Talk:2014 Gush Etzion kidnapping and murder/Archive 4

Was there consensus to remove the Palestinian casualties?

They're missing again. I haven't seen any consensual discussion on this, after the last indecisive one.Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe they were removed yesterday by someone with one edit from a mobile,no real reasons given. You can put them back if you want to.[1] GGranddad (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they should be in the info box. The main point of this article is about the kidnapping and murder of the three teenagers. The Palestinian civilians killed after the fact shouldn't be in the info box since they weren't part of the original three teenagers during the event of the kidnapping and murder. Information about the Palestinian civilians should be in the body of the article. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly whoever keeps removing them wants to hide the fact that the IDF acted in a typically ridiculous and abusive fashion during the duration of the search for the three.

To the user above me-- the Palestinians killed (murdered) by the IDF should very much be in the box because their deaths are a direct result of the actions undertaken by the IDF and other elements of the Israeli forces in the West Bank. Their deaths at the hands of the Israelis are no less important to put into prominence then the initial three "settlers" who were kidnapped.

70.31.80.103 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not about whether they should be there or not. It is about proper collegial wikipedia editing. This was discussed, and no decision for removal was reached, and editors on the removal side have honorably left those names in. (b) IP unregistered user deletions are revertible automatically without infringing 1R, and this is the case here, particularly since the three items of information removed were taken out with a deceptive edit summary and no recourse to the talk page took place. This should be decided by discussion, not edit-warring.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, but I'm saying I think it should be removed. The title of the article is specifically "2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers" not "2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers and subsequent killing of Palestinian civilians". The infobox has a time stamp, date, and location for a reason. It's specifically talking about the event of the kidnapping and murders of the Israeli teens. The info box is also misleading because it lists Palestinians killed, and then it says there are 530 suspects. Is that saying that the Palestinians were killed by the same 530 suspects that killed the Israeli teens? I don't think so. Also, I don't know why Palestinian is bolded in the info box, but Israeli isn't. I am not saying the Palestinians killed shouldn't be in the article. They should be in the body of the article, just not the info box because the info box is specifically about the event of the kidnapping and murder of the Israeli teens. Knightmare72589 (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Knightmare72589 here. This article refers to the specific incident of the killing in which the victims were the 3 Israeli teens. Inserting the Palestinian casualties here is confusing and misleading. If you want to open an article about operation "Brothers Keeper" go ahead and insert the Palestinian casualties there. Best wishes Tkalisky (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also agree that it doesn't belong as the article is about the kidnapping, not about all its consequences. The logic supporting its inclusion would also require the inclusion of all the causalities of the 2014 Gaza Israel conflict, which is also partly a consequence of the kidnapping. This was all explained @ Talk:2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers/Archive 2#tangential material in infobox. Perhaps the faulty logic has registered with its supporters in the past discussion and this is why there is less opposition to its removal. Its placement in the infobox appears to be pov-pushing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is the lack of separation of the kidnapping and murder from the following Operation. I think this article needs to be all inclusive of the kidnapping and the Operation, or they need two separate articles. - Galatz (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So are we in agreement that it should be removed? Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I do think it sounds like everyone is in agreement of that, should the arrests be removed too because those were more the operation rather than the murder. I also think the idea of splitting Operation Brother's Keeper into its own article should be addressed. - Galatz (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

'Everyone' appears to mean all editors here who have a notable pro-Israeli POV. And given that there are no policy based arguments, but just partisan opinions, one should go to an RfC to get independent input on such a delicate issue. While it is understandable that from that perspective dead Palestinians in any Israelocentric article are just collateral minutiae, as argued in the archives there are precedents for this, and that is why the names were not removed. I.e. check the infoboxes here

Kidnapping and murder of Nachshon Wachsman

Kidnapping and murder at Munich::::::::::

Entebbe kidnapping and shoot-out

Boston Marathon bombings

Ma'alot sequester and massacre

Kiryat Shmona sequester and killings

All sorts of reasons were thrown up against these parallels, none in my view convincing except as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The main point is that one of the five pillars here is WP:NPOV, which means narratives must represent how both sides see common incidents, and from a Palestinian perspective the deaths of those five are an integral element in the story, which of course pro-Israeli editors prefer not to consider. Since it is a POV- issue, therefore, plunk a RfC here to get neutral or outside input. (Many kidnap killing articles, I checked, had collateral victims in the infobox).Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but not everyone who disagrees with you is Israel-centric or pro-Israel. Some people are just making a logical conclusion. The date, time, location, perpetrators, and name of the article are specifically referring to the kidnapping and murder of the Israelis. The dead Palestinians weren't killed at that date, time, location, and weren't killed by those perpetrators. And the examples you gave, most are actually supporting the people who think it should be removed. Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the Palestinians should be put back in the infobox.GGranddad (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Knightmare72589 I actually count 4-2 against you, who exactly are you counting then to get to the conclusion that the majority is with you?GGranddad (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, all the examples that Nishidani brought show the opposite: the perpetrators mentioned there were killed during the same incident. Here the Palestinian casualties were killed in a separate incident that started after the kidnapping. First there was Brother's keeper, then the murder of an Arab Israeli teenager, then riots, and then a whole war with Hamas in Gaza. Although these events are all connected, each one of them is a separate incident and deserves an article of its own. You can't clump them together. Best wishes Tkalisky (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No. One of the dead in the Boston Marathon bombings was shot four days after the bombing, for example. You can 'clump' them together. It is a matter of editorial judgement. The point is that the articles I cite speak of incidents which, in the end, finished in a shoot-out and the casualties on both sides were killed. This article deals with an incident, what was thought to be a kidnapping, and the follow-up as attempts were made to 'bring home our boys' attempt that left 5 Palestinian casualties from IDF gunfire, so the difference you say is decisive is, in my view specious. People just don't want an 'Israeli-victim' article spoiled by the presence of Palestinian casualties. I've never edited to keep Israeli casualties out of predominantly 'Palestinian-victim' articles, because I believe that kind of discrimination constitutes an insouciance to NPOV. From a Palestinian perspective, those 5 dead, are part of the key narrative, from an 'Israeli' perspective it's 'tangential' (read 'trivia').Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the person from the Boston Marathon bombings was a perpetrator, directly related to the incident. Here the Palestinian victims were killed in a separate incident which was part of an operation that can have an article in its own right. Same situation in all other examples you brought. Be well Tkalisky (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Meshaal's denial

As a general point, I would be careful about Wikipedia uncritically accepting and putting undue weight on Meshaal's denial that Hamas political leadership were aware of the kidnapping, as if this proves the organization's innocence. Meshaal is an exiled political spokesman, mainly for Western audiences, and the degree to which he controls Hamas military operations is highly dubious. For example:

[Meshaal] disclaimed any direct responsibility for the Hamas suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians during the 1990s and 2000s. "I'm a political leader, and I do not interfere in military affairs," he said. "What the Palestinian people do in resisting occupation are details that I do not get myself involved in."

He took a similar position when pressed about the onslaught of Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, a stance that raises questions about just how much control the group's political leaders have over its military wing. He acknowledged that in the past, Hamas got its rockets and weapons from "different sources" — an apparent reference to aid that the group's military wing has gotten from Iran. "Now it's becoming very difficult to move these rockets through, and we manufacture most of them, if not all of them, in Gaza," he said. "We depend on ourselves in making our weaponry."

Meshaal was asked how many rockets Hamas has. "I don't know," he said, smiling. "I'm the head of the political bureau...I direct the policies and the positions. But not the details when it comes to military issues."

Meshaal did acknowledge that Hamas members were behind the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers hitchhiking on the West Bank in June but said Hamas political leaders did not know about the operation "in advance." Still, he justified the killings as a legitimate action against Israelis on "occupied" lands. "Our view is that soldiers and settlers in the West Bank are aggressors, and they are illegally living in these occupied and stolen lands," he said. "And the right to resist them is the right of Palestinians."

Just a concern of mine.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well if I was him I would not be claiming I was responsible for any attacks at all being as he has just signed up for the Palestinians going to the ICC.Have you ever thought he was not really being honest in that interview for personal safety issues, like not doing 30 years in prison for war crimes?I think the piece about him in the article is fine, it is sourced from main stream media and meets wikipedia standards.Why do you not believe him when he says he did not know about the kidnapping but believe him in the article you posted? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me..GGranddad (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

"The investigation concluded that the kidnapping operation's costs ran to NIS220,000, a sum procured by Hossam Hassan Kawasmeh (40), with the assistance of his brother, Mahmoud, who was exiled to the Gaza Strip in the Gilad Shalit exchange in November 2011, to purchase the two vehicles and weaponry."

The NIS part currently leads to a disambiguation page. Could someone please fix the link so it leads straight to the Israeli new shekel page? I'd do it myself, except the article's semi-protected. 124.171.105.194 (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph from Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict

I think this paragraph is more fit to here than to Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, but I can't add it:

Additionally it was reported by BBC that Israel intends to "...expropriate 4 sq km (1.5 sq miles) of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank." The reasoning came from the military-run local administration whom said it was a response to the kidnapping and killing of three Jewish teenagers in the area in June. --LunekALfr (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

On 1 September, it was reported by BBC that Israel intended to "expropriate 4 sq km (1.5 sq miles) of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank". The military-run local administration said it was a response to the kidnapping and killing of three Jewish teenagers in the area in June.

A variation of the paragraph is appropriate to both pages, since in a widely held view, that was a key event to the war. Related wiki articles contain overlaps like this for obvious reasons, as do all other forms of interrelated informational bases. Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you wrong but I will not start a long discussion for a paragraph. If you will read closely the news you will see that this decision was made before "Operation Protective Edge" and as "a response to the kidnapping and killing of three Jewish teenagers in the area in June" => Post of "kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers". Wikipedia offers to read others article. If we start to had subject to Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict as "settlement", "kidnapping" etc, there will be too much subject to write about.LunekALfr (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Zoabi's

Does anyone think Hanin Zoabi's family dispute should somehow be included? Given that there are at least 2 quotes from her in this article (and another about her), there were family members of Hanin who criticized her, and started a family dispute with death threats being made against her nephew who criticized her and needed police protection. Hanin also called him a "stupid boy with a twisted identity." This actually gained widespread coverage in Israel.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/03/mohammed-zoabi-says-anti-semitic-terror-supporting-aunt-should-leave-israel-video/

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4530956,00.html Knightmare72589 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Artificial connection: "Two Three days after the publication on 9 June of the autopsy report…"?

Three days after the publication on 9 June of the autopsy report on the cause of death of one of the victims of the Beitunia killings,[58] the three Israeli teenagers were abducted.[59][60][61][62]

I've already corrected the error in this calculation as well as "9 July" one. But I do not find such "N-days connection" in the sources. Moreover, only HRW's one is dated by 9 June, others wrote about "After undertaking an autopsy of the body of Nadim Nawarah, 17, on Wednesday" (11 June) and are dated by 12 June. So I'd offer to erase this sentence at all, finishing this paragraph at existing "… Naqba day in May?". --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below; please note that discussions of the scope of existing articles are usually outside of the purview of WP:RM. Dekimasuよ! 22:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers → Operation Brother's Keeper – Clearly the article doesn't deal only with the murder/kidnapping of the teenagers, but with all the consequences up to the moment Operation Protective Edge began. Operation Brother's Keeper already exists as a redirect here. The kidnapping/murder is important as a trigger for the operation, but is generally a less notable part of the whole sequence of events. “WarKosign” 19:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No. That would occlude the opportunity to write a page on 'Operation's Brother's Keeper' which covers vastly more ground than the strict search for the bodies of the murdered 3, and the apprehension of their killers, which is the focus of this articleNishidani (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC).

Of course the article can be expanded, including moving some excessive material that is currently at the 2014 conflict's background section over here. “WarKosign” 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is often unfortunate to move the articles to the names given by IDF. These names are rarely (ever?) neutral. Huldra (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

One responsibility issue left out

The current version of the article doesn't seem to mention that for many Israelis, it didn't matter too much whether this was a pre-approved and pre-planned official Hamas operation or not -- since once senior Hamas figures chose to praise the killing of the three, from that point onwards, Hamas now "owned" the killing, as far as the Israelis are concerned... AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the inclusion of that one might be difficult - a)argumentative POV?; b) support from non-WP:POV sources. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a reputable source conveniently at hand, but if you leave it out, then you leave out a significant influence on Israeli public opinion and possibly decisionmaking. AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion is meaningless for these articles. Palestinians think the Israelis in the IDF kill civilians as a matter of policy, pour encourager les autres, or, as in individual cases, for the personal pleasure of specific individuals who appear to believe their uniform gives them a license to kill at whim, but it throws no light on the issue. Senior Israeli political figures have called for genocide, and routinely praise 'operations' that kill 'suspects' whose guilt has not been established by due process and whose capture is not considered as an operational possibility. The only difference is that Israel is a state, and it is assumed it behaves as a normal law-abiding state during incessant military operations against an occupied people, and the rump statelet that performs military operations against the occupier is 'terroristic'. Such larger points of view and the way they inflect public opinion are as useless as tits on a bull, and their insertion only leads to POV twiddling.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As with tits on a bull, some may perhaps find them interesting to look at. Epeefleche (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani revert

[2] In this revert Nishidani re-added information with a double strawman edit summary and failed to respond to the prior edit summary. The basis for removal is that Pappe's surmising is redundant as three advocates that have similarly surmised the same way and are listed prior to Pappe. I invite Nishidani or other editors that support Pappe's inclusion, per WP:BRD, to explain why they think it is necessary to include another opinion of another advocate saying the same thing as three previous listed commentators. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer:Firstly, many thanks for your civil approach to editing a contentious topic. A N000bie question - is it customary to revert before there has been a discussion on "Talk". I tend to do it in the reverse order from you - "Talk" first, then revert.

Regarding your question as to why Pappé's source should be retained: The previous two citations, which you refer to, present an analysis that the mid-2014 conflict did not start with the murder of the three Israeli teenagers, but with the earlier murder of two Palestinian teenagers (plus Netanyahu's wish to disrupt the Fatah-Hamas unity process). Pappé on the other hand examines something very different, namely that the murder of the three Israeli teenagers could have been in reprisal for the earlier killing of the two Palestinian teens (amongst others). Of course we might never know, because the two militants accused by Israel of being the perpetrators (Kawasme and Aysha), were killed. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer:Given lack of reply, the original revert has been undone.Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer:You have been observed to be doing 'salami' edits of text (where your earlier attempts at deletion were previously undone - see earlier Talk), slicing away its content in small pieces, but which cumulatively amount to making a significant deletion. In addition, your lack of discussion in "Talk" has now established itself as a habit in violation of Wiki protocol for contentious articles. I am editing the effect of all of your deletions as follows:

1) In your first salami slice in the series (20:24, 23 December 2014) you give as your justification - "does not appear to be a reliable source" - a self-admitted POV. Reverted. 2) In your second of 20:28, 23 December 2014‎ the citation sources had changed. Instead of offering discussion in "Talk", you simply reverted the text plus the citation, in violation of Wiki recommendations. I will be re-entering the essence of the text with a different citation. 3) In your Revision as of 20:31, 23 December 2014 your "justification" is a trite "trim" - utterly unacceptable; verging on edit-warring. Reverted.

