Wikipedia

Talk:Murders of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran/Archive 1

< Talk:Murders of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Mbz1 in topic Refused to condemn?
Archive 1Archive 2

Proposed rivolous deletion request

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

I am not sure how one could claim this article to be wp:event, if there was a new Act passed by US Congress and named for one of the victims! I am not sure how one could claim this article to be wp:event, if there was a foundation and a comedy tour created for one of the victims. I am not sure how one could claim this article to be wp:event, if the article is sourced for 2001,2010 and 2011! May I please recommend you to take the template off ASAP. It is a bad faith edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You can always take it down without discussion, but than a discussion of the AfD begins. Also, the things that followed seriously lack notability, where I'm from when someone dies there is a very good chance a trust is started in their name- awards, grants, parks, buildings, scholarships, and so on, so these don't really add notability. Passionless -Talk 19:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Really? What about US congress Act? Is there "a very good chance" for that to occur too? Listen, please don't take neither mine time not yours, better take the template out, or nominate the article on deletion, and let the wider community to decide.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
And how many "murders" get mentioned in books by a different authors. Really your template for this article was added with the only reason: I just don't like it --Mbz1 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The US congress act which was made a year or two later, has no mention of the murder victim outside of the title. It is a quite general act which does not appear to be in response to the incident. It would be like naming a car-safety bill after a random person who died in a car crash, the bill was needed regardless and is in response to the whole situation, not just one small event. Oh, oops I put the template for 'uncontroversial page deletion'....uh, how do I add the correct one that starts the !vote?? Passionless -Talk 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I've no idea. I usually write articles, and do not nominate ones on deletion.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The event already has an article, it's called Koby Mandell. The information is largely the same. They should just be merged, problem solved. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw the article Koby Mandell, but I am strongly oppose merging the articles. Koby should has an article on his own, but this article should be a separate one. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
According to WP:BLP1E they should be merged. But that would be if the people/event was notable enough to survive deletion under WP:EVENT,WP:VICTIM, and WP:BIO1E. Passionless -Talk 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the merge template for now. First we have to see what will be the result of DRs. Merge template just adds to confusion.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Mbz1, I will accept your suggestion to wait for the end of the AfD, but please don't remove merge templates in the future. Merge templates should only be removed if either the request if obviously frivolous (i.e. can be considered vandalism), or there's a consensus not to merge over a long enough period (usually 1 week, similar to AfD). —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the merge per WP:BIO1E - to be coarse, the kid did nothing aside from get killed that would merit a separate article on him and on the murder. Please note also that the Koby Mandell Act never passed and as such does not confer notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the Act did pass--Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
That source doesn't support that claim, but I found a Forward blurb about Congress passing it and a JPost opinion piece which indicates that it was signed, so I'll add those. We should be able to do better than this, though. Is there no actual news coverage of its being signed? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
wheee Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Final clarification (as I wrote in the article): the bill itself was never passed, but elements of it were added to an omnibus spending bill, which passed. Per Jewish Journal source. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of sourced information

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

user:passionless removed a section that was sourced by wp:RS because ... who knows why. Please revert yourself and discuss any feature substantial edits to the article before you make them.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I did explain that edit, it was located in the edit summary which said- "coatrack, synth, not sure, but I know it has nothing to do with the murders from 2001." And as I said that section has no relevance to the murders of 2001. Passionless -Talk 02:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Accusations spouted as fact

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

There is no source which says Palestinians committed the attack, many say they believe Palestinians committed the attack, but of course this is only an accusation and people are innocent until proven guilty, which I believe no was has been, correct? The anonymous phone call also adds nothing as the phone call might have come from anywhere, even Sharon himself could have made that call which blamed Palestinians. Passionless -Talk 02:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It sure is [1], and besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
That's way out of line, dude. Stick to discussing the sources and don't make gratuitous racist comments. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Where do you see a racist comment? Yes, I hate terrorists whatever nationality, ethnicity and religion they belong to. Any problems with that?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
"Who else but a Palestinian could dip his hands in blood" is racist, yes. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No, not Palestinians, Palestinian terrorists. Are you capable of seeing the difference? And yes, I do not know about anybody else, but Palestinian terrorists, who did in all the curse of I/P conflict. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Then perhaps you shouldn't have brought up this random thing in response to problems in the sourcing of "Palestinians" - it suggests that you don't see a difference, and since you claim that you do, it's an odd connection to make. Are we done here? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you see anywhere in the article that it accused Palestinians of doing this? No,in two or three places it is talking about the attackers, it says "Palestinian terrorists". And, no, we are not done with that until your comment is not stricken out.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah well. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone with a hand could of course. Mhhh, personally I don't trust information from non-textbook books anymore than I trust facts comnig out of fiction novels. They have no legal duty to supply the truth, well to the extent of causing harm, unlike news sources, and they do not rely on respect or have peer reviewing like many other sources do. Passionless -Talk 03:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Review of conflicting sources does not support a conclusion

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

No one has been charged by a prosecutor with this crime, never mind convicted. And despite the same-day wholesale arrest by "security forces" (does that mean the IDF?) "of 20 Palestinians from villages in the area, seeking to determine if they were involved in the brutal murders," as the Jerusalem Post put it, it's my understanding that the Judea and Samaria police, who were in charge of the case, never claimed to have a viable suspect, and that no proof was presented that even identified the perpetrator or perpetrators as Palestinian.

And while my guess is that this probably was an ethnically-motivated hate crime, any number of alternative suppositions are plausible as well. To identify just one example, in an area that wasn't rife with sectarian violence the first conclusion that would be supposed in the murder of two 13 or 14-year-old boys (reports differ re their age) in a secluded area would have been that an attempted seduction or rape by some pervert had been escalated to murder when the intended victims refused, resisted, or threatened to inform authorities.

Despite the scarcity of actual facts, speculation was rife, and most of it was hostile to Palestinians. Although the investigation had barely begun, and as the Daily Mail observed, "The circumstances of the boys' deaths, which shocked the local community and heightened tensions, were unclear",

  • Spokesman Raffia Yaffe ( some sources describe him as a "police spokesman", and others as an Israeli government spokesman ) is variously cited by different news organizations as having said (pick one) he suspected Palestinians were responsible, that they appeared to be responsible, or that they were responsible. Some sources also report him as saying that Palestinian militia were responsible. None of the sources mention him as having provided any evidence at all to support whatever it was he actually said. He made his statements the same day the bodies were found, 9 May, 2001, just hours into the investigation.
  • Raffia Yaffe also seems to have been the first person to introduce the idea to the media that the boys were "stoned to death", a description which suggests a very different image than that of an assailant using a rock as a bludgeon to crush a victim's skull, which appears to be what happened based on the actual details reported.
  • The Guardian said, "Israeli police believe that they were killed by Palestinians in a chance encounter."
  • The Daily Mail reported that an unnamed police commander told Israel Radio from the scene that there was no doubt that this was "a murder for nationalistic reasons," but the same article also cites a settler security chief, Dov Weinstock, as saying "the killers may have been thieves who, acting impulsively, killed the youths using 'natural weapons' such as stones." Settlers said 100 goats were stolen from the adjacent village that same night, one-quarter mile away from the cave in which the boys' bodies were discovered; this is the theft alluded to. The paper added that the police also suspected thieves, but that the circumstances of their deaths "were unclear".
  • The Boston Globe reported, "Police said that whatever happened appeared to be a chance encounter" and that Israeli settlers, among other possible motives, suggested "a group of Palestinian youths had staked a claim on the cave during the seven months of violence, and that Israeli youths had been warned not to hike there." Please note you need access to the full-text to see these quotations; it's available via multiple propretary databases.
  • USA TODAY reported in a 9 May, 2001 article that "Israeli police said Mandell and Ishran may have been killed in a chance encounter with Palestinians. Police spokesman Rafi Yaffe said it was not clear whether the killings were linked to the theft of dozens of goats from the settlement early Wednesday."
  • USA Today also reported in a different article by Matthew Kalman, on 1 June, 2001, that "Israeli police do not know who killed the teens."
  • In a 10 May, 2001 article, the New York Times also reiterated the "chance encounter" idea, reporting "The police said that they believed the two boys had died in an apparent chance encounter with their attackers," and also reported the theft of 100 goats. But the NYT also wrote "the police said they did not know whether the theft was related to the killings," a statement that was also reported by other sources.
  • The Jerusalem Post article cited below disputes this, however, saying "Police said they did not believe there was a link" between the crimes.
  • A 10 May, 2001 Jerusalem Post article said anonymous calls were made to foreign media outlets (but apparently not to the Jerusalem Post) claiming the caller's group, which he identified as "Hizbullah-Palestine", was responsible. This appears to be the only source presently cited in our article that mentions any such call or calls. Perhaps the other sources cited in our article didn't consider the assertion credible, or couldn't determine that any such calls were actually made? One could reasonably suppose that if a media outlet received such a call, and considered it credible, that they would have reported it themselves. The JP article gives no details about the timing of the call or calls it says were made to other media outlets, but it's my inference from that article and others that Israel radio, and perhaps television news, too, had already reported the murders before anyone claimed responsibility.
  • In a 2008 Jerusalem Post piece that's not currently included in our article , Caroline Glick asserts that "Bedouin shepherds" may have been responsible. It makes no mention of the earlier assertion in the same paper that someone had made an anonymous call to other news outlets to claim responsibility.
  • The same day the bodies were discovered, Ariel Sharon, asserted it as a fact that "Palestinian terrorists" were responsible. He also reiterated Raffia Yaffe's "stoned to death" characterization. Some media outlets report it as fact that "Palestinian terrorist stoned the boys to death", others merely quote Sharon and, in one way or another, Yaffe. No evidence was claimed or presented for the assertion that the murderer(s?) were Palestinian, or to show that the unknown perpetrator(s?) acted out of a political/terrorist motive.
  • The Palestinian Authority says it had no idea who was responsible for the murders, and condemned the killings, as did chief Palestinian negotiator, and member of the Palestinian cabinet, Saeb Erekat: "The Palestinian Authority regrets the loss of life of these two boys and all children, be it Israeli or Palestinian, Jewish, Muslim or Christian." He added that, "killing civilians is a crime whether on the Palestinian or the Israeli side", and that "the short way for peace and stability is finishing the Israeli occupation".
  • The official website for the West Bank settlement where the boys lived says, on a subpage, "Kobi and Yosef went for a walk one spring day. They were murdered by Arab shepherds who came upon them 50 yards from Yosef's house in the beautiful canyon surrounding our village." Not a wp:rs, of course, but relevant, nevertheless.
  • Palestinian minister for Jerusalem, Ziad Abu-Zayyad warned against premature conclusions based on speculations, saying "Let's wait and see what are the real reasons as to what happened". ( See quotation and Realplayer audio link at the left margin of this BBC article. )
  • Despite the initial wholesale arrests, no one was ever charged in the murders.
  • In her book, Aliya, author Leil Leibovitz writes with apparent omniscience (or alarming creativity) that the boys "came upon a group of Palestinian cattle rustlers (sic) who attacked them ... then hiding their bodies in a nearby cave, using the boys' blood to write anti-Semitic screeds on the cave's walls." It's possible I missed something, but this appears to be the only source cited in the article for the claim of any anti-Semitic writing in blood or in any other medium. As regards the other statements made by Leibovitz that aren't supported by any source I'm currently aware of, I can only guess that the fact-checkers at St. Martin's Press were all out sick that day.

The only legitimate conclusion from all this is that no one knows who killed these two boys, and no one knows why. All we really know is that they were murdered, and that their deaths were tragic. We can report the assertions of Israeli political figures that it was Palestinians acting out of terrorist motives who were responsible, and we can report the media reaction that echoed those assertions so prolifically. But I maintain that it would be absolutely irresponsible to report those assertions in Wikipedia's voice as if they were established facts when they are so very obviously just speculation made by persons who cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be called uninvolved or impartial observers. Can anyone really dispute that?  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I wholly agree, no one has been charged with the murders, no one is even a wanted suspect in the murders, therefore we can not say who dunit or even allude to who dunit. Even if some books write that Palestinians did it well I think that by stating such a fact that makes them into a NRS as it must be a lie. Passionless -Talk 17:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Two murderous and antisemitic Palestinian terror groups claimed responsibility for the horrific slaughter. Broccolo (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
okay...do you have a reliable source that says this? Right now the article is saying that an anonomyous phone call blamed the attacks on Palestinians, and in reality no one has been found guilty of committing the crime. Passionless -Talk 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How the foregoing applies to this article

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The statements I made in the preceding section apply directly to this article, in its current form. For example, this section, as it currently exists in our article relies much on this ABC news source. But the only content currently included from that source is that Ariel Sharon apologized for the death of a Palestinian infant, and an accusation by Sharon that the Palestinian Authority encourages violence against Israelis. That exact same ABC News report, however, also says that

"The two Israeli teenagers were the latest victims in more than seven months of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that has claimed the lives of 143 Palestinians under the age of 18", and although "Sharon blamed the Palestinian Authority for the killings", the Authority's response was as follows: "But while expressing regret for the loss of life, a Palestinian official today said he had no idea who was responsible for the attack."

The same ABC News article reports, "Since September, the fighting has claimed 437 lives on the Palestinian side and 73 on the Israeli side." That, too, was passed over by those who have edited this article so far, as was the mention in the USA Today article of the most common mainstream media view that it was Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, an area known to Muslims as Al-Haram Al-Sharif, that touched off the wave of violence that these murders have been presumed to be a part of. USA Today also reported that Sharon's vow to continue building Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza has also fueled Palestinian anger. But as our article is currently written, Sharon is presented only as the spokesman for an outraged Israeli public.

These were horrific murders, no one denies that. But even if we accept the unproven claims of Israeli spokesmen that they must have been committed by Palestinians as acts of calculated terrorism, it's fair to say that they didn't happen in a vacuum, either. Our current article presents so little context as to give the false impression that they did.

The death toll statistics for kids reported by an article from The Guardian that our own article also cites are different from those reported by ABC News. But our current article doesn't mention the stats from that article, either, which report that far more Palestinian kids were killed in the then-current wave of violence than were Israeli kids: "In the past seven months of violence, dozens of Palestinian minors and at least six Israelis under the age of 18 have been among the victims."

Further, and quite disturbingly, our current article presents it as an absolute certainty that this was politically-motivated terrorism committed by Palestinians. That's certainly possible, and it may well have been the case. But our current article neglects to mention that the murderers were never identified by the police, despite the fact that, according to a Jerusalem Post article our own article cites, Israeli "security forces had arrested 20 Palestinians from villages in the area, seeking to determine if they were involved in the brutal murders." Nor is it disclosed in our article that the multiple news sources it cites also mention speculation by Israeli police that the killings might have been related to the theft of "dozens of goats" or "around 100" (depending on which source one believes) from a village half-a-mile away, that same night. This information, too, is excluded from our article, presumably because it would detract from the view it presents that these murders were a calculated act of politically-motivated terrorism.

Apologies for the long comments here, but I know this is a place that many of my friends on both sides of Wikipedia's I/P wars will notice. My hope is that these comments might cause at least some editors to reconsider the way they edit here in light of their own deeply-held values of honesty and integrity, without which we all become something less than fully human.

Selah re that last sentence, if you please, and thank you for undertaking the difficult challenge of considering views that you might, incorrectly, and at first glance, be inclined to dismiss out of hand as merely being opposed to your support for the policies of the current government of Israel.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are far into TLDR territory. Please raise specific concerns in a concise manner. Also stop whining about editors, especially if it's only about editors from "one side."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm deeply concerned that my whining might have been viewed as uncivil, Brew. I'll try to keep it in check.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
@Brew, In very short, Ohio said that no one has been found guilty therefore we must say that the perps are unknown. He also states that there is a lack of context, namely that many children are dying in this conflict and this must be presented within the article. Passionless -Talk 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Really

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

You must know that "Scottish Friends of Israel" is not a WP:RS. Must I take it to WP:RSN? Passionless -Talk 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't recall seeing a response from an experienced editor that has seemed more intentionally disruptive to me. Anyone who's been active here for more than a month or two would instantly recognize that a wholly unreferenced collection of claimed quotations put up by a partisan advocacy group isn't even close to being a reliable source, and Passionless was right to credit you with that knowledge.
To cite to such a source in the first place, and then to abuse our process by forcing another editor to start an RSN thread to expunge it speaks volumes about your priorities here. You need to exercise far more respect for the integrity of the encyclopedia and the policies designed to protect it, and you need to let that overrule your private political interests and motivations. I'm sorry to have to speak this directly about so basic a matter to an experienced editor, but if you can't do that for some reason then you have no business editing here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that before Mbz1 cited "Scottish Friends of Israel", she cited the same passage to Free Republic, "a moderated Internet forum, activist, and chat site for self-described conservatives." I regret speaking as heatedly as I did in the foregoing, but she does give the impression that she thinks any source supporting Israel's interests is admissible, and it's that apparent belief that I was so upset by, and was responding to above.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Who did it?

Latest comment: 13 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

A few sources that confirmed that two Palestinian terror groups claimed responsibility for the murder were discussed here. Three users confirmed that all those are reliable sources. Yes, a few sources that describe the murder at the time it happened say that Israeli soldiers checked (arrested) a few Palestinian villagers and a few Kurdish people. I did not add that info to the article in purpose because the books that were used to source the identity of the murderers were written a few years after the murder with much more information available to the authors. I would not like to put even a shadow of suspicion in this horrific murder neither on Palestinian villagers nor on Kurdish people. They could not have done it.

About claiming responsibility. Yes, a few sources reported an anonymous caller, who claimed it was done by a terror group, but if that group did not do it, what prevented them from calling to news papers and explaining that the caller lied? They were accused in horrific crime, why not to say they did not do it, if they did not it? Besides the fact that murders were never caught indicates that the murder was not committed by an accidental person. It is one way to steal a sheep or two, or even to shot somebody, and quite another to stone somebody to death over and over and over again.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A single article in the Jerusalem Post said that some foreign news agencies were called anonymously by someone claiming to be a representative for "a group called Hizbullah-Palestine." The Jerusalem Post did not claim to have received any such a call itself, and no other news agency appears to have reported receiving such a call. And that initial JP report wasn't even upheld by a subsequent Jerusalem Post article, written in 2008 by Carolyn Glick. She suggested that Bedouin shepherds were responsible. You say "a few sources" reported the anonymous caller. Perhaps I missed some: Are you aware of any news report aside from that one JP article that made the claim, or, more importantly, any news agency that reported actually receiving such a call?
Re the books you cite: We have a single unreferenced sentence about the event in the 2002 book Encyclopedia of terrorism that attributes it to both Islamic Jihad and a different group, described as a Palestinian splinter group of Hezbollah. A 2003 book, The New Anti-Semitism, which you added as an external link, mentions it in one sentence, but without speculation as to motive or perpetrators. A 2004 book, Dilemmas Of Weak States includes two sentences about the killings, the first of which incorrectly identifies one of the boys' place of residence. The second one says that both Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah-Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack but, again, no reference is provided for the statement. Another unreferenced single-sentence mention in the 2007 book Chronologies of modern terrorism blames Islamic Jihad. A short passage in a fourth book you introduced into the article, Aliya, also published in 2007, attributes the murders to "Palestinian cattle rustlers" that the boys came upon by chance, and the author describes this imagined encounter from the perspective of an omniscient observer, as if it were fact. That's a high-quality source if ever there was one.
It's my opinion that these single-sentence assertions in compilations of Israeli victims, with no indication given as to what the assertions might be based on ( that one Jerusalem Post article, perhaps, that wasn't confirmed by any agencies saying they actually received such a call? ) cannot be taken as proof of anything. If, as that one JP article reported, other news agencies received such calls, they would certainly have reported them if they'd found them credible. And if the books you cite have any evidence besides that JP article, or beyond preceding books that might also have been based on it, then they should have presented that.
One other source I saw said the cave where the boys' bodies were found had been claimed by Palestinian kids for their exclusive use; it was a popular hangout, just a couple hundred meters from the village. It suggested that as a possible motive, and of all the many that have been suggested, it seems the most plausible to me. That's just a guess, as are all the other suppositions that have been advanced. It would be consistent with the use of improvised weapons (rocks), and with statements made by several sources, including the police and settler security personnel, that this appeared to be a crime of opportunity rather than some well-planned militia-led attack. Are you suggesting that militia from outside the village knew in advance that the kids would skip school that day, and targeted them intentionally? That doesn't seem plausible to me.
Israeli political figures rushed to announce accusations against Palestinian militia immediately after the bodies were discovered, when the investigation was just hours old. The announcement of such very premature conclusions as if they were facts was very irresponsible. News agencies tripped all over themselves to run with those very accusations, but they're not what the local police chief who was actually in charge of the investigation said. He said it was a complex investigation, there were many factors that needed attention, and it would take time to complete, as I recall. The police simply don't know who was responsible, a fact that has been completely excluded from the article in its current form.
I'll close by asking you to remove the external link you added, to The New Anti-Semitism. That the book states, in a single sentence, that the boys were killed is not a sufficient basis for its inclusion as an external link. Besides that, it gets the boys' ages wrong, saying they were both 14, and book reviews describe it as not being a scholarly work.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
An anonymous phone caller claimed the murders were in revenge for the death of a four-month-old Palestinian baby hit by shrapnel during bombardment of Gaza
An anonymous caller to Reuters claimed responsibility for the boys killings in the name of an Islamic militant group, saying they were to avenge the death of the four-month baby and an Islamic Jihad militant on Saturday.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Otherwise as it is seen from the link I provided above RS/N decided the sources are reliable, so your opinions on this aren't relevant--Mbz1 (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
My opinions aren't relevant? You've been reading How to Win Friends and Influence People again, I suppose? I notice you left out "The call could not be authenticated" from the Independent article. If Reuters had believed the call was credible they would have reported it themselves. One news agency reporting that another one received a call that it apparently didn't believe in doesn't impress me much.
And you apparently overlooked this, in that same article, which supports speculation made by settler security personnel that the theft of 100 goats ( only a couple of sources say "sheep" ) that night was related:
Israeli police investigators believe the boys were killed by Palestinians in what may have been a chance encounter. Tekoa residents said sheep had been stolen not far from the site of the killing.
Further, reliable source reports have explicitly stated that the police don't know who killed the boys.
And you're seriously trying to uphold the case that Aliya is a reliable source? Seriously? That's as absurd as the claim you made above that the list of unreferenced quotations given at the "Scottish Friends of Israel" site was a reliable source. I find it impossible to believe that you don't know better than that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course "The call could not be authenticated". If it were authenticated, it would not have been anonymous call.
I am not sure if Reuters did not report the call. I do not believe I saw an article by them.
Here's yet another source that names terror groups responsible.
About your attacking the used sources and me, I have known for a long time you have difficulties assuming good faith, and you have been asked to tone down your comments at this very page already.
I am not interested in continuing this discussion with you. Because if somebody like that is telling me that I have "no business editing here" it sounds not only uncivil, but also laughable.
The article was nominated on deletion and kept 15 to 1 (2 with the nominator counted).
If you have a problem with me using particular sources, you're welcome to take me to ae and try to make me topic banned. Otherwise I am done with you here. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd much rather have my editing history than yours, so your criticism on that basis leaves me entirely unmoved, and I won't respond further to that. I will stand by my assertion, however, that if you can't or won't put respect for the integrity of the encyclopedia and the policies designed to protect it above your own political motivations then you shouldn't be editing here.
Brewcrewer characterized my objection to your claim that a list of unreferenced quotations hosted at "Scottish Friends of Israel" was a reliable source as "whining". Was that what you meant by saying I'd been asked to tone down my comments?
As for assuming good faith, I'm genuinely sorry to have to tell you that you lost me in that regard when you told user Passionless, above, that he'd have to take "Scottish Friends of Israel" to RSN. As I said above, any user who'd been around more than a month or two would immediately know that wasn't a source that could be properly cited, and I didn't and don't see how such a response from so experienced an editor could reasonably be considered as anything other than intentionally disruptive.
Likewise with the Aliya book, at least. It couldn't be more obvious that the author of that book has reported as fact something that she only imagined, or perhaps something she misremembered from earlier media reports. You insisted on escalation for your cite to "Scottish Friends of Israel", and now you're doing the same over a source that's clearly simple fiction reported as fact. I'd suggest that you'd do well to reconsider that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Apparently Mbz1 did reconsider based on the above or on my post (scroll down) to the concurrent RSN thread about these sources: I just noticed that she removed the Aliya book and, earlier, the external link to New Anti-Semitism, as I'd also requested. Although they should never have been introduced into the article in the first place, I appreciate that, and would like to ask whether or not she's willing to discuss problems with the other book sources she's cited?  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me OhioStandard has a fair point. The way the article currently reads, it appears as if there is no doubt the killers were Palestinian "terrorists", and that does not seem to conform with the commentary in third-party reliable sources. Gatoclass (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Gato, it is confirmed by not just one, but by a few reliable sources. It is also confirmed by US and Israeli government sources. You do not suggest that US Congress adopted Koby Mandell Act that is specifically targeting terrorists who kill Americans overseas, if they had a shadow of a doubt the boys were murdered by terrorists, don't you? There's not a single RS that claims that the murder was committed by anybody else, but Palestinian terrorists. As I explained before I did not use some info from initial reports in purpose. I did not want to put even a shadow of a doubt on innocent Palestinian villagers. Yes, some of them were detained and questioned, but they were released as they should have been. The article is the way it should be. Anything else is just wp:or.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Politicians are not reliable sources. In regards to your other comments, I haven't had time to look closely at all the sources but the sources listed by OhioStandard do seem to indicate that there is at least a degree of doubt over the identity of the killers, and if that is so the article should reflect that. But I'm afraid I can't pursue this debate any further today as I am about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Politicians are not reliable sources, but Koby Mandell Act is a legislation and it is RS. Israeli Government is RS too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, thanks. I don't want to get too far away from this specific topic, but I admit I'd found it hard to understand why only Palestinian areas were cordoned off, and over 20 Palestinians were arrested. In my country groups of people don't get arrested so police can "determine if they were involved", as the Jerusalem Post put it.
You've also helped me understand how Israeli spokesman Raffia Yaffe came to call this a "stoning to death", a phrase which implies a dozen or so people encircling a victim in a premeditated, quasi-judicial execution. That's not what happened here, of course, but I see from your links that the phrase has been used before when a rock has been used as a bludgeon. It's about as honest as saying a Palestinian who is shot by the IDF was "executed by firing squad".
I also begin to see how it came about Ariel Sharon and (possibly?) Raffia Yaffe asserted that "Palestinian militia" were to blame, immediately after the bodies were discovered, and despite statements by the local police chief that his hours-old investigation would be complex. One of our sources said Sharon launched a missile attack on Arafat's compound in response, injuring 20, despite the Palestinian Authority having emphatically condemned the murders and having said they had no idea who had committed them. The hatred on both sides must make the angels weep.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look through the sources now. What is puzzling is that no media outlet, either at the time or since, have blamed a particular Palestinian terrorist group, and it seems neither has the Israeli government. But there are three books which briefly mention that "Islamic Jihad" or a splinter group were responsible. One wonders, then, where the books derived this information. I guess I'll have to do a google search to see what other sources are out there. Gatoclass (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of a footnote to say so, I can only guess that the earliest of the books, the 2003 Encyclopedia of Terrorism took its attribution to "Islamic Jihad" from the Irish Independent's mere mention of that group, and took its attribution to a "splinter group of Hezbollah" from the Jerusalem Post's "Hizbullah-Palestine" claim. I suppose the later books did the same thing, or just used this earliest one, the Encyclopedia of Terrorism as their source.
Interesting that no news agency we've been able to learn of so far actually asserts that it received such a claim of responsibility itself. So we don't even have a firsthand report of any such call. We just have a couple of reporters writing that other news agencies received a call that none of them apparently published anything about, and that "could not be authenticated". Nice. You might like to look at the current RSN discussion about these book sources, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I am in the process of rewriting the section in question. I should be finished fairly soon. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a 2008 article which states that "the killers have yet to be caught". One from 2004 saying the killers were "a Palestinian mob". This congressional report from 2004 states that "there has been no meaningful investigation or prosecution" in the case. I think it should be clear at this point that nobody knows who was responsible for these killings. Most likely the books that briefly mention particular groups have simply passed on the speculation that occurred at the time in one or two media outlets. I therefore think some sections of the article should be rewritten accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the "Responsibility" section per the concerns raised in the above discussion. Also added a few sources and done a little reorganization of headers and so on. I will probably add a few more sources later. Gatoclass (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing collaboration discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Mbz1, I don't think the blaming "Jihad cells" addition you made, cited to the "Who are Islamic Jihad?" BBC report can remain. The BBC is certainly a highly reliable source in most cases, but this is obviously another single-sentence-from-memory report. That is, the reporter's one sentence that mentions the murders is a miniscule part of his main story, and it's also extremely inaccurate with respect to the details we already know. I don't mind so much that his one sentence has the boys' ages wrong. But I do mind, very much, that the reporter says they were "abducted from a West Bank settlement". We know that's wrong, of course, and it just destroys the credibility of the sentence entirely, in my opinion. If you agree, do you mind reverting that addition?  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed you removed that, Mbz1; thank you. I came across a very sweet and tragically moving Jerusalem Post article about the reaction Koby's mom has had, via the Internet Archive that you might like to look at. I couldn't find a current link, but I think this could be used to expand either the "reactions" section or possibly the "foundation" section. The article is entitled, Smiling Through the Tears in Tekoa. I was so greatly impressed, for example, by the humanity of the following:

Sherri Mandell had no political response to her son's death. The family sent a message to the neighborhood synagogue on Shabbat telling their neighbors that they hoped their son's death would inspire love and not hate. "I didn't come here because of politics; I came here despite the politics," she told Katsav.

Also, did you notice the JPost article entitled Field of Dreams at all? You probably know that Cal Ripken is a name that most Americans would instantly recognize? He's very famous. I'd like to add what details we appropriately can that provide some glimpse into the lives and personalities of the boys, details that show them as more than just another gruesome statistic in the endless cycle of violence. Can you do anything with these sources, or would you like me to have a try?  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I would caution against doing that right now, given that the article is only six hours away from display on the main page. We don't want to be having content wars breaking out at this point. In regards to the general principle, I am not necessarily opposed to the addition of a few lines of biography, but Wikipedia is not a memorial and whatever was added along those lines would have to be in accordance with WP:UNDUE. Gatoclass (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiving set up

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see that with the less than ideally candid edit summary "maintanence" (sic) user Mbz1 has set up archiving for this talk page. I'm aware that archiving is recommended when a page exceeds 50 KB, or more than 10 main topics, and this page is currently at roughly 72 KB, if the templates are excluded. But it shouldn't be set up unilaterally, without disclosure or consensus, especially where there's any controversy. As the Miszabot help page says, "Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there."

Btw, archiving for a particular thread can be selectively delayed or prevented, as mentioned on the the MiszaBot help page: "Archiving can be delayed for a particular thread by substituting the template {{DNAU}} into the thread. Use {{subst:DNAU}} to retain a thread indefinitely, or {{subst:DNAU|<integer>}} to retain a thread for <integer> days. see the template documentation for details about its use and function."

Personally, I don't want to see any of the threads here removed to archives any time soon, certainly not within the next seven days as would have occured with the parameters Mbz1 chose. Instead of just reverting her, though, I've changed the Miszabot parameters to prevent archiving from occuring soon, since I agree that it will be called for at some point. Please note that doing so does not count as a revert for 1RR purposes. So do we want archiving set up at this point?  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think talk pages are covered by 1RR, it's just articles. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Refused to condemn?

Latest comment: 13 years ago34 comments3 people in discussion

Mbz added to the lead that "Yasser Arafat,President of the Palestinian National Authority, refused to condemn the killing". I don't see that in the source at all, it simply says he spoke about Palestinian children hurt in the conflict. Gatoclass (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, he not just spoken about Palestinian children, he spoken about Palestinian children, when asked about the murder of 2 Jewish boys, but if you are not satisfied with the source, please give me some time to find another reference on the matter. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I added New York Times source. It states: "But Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, avoided a direct response to a reporter's question about the killing of the Israeli boys, saying that a Palestinian baby who was wounded in fighting today was exposed to the same tragedy."--Mbz1 (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
That's still OR. It doesn't say he "refused to condemn" the killings. It doesn't even say he was asked to condemn the killings. It shouldn't be in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I could offer to you to change it for a direct quote from New York Times "But Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, avoided a direct response to a reporter's question about the killing of the Israeli boys, saying that a Palestinian baby who was wounded in fighting today was exposed to the same tragedy.".--Mbz1 (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
That's still just the opinion of one commentator. It doesn't belong in the lead, but it might be acceptable in the "Reactions" section. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No, not just one commentator. The Globe and Mail also pointed this out too "When two teenaged boys were found dead near their homes in the West Bank, their bodies bound, mutilated and pummelled with stones, Mr. Arafat refused to express regret, saying only that Palestinian children were victims too".--Mbz1 (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I seem to recall at least one other source that said something similar, maybe even "refused to condemn". That phrase doesn't seem strictly permissible, based on this NYT source alone, but it's not ridiculously far off either, imo. I don't have time right now to look for the way other sources quoted Arafat's response, but we probably do need to conduct that search. OTOH, Hamas did say something that I thought was pretty evil, something like "We applaud the killing of two more so-called 'settlers' intent on taking Palestinian land." That's a rough quote from memory; I'd have to find that source, too, but if I can, it probably belongs in the article. I don't like having all the "reactions" in the lead, though, but if we're going to say there that this was assumed to be a Palestinian crime then I suppose we're obliged to include the PA spokesman's disavowal there as well. And then, of course, a case could be made that candor requires some notice there of Arafat's avoidance of a "direct response", too if we include the disavowal in the lead.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, if you can find a reliable source or two which says Arafat "refused to condemn" the killings, then we can talk about it. If Hamas made any such statement, I have no objection to it being included in the "Reactions" section. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
We cannot say in the lead that the Palestinian Authority condemned the killing without specifically saying that Arafat did not condemned the killing at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. You found the ref from the Daily Mail that I'd also seen, but hadn't been able to find again. I'm not sure why chose to top-post that ref above my 14:16 30 March entry above, but no harm done, and good on you for finding it, and for formatting the url so carefully, too. I've added the cite to the "refused to condemn" sentence of the lead. I think that's fine, but if you disagree and would like to change the language to say "refused to express regret" instead, I can't see how anyone could reasonably find fault with that, unless possibly on the basis of a lame plagiarism objection. I'd certainly have no problem with it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It's still an opinion not a fact, and at the very least should be attributed. And it still looks very undue to me in the lead. Gatoclass (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, that source is a paysite, which makes it difficult to verify. Gatoclass (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I managed to view the article in question. It's an opinion piece, basically an attack on Arafat. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead, and if it's used at all, should be attributed. But I see no point in using it in any case, because it's just one commentator's opinion. I would however accept an attribution of the phrase "avoided a direct response" in the "Reactions" section, since there is at least some corroboration of that point now. Gatoclass (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to say in the lead that the PA condemned the killings it seems unfair not to disclose that their leader didn't. That would be the normal reaction of a healthy human being when asked about such an atrocity, after all. I agree the column was "basically an attack on Arafat", however, and that it would be better if we knew exactly what question the reporter had actually asked.
But the only way that keeping Arafat's tepid response out of the lead would be justified, in my opinion, would be to have no responses there at all, i.e. to present "reactions" only in the section so named. In any case, I've modified the lead to say, "Both the Israeli government and the spokesman for Palestinian Authority condemned the killings, while Yasser Arafat, the President of the Palestinian National Authority, responded to a question about the killings only with mention of Palestinian children who have suffered or been killed because of Israeli actions." That seems reasonably balanced to me, and I really don't see how any less could fairly be said in the lead. Does it seem acceptable to you?  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't entirely happy with that edit, particularly the word "only", because it's framing Arafat's response according to a particular viewpoint. So I've substituted more neutral language. Also trimmed the sentence back a bit for conciseness. Gatoclass (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I do think that "only" is called for, myself. It's unfortunate that we don't know exactly what Arafat was asked, but published reports do indicate that reporters ( I'd like to know how many heard his answer firsthand ) felt he'd deflected the intent of the question. The edit you made leaves that out entirely, which I think isn't quite fair, since the reporters thought it salient enough to comment on.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Not "the reporters". Some reporters - or rather one reporter and one (obviously hostile) commentator. The JPost piece, for example, doesn't mention any deflection, so it appears to be an angle that one or two media outlets decided to take. Gatoclass (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(intend)

