Talk:Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Objections; "Killing" vs. "Assassination"

I object to the recent move of this article from "Assassination..." to "Killing...". Regardless of whether it is the right outcome, the move was done without any prior discussion on the talk page. It's my understanding that this should always be done before making any major or controversial changes. Also, I object to EpeeFleche (and other users) referring to al-Mabhouh as a terrorist. This is POV, and appears to be used by those trying to justify the assassination. Logicman1966 (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@Logic - You are absolutely correct. See this long, rather dry conversation between Epee and myself.

@Epee - The fact you unilaterally made the change we were actively debating over, seriously borders on bad faith. I reccommend a self-revert, else I will consider AEing. NickCT (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Logic--I had initially left an edit summary here: "Reverted to revision 364179792 by Changehimnow; "killing" is accurate and NPOV; Assassination -- especially here, where we do not know who killed him or why, is POV; As is moving mossad to "perp"".

I realize now that my second edit summary was truncated to: "The term assassination is likely an incorrect one to apply to the killing of a terrorist. The use of it has proven to be controversial here, and a numb..." It went on, which unfortunately you could not see, to direct readers to the discussion of the subject with Nick here.

Nick insisted, for reasons he never explained, on moving Mossad from "suspected perp" to "perp". I'm of course certain he is editing in complete good faith. Which makes his edit even more perplexing. Normally, one would expect to see edits of that sort from POV editors.

He and I also discussed the use of the term "killing" versus the term "assassination". At great length.

He in that discussion was clear that what we have here is in fact a killing. He said "Obviously it was a killing.". He went on to say: "I never suggested it was not a killing." He added that the fact that it was a killing was "self-evident". So, there was no controversy as to whether it was a killing.

Nor could I imagine any editor (in good faith) saying it was not a killing. For that reason, I did not think that the move would be controversial (for all editors who, in good faith, admit it is a killing).

The use of the term "assassination", in stark contrast, is heavily contested (more accurately, flatly rejected) in cases such as this by a number of our highest quality academicians, and one of our most respected jurists. Even if we were to assume (which I expect is not the case) that there were an equal number of academicians and jurists of similar repute (Georgetown Law; NYU; the Southern District of New York) who had an opposite view, that would still leave us with the fact that assassination is a heavily contested term. Contested on the basis that it is wrong, in the view of those who contest it.

Happily, we don't have to decide whether it is wrong or not. Because the very fact that it is controversial, and rejected by significant RSs -- while "killing" is not -- means that we can (and should) use the NPOV term.

No basis has ever been suggested as to why "killing" is more NPOV than "assassination". Quite the opposite. Below, some further thoughts.

1. The issue is which is the better term to use, as less imbued with controversy/POV. "Assassination"? Or "Killing"?
2. We don't yet know who killed him. See, for example, this.
3. We don't know why they killed him.
4. We do know he was killed, though. There is no controversy that he was "killed". Which is why "killed" is the NPOV word.
5. "Assassination" is steeped with POV, and assumptions as to the reason for the killing.
6. Seven of the highest-quality academic and judicial sources who have spoken to the phrase (which is, at the end of the day, a legal phrase, as assassination is "murder" -- another legal phrase) have made the following comments. Georgetown Law Professor Gary Solis, who has written the definitive work in the area, which he published just this year, writes: "Assassinations and targeted killings are very different acts".[1] Judge Sofaer, one of the most respected U.S. trial judges of our time, points out that the use of the term assassination is opposed when a terrorist is killed in a targeted killing, as it denotes murder, whereas the terrorists are targeted in self-defense, and thus it is viewed as a killing, but not a crime.[2] He also points out that "When people call a targeted killing an "assassination," they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action."[3] Also, Roger Cressey, senior fellow at the Center for Law and Security at NYU, said he doesn't like the use of the term assassination to describe targeted killings, because he thinks it can be misleading: "I think you should not have political assassination as a tool, and it's banned under Executive Order 12333. The issue is ... if the United States government makes a decision to go to war, to attack a transnational group, one objective of that decision is to eliminate the leadership. ... We're either going to do it through traditional military means ... or we're going to do it through covert activity. I mean, we're trying to actively hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden. We're not trying to assassinate him. We're trying to kill the senior leadership of al-Qaeda ... right now. That is not assassination, in the way that we have discussed assassination in the past ... because we are at war with this entity known as al-Qaeda ... under the U.N. charter, under Article 51 of self-defense, we can attack another nation in the spirit of self-defense, and under international law that is justified as well. So the difference between launching ... trying to kill bin Laden with a Predator Hellfire Missile, in the context of war, that is completely different than a political assassination."[4] Law Professor Amos Guiora writes: "Targeted killing is ... not an assassination", Professor William C. Banks and Professor Peter Raven-Hansen write: "Targeted killing of terrorists is ... not unlawful and would not constitute assassination", and Rory Miller writes: "Targeted killing ... is not 'assassination'"..[5][6][7][8][9]
7. Judge Sofaer observed: "When people call a targeted killing an 'assassination,' they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action."[10]
8. As can be readily seen from the above, at best the use of the phrase "assassination" here would be controversial.
9. At worst (which may well be the case), the use of the phrase assassination here would be wrong. As wrong as NickCT's insistence on moving Mossad in the article from "suspected perp" to "perp". To use the phrase would therefore be POV. That is why it should not be used, and the NPOV phrase "killing" -- which we can all agree is accurate -- should be used.
10. I apologize if I offended Logic for calling the person who was killed a terrorist. The person killed was the head of the military wing of Hamas. The governments of Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia all classify the group he headed as a terrorist organization. Logic may be upset with their view. But the POV we guard against is the POV of the editor, not the POV of the RSs and the bulk of governments in the western world. When the above academicians and judge use the phrase "terrorist", you can expect that this is just the sort of organization that they were referring to, the same as al-Qaeda (which you may also wish people refrained from calling terrorist; I don't know).

--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Though some discussion in advance of the move might have been nice, it seems clear that Epeefleche has a detailed and knowledgeable basis for doing so and I agree with him. However, I tend to take a more simple approach to the analysis. “Assassination” is often understood as “an individual murdering a notable public figure such as a politician”; that is, assassination is typically understood as comprising these elements: A) it is a homicide (death of one human by the hand of another), and B) the action was carried out by some low-life individual, and C) the act was illegal (making the homicide a murder), and D) the person slain was an important public figure. Think: John F. Kennedy assassination. The term “targeted killing” when conducted by a government under the law of war (so it therefore not against the law according to the government carrying out the action) carries the dual virtues of 1) not carrying the improper connotation that “assassination” has as it is commonly and typically understood and applied, and 2) is more encyclopedic because it is the term often used by those governments themselves to describe what they are doing. I seen no need to make this any more complex than that. Greg L (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Greg, your (B) is contestable: let me rejoice at the person who might have murdered Hitler or Stalin, or indeed Kim Il Jung, whatever his name is. Low-life seems rather narrow a definition. Your (C) ... when is homicide legal? Are you referring to the mercy killing of the terminally ill in a few jurisdictions?

To those editors here who object to "Killing": some kind of compromise is essential here, unless you want to end up at ArbCom, where no one comes off unbloodied and the article will be frozen for months. I can see both points of view, but they must either be avoided overtly ("Killing" is a reasonable way, it seems to me), or threaded into the text in the usual clumsy way (some people regard it as ...., others regard it as ...). Take your pick, but please don't war over whether one view should predominate—no one will succeed in that. Tony (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PS I've run through it quickly to copy-edit. I removed the flags: this is no place for flag-waving, please. I'd have thought that was obvious. Tony (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• I object to the unilateral move of this article without prior discussion or consensus, and I have restored the stable title. If anyone ends up at ArbCom, it will be the editor(s) who insist on moving this article without a consensus to do so. At present I have no detailed comments about what the article title should be and have simply restored the stable title, I will be happy to take part in a discussion should a requested move be opened. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I've block reverted Epee's edits. While there may not be consensus that his edits are wrong, there is consensus that they should have been discussed before they were made. Let's have a healthy discussion and not descend in bickering and edit warring. NickCT (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Ummm -- let me get this straight. Nick, the fellow who moved Mossad from "suspected perp" to "perp". The one with whom I had copious discussions. And the who admitted, as reflected above, that it was a killing. Is reverting mention that it was a killing? Since he admitted that it was a killing, that makes no sense. But I see that he has just been blocked, so perhaps this has been a bad wp week for him. As to requesting a move -- consider this such a request. On this page there seems to be a consensus view that the term killing should be used, as the less POV of the two works, and the less controversial one. That would accord with what NickCT said (as quoted above, as it obviously being accurate), what I said, and what two others have said. I recognize that some editors said that they think discussion on this page (presumably, in addition to the edit summaries, and the extensive conversation w/Nick on his talk page) would have been better before the move, for which I apologize to all. We have now had a number of editors chime in, and not one has stated that "killing" is more POV and more controversial than "assassination", and therefore is the less appropriate word.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now read all the discussions on the talk page (thank you for the link NickCT), and still remain convinced that ‘assassination’ is the appropriate word to use here. Lets look at the facts – a team of people, using fake passports, fly to Dubai specifically to kill a man, and leave the country straight away; it was a pre-meditated and carefully planned exercise, with a specific target in mind. That is an assassination. Yes of course he was killed (so was JFK) because he is dead now, but more specifically he was assassinated. I could also use words like ‘murder’ or ‘execution’, but assassination is the most appropriate.

