is clearly POV pushing. JonFlaune (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your position?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No need. He's been blocked for 2 weeks for bad behavior on contentious articles and, as evident here, Wikihouding me.
Categories: