Talk:Marwan Barghouti/Archive 1

Archive 1

My comments

[Note: Nothing in the following remarks should be interpreted as granting legitimation to the previous statements from an anonymous poster.]

I should probably explain why I reverted this article yesterday, and why I've added a sentence now.

The article currently reads, "He is currently serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail for murder and attempted murder." This statement is both accurate and NPOV. The phrase "Murder and attempted murder" refers to a legal conviction -- it makes no comment on the accuracy of the charges, nor on the validity of the legal process under which the trial occurred.

The word "allegedly" is pretty obviously POV in this context; it needed to be removed, as such.

That said, it is also my position that the article's introduction should make reference to the controversial nature of Barghouti's prison sentence. To this end, I have added the statement "Barghouti's supporters believe that these charges were politically motivated, and consider him a political prisoner". This statement, like the one before it, is NPOV -- it makes no comment on the accuracy of these claims, and merely notes that they have been raised in the field of public discourse.

If anyone believes this to be flawed logic, I'm willing to entertain objections. CJCurrie 22:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt the NPOV, but perhaps something along the lines of "jailed by an Israeli court" rather than serving "in an Israeli jail" might show this more objectively. - 69.140.65.251 23:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Aren't convictions always controversial, at least by the standards of the convicted persons if they claim to be innocent? gidonb 01:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course his supporters deny everything. No Palestinian ever did anything. But I respect your NPOV dedication, but you left out the number of dead. I believe it was 28. ScottAdler 06:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

supporters means fellow terrorists and I don't think one should take it too seriously. I've addred the Israeli claim which was backed by public evidence. Amoruso

Do you have any evidence that "supporters means fellow terrorists"? The government of Israel's claims can be referenced in the main body of the article, but it doesn't belong in the intro. CJCurrie 06:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Second intifada

The bit about him discerning military and civilian target is interesting but is there a source for this?

indeed. that should be referenced or deleted...

"Campaign to Free Marwan Barghouti"

the immunity claim is false in international law. Palestine is not a country and the members of their parliament don't have any immunity what-so-ever according to the relevant convenants in question. Amoruso 23:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

yeh thats the problem, zionist denial of palestinian right of self determination Rm uk

Birthday

• I have seen several different birth dates (ranging from 1958 to 1960 and different days on those years, June 5, June 8, etc). What is the practice in this situation? 128.12.72.6 05:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Seems to me we can try listing out links which support each different date and decide based on that. GiantSloth 22:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • June 6, 1959
      1. CNN [1]
      2. Washington Times [2]
    • 1959 (year only)
      1. Al Jazeerah [3]

• Ha, it seems one of his brothers name is Muqbal Barghouti, any one know how many brothers and sisters he has?

He's only allegedly "guilty" because he's innocent until proven guilty in a legitimate court of law. That does not include a Jewish kangaroo-court Sanhedrin, which only needed Caiaphas to be complete.

This is anti-Semitic crap

Rm uk 15:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC) says: the old slur of anti-semitism. If israel committed genocide of all the palestinians then you guys would still say it was anti semitic to criticise.

capture or arrest?

"Arrest" is the israeli line. However, Marwan Barghouti was CAPTURED in ramalla. Israel has no right of arrest within the Occupied territories. It's like saying the New York Police Department "arrested" a russian member of parliament in MOSCOW.

If I was like you zionists, I would change it to "kidnap". Whenever someone captures an israeli soldier you zionists call it "kidnap" right? So it's only fair this is called a "kidnapping". However, I know it should stay as "captured" because I, unlike you, have some objectivity.

Rm uk 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to learn some international law. As the occupying power in the territories, Israel has not only a right, but an obligation, to maintain civil order through police functions. It arrested Barghouti, as the cited source (the BBC, no less) says. Isarig 17:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And under the same international law, the occupied people have the right to resist the "occupying power". At least that's the excuse my uncle Hector gave when he was caught drawing mustaches on portraits of Golda Meir... Ramallite ^(talk) 19:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed they do, but not by attacking civilians, which is what Barghouti was arrested for, charged with, tried for, and convicted of. He is a common criminal, arrested by law enforcement agencies, tried by a civilian court for murder, and serving his life sentence for that crime. Isarig 23:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

it is an illegal occupation. thus capture not arrest... anyway the PLO policed that area at the time... Rm uk 23:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to your POV, but international law holds a different opinion. Regardless, the 4th Geneva convention, which governs the occupying power's rights and obligations has no concept of an "illegal occupation" - it is a propaganda term invented by pro-Palestinian partisans. The PLO has no policing powers. Perhasp you man the Palestinian Authority. Isarig 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Rm uk 01:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC) says: the PA has policing powers in the Occupied Territories. And "illegal occupation" is not a propaganda term. UN resolution (cant remember the number now) calls for israel to withdraw from all land gained in the 67 war. Thus illegal.

The UNSCR resolution you are reffering to calls for Israel to withdraw for territories it captured (not "all, as you mistakingly wrote) in conjunction with the end of hostilities and the recognition of Israel's secure borders (i.e, a peace agreement) by its neighbors. This does not make the occupation illegal, and that term is not used in the resolution. Regardless, as I pointed out to you, the 4GC has no such concept, making this entire debate moot. Isarig 03:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

the PA is meant to control the occupied territories, it's in Oslo. I personally think Oslo was a pile of crap. But, that is not relevant. Oslo was signed by both parties. Why did israel always ask the palestinian authority to "clamp down on militants"? Why are their palestinian police? Because they police the West Bank, Gaza... and the rest. Hence "captured".

The fact that the PA has policing powers does not mean Israel does not have the same. The PA's authority stems from Oslo, Israel's from it's status as an occupying power. The occupying power may request assitance form local police, but that does not negate its own authority. Isarig 03:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it is "capture" however, I added a little piece as a comprimise (I let it stay as "arrest") that any reasonable person would accept Rm uk 04:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Palestine"

Since wikipedia is neutral shouldn't this article be under Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.224.214 (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What prison?

Is there an information? Eynbein (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

honestreporting

See here. This is an unsuitable source. Disregarding the 1RR violation, it should be removed for that reason alone. This is still, last I checked, a BLP. In fact, the sourcing for "Palestinian Mandela" could be improved on, citing this (thanks honestreporting ;)), could also use that for "while many Israelis consider him a murderer". But honestreporting cannot be used. nableezy - 18:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Uri Avnery is an unsuitable, partial, bias and unreliable source for many people (come on! he's just an anti-Zionist/pro-Palestinian activist, representing a tiny minority among Israelis) like Honest Reporting is unsuitable for you. Besides, Honest Reporting is not the only organization who doesn't consider Barghouti a "Palestinian Mandela" (for example read what Almagor thinks, an Israeli organization for victims of terror). If Honest Reporting is removed, then Uri Avnery should be removed as well.--Farkur (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to argue that Uri Avnery should not be cited then make that argument. Do not however add continue adding unreliable sources to biographies of living people, as you did here. nableezy - 12:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is Avnery's view notable enough to be included in the lead or in the article at all? Ankh.Morpork 13:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not Avnery should be included is immaterial, as it is much more than Avnery that has called Barghouti a Palestinian Mandela. I've added a more general line, sourced to this and this. I trust that ends the dispute. nableezy - 18:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation

In this edit, Nableezy adds this source to substantiate his addition to the lead that, "He has been called "the Palestinian Mandela", in reference to anti-Apartheid leader Nelson Mandela."

The full sentence of the source reads as follows: "To judge by the same poll, only 28 per cent of Israelis want to see the prison doors swing open for the man some praise as "the Palestinian Mandela" but whom others call a murderer."

Nableezy elided the last part of this sentence which also describes what "he has been called" and selectively included a single view, contrary to NPOV. Please explain. Ankh.Morpork 19:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at the paragraph directly below the sentence in the lead. And please do not make such asinine accusations again in the future. nableezy - 19:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did you select to add this view to the first paragraph, the logical formatting would be to group the views together?Ankh.Morpork 19:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Because that is where it was in the past? nableezy - 19:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of Barghouti to Mandela in the lead

I remove this unencyclopedic sentence from the lead. "He has been called by some 'the Palestinian Mandela'."