Epee, as to calling al-Mabhouh a terrorist, your defence does not convince me. Yes the organisation he belonged to is classified by some countries as a terrorist organisation, but that is a separate issue; you have drawn a link and directly called a person a terrorist. Can you please name any terrorist actions that he is known (ie. proven, not accused) to have committed? It’s easy to label a person, but you need to provide evidence to back it up. If the purpose of the exercise was to deal justice to a terrorist, then it should have been done in a court of law. Logicman1966 (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't really need to go that far off topic and that question opens the doors for too many others. Google news shows "assassination" as receiving the most hits. However, it is within a hundred or so of both "killing" and "murder" so it isn't very much. "Assassination" is obviously disputed. Keep it simple and make it "killing". The body can go into detail on assassination and I don't think anyone is trying to remove sources that use the term. We have different neutrality standards than the press and for good reason. There is very little reason to make this a big problem unless people have something to prove.Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is important to read the diffs at para 6 above. He's no political figure. He is a military one. The organization is classified a terrorist organization by the western world, ranging from the EU, to Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. Killing of terrorists are not viewed as killing of political figures. They are viewed as self-defense killings (under the UN charter and Hague Convention). One need not to have personally taken part in the terrorist action -- it is enough to have ordered it, or to lead the organization that led it, but yes -- is you know anything about the man, you know he was not shy to do so. You can luck it up, or if that is too much trouble I will do that for you. Using the term killing as the title of the article is pure POV-pushing. Georgetown Law Professor Gary Solis, in his 2010 book entitled The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, stresses that the applicable ICRC interpretive guidance indicates that civilians who lead terrorist organizations, for example, by virtue of their position never in essence literally pick up arms themselves, but by the same token they never lay them down, and are therefore legitimate targeted killing targets. In accord, he cites the Judge Advocate General of the Canadian Armed Forces, Kenneth Watkin who said: "It is not just the fighters with weapons in their hands who pose a threat". I agree with cptnono's point that what we are focusing are here is the title of the article -- in a quote, for example, or reflection of what person x said, as in "Commander x said they were assassinated", I would support its use in the article. In all other cases, as in where it is the "voice of Wikipedia", it should not be used. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Assassination" is clearly what happened. It is a word that generally encompasses the business-like taking of a prominent person's life for political reasons, with the secret-agent skullduggery. "Murder" was the previous title and did not have consensus, and "Killing" is non-specific and includes deaths by military action, drive-by shootings and generally the deaths of people who were not known to the killers. These words differ according to the nature of the targeting. Abductive (reasoning) 08:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That along with not minding the term personally was the exact reason I was hesitant to say anything at all. However, if sources are disputing it we should consider making the change. The title has not passed any sort of benchmark longevity wise so I see no reason to not be cautious. Just because we assume it was politically motivated and have no qualms calling it "assassination" does not mean it was what an assassination. It was unquestionably a "killing" regardless of any other definition.Cptnono (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Nonsense. It is a word first that is used for heads of state and the like. He wasn't in that category. He was the head of a military wing of an organization that the western world has identified as a terrorist organization. Further, assassination requires that the killing be illegal, whereas there is reason to believe that the killing of terrorists who pose harm is not illegal. Thirdly, it has not been determined that he was killed for political reasons -- yet another requirement. Killing for military reasons, such as self-defense (or to rob him, as it has been indicated that he was staying at the five-star hotel as he was on a weapons-buying mission) would both make this something other than an assassination. We simply don't know that this is an assassination; anything that you have asserted that meets the criteria is either wrong, unproven, or OR. Just because some editors are uncomfortable with the notion that the person killed is the head of an organization that the western world has declared is terrorist, and is not a "political figure", doesn't mean we have to dress up his corpse with the cloak of "assassination" to prettify him". JFK, he was not.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It was either the Israelis or Fatah, or the Israelis and Fatah, or some other state actor, who had this man's life ended. This is the definition of assassination. Abductive (reasoning) 19:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As to who it was, of course Abductive is simply spouting his POV and OR, as though it is true. It's not. The RSs indicate otherwise. I'll have to stick with them, over Abductive. All we have at this point are suspects and suspicions. Not all suspects are state actors -- another of his untrue statements, which he passes off as fact (not that that is relevant). And not all suspected motives are that the killing was for political reasons; in fact, quite the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The article says that the authorities have suspects. The Israelis have not denied the accusation. The article says he had enemies all of whom happened to be state actors, not jilted lovers or businessmen he ripped off. Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- they arrested two suspects. Palestinians, connect to Fatah. There are other suspects they have not arrested, including a Brit and others. Two suspects fled to Iran. Who cares whether it is a "state actor" -- that doesn't factor in at all. The Israeli policy (as I expect you know, if you have read the articles that are the refs) is always to neither deny nor admit. And as to those article that discuss Israel's motives, if in fact Israel did it (and all we have is suspects -- not convictions, mind you ... suspects are often found not guilty, of course), there is ample speculation that it was for military reasons. Which of course makes it a non-assassination. Your whole position is based on speculation, OR, synth, POV -- and even then fails completely.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• To be short, I agree with Cptnono. There is absolutely no controversy surrounding the fact that it was a killing, so we should go with that. It is not clear that it was an assassination. Breein1007 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• It is very clear, and no evidence has been presented that it was not. Avoiding controversy is not the goal of an encyclopedia. Just because some editors are uncomfortable with the notion that Israel may have assassinated an enemy does not mean Wikipedia must accommodate them. Abductive (reasoning) 19:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, no evidence has been presented that it was. There is not one single piece of evidence implicating Israel whatsoever with the death of this Hamas terrorist. And there appears to be a disagreement as to the definition of the term "assassination" here, so it's far more than an issue of avoiding controversy. Even if Israel was behind the killing of this man, I would not call it an assassination. Breein1007 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Breein. Even more importantly, he was not a head of state, much of the speculation is that he was not killed for political reasons but rather for military ones, and It has not been determined that he was killed for political reasons, the goal of the Encylopedia is to be accurate (which killing is), rather than to support Abductive's POV by turning his personal syth and OR into a factual wikipedia statement.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence that he was targeted, for which the correct word is "assassination". It wasn't like he was killed by 29 jealous lovers. If he was an important man, it was an assassination. Would you prefer that all instances of the word assassination in the article on Meir Kahane be changed to killed? Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have to think about Kahane, and read up more perhaps (e.g., was he killed for political or military reasons?). But I wouldn't off-hand reject the notion that killing might be the better phrase. As to being "targeted", one can be targeted for targeted killing (self-defense; not an assassination -- you can read up on this in the above diffs, that discuss it at length) and for robbery (not an assassination; e.g., note the suspects who fled to Iran). That certainly doesn't support your notion.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe the Dubai authorities when they say that three suspects fled to Iran, why are they not to be believed when they say that the Mossad was behind the assassination? Abductive (reasoning) 20:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

