Talk:Dirar Abu Seesi

Untitled

could this page be anymore one sided ? for example: " the deputy engineer for Gaza strip's only electrical plant, which is the only source of power for the enclave's 1.5-million residents"

gaza has only one electrical plant but its not the only source of power, Israel provide most of the electricity to the gaza strip

I think this page is not bad, in my Opinion, you can add that "Israel claims hi is endangering it's security". this tells us that Israel thinks otherwise..giving too sides of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taldeane (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Opening para reads like it's a foregone conclusion how terrorist this guy is. News chatter I've been following (BBC, Reuters, AJ, NYT etc.) seems to read that it is disputed, though my personal opinion is that the Israelis probably did not nab a wholly innocent person, though article should probably include some uh - Ukrainian official sources - about what people in the kidnapping country feel about exactly *how* they went about doing that, kidnapping people generally being frowned upon and all that. NPOV dispute resolution go go. Pär Larsson (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like somebody swooped in today and really changed the article. Looks like most of the article now comes from the Jerusalem Post and is definitely has a one-sided view now. I'm going to revert all of their changes and add back in some of the new information. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. Also, I'm very close to adding this article for deletion. In theory, news breaking articles like this should be on Wikinews and not Wikipedia... I've tried to bring the article from a pro-Palestinian view to more neutral view, but if it is not going to neutral, maybe deletion is the next best thing. Bgwhite (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a candidate for deletion imho. Guy is essentially kidnapped from Eastern Europe with or without local gov't cooperation and ends up tried on speedy terror charges in Israel. Fairly unusual way for anyone to conduct business. If they'd just killed him maybe it wouldn't have been so notable. Personally I think wholesale reverts are not the way to go if you're reverting actually sourced material - would be better to combine language and sources from both versions so people can make up their own bloody minds. Key word bloody. Pär Larsson (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree he shouldn't be deleted, just maybe moved to Wikinews. I'm not an expert on what should be on Wikipedia or Wikinews which is why I haven't done anything about it. Just that I've seen articles moved off to wikinews. I kept the source and the general information the previous person put as the indictment should be listed. I object to having most of the article, including the opening paragraph made up from information from the indictment. The allegations in the indictment are not fact, just what he as been alleged to be. The allegations maybe true, but not proven at this point. You are right the key word is bloody. Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree on the wikinews. Whether he's guilty of crimes against humanity or he's all happy super mega friends and rides around on a unicorn throwing out candy to little kids, he's notable for how he was picked up and transported and so quickly back in the public eye. Historically. A simple murder would have been less notable, less unusual and taken less resources, been less risky to the operators, and cost a lot less money. The only gain from not killing him being less political blowback and possibly some intelligence from interrogating him. But maybe someone knowledgeable about the wikipedia/wikinews policies would know, so pop a wikinews? tag on it if you know how.Pär Larsson (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

In editing this page, someone has removed links to my blog, which has provided the most comprehensive coverage of the Abusisi case. It was the first to report he was imprisoned inside Israel and has consistenly reported aspects of the story that have not appeared in other media outlets based on original sources such as his family and Ukrainian sources. I have restored a link to this blog post. Please do not remove it in future. Richard Silverstein (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been warned on other articles about this. You cannot add a self-published blog as a reliable source. Please see WP:BLPSPS: "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Also see: WP:COI and WP:OR about conflict of interest and no self-promotion on wikipedia. Bgwhite (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bgwhite has deleted a substantial portion of the original material I wrote when I created this article. I dispute most strongly his claim that my contribution is invalid due the nature of the publication I've used in publishing this material. My blog was the original source reporting this story & I've continued reporting almost all the new developments as they've happened and much of the material that is known about the case is only known because of the sources I have used in reporting it. Do NOT delete material and references I add to this article unless you can substantiate that the material is inaccurate or has a serious, provable deficiency. I have no problem with editing my material if someone believes there are specific issues with it. But do NOT remove entire sections or reference or sources without proof that the sources or information are inaccurate.

Your comments above are nonsense. My blog has reported this story using original sources from the victim's lawyer, wife and brother. I've covered the story using Israeli Hebrew, Ukrainian & Russian language sources as well, translated the Shin Bet charge sheet into English & published it when no other media site has done so. I've reported that the victim was detained in Jordan based on evidence conveyed by the victim to his brother & reported directly to me. No other media outlet has published this material. I've examined the charges of the Shin Bet and done original research with the help of Russian speakers who have examined original documents about his education which contradict information in the Shin Bet charge sheet.

The rules you're quoting above have nothing to do with a story like this one or the type of reporting done in my blog.

If you revert my material I will escalate this matter by appealing to a higher level of editorial management. Do NOT do so unless you can prove the material I have added is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richards1052 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, go ahead and appeal. I welcome a review. It's not a matter if you are first or correct. It's a matter that you are using a blog as a source on BLP, self promoting your blog in the article and having a conflict of interest. When sentences of "I've reported that the victim was detained in Jordan based on evidence conveyed by the victim to his brother & reported directly to me. No other media outlet has published this material." and "My blog was the original source reporting this story" are used, you are definitely treading on thin ground... I can't prove it inaccurate because no other reliable source has it according to you. I think the best way to sum this up is from WP:SPS, "...personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." and "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm here from the third opinion page. There are several potential problems I see here and they both narrow down to whether the blog is a reliable source:

• Conflict of interest: Linking to your own websites as sources is discouraged, but not prohibited. If you do choose to link to your websites, you need to be sure that your site is a reliable source, that you do not link to promote your website, and that the information you cite is neutral. In this case the link doesn't appear overly promotional, so the issue defaults to the question of whether the link is a reliable source or not.
• Blog sources: These are also generally discouraged. Blogs can be reliable sources (and appropriate to link to) if the writer is an acknowledged expert in his field. They can also be used as primary sources to document how a subject feels about something. So yet again, the question is not whether this is a blog source or a coi source, but whether its a reliable source.

I looked over the blog and it doesn't appear (to me) to be a reliable source, so I don't think it should be used in this article. What stands out is a lack of any attribution on the blog. It uses vague language such as "A Ukranian news source reported..." "an Israeli source says.." and it fails to document who exactly says what. Richard, if you compiled the information on the blog, then can't you just use the sources (which I assume are reliable) to cite the information on-wiki, without having to go through the middle-man of your blog? That would eliminate the concerns with COI and sourcing from blogs, as well as the concerns with the blog's reliability. As for the actual content of the article... it has to follow directly from whatever reliable sources you use, so if the source changes the text should be modified to reflect that. I hope this helps.

To clear things up with a directive, I think it would be best to remove the text attributed to the blog for now, and perhaps replace some of it after it has been backed up by a reliable source (perhaps the sources Richard used for his blog?) ThemFromSpace 08:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dirar Abu Seesi. 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/20110403201402/http://www.interfax.com.ua:80/eng/main/63529/ to http://www.interfax.com.ua/eng/main/63529
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110330/wl_mideast_afp/israelpalestiniansconflictukrainegermanyarrest_20110330160626

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)