Misplaced Pages

Fatah's facebook page is not a media outlet. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If RSs cover Arab media response (or Fatah or Hamas or Israeli response), that would appear to be appropriate to reflect -- pointing to the coverage in the RSs.

--Epeefleche (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Fatah and the Palestinian Authority's statements and depictions of events (as per RS) whatever media they use are important enough to go in the lead. I am adding them now. Wikieditorpro (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think introducing claims directly in the lead based on assertions by Israeli Hasbara groups like Palwatch is particularly helpful or likely to lead to an encyclopaedic coverage of the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources are reliable as per WP:RS. (And regardless of how you describe them, Palwatch has a long record of accurately documenting the Palestinian Media.)

The reaction of the Palestinian Authority and Fatah as documented by the RS's are as important as the reaction of Abbas himself. Wikieditorpro (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't go into the lead. Unless you wish to get over the idea that this is the PNA key fact, while the other congruent facts that (a) the PNA gave Shib Beit, as often, its key breakthroughs (the car and the fact that two of the Qawasme tribe were suspiciously missing within a day of the kidnapping) are mere details to be buried below. You are doing the POV-pushing, and making unilateral declarations of intent and acting on them immediately, before due discussion should not be done on a page like this.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This is well documented as per RS's. According to the source mentioned here and later, "The president of the Palestinian Authority stands alone in the face of bipartisan support for the kidnapping of Israelis".

Given the opposition to Abbas from his own ranks, It is POV to portray the view of only Abbas himself as the view of all non-Hamas Palestinians. Wikieditorpro (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That is not an explanation of what you have done. You have (a) done a blanket revert of my edit, while explaining your objection is to just one of 4 significant alterations I made to the page.

(a) The blanket revert restored to the lead a POV-pushing piece of cherry-picking as if it were the major feature of the article, which it is not. (The material appeared on a number of Facebook and web sites and was picked up by Palwatch, circulated by Aritz Sheva and then splattered across the internet, but generally ignored by mainstream media from 13-16 of June. The lead gathers the synthesis of events over three weeks: what the lead should say of this is that Abbas stood alone against dissent within the PA/PNA and Palestinian society, as both Elhanan Miller notes (the situation for him is impossible: back Israel against his own society translates into being a Quisling: defend his society, and he is a terrorist). It is also relevant that reports refer that Palestinian opinion has said the kidnappings may be rigged (stupid), that Israel exploits them to destroy both Hamas and the Unity Government; that 640 Palestinians have been arrested, 2,100 houses and buildings ransacked, over a hundred casualties from tear-gas and rubber bullets, and 8 dead, with also the tail-end story of Muhammad Hussein Abu Khdeir which may be settler revenge, or it may be clan vendetta, but it a consequence of the kidnapping like the 'collateral' deaths. Of this nothing, while unilaterally, without substantive debate, and two editors disagreeing, you edited the lead, indifferent to consensual rational construction.

(b) You blind revert was so egregiously indifferent to details that you restored for that 4 sources, 2 of which are identical (Elhanan's article is twice mentioned. You didn't see that. (ii)The other source Arutz Sheva is not considered valid for facts, (iiI)the Australian Jewish Weekly picked this up from Palwatch and Aritz Sheva.

(c) This material is covered by serious analysts, Elhanan Miller and Justin Scott Finkelstein,'Contradictory Signals from Palestinian Authority on Abduction of Israelis,' Foreign Policy Association June 16th, 2014 and Max Schindler, 'How Israeli teen murders are portrayed in Arabic and Hebrew media,' Christian Science Monitor, 1 july 2014. Since Arutz Sheva is contested, Miller and Finkelstein's analyses of the cartoons are the proper sources, and if this goes into the lead, after talk page discussion, so in the lead will go a summary of all of the 35,000 plus thumbs up to Israeli Facebook pages chanting for vendetta, or IDF soldiers, et5c.etc. which are widely reported, but which I haven't jumped at, for example, to try and twist things to favour a partisan view of these tragic events. I.e., (Gad Lerner, Israele, quel selfie dei ragazzi che invocano la vendetta,') La Repubblica, 4 July 2014 pp.1,35; Ben-Dror Yemini, [http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4537464,00.html&sa 'Jewish Jihad developing within us,' at Ynet 4 July 2014, speaks of rabbinical jihad on the margins of this pathology, etc.

The elision of the Amnesty list contesting violations of universal norms can be justified as requiring a synthesis, which someone did. The synthesis was so brief, without touching the lengthy defenses from three Israeli or Jewish law professors (a minority opinion by the way, since those remarks are not reflective of neutral legal scholarship), that the removal of the bulleted list left the section with an WP:Undue imbalance. I made a second succint synthesis, (a compromise) and your blind revert wiped this out without discussion.

More violently, I noted on this page that there was a devious edit that altered and misreported maliciously a source.

In response to proposals in the Security Council to make a statement to the press condemning the kidnapping, and the justifiable deaths of Arab terrorists and rioters during Israel's operations on the West Bank, no agreement could be found.'

The source was note 187, which is Reuters, 'US, Jordan in disagreement at UN over Israel condemnation,' Ynet 24 June 2014.

There is nothing in that source to justify the patient rewriting in the bolded sentence, and the original text honestly reported its contents. You restored the falsified reportage, which had failed verification, and is patently idiotic.

In short, get off the page, and leave it to serious editors who understand source control, do not automatically revert a disliked editor (Nishidani in this case) on sight without checking the nature of the edits, and work out things in a difficult article by careful dialogue and consensus on the talk page, no obiter dicta declarations of intent followed by immediate edits. The mess you made is patently antagonistic and blind, and must therefore, obligatorily, be reverted.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll start off by noting your rather bizarre sense of entitlement and ownership of this Misplaced Pages page. I could end there, but I'll go on anyway.

Firstly, I find it strange that your attack Israel National News being used as (one of three) sources when the notorious Ma'an is used over 40 times as a single source, including being the source of some extremely dubious claims. You can't seriously claim that Ma'an is more reliable than Israel National News. Israel National News also compares favorably to single sources like Al-Monitor which you use to present claims as unimpeachable facts.

Palwatch is certainly a reliable source. Its reports are documented with more photographic, audio and video evidence than any other source that is mentioned in this article. Again, compare that to Ma'an with its ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims, or completely unverified claims from one individual e.g. "One of the refugee camp detainees complained that soldiers had stolen $580 from his wallet."

I haven't made any attempt to introduce the numerous likes and support from the Palestinian public for the kidnappings into this article or any other. There is a huge difference between 35,000 Israelis (less than 1%) liking something and the views of the Palestinian government which is the focus of that sentence and that part of the lead.

The statement "Abbas stood alone against dissent" does not at all convey the attitude of the PA/Fatah mentioned in the sources.

I'm not sure why you think that your sources are "right" and all other sources are wrong. There is certainly no reason why your preferred (POV) "serious analysts" are somehow better than the other sources. If you want to add other sources, I have no problem with that.

You also seem to suddenly think that a Times of Israel article which contained a paragraph that you strongly insisted should be included in the article later on, is suddenly no longer a good source. If its good for the geese, it's good for the gander.

As far as the Amnesty part goes, their views that collective punishment is being employed are clearly outlined as are those of the PA. Refuting claims of collective punishment will necessarily use more words and space than just claiming that one side is using it. Wikieditorpro (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay to repeat. You are talking past the objections to your blind revert. To recapitulate.

• The lead edit was without consensus.- You declared your point of view, met objections and went straight ahead and altered the lead. And re-reverted automatically when I challenged your indifference to collegial editing.
• Other sources exist for Arutz Sheva, which has been challenged here. Indifferent,you went ahead, ignored those sources, and replunked the dubious source back in.
• You didn't examine the sources, because in your revert, you cite twice the same source Elhanan Miller.
• The Amnesty list of several points was reduced to a couple of phrases, while the three fringe comments by legal scholars was unaltered, creating a WP:Undue problem, which I fixed, and which you without discussion reverted.
• You restored a patent and blatant violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:VANDAL, which rewrote the source and article wording-'collective punishment' with the the justifiable deaths of Arab terrorists and rioters during Israel's operations on the West Bank, a fiction attributed by your edit to the UN. You didn't check the source, and you didn't care that this absurd overwriting of the source broke the rules.

The last point proves you did not examine the sources or check what you were doing in reverting me, and above, you fail to respond to it. If you were aware it means that you (a) found nothing troublesome in a deliberate spinning and falsification of sources (b) or don't examine sources, or both. You secondly, ignore the obligation to use the talk page to obtain consensus on questionable edits.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You haven't responded to the points that I raised concerning your bizarre attitude here. It is laughable of you to claim that I edited without talk or discussion being that I've justified all of my edits here.

At the same time you went ahead and made several highly controversial and POV edits without discussing them here first then ranted and raved when I reverted them. Your sense of entitlement is glaring.

Once you accept that you are held to the same standards as other editors, this discussion might become productive. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Add a link to the Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir ?

Should a link to the Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir be added in the "See also" section? These two events appear to be linked. GastelEtzwane (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. According to reliable sources they may be related and so much should be reflected in this article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. You're quite correct, BC, that they may be related, but there are other hypotheses, and until the police finger the malefactors responsible, and clarify whether it was revenge for the 3 boys undertaken by some Israelis, or an Arab honour killing, we should not put this into the See also section, and only do so if it is determined that the revenge hypothesis has been verified.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting opinion. The See also section contains a lot of links to different kidnappings done by the Hamas, but the involvement of the Hamas is just a hypotheses put forward by certain Israelis. Why put one series of links but not the other ? GastelEtzwane (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You have a point. They all deal with ostensible kidnappings (as opposed to murders) of Israelis by Palestinians. But the emphasis is on who did it, not the political affiliation. It is not a matter of Hamas (or any other group). The titles are problematic by the way. One might as well add Murder of Ofir Rahum because the method is identical and in many of these cases, the person is not 'kidnapped', but lured into a car and quickly killed, as here. That doesn't technically qualify as a kidnapping. I think these see also sections lend themselves to POV stacking, and dislike them, but whatever, rules must govern their inclusion or exclusion. Khdeir's case has now been added, in defiance of the talk page here, and should be reverted. Until it is shown that Israelis are culpable, doubts remain as to its relevance to an article dealing with ethnic enmities and violence. Of course, from a Palestinian point of view, it is normative for the State of Israel to 'kidnap' , 'abduct' and 'detain' (to gain information, or compel families to become informers, or to punish suspects, etc.) Palestinians, but we don't have articles on the thousands of incidents of this type, as we don't have articles on the many cases where settlers have kidnapped boys, usually shepherds, and held them for several hours, even a day, for obscure purposes. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Murder or Kidnapping and Murder?

I know that at first this was thought to have been a kidnapping. But there was no ransom demand, in fact, teh murder took place very quickly. Perhaps there is information that it was an attempted kidnapping (for intended political ransom demands. But was it a kidnapping? Or maybe the fact that it has been called one for several weeks makes it one? Creating an article on Murder of Shelly Dadon and trying to understand the verbal distinctions here.ShulMaven (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Suspects in lead

It is well-known that the theocracy Israel has different laws for Jews and Arabs, and that Palestinians in Israel are not presumed innocent until proven guilty, unlike Jews. Misplaced Pages should uphold more humane and civilized norms and not depict suspects as terrorists or murderers based on suspicions and without a trace of evidence. The lead clearly violates WP:BLPCRIME, especially when in the lead. It is also WP:UNDUE in the lead. Should an anonymous statement be in the lead?

Yet, false confessions based on torture, a tradition that US and Israel share, are not announced. But even if, the article should be reserved, to maintain WP:NPOV, also in the article's body. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

what about violence by Palestinian and Israeli Arabs

May be I miss something but I see no info in the article about riots & violence by Palestinian and Israeli Arabs against Jews, about the wrecked tram line, etc. What I see is only such one about Israeli violence.

This applies in particular to the events that occurred after the funeral of three Jewish teenagers and in the following days in Jerusalem and other Israeli cities. There is plenty of evidences in media about them.