This sentence has several problems. The sentence is fails WP:NPOV because it represents a value judgement and only shows one side. The sentence's use of analogy is not very encyclopedic, and it does not mention who "some" is. The word "some" is considered WP:WEASEL. However, in this sentence there is no way do get around using a weasel word, because clearly not all people have this view of him. It would be better to stick to verifiable facts about Barghouti, rather than reporting nebulous statements about popular opinion. OtterAM (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ambulance issue

The article states that "Amos Harel wrote in Haaretz that Barghouti was arrested by soldiers of the Duchifat Battalion who had approached the building hidden in an ambulance to avoid detection: "The Duchifat soldiers were squeezed into a protected ambulance in order to arrive as quickly as possible at the house where Barghouti was hiding, and to seal it off."[16]". The source is in hebrew and the translation 'protected ambulance' is accurate. However, the text does not refer to a civilian ambulance. Protected ambulances in use by the IDF are military vehicles and are easily identifiable. There are no civilian ambulances in use by the military, a civilian Israeli ambulance would clearly not serve as a reasonable disguise in Ramallah and if it were a Palestinian ambulance some reference to this fact could clearly be expected in the article. The soldiers were squeezed into the vehicle since it was the fastest vehicle available, not as a disguise. Neither Barghouti nor any other source - be it foreign or domestic, Palestinian or Israeli - ever claimed this was the case (you are welcome to prove otherwise). This paragraph is clearly an attempt to misinterpret facts to suggest that the arrest\capture of Marwan Barghouti involved Israeli violations of the Geneva Convention through use of medical civilian vehicles, despite the absence of such claims on any side. Therefore it is a misinforming paragraph that was apparently inserted by a biased editor trying to smear the Israeli side, and as such should be corrected or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.23.63 (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Conviction

Berghouti was convicted for the murder of five Israelis in three separate attacks:

• Druze police officer Salim Barakat, Yosef Habi and Eli Dahan at the Seafood Market attack in Tel Aviv
• Yoela Chen at a gas station in Giv'at Ze'ev (West Bank)
• Greek monk Tsibouktsakis Germanus in Ma'ale Adumim (West Bank) --ארינמל (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources

This article is remarkable for what it leaves out. I.e. the details in the Inter-Parliamentary Union review of his case here. The provisional conclusion was that:

'According to the case papers, from Mr. Barghouti's arrest on 15 April 2002 to the trial itself, the Israeli authorities and the prosecution had tried to turn it into a media event, a symbol, putting on trial one of the men who epitomise the Intifada, and presenting him as a terrorist. From the beginning of the investigations until the final day of the trial, the prosecution put almost as much effort into staging a media event as it did into working on the legal aspects...These incidents have quite obviously been facilitated by the climate that has made this trial increasingly more a political, rather than a judicial, matter, but also by a breakdown of Israeli law placing it in breach of international law, by authorising prisoner transfers (which is clearly prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention) or tolerating interrogation methods which should be prohibited, in addition to the laws making it possible to keep a prisoner incommunicado for excessively long periods. Most of the persons contacted are convinced that Mr. Barghouti will receive a severe sentence, but all are equally convinced that the verdict will have no legitimacy because it will have been dictated far more by intense media pressure and political interests than by any rigorous application of procedures respecting the integrity of the defendant and his right of defence.'

But more important than this conclusion are the details, which are wholly lacking from his article which is an egregious WP:BLP violation because of willful omission of key sources. For those unwilling to wade through the original report, a summary of the case can be found at Jonathan Ofir, 'Making Marwan Barghouti a terrorist,' Mondoweiss 21 April 2017.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

if one wants to get a source base it's here. Lawrence of Cyberia despite the excellence of his reportage cannot be used, being a blog, but he quotes a large number of sources for notable statements and facts which should be able to be independently confirmed. Such as the fact that he was one of the prime interlocutors for half of the politicians in the Knesset.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

breaking of fast

We have this sourced in the New York Times, the Forward, the Times of Israel, ABC News, Haaretz.https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dS9kelViTEfgcpMw4VLNEBn77Un4M&q=Marwan+Barghouti&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSxImiq9_TAhWBLyYKHTb4CooQqgIILTAA

