|
|
Article is basically a selection of cherry picked material to portray the purported viciousness of the Palestinians. For instance regarding reported Palestinian support of the (alleged) kidnapping, RS give the context of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike against mass detention without trial and the Palestinians hope that kidnappings can be used as bargaining chips for justice. This sourced detail was deleted without explanation by one of the editors who has been adding the cherrypicked material.
Adding material only supporting one POV while (deleting without explanation) sourced material detailing other significant published viewpoints is not consistent with out core WP:NPOV policy. Dlv999 ( talk) 12:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help) Quote: "Palestinians backing almost 300 prisoners on hunger strike due to Israel’s practice of holding them without charge for six months or longer. With Israel’s track record of releasing Palestinian prisoners for kidnapped soldiers, such as the swap of 1,027 prisoners for Sgt. Gilad Shalit in 2011, many Palestinians advocate the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers or civilians as bargaining chips for justice."
Dlv999 (
talk)
12:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Dlv999 is correct. This article is appallingly written, with a clear POV attempt to apportion blame through cherry picking, lack of context and synth. We are MUCH too early for such conclusions to be drawn, or even by implied, in wikipedia's neutral voice. Hopefully these guys will get home soon - let's not pre-judge a rapidly changing situation. Oncenawhile ( talk) 18:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This edit by brewcrewer (how many changes or reverts of other editors' work have you done today? Does this count?) eliminates an important distinction. It is not copyediting. Militants are Palestinians, but Palestinians are not thereby militants. 'Many' begs questions. The proper way of saying this is (all)'militants, and many Palestinians'. Erase the distinction and you do what the article's editing history shows is the intent of this new article, to make a POV case against Palestinians. Nishidani ( talk) 16:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The title of the article should say "possible kidnapping" until it is beyond doubt. It appears to be speculation at this stage. Oncenawhile ( talk) 18:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Its no longer a possible kidnapping, and it never was. Israeli sources confirmed and US accepted that it was a kidnapping that resulted in brutal murder of school age children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.90.182 ( talk • contribs)
I have moved the above here for discussion. My concerns are:
Oncenawhile ( talk) 18:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Incidents that received less or no coverage in Israeli media are reports that settlers threw barrages of stones at Palestinian cars over the weekend, damaging 15 cars and injuring three people. In the south Hebron hills, some 30 settlers reportedly invaded the Palestinian village of Susya, threw stones at homes and attempted to attack a 13 year old.Many in the twittersphere have responded to the IDF campaign by hijacking the hashtag #BringBackOurBoys with statistics and photos of Palestinian children detained or killed by Israel, including a Palestinian child killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza this week and the (191) administrative detainees currently in Israeli prisons without charge or trial, all of whom the online activists are adamant to “bring back” as well. Since April, some 120 of them have been on hunger strike (that’s 53 days now) and there have been solidarity protests throughout the West Bank and Israel on a regular basis. . . Think of the 80,000 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem who have been living without regular running water for months now. Or remember that exactly one month ago, on Nakba Day, two Palestinian teens were killed by IDF fire during protests in Beitunia while presenting no immediate threat to anyone.
The Time line is already implicit in the sequence of events. I think whoever reverted you was correct. All that is required is to break the 'sequence of events' flow into its respective days.
The choice of details, moreover, in your time line, is aleatory and just redoubles the text. Reconsider. Nishidani ( talk) 16:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering about the choice of image to accompany the article. Wouldn't the portraits of the three missing teens illustrate the subject better than a rather generic image of Israeli soldiers? 80.179.9.7 ( talk) 20:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Following on the note above, you added here a tag which reads:'Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.' The dispute, I believe, was resolved with the relevant points addressed. So, since you have not made your point, please list here your remarks on its lack of neutrality so the discussion can be reopened and resolved. Otherwise it will be removed. Nishidani ( talk) 12:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Look, this is a difficult article because of the potential for disruption, so frivolous repetition of what is already in the text and (b) the use of blogs is intolerable. I https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2014_kidnapping_of_Israeli_teens&diff=613286951&oldid=613282441 noted to another editor a few days ago what every editor in the area should know, blogs esp. army blogs are not acceptable. Yet you go ahead, and reintroduce one. Worse, everyone knows that attribution is required yet, you give no attribution to the IDF/Israeli thesis that the use of charity and schools in a fundamentally poor society is just to further terrorism. It is highly offensive to at least one constituency since 'charity' is obligatory in Islam, as it is in Judaism. Israeli and other sources are entitled to the POV, but our policy of neutrality cannot state that as factual. And in any case, the text already says, with attribution, that this is Israel's justification. So your edit just jammed up the page. Nishidani ( talk) 18:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm having trouble reading the rationale for removing the item re al-Bireh here, EP, since it's not clear from the edit summary. I figure that one can perhaps think too much detail is problematical, esp. in terms of page length, if this things, fingers crossed, drags on. But we won't know, for a day or two or even a week, depending on how events play out, how to judge this. My approach is to give all details available, and then, once the affair is concluded, with statistics in or better comprehensive reports available, one can then cut back. Could you share your thoughts on this? Thanks Nishidani ( talk) 15:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Stop the nonsense. Judea and Samaria was the subject of a long and extenuating debate, and its result formed the basis for a high level decision, affecting all I/P articles. No knowledgeable editor challenges the consensus that the neutral wikipedia voice for the area is West Bank ( Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) point 4). Read policy and precedent, and kindly revert this useless provocation. Nishidani ( talk) 21:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
"Judea and Samaria", lol. That's practically Likud/"Settler" terminology, isn't it?
192.114.16.121 ( talk) 09:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
So much of Israel is dominated by anti-Palestinian sentiment ("How dare they have the audacity to live in the homeland of the JEWS!") and likud-speak isn't exactly an obscure thing?
I suppose it's good to hear you confirm it. Also there weren't any Jews who could claim biblical ownership to any part of Palestine at the beginning of the Zionist project and there certainly aren't now, although the "settlers" do like to pretend otherwise, don't they? 70.27.160.169 ( talk) 03:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC) 70.27.160.169 ( talk) 11:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor deleted many of the see alsos -- all kidnappings in the West Bank/Gaza area -- without explanation. I think they should be restored, as appropriate for see also's. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The lead has this, which is now dated, since also the possible actions have now, at least for Ramalaah, tken place.
Israel's Deputy Minister of Defense, Danny Danon, threatened "possible actions" in Gaza and Ramallah.[9]
The lead of course should summarize the main sections. I don't think revising it to make it fit the body of the text should be regarded as reverting. If anyone cares to look over it? Nishidani ( talk) 21:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
(*)in this edit, with the summary ‘d sentence not reflected in ref.’ the deleted sentence runs:
A Palestinian government spokesman maintains that holding them responsible for kidnappings in Area C of the West Bank,where Israel exercises full military control and prohibits a Palestinian police presence plays them in an impossible position. Source Booth, William. "Palestinian President Abbas condemns kidnapping of Israeli teens". Washington Post. Retrieved 16 February 2014
Your call was technically correct for that article by Booth doesn't contain the sentence.. But it took just 15 seconds to find how the error occurred, (name confusion as I transferred the data from my file of newspaper references) The precise text on which the deleted sentence was based came from Booth’s article the day before. William Booth, 'Israel accuses Hamas of abducting 3 teens,' Washington Post 15 June 2014, which reads:
Palestinian officials said they have been put in an impossible position. Ehab Bessaiso, a spokesman for the unity government, said the Palestinian Authority cannot be held responsible for abductions in Area C of the West Bank, on the outskirts of Hebron, near the Jewish settlement communities of Gush Etzion, where the Israeli military has complete security control and where Palestinian police are forbidden.
So it has to be restored with the correct article from Booth. I'd appreciate the courtesy of asking me on this talk page for clarification before deleting anything I add, since I try very hard to be meticulous, and a speedy delete without a check via google, in this case, only means the reportage is amputated of an important item, and editors seeing this have to hang around, thinking of 1R, for a day or two before restoring it with correct attribution. That wastes time. Nishidani ( talk) 09:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably also worth noting regarding point one that the Epeefleche edit was in violation of the 1rr restrictions on all IP related articles as it was the second deletion of other editor's additions in 24h. [2] [3] 1rr restrictions don;t really work unless they are strictly adhered to by all editors. It is a bit frustrating waiting to correct errors so as to meticulously abide by the rules, and then to see other editors plough in making multiple reverts that do not even improve the article. Dlv999 ( talk) 14:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
A Palestinian government spokesman maintains that holding them responsible for kidnappings in Area C of the West Bank,where Israel exercises full military control and prohibits a Palestinian police presence there, places them in an impossible position.(William Booth, 'Israel accuses Hamas of abducting 3 teens,' Washington Post 15 June 2014)
<-For interest, if you go to google maps [4], the highlighted point is the UNRWA health clinic for the Qalandiya refugee camp, on its western edge. The camp extends to the north, east and south of the clinic. Qalandiya itself is about a kilometre to the west on the other side of the airport/military base/barrier. This Applied Research Institute report has details for the camp if anyone fancies updating the main article at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
In the Day 10 paragraph the following statement caught my eye:
while 9 (Israeli version) to 38 (Palestinian statistic)
Shouldn't both be version? What makes the Palestinian numbers a statistic?
Or maybe the other way around, both should be a statistic (though it doesn't sound quite right to me)?
OK, that makes sense. I'll take a look and see if I can't find any more info.
Thanks!
Chocom (
talk)
06:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that the image of the teens be moved up to the infobox, as the infobox image. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I would have preferred using a simple picture without the Israeli army branding but couldn't find anything that would be guaranteed to fit within the Wikipedia usable allowance. Any alternative picture would be appreciated. Chocom ( talk) 06:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In which case I will simply crop the pic and re-upload it. Thanks Chocom ( talk) 07:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to a bit later. Done. Replaced the attempted cropping with an edited original. I think it's much better.
What about moving the pic to the infobox?
Chocom (
talk)
15:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There is one thing that is odd here. The total of deaths we have is 5, yet even today the standard report in the Western press in updated articles refers to 4 dead. At first I thought this meant Ali Abed Jabir, the old man who died of a heart attack in the vicinity of, or as a consequence of (versions differ), Israelil raids, was excluded since we have no objective criteria for determining if his death was a direct result of a raid. But, I see, he is excluded from the 5 victims we name. Technically, he might go into the list, because 'deaths' does not literally mean people shot during clashes or in raids. I'm somewhat diffident about this, however, for the simple reason that 'deaths' contextually lists deaths caused by Israeli fire, and to include him there would be tendentious, and a violation of WP:NPOV by the implication the bunching in would carry. Perhaps we could resolve this by having a 'casualty' voice below this, to register the anomaly. Or, of course, one could omit it altogether. Thoughts? Nishidani ( talk) 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it looks like the problem I hinted at earlier is on us. We can't keep (well, we can) adding days with little information. If this is going cold, then we will need a week 2 synthesis, and that is why here I am adding
My suggestion therefore is that we refrain from the day to day reportage in the following days except for adding details in this work section, if nothing turns up to change events, until Friday morning, and then reframe the section in terms of week 1, week 2. Nishidani ( talk) 09:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing to indicate that any of the claims are credible.20140615TOI"
Good practice before removing work is to google the key phrases to check, and, as here, you will often find sources justifying more or less the words you initially feel are not source-related. You correct the fucking phrasing, you don't expunge and hang around for others to do the work.
(1)An obscure Salafist organization claimed responsibility for the abduction on Friday, followed by a second unknown group. Neither group offered up proof, and there was no indication that the claims of responsibility were credible. 'Israel rounds up senior Hamas men in West Bank sweep.' The Times of Israel June 15
(2)In its statement, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the armed wing of Fatah party in the West Bank, said the three missing Israelis are in safe hands outside the area of Hebron."The Israeli government will never have the honor of finding them and they won't be handed over unless thousands of prisoners, mainly females, are released," it said.Earlier, two smaller West Bank groups also claimed responsibility for the kidnapping, but neither claim was considered credible by Israel. And the latest claim by the group is also not confirmed. 'Fatah-linked armed group claims abduction of three Israeli teenagers,' Xinhuanet 16 June 2014.
(3)There have been no credible claims of responsibility for the kidnapping.' Jodi Rudoren 'Bedouin Trackers Hunting for Israeli Boys,' New York Times 23 June 2014
(4) The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors militant Web sites and activity, reported Saturday that two jihadist groups had posted claims of responsibility for kidnapping the teens. A group calling itself the West Bank branch of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria said it had carried out the abduction to avenge the deaths of three fighters. Another group, Brigades of Global Jihad, also posted on a jihadist Web forum, but the communique was deleted, according to SITE. A third group, Liberators Battalion of Hebron, sent a message to Israeli media claiming responsibility, according to news reports in Israel. An Israel military officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing said Saturday that “there are a lot of statements floating around, and they will be evaluated.” But he cautioned that such groups, if they exist, often make claims that turn out to be false. William Booth and Ruth Eglash , 'Israel says three missing teens were kidnapped by a terrorist group,' Washington Post
(5) At least three different statements claiming responsibility for abducting the teenagers have reportedly been issued by different groups, one claiming to be affiliated with the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, one calling itself Ahrar al-Khalil, and one claiming to be the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades; this last statement was reported to have been subsequently denied. It is entirely unclear whether any of these claims are credible. 'Abducted Israeli teens must be released, Israel must cease collective punishment of Palestinians,' Amnesty International 17 June 2014.
Waiting for RS details to emerge, this is the family background of the two suspects.
Week 3 Friday 27 June. 3 Palestinians were wounded in the Balata refugee camp overnight. The villages of Salim, Aqraba and Qablan village near Az-Zawiya were raided. [9] Hundreds of Palestinians from Umm al-Fahm demonstrated against the IDF operation and the practice of administrative detention. [10]
Saturday June 28.18 Palestinians, 12 described as Hamas operatives were arrested overnight. Israeli shrapnel wounded a 15 year old boy from Duheisha refugee camp, where two arrests were made. Two arrests were made in the al-Saff neighborhood and Marah Rabah. The chief clerk of the Ramallah court was detained in Deir Abu Mash'al, and a student at An-Najah National University in Nablus, and a former prisoner was re-arrested in the al-Bathan area north of Nablus. [11] Nishidani ( talk) 11:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The only Sanjar I know of in the West Bank is the area in the Old City of Hebron around the Al-Jawali Mosque. Any one, esp. those reading the Israeli-Hebrew newspapers, got a clue as to what the Ma'an report is hinting at? Nishidani ( talk) 19:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Brecrewer. I was about to revert the following snippet canelled by your self-revert when I realized that, in doing so, I would break IRR. Actually, I think you are correct that this
|reported missing = 3; Israeli-American Naftali Frankel (16, from Nof Ayalon), Israeli Gilad Shaer (16, from Talmon), and Israeli Eyal Yifrah (19, from Elad)
should be in the infobox above deaths, per NPOV, other than its intrinsic importance. Both should be represented in the infobox. I certainly won't object if you put it back there. Perhaps someone without revert problems will do so, otherwise. Nishidani ( talk) 16:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
A lot of refs have been added without the information available (perhaps some contradictory) in Israeli sources, which are to be preferred. The text for the moment should read On June 30th, 2014, a search team located the bound bodies of the three boys in an open field near Khirbet Aranava in the Wadi Tellem area, between Halhul and Karmei Tzur, about 3 km west of the former, just north of Hebron. [12] [13] [14]
I might add that this appalling site reawakens memories not only of the 2007 Nahal Telem attack but, since it is in proximity to Telem where one of the suspect ( Ammar Abu A'isha)'s brother's was killed (Zaid Abu A`isha) it almost looks like a signature of a personal vendetta by one of the suspects.
(2)Could some editor be kind enough to restore File:Mohammed Dudin body after Day 8
Day 8 (20 June).