First, one could invert that. Second, a suspect is way short of someone being convicted -- it is still speculation as to who did it, and we don't report speculation as facts here -- which your title would otherwise do. Third, even if it were Mossad, we don't know its motive ... but the speculation is that it was not for a political motive, but rather for a military motive, as this was the head of a terrorist military wing, rather than JFK or Abraham Lincoln. Your position is built on speculation that you've trotted out as fact.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not I who is speculating, it the secondary sources. Here's another way of phrasing it: One "kills" animals. One "kills" people by accident, or incidentally (civilians in war). "Murder" is incendiary, and assumes that someone is guilty. "Murder" articles on Wikipedia tend to be about non-notable people murdered in a notable way. "Homicide" could be justifiable. "Execution" assumes a trial, and "Extrajudicial killing" assumes not. So the best and least biased alternative is "Assassination." Abductive (reasoning) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I was saying. You appear to me to be speculating. You base your speculation on the speculation of others. We don't name article with names that are based on speculation. Because the article title, speaking in Wikipedia's voice, presents the speculation as fact. Furthermore, if you've taken the time to read the half dozen diffs at para 6, you would see that the phrase "assassination" is highly biased and disputed in cases such as this. It's viewed, by significant RSs, as plain wrong. Killing is not wrong. There's no reason, other than POV-pushing and an attempt to prettify the head of a terrorist group by using for him a phrase used for political figures, to substitute a phrase based on speculation and heavily contested by RSs, rather than an accurate non-POV phrase.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best to keep my comments brief, as I'm sure everyone's eyes are getting tired. I find Epee's evidence as to the existence of considerable controversy over the propriety of the term "assassination" to be clear and convincing. As I read the arguments for those who support the use of "assassination," I find all of them (yes, all of them) basically amount to common-sense and common-usage arguments for why the term is appropriate. Some of them are pretty darned good. But this really isn't the right argument. The question is whether or not significant controversy exists regarding the propriety of the term. Epee has cited multiple wiki-approved sources indicating that controversy exists. None of the counter-arguments effectively refute that contention, IMHO.