This information was not yet in the article, or it has been deleted? --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide links to some good sources so that editors can have look at them ? Maybe it was added to Kidnapping_and_murder_of_Mohammed_Abu_Khdeir#Family_reactions.2C_riots_and_funeral instead. I guess the reactions to these 2 events have merged somewhat. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you have not seen such sources? Basically, my question was to know about this article history, and I haven't receive any answer yet. Imho, this info should be in both articles. --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen sources about Palestinian and Israeli Arab riots & violence against the Israeli army and police. I haven't seen sources about Palestinian and Israeli Arab riots & violence against Jews. Sorry, I can't answer the question about the article history. Haven't been paying enough attention to do that but someone else may know the answer to your question. I guess you can check for large negative edit sizes in the article's history to see whether it has been removed or moved to the other article. I agree that the info should probably be in both articles (and kept synchronized if possible). Sean.hoyland - talk 15:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw a lot of reports also about settler attacks, police violence or collective punishment (see this or this or this or this or this for example, from dozens on what occurred on the West Bank over this period, when eyes were elsewhere) during this period against Palestinians. But since few if any mentioned the kidnapping, I dismissed them as worthy in wikipedia's terms, of inclusion, per WP:OR. A historian knows otherwise, that context counts, but we are not permitted this liberty.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Just killings on occupied land ?

I don't know who murdered these three and what the motives where. But they where all settlers, living on occupied territory and therefore (indirect) a part of a rather brutal, illegal, ongoing and expanding occupation of Palestinian land on the West bank. This background could be an argument for that these murders, if they where politically motivated, could be considered legal and part of a ongoing war. It would have been a completely different issue if the killings have happened within Israels recognized borders. I think these considerations should be a part of the article.--Ezzex (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That is obscene and possibly reportable. Please revert it, and don't open discussions on your views on wiki talk pages.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Only one of the boys lived across the green line in the oPt. Israeli settlers are civilians. Deliberately killing civilians in a war is not legal. See B'Tselem for example,

• Land Expropriation and Settlements in the International Law - "The illegality of the settlements under international humanitarian law does not affect the status of the settlers. The settlers constitute a civilian population by any standard, and include children, who are entitled to special protection. Although some of the settlers are part of the security forces, this fact has absolutely no bearing on the status of the other residents of the settlements."

If a Palestinian militant group argued, as I think they have at times in the past, that Israeli settlers or Israelis in general are not civilians for some reason and said this with reference to these killings, and RS reported it, I suppose that view could be included in the article. But since no group has claimed responsibility, that seems unlikely.

Also, as Nishidani says, talk pages are not for personal views. See WP:TALK. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well you could be right, but I find it strange since it seams that most of the settlers (or at least a large part) have moved there for politically reasons. And people who move there for such reasons are in my mind equal to military combatants.--Ezzex (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hamas evidence

Has the Israeli government provided evidence to the international community that these abductions were constructed by Hamas? It would be great if someone had some sources where the Israeli government provides evidence, especially so we can put it into perspective for the mass arrests of Palestinians as well as the bombings of Gaza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kawasmeh? Qawasmeh? al-Qawasmeh?

Can the name of the suspect Marwan ??? be spelled only one way in the article? Abductive (reasoning) 07:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've standardized it to Qawasmeh (without the al- because most sources drop that) using Q rather than K since it's Template:Lang-ar (per this Ma'an article for example). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Biased article

The article seems to be biased against Israel and depicts Israel as a "bad" country. All the photographs and descriptions seem to be inclined towards Palestine and West Bank. I expect Misplaced Pages to be un-biased and to have balanced representation of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgatade (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

names

While we can say the IDF released names, that is insufficient for Misplaced Pages to give names of "suspects" as Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. I am mindful of the Richard Jewell case where news sources ended up in hot water for their treatment of a "suspect." Until we reach the WP:DEADLINE, the necessity of including names of non-notable living persons eludes me. Collect (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's probably better to keep the discussion in one place for now at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I commented there -- and made an edit which requires I post here per policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I actually hadn't noticed your edit until after my comment. Apparently that's how thoroughly I research the facts before voicing my opinion. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)