Please stop these bad-faith edits and discuss before hacking. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer:I have now realised that in your Revision as of 20:31, 23 December 2014, justified solely as "trim" with zero discussion in "Talk", you completely removed the Pappe text about which there has already been significant debate. This is now verging on vandalism, and as a consequence I am now recording a log of all of your bad-faith actions, current and past. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this. Brewcrewer my edit summary did respond. My edit removed the quote from Pappé, but retained it because it is wrong to call one of 4 sources 'redundant'. Any of those sources is 'redundant' if you think just one of 4 is enough, which was not the case. This, I thought, was obvious, and my editing of the Pappé material was a compromise between two positions.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

For the fifth time in less than a month Brewcrewer has deleted text that has been subject to "Talk" discussion, without any participation in that discussion, and offering as "justification" in his one-liner only some personal opinions involving concepts such as 'nonsense', 'fringe' and 'probably'. I continue to record a list of his non-constructive deletions. Reverted the deletion. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Instead of recording lists and dishing out ad homonyms why don't you provide the sourcing for your proposed wording. Let's start with the first two words: "international correspondents." Please provide a source for this.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer:: If you has been following the topic you would know that "International correspondents" was not my text. Please address the author for the exact detail. @All Rows4: - in the meantime are you both aware of where Rachel Shabi has her origins, has had her articles published, which countries they cover, where she has had her book reviewed, and where she studied and lives? Regarding Pappe's international status, I am not even going to bother with that one, other than to point out that this reknown Israeli historian is currently a Professor at a college of International Studies at a UK university. But I bow to the original author should that still be necessary. Erictheenquirer (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC) More about Rachel Shabi - the Guardian notes her as: "She received the International Media Awards Cutting Edge prize in 2013, the Anna Lindh Journalism Award for reporting across cultures in 2011" The more I seek, the greater her international confirmation. Erictheenquirer (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll try again: please provide the source supporting the claim that "International correspondents noted the similarities between the Nakba-day killings of two Palestinian teenagers and the murders of the Israeli teenagers." Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Chaps. This is simple. Stop facing off.

"Similarities between the Nakba-day killings of two Palestinian teenagers and the murders of the Israeli teenagers have been noted by (foreign) observers."

Or something along those lines. Where a simple variation on phrasing is readily feasible, let's try to adopt a policy of creative negotiation rather than hunkering down into predictable positions, ay. New Year Resolution no.2.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I support that text. I hope the original author is OK with the change. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, given no contributions by User:Brewcrewer or User:All Rows4, your suggestion is the agreed text. I will edit to reflect this. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I also reinstated deleted text that had nothing to do with the disputed "international correspondents". Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I had to revert your edit. The "others" and the "analysts" does not appear to be sourced. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a serious policy and there is no leeway here and there for personal assumptions, editorializing, and the sort. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Brewcrewer, your semantic points have been addressed. I have plenty of free time to devote to such lightweight issues. I am also noting your deletion of perfectly WP:RS citations without any reason having been provided. Your list of destructive deletions keeps growing. Nonetheless, thanks for using "Talk" this time. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer: for the 6th time in a month you reverted an edit of mine (only) in this article , without "Talk". In all cases your justification contained no facts or supporting evidence, or POV resoning on the few occasions that that is provided. As an example of the latter, I refer to one of your very few discussions in Talk on 15 January above, in which I notice the use of the POV adverb "appeared" in reference to "unsourced" in your attempted justification above on 15 January, and the huge anomaly of this excuse, given that your revert consisted mainly of the deletion of three citations.

So please implement your threat ASAP, because I am tired of your obstructive edits, your disrespect for Wiki 'Talk'-discussion protocol, your justifications based on subjective POVs, your salami editing tactics, your lack of support, evidence, WP:RS and of reasoning, your deletion of text material way beyond that (not) addressed in your extremely brief 'justifications'; your vandalistic "trim" edit; your deletion of text and citations already discussed in "Talk" without any response from you; your latest deletion of "commentators" when you yourself described them as such on 4 January; etc. As evidence I have a screed of Wiki documentation from the articles History and Talk pages.

I have exhausted the discussion facilities. You are welcome to implement your AE threat. In the meantime I intend to explore mediation channels. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer: - I have been advised to review carefully the text and the content and to be scrupulous about text that does not reflect the cited sources. I have done this and have found that the wording that commentators "noticed the similarities between" should be changed to commentators "compared". Other that this trivial bit of semantics, I cannot find any further fault with the text or citations. I invite your response providing details and not just one-liner opinions. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer: - no response from you. I am now reverting your deletions - 'justified' by you as being "unsourced information" - for the following reasons:

• Your deletion of "Other analysts concurred that earlier triggers could be equally valid" - the text had cited sources. Christine Leuenberger specifically used the word "trigger". You deleted an attribution to her plus the cited source. Given that your justification was false, that amounts to vandalism. Rachel Shabi uses the word "start" instead of "trigger". That is semantics, but I have nonetheless altered the text to reflect both usages.
• Your deletion of the Shabi and the repeat of the Leuenberger citations is unjustified. The only objection can be based on trivial semantics as noted previously. I nonetheless changed "noticed the similarities between" to "compared" so as to cater even for the trivial. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

alternative narratives by Blumenthal and alternative media

I think this article reads as if the facts were less in dispute than they are.

I'm still trying to understand the citation rules. It seems to me cites to Zionist and Jewish blogs, or other very partisan sites, are often used as links, but anything presenting the alternative isn't good enough. That said, what Max Blumenthal has written others have as well.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/netanyahu-government-knew-teens-were-dead-it-whipped-racist-frenzy/13533

What about a new section just briefly introducing the truth about the Israeli government using it as a pretext to murder more of the indigenous population?

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/07/08/who-started-the-cycle-of-violence-in-palestine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.249.155 (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Occupied

It looks like SupremeDeliciousness reverted multiple editors over the issue before another editor seemed to agree. I don't believe it is necessary include "occupied" before West Bank. I know that it is an accurate statement and that some editors would like West Ban to never appear on Wikipedia without the "occupied" disclaimer. However, there is an entire article to explain it and a wikilink. It almost reads as if Wikipedia's voice is saying "hey they died but they got it for being in occupied land so screw 'em". I doubt that is the intent, of course.Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Enough of this nonsense. RfC for "occupied"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus for describing the West bank as occupied in the lead. AlbinoFerret 02:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the West Bank be described as "occupied" in the lead? Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes: This page has been under assault by numerous IPs and throwaway accounts removing "occupied". While the term is of course accurate (the official term is the "occupied Palestinian Territories", or oPT) I can see arguments for someone claiming that the use here is gratuitous. It comes down to a judgment call. My judgment is that it is not gratuitous, and there is no implication of the teenagers bringing it on themselves. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

See Khaled Meshal (leader of Hamas)'s justification for praising the kidnapping here. "soldiers and settlers are ... illegally living in this occupied and stolen land. And the right to resist is the right of Palestinians." As repugnant as the justification may be, it is surely germane to the topic. This, together with Nableezy's links below to other news outlets (having nothing to do with Meshal), which describe the West Bank as occupied, leaves no doubt in my mind that the use of "occupied" in the lead is not gratuitous but appropriate. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems you are using an anachronistic argument - the concept "Palestinian territories, Occupied" (OPt) was utilized by the UN lexicon from 1998 to 2013 in order to refer to PNA; but it was then switched to "Palestine, State of" (SoP). Also, if you are using Khaled Mashal's claim for "occupied and stolen land" you should also utilize a counter claim for "liberated land" by an Israeli source for NPOV, shouldn't you?GreyShark (dibra) 05:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not anachronistic. The term oPT is still used by the UN and others. See this for an example. The declaration of the State of Palestine changes nothing about the status of the occupation. As to your other point, I was not using Meshal's claim for "occupied" - that was part of the motivation, and thus the relevance of the term. "Occupied" is disputed by nobody in this discussion, including Cptnono, and I assume yourself. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Leaning no There is a wikilink for that detail. We don't say "the democratic United States" or the "Hometown of the Beetles, Liverpool". I am being a little hyperbolic since the context here is more related even if in a round about way (there might not have been an attack at all if the land wasn't occupied but who knows for certain). It still comes across unnecessary, though. Also, should we instead be opening up an RfC to seek thoughts on if every single mention of the area should be quantified with "occupied" across the entirety of the English Wikipedia.Cptnono (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - its a part of the story, and major news outlets covering invariably include that detail in the beginning of their articles. See NBC News, Reuters, BBC, The Telegraph. This was, and Im not trying to sound insensitive or supportive of such acts, the stated motivation of the abductions, and as such an important part of the story. nableezy - 15:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Unsure. I am generally against the reflex use of adding 'occupied' wherever West Bank is used, and I think Cptnono does have a point on this. I just removed one example, the second use of it in the main text, and the other might go out, if the lead use of it stands. On the other hand, it could be removed from the lead, and then mentioned in the main article. This is a delicate consideration - some headlines used do indeed employ (Booth) the adjective in their articles on the topic, which is good grounds for lead retention. At the moment, I'll reserve judgement until further comment emerges.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The incident is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. If there was no occupation, the incident would not have happened. The incident happened as a direct result of the occupation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Nor should we call it Judea and Samaria. Both are POV. Let's keep this NPOV, and let readers read more at the articles on the area. Epeefleche (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Judea and Samaria is POV. That the WB is 'occupied' is admitted by Israel itself. 'Occupied' is a neutral statement of fact. The argument is, should we hammer that everytime the West Bank is mentioned. I think not. But I also think where the issue of occupation is (a) mentioned in the relevant article sources and (b) the fact of occupation may have played a key role in a given event, there is a strong argument for its use or retention. It loses its neutrality if, as some do, one insists on hammering it as the default epithet for West Bank, but it must be admitted that the International Court of Justice's usage corroborates the technical validity of the conjoined epithet.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk about the occupation but it is only mentioned 3 times in the prose of the article and those instances are all pretty short. I see no problem with providing more info since it is referenced as the reasoning for murder. That would certainly benefit the reader more than just slapping the "occupied" label on the location.Cptnono (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking about just creating a "motivation" section. It gets to the heart ot the issue. Yes, some people think murder is OK due to the occupation. We have at least 2 sources already in the article that talk about it. Why beat around the bush.Cptnono (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if any editor, let alone RS, thought 'murder is OK due to the occupation', as opposed to inevitable or consequential on the politics of the situation. For one, killing civilians as a retaliation for occupation is forbidden by the Geneva Protocols (so is most of Israel's standard behaviour, though). Israeli media tend to portray such killings as proof Arabs are murderous Jew-haters, regardless of the context. Palestinian media highlight the occupational situation. Most of the killings on both sides (Mohamed Abu Khdeir, these three, etc.) are avowedly motivated by the circumstances of occupation/settlement. A motivation section could handle this, as you say.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Cptnono. I think there are two different points here. You appear to concur that, in this case, there are grounds for saying "occupied" here, but your general concern, illustrated in the AE suit, is about whether that epithet can be applied to all articles in the area, mechanically. That's a more interesting question. I think that occupied is a neutral statement of the facts Perry Anderson ( 'Scurrying towards Bethlehem,' New Left Review 10, July-August 2001) once called it the 'longest official military occupation in modern history'(and that was 15 years ago), and his point was endorsed by centrist scholars like Mearsheimer and Walt p.100 cautiously legalistic institutions like the International Court of Justice (2004) and, as I noted below, Israel, in international legal contexts, acknowledges that it holds the area 'under belligerent occupation'. a fact its legal advisors confirmed as holding true in 1993 until a future peace agreement was reached. When you have a spectrum of opinion, from official Israeli statements to scholars, stating that an area is occupied, it becomes a fact. Your opinion suggests that, on occasions, it is not a 'relevant fact' and that harping on it (as you see SD doing) is POV pushing. Any harping, or repetitious insertion on one page of the epithet, in my book is POV-messaging: on that I agree. But since the fact is admitted by all parties to be a fact, it is difficult to see why one should object to that being noted from article to article.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant the RS quotes Hamas leadership saying the murder as OK. We could get rid of saying occupied before West Bank and actually devote at least a paragraph to the grievance. I don't see how this is anything but a good idea.Cptnono (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

D'oh... there is a motivation section. I actually never got that far in the article! Good lesson learned. I believe it needs to be expanded with info regarding the occupation.Cptnono (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The quotes show two of them saying the kidnapping was an act of resistance, not that murder is okay (which is not to deny that a lot of people out there think it is, ranging from imams to rabbis (think of all of those eminent rabbinical authorities in Hebron who revere the memory of Baruch Goldstein). The West Bank is occupied, it is not a POV. Your suggestion of taking it out of the lead, and making it part of a grievance section to throw light on the murderers' motivations would translate as a denial of a fact, and the attribution of that 'fact' as a personal belief entertained by murderers (and not, for that matter, by 99.99% of the Palestinian population, who don't behave like the murderers). That is the unfortunate consequence of your suggestion above.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding "occupied" before "West Bank" only serves to make a point. I say make a better point and expand the prose. Adding "occupied" once or fifty times doesn't do anything. Put it in prose and get over the finger pointing labels that some might want to make.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Remove from lede and discuss in "motivation" section as proposed by Cptnono, this will allow us to explain why the occupation was a motivation for the murders. Removing it from the lede isn't a denial of fact, it's an omission of a word that is only relevant to this article if it is further explained (which can't be done in the lede). I think including "occupied" in the lede with no explanation as to how that occupation is relevant to this story does just become POV-pushing. With an explanation it would clear up any POV issues and tie in the occupation with the topic being discussed. I agree with Cptnono, I don't see how that could be anything but good. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to explain one accurate and relevant word (which nobody disputes) in the lead. Even if one does need to explain it, a one line sentence quoting Meshal which I gave above would be sufficient. The lead is already very long (cobbled over many weeks trying to achieve NPOV), so I don't see the addition of one more sentence as breaking it in any way. But, as I said, I see no reason to include an explanation there. The lead is supposed to be a summary. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose calling the territory occupied violates WP:NEU. If it is quantified as opinion in the body of the article, sure as attributed opinion, but not as a statement of fact.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

How is it a violation of npov? Are you saying Israel is not occupying it? Then what is it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast That is not an argument, but a contrafactual opinion you entertain. Israel administers the territories under the rules of occupation, admits as much, and therefore this is not opinionable. The question is simply, where and in what circumstances does one allude to this fact. I think it due on all pages dealing with the P of the I/P subject matter, but should not be used by editors mechanically or persistently.Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose in general. One can supply zillions of sources, from high-level entities, describing the area as "occupied", but it's still ultimately a political label and gratuitous use will inevitably violate WP:NPOV, especially if the aim is to discredit the subject of the article or to portray the "occupation" as illegitimate/illegal/unjust. I haven't bothered to read how it's used in this article (the entire topic bores me silly), but if it's inserted merely to try and prejudice the reader against the murdered teenagers than that's a particularly insidious violation of WP:NPOV. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Just scanned the article briefly, and the word doesn't seem in this case to be inserted to push any of the potential biases I suggested above. The "political label" objection stands, however. I think this RfC requires wider discussion somewhere centralized in the topic area, with more input from outsiders in particular, as the outcome will inevitably affect other articles in the topic area. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem in the discussion above is that the nay-sayers are denialists of a known, established fact, not denied by the Israeli government itself. Those who insist that this is not the case auto-invalidate their comments, because an opinion has no standing as opposed to a statement of fact, at least on Wikipedia. Since it is a multiply-verifiable fact that the Palestinian territories are occupied, any discussion must depart from that assumption. Meaning, that the only this to debate here is its contextual appropriateness in articles (Lead mention? How often in an article, etc.)Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. I fail to see why stating a fact is contentious. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Obviously yes I'm not sure why this is even an RFC. Palestine is occupied, it is ruled by an occupational government so the answer should be obvious. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Since this is not aimed at any particular comment, but many people seem confused, I am putting it here. "Occupied" is a simple statement of fact, and indeed part of the official name for the territories, noted above. It is not a "political label", nor does it violate WP:NPOV to simply call it "occupied" (without "disputed" etc.), both on proportionality grounds (Israel vs the world), and indeed on the grounds that Israel also admits that it is occupied. The discussion is about whether the use of a single word in the lead is gratuitous or relevant here. For this reason, I also reject the notion that the result on this RfC would mean that you would have to insert or remove "occupied" in every other article. The use would of course depend on context. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Agree, include the word occupied as a statement of fact and a part of the official name, particularly given the quote from Nitzan Nuriel in the section about the Hitchhiking debate, where he mentions that it can be a statement on land ownership by the settlers. In not sure why this is an RfC, really. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 06:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I dispute AlbinoFerret's opinion on "consensus for describing the West bank as occupied in the lead" and have a feeling other editors and reader will feel the same to the point that it keeps on coming up. It rightfully should.Cptnono (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps AlbinoFerret should have explained their closure a bit more. If you feel the closure is improper, perhaps take it up at their talk page, or follow the procedure outlined here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, the wikipedia way. Discussions dont matter cus you can just say I disagree with the closure. nableezy - 17:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

problems

There are many many problems with this article (and I'm not even halfway through)

1. In the lead, the Jonathan Freedland NYRB article is citing the Amos Harel Haaretz article for the claim that the Israeli authorities knew the kids were dead. Amos Harel on the other hand says the Israeli authorities suspected they were dead but had no conclusive evidence. I think that since Freedland explicitly cites Harel, the Freedland ref should be removed and the wording changed to reflect the actual source. Discussion here.
2. The whole he said she said Mickey Rosenfeld thing in the lead is ridiculous, not serious, and not a summary of something that appears in the article body and therefore should be removed.
3. The paragraph dealing with Salah al-Aruri is also a pretty ridiculous he said she said that doesn't appear in the body of the article and should be removed.
4. Later in the lead there's a sentence that starts with "Rachel Shabi and Ilan Pappé" which is not connected to anything, but looks like obvious undue weight for what a couple of people speculated.
5. That was just the lead, which btw is unnaturally huge.
6. Most of the first paragraph of the background section is a bunch of SYNTH. Unless an RS explicitly connects something to the topic of the article, the fact some editor thinks its related is not a good enough reason for inclusion. Anything written before the incident obviously doesn't belong. There's something from 2006 there.
7. Ayman Mohyeldin does not state in the interview that "the death of the two Palestinian youths vying with those of the three Israeli teenagers as decisive trigger points for each side". But even if he was, he does not state that the killing of the two led to the killing of the three. This source may belong in the article about the war, but definitely doesn't belong where it's at now. Discussion here.
8. Christine Leuenberger ref doesn't load.
9. Christine Leuenberger and Rachel Shabi stuff is duplicated. Discussion of their material in general here.
10. What is Ilan Pappe doing here? He's a historian, not a journalist or an expert on current affairs. Why is his opinion notable? Discussion here.

That's it for now. I'll take care of any of the above that nobody objects to or fixes in a couple of days. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you about Freedland's text. The text should reword it after what the Haaretz article say: "... confirms the hypothesis formed early on: that the teens were murdered shortly after they were abducted".

The part about Micky Rosenfeld is very relevant to the kidnapping and murder blamed by some on Hamas as a group. That it is not in the the body of the article is not a good reason to remove it but it should be copied to the lead and perhaps shorten it in the lead. Same with the part about Saleh al-Arouri. However, that is in the body of the article also, but the spelling is different. It is actually mentioned in three sections. I actually reacted recently on this because his speech on 20 August is mentioned in three different parts of the article, with the last two parts of them not including the sceptism about his claims and the last one of them only referring to Memri TV.

The authors make a comparision and suggest a connection to the Beitunia killings, which it is more about in the Background section. However, the location of the text in the lead is bad as it looks like they were talking about the killing of the two suspects but the Beituina killings are not described in the lead. The description was shortened in this edit some months ago and later edits made that part unclear. As long it is in the lead, it should be clear what they refer to, and not get mixed up. As a historian on the Arab-Israeli conflict, I think Ilan Pappé's view is notable.

Ayman Mohyeldin mentions the difference in the international outcry and the different views on when it started, therefore it belongs there as that is what the section is about. I agree with you on the rest of the first part of that section.

The Leuenberger ref works for me. Both Shabi and Leuenberger is used two times in that section and the first part of the last sentence does look like a duplicate so it can be removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There are so many issues raised by NMMNG that it is not possible to respond to all of them. I will therefore pick a few. I agree that the lead is bloated hugely, it needs a lot of trimming. There needs to be a scheme for summarizing the article, and the lead should follow the scheme, summarizing each aspect in a neutral manner. There are also some things which are present in the lead but not in the body. This often happens that people put stuff in the lead first. Some of the stuff, like the Rosenfeld claim etc. should be put in the body as well, in the appropriate section, rather than removed from the lead. I am against removing the Freedland source. The Freedland source is an analysis piece which relies on newspaper reports. It links to one Haaretz report, but there are many other sources which support the claim that the Israeli authorities knew that the teenagers were killed shortly after the kidnapping (as indeed they were). More to the point, it is not our place to second-guess reliable sources like the NYRB. Freedland found this claim credible, and we should present it like that. We can add supporting documentation if needed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll put any controversial stuff into new sections. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ilan Pappe

Pappe is a historian. He is not a journalist or an expert on current affairs, nor does he claim to be AFAIK. Why do we need to include his speculation in this article, not to mention so prominently? Also, anyone know where it was published? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Pending any arguments to the contrary, I'm going to remove this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed this. I've provided the original publishing venue. Citing an historian's opinion, when he specializes in the I/P area's history, is normal even for contemporary events. We happen to cite far more journos than historians here, and I don't think the former have a superior claim to authority. You may have a point that he is singled out,(and it is repeated below this text), but for the POV slant. I think the second reference to the same source could be elided. In the first instance he stands for a range of opinion that thinks there is a connection between the two incidents.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course journalists are cited more often than historians for current events. A historian doesn't necessarily know more about a current event that just anyone reading the papers or watching TV. So, why is this guy's opinion notable here? And why is he given UNDUE weight in the lead? He does not "stand for a range of opinion that thinks there is a connection between the two incidents" he is making a specific claim that one was revenge for the other, which should be easily sourced to more relevant RS if it is so common. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Freedland source

As mentioned above the Freedland source in the lead explicitly cites his contention that the Israeli Authorities knew the kids were dead to Amos Harel, who doesn't say that. Harel says they suspected but didn't have conclusive proof. I think the Freedland source should be removed because we know where he got the information and he's contradicting his own source. Anyone have any other sources for this, not citing back to Harel? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There are many sources which state that the Israeli govt. knew almost from the beginning that the kids were dead. Here are just two, but easy to find others.

• Here is an article by Amos Harel in Haaretz. "Within days of the kidnapping, investigators knew roughly what had happened and where the bodies had probably been dumped. But lacking precise intelligence, all they could do was scour the area until the bodies were found."
• JJ Goldberg in the Forward: " The government had known almost from the beginning that the boys were dead."

We can add these sources if you wish. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That's better than the Friedland one, although I think something that's not an oped would have been better. The Harel article you're quoting above is the one I was referring to. Notice that a couple of paragraphs before the one you quoted he says "...the assessment that the boys had been killed shortly after the abduction strengthened ... Lacking conclusive evidence, the prime minister and defense minister opted not to declare the boys dead." (all emphasis mine). So Harel says they weren't sure and did not have conclusive evidence. Goldberg says they knew. The article should include both POVs. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Haaretz won't show me any more articles this month, so I can't look at the exact wording, but I think we should change the wording in the article from "believed they were dead" to "strongly suspected they were dead" (or whatever Harel says), and again with there whereabouts of the bodies, change the language to something less absolute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I gave a link that contains the cached article above. It should work to access whole. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So, Harel says As time passed with no word from the kidnappers, the assessment that the boys had been killed shortly after the abduction strengthened. It was further reinforced by comparisons with previous abductions.

Lacking conclusive evidence, the prime minister and defense minister opted not to declare the boys dead. But some efforts were made to dampen the public’s hopes, as when Israel Defense Forces chief Benny Gantz said a week ago that the more time passes, the more he fears for the boys’ lives.

The main points here are that it was an assessment without conclusive evidence. I think "strongly suspected, but lacked conclusive evidence" or maybe closer to the source like "assessed that they were killed, but lacked conclusive evidence". I think stating it as fact like it is now is at minimum an NPOV violation (and very possibly plain wrong). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree on the wording. However, I think the issue is inaccuracy rather than POV. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)