Any good reason not to have this included?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any policy given reason WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here as it not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities"--Shrike (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Eating while leading a hunger strike, nominally until the death (or capitulation to demands) of the strikers - is highly notable - and doesn't sit too well with the public or the strikers who are fasting. His wife (who leads the outside PR/politics for him) gave a press conference on this footage. It was also covered widely in WP:RS. This isn't news - but rather an important piece of information on a major political activity by this notable prisoner.Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• These 2 sentences are strongly sourced and neutrally phrased. Arguing that it is WP:NOTNEWS is specious when you consider that a the hunger strike Barghouti is now documented to have broken by eating candy and cookies is sourced only to a wire service an an essay by Barghouti himself.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• The New York Times article [4] on the L'Affair candy bar should be added since it is from the same newspaper that published Barghouti's essay.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course, the "usual suspects"—including the inveterate POV pusher who added the material in the first place—don't see any policy violations. You claim to want policy reasons, but I gave you policy reasons and you ignored them. WP:NOTNEWS says "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." (You conveniently ignored that part, Shrike, didn't you?) WP:BLPGOSSIP says "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." The material added to the article is about a video released by the Israel Prison Service (an anonymous source). The so-called articles in The Washington Post and The Forward are reprints of wire service articles from the Associated Press and the JTA. If this were so important, why aren't those newspapers—which have their own reporters in Israel—reporting on it themselves? This seems like a fart to me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I've asked at WT:ISRAEL, WT:PALESTINE, and WT:IPCOLL for editors to comment. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously this is a hot news item, but looking into my crystal ball, I am sure this will be notable in 5 years as well. I see no reason for a mention of more than one sentence though. Debresser (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a significant claim by Israeli authorities which has received verynwide attention in Israeli, palestinian, and international press. We should, of course, add the retort of pro-Barghouti sources such as his wife or the chairman of the prisoner club that this was doctored by Israel. If anyone is acting outside of ARBPIA it is you Malik.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Breaking the hunger strike is at least as notable as organizing it. If the first is NOTNEWS, so is the other. “WarKosign” 07:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, we are supposed to avoid the natural temptation to get at the 'enemy' on his BLP page, especially with this nasty piece of planted trivia designed to pour shit on an 'enemy' and destroy his credibility. It is reported that prison sources say he was set up, lured into breaking his solidarity fast by a secret ploy to tempt him out of it. One should stay one's activist hands a while until at least the circumstances are sorted out. It certainly should not be included as was done, without any reference to the context, of Israel's detaining authorities trying to embarrass him, which casts a completely different complexion on the fact.Nishidani (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The header of this section isn't accurate, since the hunger strike (as a whole) is still going on, and Barghouti has not announced that he has given up. The incident has been covered in various newspaper reports, always with attribution to the Israeli Prison service, and it's reported that he was set up. It can perhaps be mentioned in a single sentence (with attribution to the source), together with Barghouti's denials. Have a tiny bit of respect for NPOV when you're trying to insert propaganda into articles. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your comment is reasonable can you please write it in NPOV manner as your suggest--Shrike (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a proposal, basically modeled on this BBC report: On May 7, the Israeli Prison Service released a video purporting to show Barghouti secretly eating snacks in his prison cell, once on April 27 and again on May 5; and stated that he had been set up. Barghouti's wife stated that the video was fake and was intended to undermine the hunger strike. I am ambivalent about whether it should be included, but if it is, I would prefer the formulation I gave above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If we include the hunger strike then we should include it too.Anyone oppose the text above?--Shrike (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Drop "set up" (and if remains - need to be explained - the "set up" in this regard is supposedly placing food within reach (something that is done anyway with all hunger strikers - who have food delivered regularly) - On May 7, the Israeli Prison Service released a video purporting to show Barghouti secretly eating snacks in his prison cell, once on April 27 and again on May 5. Barghouti's wife stated that the video was fake and was intended to undermine the hunger strike.. The "set up" is from an anonymous source in Haaretz - which is a biased publication in this regard, and is incidental - the statement from Barghouti's wife (who is a prominent political activist) is enough. You can add a Qadura Fares quote as well - e.g. [5] "Qadura Fares, chairman of the Palestinian Prisoners' Club, said at the press conference that the publication of the video was not surprising, as Israel was expected to publish "lies and disinformation" at this stage of the hunger strike. Fares called the media in Israel which published the video "an arm of the political echelon that is leading the campaign against the prisoners and the strike they are holding."". If any Palestinian opposition to Barghouti has spoken (rather than remaining silent publicly, gleeful privately) - might be worth mentioning (don't recall one off the top of my head).Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Haaretz source is inaccurate? Anonymity is permitted in certain circumstances, and this clearly is one of them. Anyway, here's a Times of Israel report, saying the same thing: Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan appeared to confirm that the footage of Barghouti was obtained as part of a setup, acknowledging that it was highly unlikely that Barghouti could have acquired the food himself while in solitary confinement. I do not think that Fares's statement should be added; the whole matter (if it is mentioned), shouldn't take more than a sentence or two. Anything more would be WP:UNDUE, imo. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"and stated that he had been set up - if left - needs to be explained. For starters - this hasn't been stated, but came in anonymously. Beyond that, the "set up" is limited to food was provided or was allowed to be found. In general - this is a tactic used vs. most of the hunger strikers (in the past few years) - as Israel is attempting to avoid prisoner deaths (in contrast to say the British approach to some of the IRA strikes) - and is attempting to entice strikers to eat in various ways. What is notable here - is the filming and release of the film. "setup" or "set up" also appears to have limited use - contrast a google search with Barghouti+eating (on the past week) vs. Barghouti+set-up (on the past week) - and appears mostly to originate from Haaretz. I would avoid setup all together - as it seems to be based on speculation (going as far, in the Times of Israel, of Erdan "appearing to confirm" the speculation) - but if left in - needs to be expanded to "it has been speculated that Barghouti was setup by jail authorities by provisioning food" or something similar.Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any source which explains what was involved in the set-up? The "provisioning of food" is inconsistent with Erdan's statement that Barghouti couldn't have obtained the food by himself. The set-up claim is not speculation; the Haaretz article says that the source "confirmed" it. And Erdan also "appeared to confirm" it, in the TOI source. That's as close as one is going to get, in such matters. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