It was taken out immediately after the news of the youths' deaths was announced, and the edit looks vindictive. It was done by an IP and was unmotivated. Nishidani ( talk) 19:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
|
|
Article is basically a selection of cherry picked material to portray the purported viciousness of the Palestinians. For instance regarding reported Palestinian support of the (alleged) kidnapping, RS give the context of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike against mass detention without trial and the Palestinians hope that kidnappings can be used as bargaining chips for justice. This sourced detail was deleted without explanation by one of the editors who has been adding the cherrypicked material.
Adding material only supporting one POV while (deleting without explanation) sourced material detailing other significant published viewpoints is not consistent with out core WP:NPOV policy. Dlv999 ( talk) 12:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help) Quote: "Palestinians backing almost 300 prisoners on hunger strike due to Israel’s practice of holding them without charge for six months or longer. With Israel’s track record of releasing Palestinian prisoners for kidnapped soldiers, such as the swap of 1,027 prisoners for Sgt. Gilad Shalit in 2011, many Palestinians advocate the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers or civilians as bargaining chips for justice."
Dlv999 (
talk)
12:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Dlv999 is correct. This article is appallingly written, with a clear POV attempt to apportion blame through cherry picking, lack of context and synth. We are MUCH too early for such conclusions to be drawn, or even by implied, in wikipedia's neutral voice. Hopefully these guys will get home soon - let's not pre-judge a rapidly changing situation. Oncenawhile ( talk) 18:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This edit by brewcrewer (how many changes or reverts of other editors' work have you done today? Does this count?) eliminates an important distinction. It is not copyediting. Militants are Palestinians, but Palestinians are not thereby militants. 'Many' begs questions. The proper way of saying this is (all)'militants, and many Palestinians'. Erase the distinction and you do what the article's editing history shows is the intent of this new article, to make a POV case against Palestinians. Nishidani ( talk) 16:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The title of the article should say "possible kidnapping" until it is beyond doubt. It appears to be speculation at this stage. Oncenawhile ( talk) 18:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Its no longer a possible kidnapping, and it never was. Israeli sources confirmed and US accepted that it was a kidnapping that resulted in brutal murder of school age children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.90.182 ( talk • contribs)
I have moved the above here for discussion. My concerns are:
Oncenawhile ( talk) 18:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Incidents that received less or no coverage in Israeli media are reports that settlers threw barrages of stones at Palestinian cars over the weekend, damaging 15 cars and injuring three people. In the south Hebron hills, some 30 settlers reportedly invaded the Palestinian village of Susya, threw stones at homes and attempted to attack a 13 year old.Many in the twittersphere have responded to the IDF campaign by hijacking the hashtag #BringBackOurBoys with statistics and photos of Palestinian children detained or killed by Israel, including a Palestinian child killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza this week and the (191) administrative detainees currently in Israeli prisons without charge or trial, all of whom the online activists are adamant to “bring back” as well. Since April, some 120 of them have been on hunger strike (that’s 53 days now) and there have been solidarity protests throughout the West Bank and Israel on a regular basis. . . Think of the 80,000 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem who have been living without regular running water for months now. Or remember that exactly one month ago, on Nakba Day, two Palestinian teens were killed by IDF fire during protests in Beitunia while presenting no immediate threat to anyone.
The Time line is already implicit in the sequence of events. I think whoever reverted you was correct. All that is required is to break the 'sequence of events' flow into its respective days.