For the same reasons, I find myself leaning in Nick's direction vis-a-vis the earlier discussion between "killing" and "murder." But I don't want to tear open old wounds. With the arguments as they now stand, I'd vote in favor of "killing" instead of "assassination." TheSwordandScales (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The falicy of the argument TheSwordandScales is that it can be applied to anything. I mean, imagine that I argued that Kennedy was not assasinated but in fact just killed. You might come back and say "but all the RSs use assasination not killing", to which I respond "Look, we all agree he was killed right? If there is any debate about whether or not he was assasinated, we'd better use killed as it's less contraversial". The argument is clearly fallacious. We stick with what the majority of RS uses. NickCT (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems the consensus, in regards to Wikipedia rules, is that given the contention of terms, the NPOV choice would be "killing". talk says "imagine that I argued that Kennedy was not assasinated (sic) but in fact just killed"; if there was widespread disputation of whether Kennedy's assassination was in fact an assassination, then we'd be having this talk on that topic; however, 99% of people agree that it was an assassination. Thus there exists reasonable disputation of the title, and "killing" is a factual term, without the POV implications steming from the term "assassination". Therefore, I am reverting the title to "killing". (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2010 (EST)

Reverted back. Great majority of RS refer to it as "assassination" not "killing". NickCT (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I really don't want to get into a revert war here. But trust me, I have more time to kill ;) Haha seriously, the existence of this talk page says enough that there is dispute on the topic. If you control-find through the article references, their near 40-60 killing-assassination, which suffice to say is in dispute. Therefore the great majority of RS do not refer to it as "assassination"; this is no flotilla "incident" vs. "raid" scenario. I'm going to revert it back: by WP rules the NPOV term has to dominate; that is killing. If you want to revert it back we should figure out a reasonable way to solve this; to my eyes the rules clearly lie on the side of "killing" (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2010 (EST)

@User talk:Adam7z

1) Google "assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh" = 73,200 results

2) Google "killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh" = 54,200 results

3) Read read WP:COMMONNAME

4) Change it again without following WP:DR and I'll see you in ANI. NickCT (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Kill is clearly less POV (as I would think any non-POV editor who has not been sanctioned for I/P editing would see). Also, it has more ghits at "Al-Mabhouh" kill than does "Al-Mabhouh" assassinate. Finally, I wonder if its possible for Nick to speak to his fellow editors in a more civil, less combative fashion. It might perhaps be more in keeping with wp:civil.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Epee that Assasination is arguably POV and should be avoided. Killing is entirely neutral. As for ANI, maybe NickCT should explain why he has the right to revert unilaterally, but denies this right to his fellow editors. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Look. This debate is silly. By your arguments, the word "assassination" should be scrubbed from every article. I mean, someone might argue that John F. Kennedy assassination is POV. So why not change it to John F. Kennedy killing? The bottom line is that if it is generally accepted among RS that an event was assassination, we call it assassination.

@Epeefleche - Obviously you are trying to mislead people with your search engine test. If you genuinely believe your test is accurate it's not worth my time explaining to you why it's not.