Now I would really appreciate, if somebody could come up with a few sources, but BBC, that reported that somebody from Palestinian side "condemned" the murder.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for making my point for me. Three of the five examples you quote do not make any claim about Arafat "avoiding" the question or "refusing" to respond to it. To that you can add the JPost piece which also makes no such claim. That clearly demonstrates that the media outlets who made this claim were framing Arafat's response in a particular way, which is just what I said they were doing. There is no legitimate reason why the perceptions or prejudices of one group of reporters should be favoured over others, as you did by adding these comments to the lead - particularly when those perceptions appear to belong to a minority of commentators. Gatoclass (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
"prejudices"? Well, if somebody is asked for example what date is today, and instead he's responding "today is cloudy", would it be a "prejudices" to say he's avoiding the question?
Anyway, if you are satisfied with this piece as it is now let's leave this subject and concentrate on finding a few RS that reported somebody from Palestinian sight "condemned" the murder.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems Mbz has completely ignored this discussion by adding an extended "clarification" which contains precisely the content I have objected to above. Mbz, I am going to have to ask you to revert the Arafat additions to the intro, you know I have an objection to them and this is not an appropriate time to initiate a content dispute. Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot revert it, because I have an objection to the introduction you wrote. I cited the RS. If you'd like me too I could add something as "according to NT's observer" and "according to Globe and Observer" , but that's about it. Arafat refused to issue regret, and to condemn the murder, when directly asked about murder of Jewish boys, he avoided response, and instead talked about Palestinian children.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I've explained why I have an objection to this material in the lead. It would be WP:UNDUE to add any commentators' opinions to the lead, let alone a couple of cherry picked assertions like this. Once again, I must ask you to revert. You know the article is about to go to the main page, it looks very much like gaming to turn up shortly before its promotion to make wholesale changes you know are contested. Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Gato, first of all about "gaming". It is 8 a.m. where I live. When do you believe I should have added my edit, at night? So, could you please wp:AGF?
I do not believe my addition to be WP:UNDUE.It is a very, very important piece, and it should be in a lead. Before you changed I simply said Arafat refused to condemn the murder, but after you changed it, I had no choice as to clarify your change.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's yet another source that states: "Palestinian officials refused to condemn the brutal slayings". I did not add because I am not very good to distinguish what is and what is not RS.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
All it takes is time, and usually not much of it. In this case you could have looked at the byline of "ICEJ NEWS" on the article at "Worthy Christian News" that you were considering, and plugged that byline into a search engine. That would have taken you to the home page for "International Christian Embassy Jerusalem", and you would have seen, right at the top, Our Mandate, which says the organization was founded "as an evangelical Christian response to the need to comfort Zion according to the command of scripture..."
You would have learned, in other words, that this organization's focus wasn't to report news, exactly, but rather to support Israel, and that any news it did report would be subordinate to that goal. Saying the same thing another way, you would have concluded that the topics it chooses to report on, and the content of those reports, would be likely to be slanted in Israel's favor, and thus biased against the Palestinian cause.
If you'd wanted to be doubly sure, you could have clicked on the "About Us" link from the home page, and from there found other links where you could have read that the group is "the world's largest international network of Christian supporters of Israel" or on the Objectives and that its purpose is "To show concern for the Jewish people and the reborn state of Israel." From this you would have concluded that because it was created to push a POV, this is not the kind of source we want to use on Wikipedia in any controversial subject area. The entire process would have taken you no more than five minutes.
Since you've often said or implied that your edit history here so vastly outweighs my own meager contributions, it's interesting that I should have to explain so fundamental skill to you. Given that I have, I think it would be a poor idea to use that comparison to try to discredit my opinions or contributions again in the future.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW a spokesman for the Palestinian Authority never "condemned" the murder either. He just said that he "regrets any civilian deaths, regardless of what side they are on." Calling this statement "a condemnation" is a big overstretch.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
You're mistaken. Not only is "condemned" in reliable sources, one of those sources is both used in our article and even used as a cite for the claim, right where it should be, in the body of the artcle which the lead is summarizing. You're not even supposed to have to cite anything in the lead anyway; the lead is only supposed to summarize material that's already present and cited in the body of the article. See our policy about that.
The cite to the BBC source that says "Palestinian officials have also condemned the killing" appears at the end of paragraph in our current "Reactions" section. You have to remember to look at the cites at the end of the paragraph; not every sentence has to be cited individually.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have requested that the article be pulled from the queue since it's clear that there are still unresolved disputes. That should hopefully give us enough time to resolve the disputes fully before the article is promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I would have seconded your request, Gatoclass, had I known of the pending DYK. It was really irresponsible to have unilaterally put this up for a DYK while there were so many unresolved issues under discussion here, while there was an open thread on its sources at RSN, and to not have disclosed the nomination here on the talk page. ( How did you learn of that, beforehand? ) And I agree entirely that it looks very like bad faith to have introduced the extremely contentious reverts and edits that Mbz1 did, shortly before it went to the main page, knowing full well that other ongoing contributors would object, but probably wouldn't have time to respond before it went up.
And then to have used the tag line "stoning murder" when that description has been a source of contention here, as well. I see the DYK instructions page says the "hook" should be neutral. Presumably that means that editors who've been working on the article consistently have reached some consensus on the part of the article the proposed hook depends on. Well. I hardly know what to say. I went out of my way to extend an olive branch, of sorts, to Mbz1, by providing some new sources in the "Ongoing collaboration" section below that we could legitimately use to add humanizing details about the boys lives. I won't be in a hurry to offer her another one.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, thankyou for the expression of support, even if it comes (through no fault of your own, clearly) too late to prevent contested content from reaching the main page. At DYK, there has been a longstanding convention that articles not be promoted until disputes are resolved, but sadly, at least where articles in the I-P topic area are concerned, it seems to be honoured more in the breach than the observance. Gatoclass (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The references to "Palestinian terror" groups should go. There is no reference to Hizbullah-Palestine as a "Palestinian terror" group in the cited source. And AFAIK, we still don't refer to groups as "terrorist" because it's considered POV. The Islamic Jihad page, for example, refers to the group as "militants" who have been designated a terrorist group by a number of governments. Gatoclass (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed "terror" yesterday.
I did make clarifications in the lead. Many sources say that Arafat responded about Palestinian children specifically, when asked about the murder of Jewish boys.It is not an opinion. It is a report. It should be in the lead.
Also the thing that a few sources assumed the murders were Palestinians should be explained somehow. What reasons did they have to assume it should be specified.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murders_of_Koby_Mandell_and_Yosef_Ishran/Archive_1&oldid=1136252930"