All Erdan says is acknowledging that it was highly unlikely that Barghouti could have acquired the food himself while in solitary confinement - that Israeli authorities provided the food (which really is an ongoing tactic to tempt hunger strikers to eat - which is a multi-year tactic in this regard - this isn't the first hunger strike). The Haaretz's source is anonymous - not a statement. If you want to work-in that the Israeli authorities provided the food (as they provide all food in the prisons - to strikers and non-strikers) - work it in - but that what the claims of "setup" are limited to. Stating "setup" without qualifying the nature of the speculated setup leads to even wider speculation.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The original Haaretz source - "The Israel Prison Service didn’t say how Barghouti obtained the food, but sources in the organization confirmed that they set him up in an attempt to see whether Barghouti was really sticking to the hunger strike." [6]. If we are leaving setup - it needs to be qualified in terms of how he supposedly got his hands on the food. In any event - this is not a statement, but speculation or unnamed anonymous sources.Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• A bank, uncertain about the honesty of its tellers, left a large bundle of unmarked bills in an alcove near the coffeemaker. A teller was caught on surveillance video pocketing them. His friends claimed, anonymously, that he was not guilty of theft because the bank had set him up. Seriously?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you realize the implications of what you are saying in writing that inane analogy? Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I am obliged to raise the issue of Malik Shabazz behavior on this page. From his personal attacks ("the "usual suspects"—including the inveterate POV pusher" to avoiding a 1RR violation by 6 minutes. This is unacceptable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing in lockstep, i.e., without a significant and intelligible policy-based argument, i.e. voting to get stuff that blandishes one's POV, lends itself to this remark. Most editors here are in violation of the obligations to ensure neutrality in this area, by judging everything on its intrinsic merits, not in terms of POV angles. I'll start to believe that phrases like 'the usual suspects' are offensive, when I see some exiguous, microscopic trace of the usual group disagreeing over some edit, and not simply walking in to register their support of any one editor with their own POV.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You see the thing is the same exact argument can be made about Malik, you, etc., but I do not support such ad hominems because frankly they are tiresome and hypocritical. I have not been around so much the last few years and I find it amusing that the same editors are whining about the same things for the last like 10 years. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No. I just made an edit I left the POV pushers time to do, supplying the source, a link. No one acted on it. The 'usual suspects' talked past it, edited the page, edited other pages to 'fix' Barghouti, but simply did not follow up and digest and edit the material regarding Barghouti's trial. Why? Not interested, it's not in Israel's favour, and one never works for the opposition? Yet, if you edit a BLP article in particular, you should feel obliged to get the whole picture, no waste weeks screwing the enemy. I left it to other edits in the belief they could perhaps give a different précis to the one I eventually supplied.