If we want to pursue this, I suggest we simply move to RfC. NickCT (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

@NickCT, I don't agree with your analogy. The Kennedy assassination was a subject of a lengthy legal process which used the term assssination. Also the use of this term is not disputed. In the present case, there has been no known judicial procedure (that used either term). Furthermore, in case of this fellow, the majority of sources use assasination, but it is not an overwhelming majority. I am not against RfA. However I do not care either way too much at all. Another approach is to stop splitting hairs and move on. I am going to do just that. Good night. - BorisG (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Killing is POV as it is ambiguous, ie: it can carry an implication of a reduction of responsibility which is removed when a court rules it murder and we dont want to call the article The murder of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh do we? killing should be avoided. Newspapers in my country universally say assassination. Regardless of who carried it out it was a targeted assassination and that is what most reliable sources call it. As most RS also include the term killing in the article body as well as assassination, this effectively reduces the value of killed from searches significantly.Wayne (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No, killing is general and is NOT POV. Ambiguous? Perhaps. But since there is no court decision on this, it is not for us to determine that it was an assasination. However I am OK if the the majority of RS say so. - BorisG (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The "court decision" standard seems a little odd, as "assassination" is not a legal term. I'd agree that a "court decision" might be necessary if we were talking about something like "man slaughter" or "first degree murder". NickCT (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You are actually right, NickCT. However a judicial process can help establish attributes present in the definition of assasination. According to the corresponding Wikipedia article, An assassination is the murder of a prominent or public figure, usually by surprise attack and for political purposes. Thus assasination is murder. Murder can be established by courts. - BorisG (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree w/BorisG. Am troubled by NickCT's continued disregard for wp:consensus, as well as his continued lack of civility, for which he has already been sanctioned twice.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche - Demonstrate consensus with an RfC..... or would you prefer that I RfC? NickCT (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

NickCT -- We have not only the above discussion, but also six months of discussion including a formal RfC at the relevant page --- the Assassination talk page. Unless you are seeking to be disruptive and replay needlessly the same discussion that has already been had extensively over half a year on every related page, there of course would seem little reason for one to propose redundant typing on the part of all. I assume your good faith here, and therefore assume that you will respect consensus which is there for you to read at your leisure.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

@Epeefleche - You have a chronic habit of declaring that "consensus" is on your side. I say it's not. If you want to demonstrate it is, let's do so with an RfC. Otherwise, I'd suggest cease claiming that "consensus" supports you in everything you do. It's worse than claiming that god is your side. NickCT (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Objection: "Curiously"

Regarding recent edit re-inserting "curiously" into text

Hi, it seems to me that the word "curiously" adds some bias or extra meaning to the passage, and is not necessary to the facts. Someone tried to remove the wording, but it was re-inserted by BorisG. Also it is not used in the original source, as BorisG implies ("This is exactly what the source says"). I think BorisG's edit should be undone. Thanks. - Fx6893 (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The source says: If it was Israel, why did three of the team leave on a boat bound for Iran? http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0319/Dubai-assassination-spotlights-top-cop-skills-in-a-modern-day-Casablanca/(page)/4 . BTW I watch all pages I contribute to, so there is no need to notify me separately. Cheers.- BorisG (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree w/ Fx6893. "Curiously" should be removed, both b/c of bias, and because of poor english. NickCT (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick, do you care to elaborate? - BorisG (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure!

Point 1) Bias - The point of adding "curiously" is obviously to cast doubt on the idea that the assailants were Israeli. The issue with this is that a) at this point I think arguments that the hit wasn't conducted by the mossad constitutes WP:FRINGE & b) even if there is room for "reasonable doubt", the manner in which the sentence is written is unencyclopedic. "Curiously" is a word more suitable for a narrative and a statement of facts.