I have had quite a number of differences of opinion, and even been reverted by nearly all those you think constitute a block. When you are challenged by someone who may share your general POV, it makes you think. When you see automatic endorsements in a POV block, or flash mob voting on thin arguments, then you have a different situation. El_C has an Israeli POV, I believe, but the chap will reason it out, and his vote is not automatic. The same is true of Bolter21. WarKoSign has a stronger POV, but he will substantiate his edit judgements usually with sound policy. The others here are teamsters. Kingsindian has reverted me, and made decidedly different calls on key edits to those I make. The same for Zero. We need more individuals here, less group think. Ps. it was ad homines, being a plural (usual suspects), not ad hominem. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you Nishidani but as much as you have been trying for years to convince everyone otherwise what you accuse others is exactly what others think of you. Filibustering and spelling corrections notwithstanding.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Working toward a compromise

Let's not get sidetracked by discussing editors instead of the edits. Clearly, both sides have an idea of how to articulate their positions (uncertainties and all), so I suggest to participants here that consensus may be reached by combining both toward a compromise passage. Does that make sense? That's my assessment just from a cursory read of this comment thread. I don't know enough about this incident (though I have heard about it in passing), nor do I have a strong opinion. *** Wearing my admin hat (watch me do it—even if both sides seem to think I'm biased for the other), I caution both sides to watch for the consensus clause in effect as well as for 1RR—six minutes is gaming 1RR, for future reference, Malik Shabazz—consider this a warning. Please try to be constructive, everyone. El_C 05:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear, the passage is not to be re-added until consensus has been reached, subject to sanctions. In case there's any confusion. Thanks. El_C 05:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest (per Kingsindian - with minor elaboration of "setup") - On May 7, the Israeli Prison Service released a video purporting to show Barghouti secretly eating snacks in his prison cell, once on April 27 and again on May 5. According to Haaretz, anonymous sources in the prison service claimed food was made available to Barghouti as part of a setup to check his adherence to his hunger strike. Barghouti's wife stated that the video was fake and was intended to undermine the hunger strike.. (and if you want - you can add the implied confirmation of this by Erdan - leaving it as implied confirmation - not a definite stmt).Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Too long. The hunger strike part shouldn't be dominated by this single incident. One or two sentences at the maximum. Or we could expand the hunger strike part a bit to fit this in. But as it stands (two sentences for the hunger strike part), this is too long. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Then without the "setup" (that the prison service provided or allowed the food to be provided to a prisoner in solitary confinement can be inferred by the circumstances in any event) - On May 7, the Israeli Prison Service released a video purporting to show Barghouti secretly eating snacks in his prison cell, once on April 27 and again on May 5. Barghouti's wife stated that the video was fake and was intended to undermine the hunger strike.. Short and simple - the video that was released + counter-response by Barghouti's wife (who is Barghouti's spokeperson on the outside - a role wider than just a spouse).Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"purporting" means "appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess.". There is no evidence that the video is fake. It should be described more neutrally: "seemingly", "apparently", "what appears to be", etc. “WarKosign” 08:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"purport" is in one of the sources, WarKosign. Generally, looking at several sources, the trivial incident can't be adequately described without details which then lead to WP:Undue, and that is why the proposal is a can of worms. Mention it, and you have to add that the films have no time-stamp, that Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan took credit for the "set-up", that its release was timed by Israeli authorities to coincide with a call by 1,200 prisoners calling on the Wworld Health Organization to stop Israel force feeding hunger strikers, etc.etc. Do all that and, the POV game here will boomerang and make Israel look like it set up the whole episode as part of a calculated campaign to divert public and global attention, while pouring shit on Palestinians, as usual Don't go there. If it's added, then we'll have to give a complete paragraph long paraphrase of all the news regarding this (which I'm fine with, but disagree about inclusion). Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The amount of google-hits and google-news-hits (on Barghouti eating) as well as the intense damage control response by Barghouti proxies (including a widely attended and reported press conference by his wife (acting spokeperson in effect) and the prisoner club head - the day after) - shows this isn't undue. No one is proposing including Pizza Hut's use of the video to sell pizzas and the responses to that use - [7][8][9]...... Allegedly breaking a hunger strike while calling on your fellow prisoners to strike until death (or demands met) - is significant.Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is a WP:BLP page and editors are under a particular obligation to repair fairly and duly. He was, according to sources, set up in an entrapment scheme. The Minister boasted of his cleverness in making a hungry man look foolish, the Israeli media connived by splashing the net and news outlets with the 'scandal' which effectively achieved its stated end of burying the real issues: Israel's kangaroo court system, its administrative detention abuses, its extortive methods of control, better conditions in exchange for grassing, and its force-feeding of any of the 1,200 prisoners who wage a protest hunger strike. And, the ice whizkid spins Barghouti's defense as a manipulation by his proxies to clear his name. Well, if this goes in, and I am opposed, per BLP I will give as thorough a coverage of every detail of the scam to contextualize it, since it is clear that the aim of this trivia is to promote via Wikipedia, media exposure of the man in what is admitted to be a government operation to smear him. I.e. It's a 'nothing' or all issue, and the WP:Undue 'ompromise'is a totally inadequate method, because, given the complexity of details emerging, no 2 sentences can give a fair (BLP) synthesis of what actually happened.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I see this Reuters report:

The footage, two videos shot days apart from a camera mounted on the ceiling of the cell, do not conclusively show that the prisoner is Barghouti, 58, and it is not entirely clear what he is eating or whether he is doing so.

On Monday, following questions about how the video came to light, Erdan suggested Israeli prison guards had tempted Barghouti with the food. Since he is held in solitary confinement, he would not have been able to smuggle it in.

"You've got to understand, without me going into detail, that in order to lead him to this situation, a great many actions were taken," Erdan told Army Radio. "They got results."

I am ambivalent about inclusion. If it is included, I would prefer the version I gave before. I will not support a version without some kind of "set up" phrasing, since it is mentioned in virtually all reports about the matter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Reuters quote you provided - uses tempted, not setup, which requires less elaboration in-text. If you use setup/framed - you need to specify exactly was was allegedly setup (in this case- making food readily available).Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not only Reuters. Look again, 'set up' is everywhere, from The Times of Israel and Haaretz to Ynet (the minister boasting of how Barghouti fell for the trap set up by the IPS.' etc. Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "setup" - look above - I even suggested a formulation with "setup" - but if we use "setup", we need to describe exactly what was supposedly setup (food available + ongoing filming).Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, though 'set up' is in the sources, it implies that Barghouti actually ate that stuff at the time attributed to the video. But there are some curious anomalies.

the supposed footage from the 5th of May. But strangely, it starts with a few seconds from another angle, and then, when the ceiling camera appears again – it has no timestamp (as the Times of Israel noticed, thus admitting that it could not independently verify the dates the footage was recorded). When asked for comment by Times of Israel, the prison service spokesperson said: “The video speaks for itself.” But does it? The only video which shows Barghouti rather clearly eating a wafer, is that one without a timestamp.' Jonathan Ofir, Israel’s proof that Marwan Barghouti is a terrorist – a cookie Mondoweiss 8 May, 2017.

Sources say the other video does not show him eating.

The first part, dated 27 April, shows the man opening a white envelope and inspecting its contents before sitting down in the cell's toilet and closing the door. The view is obstructed, but the prison service said the envelope contained cookies