Point 2) Poor english - "Curiously, if it was an Israeli hit team, three of its members left on a boat for Iran" - This sentence doesn't really make sense. While the meaning of the sentence is clear, it is odd and improper use of the word "Curiously". More appropriate wording might be something like "Three of its members left on a boat for Iran, which would have been curious had the team been Israeli" or possibly "Curiously, three of the members of the allegedly Israeli team, left on a boat for Iran". Either way, putting in "curiously" in this manner also presupposes that the reader understand why it is curious. A casual reader of this article might not necessarily know that Iran and Israel aren't best of friends. NickCT (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I totally agree that The issue with this is that at this point I think arguments that the hit wasn't conducted by the mossad constitutes WP:FRINGE . This is precisely why I disagree that The point of adding "curiously" is obviously to cast doubt on the idea that the assailants were Israeli. The point is not to doubt that these were Israelis (I have no such doubts), but to be wondering why they left for Iran. Isn't this curious for you? It is for me and for the author of the article cited here. You make inferences that are not there and then say that the word should not be there because it implies obviously this and that. It doesn't. It is your speculation. As for English, I don't understand your point but maybe you are right. Actually the only reason I want to keep 'curiously', is to keep some form of a narrative, not a raw collection of unconnected facts. Maybe the word is not encyclopedic (I agree), but some sort of logical narrative needs to be there. Feel free to modify/edit. One alternative is to quote the source verbatim, but then indeed it may sound like a doubt. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that "Curiously" is POV. If the assassins were using foreign passports then what exactly is curious about going home, wherever that might be, via Iran? In fact it should be expected if its an intel operation. It's quite likely that none travelled directly to their home countries. Wayne (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is your speculation, or, in wiki-speak, "original research". But if I am to continue this "research", I'd say the natural aim of any team members was to get away from territory controlled by hostile security services as soon as humanly possible. Yes, initially they could slip away with fake passports, but as soon as their CCTV images were discovered, they could be easily apprehended at any port, airport etc. It is bad enough to be apprehended in Europe, but imagine, just imagine, what would happen if one of them was apprehended in Iran. Why did they take that risk? It's quite likely that none travelled directly to their home countries but why go via an enemy state? Indeed very curious to me. Anyway all of this is irrelevant to the article, which should probably just quote the source verbatim. - BorisG (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not speculation but common sense. They had 10 days to make their escape which is around eight or nine days longer than they needed to travel to Iran and then use different passports to go to a third country. We have to assume there were uninvolved agents in Dubai who would have warned the assassins handler when it became known they were suspects. Curiously is not just POV but POV pushing because the claims source has no basis for making the claim. The author has either not thought about it or is trying to up his word count. Wayne (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Common sense is original research. I don't agree with your research at all. I don't know where your 10 days are coming from. Once the body was discovered, tapes could have been analysed in a matter of hours if not minutes. As for POV, what POV? - BorisG (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't it take 10 days for them to realise death was not natural causes? The CCTV images would not have been looked at before then so they had 10 days to travel wherever they wanted without suspicion.Wayne (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave it up to BorisG or someone else to change it. Like I said I think it should be changed but it's no biggie. I'm fine to leave it at that.
If you are interested in further detail (since you are curious, after all), the suspects that "escaped" to Iran actually did so months before - they were on a familiarization mission before the killing, Dubai Police say to plot the murder. Many news outlets have been vague on this (including the discussed source), and while I can see how it has been inferred that the boat travel happened after the killing, the details are that their passport names are Adam Korman and Nicole Sandra McCabe (Australians living in Israel who claim their identities were stolen), they traveled from Hong Kong to Dubai on 20 Aug 2009 by flight EK381 (Emirates Airlines), and left on 25 Aug via ferry to Iran. Of the team who were in Dubai at the time of the killing, Dubai Police say they all flew out of the country before the body was discovered (the next day).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/world/middleeast/25dubai.html
http://m.gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/crime/al-mabhouh-assassination-most-wanted-1.588338 See "In and Out of Dubai" section.
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/al-mabhouh-survived-two-previous-hits
http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/10/09/the-murder-of-mahmoud-al-mabhouh-in-global-hunt-for-hit-men-tantalizing-trail-goes-cold/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/25/2829656.htm
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/al-mabhouh-survived-two-previous-hits?pageCount=2
Best, Fx6893 (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thx Fx6893. In that case it is no longer OR. Definitely not curious that several suspects with Australian passports went via Iran as they had more than four months leeway before the earliest time they might have risked being caught.Wayne (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to check these sources, but if that's the case, then the whole sentence has to be removed or changed, not just one word, because the current wording clearly implies that those who left via Iran were part of the team present in Dubai on the day of the killing. - BorisG (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I also checked your sources and few of them mentioned your version. OTOH, just type Dubai police said some hit squad members fled to Iran after the assassination. in google and see how many hits you get. BTW the preceding sentence is still in the article. How can we tell which of the sources are more accurate? - BorisG (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

One way to tell if the source is accurate is to check if the source made a correction later. The source you quoted earlier for example, the CSMonitor, said the following