If it is admitted, as numerous RS now state, that this was a set-up, then these details are also required. You're looking at at least a paragraph. To repeat, as trivia it is undue. If included then everything like the above, including Israel's attributed motives, and the details of the video doubts (not just his widow saying it was a fake) are required, particularly since this news item was admittedly created by a government agency hostile to the subject. Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Barghouti told his fellow prisoners, his electorate and the world that he was not going to eat. Then he ate the cookies. If the hunger strike is notable, the fact that he broke his word of his own volition is equally notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Nope. Learn to read. That is an inference selectively endorsing one (official) version of the incident, if incident it was, and pushing it as the truth. Unfortunately, when these stories get detailed coverage, the gullible are left gasping when the agitprop of governments collapses in anomalies and contradictions, as the several sources we now have show. So, in stating 'he ate the cookies', you are breaking your editorial neutrality. All one can say is that Israel's Prison Service alleges he ate cookies on April 27, though this cannot be verified from the video with that time-stamp (all sources). The other date has him eating a Tortit candy bar, but has no time stamp. All you have is claims made by the involved minister, and the Israeli prison service. Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to judge the moral significance of eating while asking others to hunger strike - the world media should be out guide - the sheer amount of google-news hits - [10]. This can also be seen in google-trends [11].Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly in Arabic [12] and Hebrew [13] he's getting more search hits from the video of him eating then the start of the hunger strike. In English - the start of the hunger strike leads (probably due to op-ed in NYT).Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nishidani: How about constructively commenting on what to change here - On May 7, the Israeli Prison Service released a video purporting to show Barghouti secretly eating snacks in his prison cell, once on April 27 and again on May 5. According to Haaretz, anonymous sources in the prison service claimed food was made available to Barghouti as part of a setup to check his adherence to his hunger strike. Barghouti's wife stated that the video was fake and was intended to undermine the hunger strike. or (without setup - kingsindian thinks this should be short)- On May 7, the Israeli Prison Service released a video purporting to show Barghouti secretly eating snacks in his prison cell, once on April 27 and again on May 5. Barghouti's wife stated that the video was fake and was intended to undermine the hunger strike.. Both suggested text blocks don't say "he ate the cookies" - just that a video released allegedly shows this.Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that I don't think a compromise is technically possible per WP:BLP. I am opposed to its inclusion, despite the fact that from my personal POV I think it would be marvelous to have this here, since the scandal backfired. But, if people want to include it, then it will get the full Monty, with all of the details in the 8 RS I've examined, giving the context of the prisoners' strike, Israel's attempt to set up Barghouti as a hypocrite, the statements of the relevant Israeli officials on launching the smear, the evidence of the videos, and the anomalies noted by commentators, the protests of his wife and other Palestinian sources. I'll do it in a separate section if the trivia, in any truncated form is introduced onto his page. I expect it will, so I've downloaded 10 sources to that end.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I support Icewhiz's first suggestion directly above. It summarizes the incident noting all important details found in RS. A shorter version could be what is currently in the article but noting the food was placed there as a setup. That detail is currently missing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Either version is good by me, if "purporting" is replaced with "appearing". I prefer the shorter one. “WarKosign” 06:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You have a point with "purporting". However Appearing is too strong here - Having watched the entire 9:30 unabridged clip,

[14], besides requiring us to believe the prison service in terms of dating, it isn't 100% clear to the viewer this is Barghouti (who hasn't been in public for a while, and is filmed from above and mostly from behind), and it is a good premise to assume he's eating the contents of the package on the toilet - in one section the door is closed and you don't see it, and in the other he is eating with his back to the camera (which I assume he knows is there from his behavior) - so you don't quite see it going into his mouth. I suggest replacing "purporting" to "allegedly showing" - On May 7, the Israeli Prison Service released a video allegedly showing Barghouti secretly eating snacks in his prison cell, once on April 27 and again on May 5. According to Haaretz, anonymous sources in the prison service claimed food was made available to Barghouti as part of a setup to check his adherence to his hunger strike. Barghouti's wife stated that the video was fake and was intended to undermine the hunger strike. (the middle sentence may be omitted).Icewhiz (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

On a procedural point, opening a compromise between those who think this is trivial and shouldn't be included, and those who wish to include it, is flawed. You cannot compromise between yes or no, indeed, the compromise assumes the no's must yield to the yes's, by having something in. meaning the dice were cogged for an inclusion verdict, (unwittingly). So while the support is there for inclusion, it doesn't need to be discussed to formulate a 'compromise' version. Those who want to include it can just edit it in, in whatever form, and the editing process continues from there. Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I placed the long version (with the "setup" quote) I suggested above + reliable sources into the article - as it seems this discussion is winding down on the one hand, and on the other hand there was some back and forth on the article on reliable sourcing of the "video eating incident" - and the compromise text here was better than what made its way into the article (outside this discussion - [15]).Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

My point is that there is no compromise text. You wish to make an edit, and several editors endorse you. That's fine, but it is not an outcome of some talk page agreement, whatever form it takes. Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

with the exception of you, and even that half heartedly seeing your backfiring view, other editors think this should be in. The text itselfnisnfairly in agreement with spkitttibg hair on purpotedly, allegedly, and appearin to. And a question, not really pov driven, whether the "setup" sentence should be in. This really down to splitting hait - on a rather minor 2 to 3 sentence bit.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Again you are misreading. You wanted to make an edit with a specific formnulation. That is your right. 3 people thought it unnecessary, a majority concurred in promoting it. That is a statement of fact. You did the proper thing to vet opinions, but the sentence you introduce is not the result of a compromise, and can be expanded or altered by other editors. It is not binding. That is a quite simple point, and there is no hair-splitting. I'm saying, now that you have consensus for inclusion, your sentence is warranted. That however places no restrictions on expansion. is that clear?Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marwan Barghouti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107192330/http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1106735.html to http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1106735.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)