The Monitor incorrectly reported yesterday that Dubai had claimed the pair had fled to Iran after the assassination in January, based on some confusion in the documents released by Dubai. In fact, Dubai said Korman and McCabe had traveled to Dubai from Hong Kong on Aug. 20, 2009 and traveled by ship to Iran on Aug. 25.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0225/Hamas-assassination-Australia-outraged-at-identity-theft-Israel-ambassador-summoned

I just got that from the Google search you suggested. Best, Fx6893 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I guess this explains it and satisfies my curiousity (which I think was justified). In fact, contrary to some statements here, I considered it so strange as to suspect that Dubai police got it wrong or deliberately misleading. Indeed, this proved to be the case! Further amendment ot the statement in article body is required. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

nervous Hezbollah members?

Where exactly in this source does it say that key Hezbollah members became nervous after the killing in Dubai. The source does say that Hezbollah has "been on edge" and that they have asked for enhanced screening, but where does the source support what was called "sourced information"? I might not go as far as our anonymous friend did in his or her edit summary, but that line is unsupported by the cited source. If anything, the source shows the "key Hezbollah member" as being decidedly defiant, not nervous. nableezy - 16:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden

How is this any different from the assassination of Osama bin Laden? Both Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh and Osama bin Laden were the heads of terrorist organizations, yet all the countries who condemned Israel for executing Al-Mabhouh praised the U.S. for executing bin Laden a mere two years later. Talk about hypocrisy. This just proves that most criticism of Israel is motivated primarily by anti-Semitism. Also, if Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral like its WP:NPOV policy falsely claims, this article would be titled Death of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, just like Death of Osama bin Laden. But of course, it will never be, since Wikipedia is controlled by anti-Israel leftist cunts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.144.76.7 (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Links

>> Canada granted Israeli Mossad agent new identity, businessman claims(Lihaas (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)).

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100220083109/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iwVdaYpYsBz7wKRCUxpcqhtjr31AD9DTEN2O2? to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iwVdaYpYsBz7wKRCUxpcqhtjr31AD9DTEN2O2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100221224027/http://www.stratfor.com:80/memberships/154777/analysis/20100217_uae_death_mahmoud_al_mabhouh to http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/154777/analysis/20100217_uae_death_mahmoud_al_mabhouh
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605011604/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article7054855.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article7054855.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100219114117/http://ca.news.yahoo.com:80/s/reuters/100216/world/international_us_uae_hamas_israel to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100216/world/international_us_uae_hamas_israel
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100601230735/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7039272.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7039272.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604103407/http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/sns-ap-ml-israel-hamas,0,28026.story to http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/sns-ap-ml-israel-hamas,0,28026.story

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121026094425/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7044326.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000 to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7044326.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120529072301/http://www3.almanar.com.lb/newssite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=158711&language=en to http://www.almanar.com.lb/newssite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=158711&language=en
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120529072312/http://www3.almanar.com.lb/newssite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=158788&language=en to http://www.almanar.com.lb/newssite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=158788&language=en
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121017013814/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article7031313.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article7031313.ece
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111118042430/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7073250.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7073250.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100304051808/http://jta.org:80/news/article/2010/03/01/1010848/report-alleged-dubai-assassins-entered-us to http://jta.org/news/article/2010/03/01/1010848/report-alleged-dubai-assassins-entered-us
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100328121658/http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk:80/legislation/current-legislation/terrorism-act-2000/proscribed-groups.html to http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/legislation/current-legislation/terrorism-act-2000/proscribed-groups.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140204040731/http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/95FB057CA3DECF30CA256FAB001F7FBD?OpenDocument to http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/95FB057CA3DECF30CA256FAB001F7FBD?OpenDocument
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110210134534/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0602/1224271678155.html to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0602/1224271678155.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604164333/http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=169099.html to http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=169099.html

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725105613/https://pastel.diplomatie.gouv.fr/editorial/actual/ael2/pointpresse.asp?liste=20100218.html to https://pastel.diplomatie.gouv.fr/editorial/actual/ael2/pointpresse.asp?liste=20100218.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100331001729/http://go.ynet.co.il:80/pic/news/24.02.2010/Doc2%20(3).doc to http://go.ynet.co.il/pic/news/24.02.2010/Doc2%20(3).doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722213815/http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=5810 to http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=5810

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.