The choice of details, moreover, in your time line, is aleatory and just redoubles the text. Reconsider. Nishidani ( talk) 16:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering about the choice of image to accompany the article. Wouldn't the portraits of the three missing teens illustrate the subject better than a rather generic image of Israeli soldiers? 80.179.9.7 ( talk) 20:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Following on the note above, you added here a tag which reads:'Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.' The dispute, I believe, was resolved with the relevant points addressed. So, since you have not made your point, please list here your remarks on its lack of neutrality so the discussion can be reopened and resolved. Otherwise it will be removed. Nishidani ( talk) 12:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Look, this is a difficult article because of the potential for disruption, so frivolous repetition of what is already in the text and (b) the use of blogs is intolerable. I https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2014_kidnapping_of_Israeli_teens&diff=613286951&oldid=613282441 noted to another editor a few days ago what every editor in the area should know, blogs esp. army blogs are not acceptable. Yet you go ahead, and reintroduce one. Worse, everyone knows that attribution is required yet, you give no attribution to the IDF/Israeli thesis that the use of charity and schools in a fundamentally poor society is just to further terrorism. It is highly offensive to at least one constituency since 'charity' is obligatory in Islam, as it is in Judaism. Israeli and other sources are entitled to the POV, but our policy of neutrality cannot state that as factual. And in any case, the text already says, with attribution, that this is Israel's justification. So your edit just jammed up the page. Nishidani ( talk) 18:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm having trouble reading the rationale for removing the item re al-Bireh here, EP, since it's not clear from the edit summary. I figure that one can perhaps think too much detail is problematical, esp. in terms of page length, if this things, fingers crossed, drags on. But we won't know, for a day or two or even a week, depending on how events play out, how to judge this. My approach is to give all details available, and then, once the affair is concluded, with statistics in or better comprehensive reports available, one can then cut back. Could you share your thoughts on this? Thanks Nishidani ( talk) 15:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Stop the nonsense. Judea and Samaria was the subject of a long and extenuating debate, and its result formed the basis for a high level decision, affecting all I/P articles. No knowledgeable editor challenges the consensus that the neutral wikipedia voice for the area is West Bank ( Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) point 4). Read policy and precedent, and kindly revert this useless provocation. Nishidani ( talk) 21:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
"Judea and Samaria", lol. That's practically Likud/"Settler" terminology, isn't it?
192.114.16.121 ( talk) 09:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
So much of Israel is dominated by anti-Palestinian sentiment ("How dare they have the audacity to live in the homeland of the JEWS!") and likud-speak isn't exactly an obscure thing?
I suppose it's good to hear you confirm it. Also there weren't any Jews who could claim biblical ownership to any part of Palestine at the beginning of the Zionist project and there certainly aren't now, although the "settlers" do like to pretend otherwise, don't they? 70.27.160.169 ( talk) 03:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC) 70.27.160.169 ( talk) 11:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor deleted many of the see alsos -- all kidnappings in the West Bank/Gaza area -- without explanation. I think they should be restored, as appropriate for see also's. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The lead has this, which is now dated, since also the possible actions have now, at least for Ramalaah, tken place.
Israel's Deputy Minister of Defense, Danny Danon, threatened "possible actions" in Gaza and Ramallah.[9]
The lead of course should summarize the main sections. I don't think revising it to make it fit the body of the text should be regarded as reverting. If anyone cares to look over it? Nishidani ( talk) 21:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
(*)in this edit, with the summary ‘d sentence not reflected in ref.’ the deleted sentence runs:
A Palestinian government spokesman maintains that holding them responsible for kidnappings in Area C of the West Bank,where Israel exercises full military control and prohibits a Palestinian police presence plays them in an impossible position. Source Booth, William. "Palestinian President Abbas condemns kidnapping of Israeli teens". Washington Post. Retrieved 16 February 2014
Your call was technically correct for that article by Booth doesn't contain the sentence.. But it took just 15 seconds to find how the error occurred, (name confusion as I transferred the data from my file of newspaper references) The precise text on which the deleted sentence was based came from Booth’s article the day before. William Booth, 'Israel accuses Hamas of abducting 3 teens,' Washington Post 15 June 2014, which reads:
Palestinian officials said they have been put in an impossible position. Ehab Bessaiso, a spokesman for the unity government, said the Palestinian Authority cannot be held responsible for abductions in Area C of the West Bank, on the outskirts of Hebron, near the Jewish settlement communities of Gush Etzion, where the Israeli military has complete security control and where Palestinian police are forbidden.
So it has to be restored with the correct article from Booth. I'd appreciate the courtesy of asking me on this talk page for clarification before deleting anything I add, since I try very hard to be meticulous, and a speedy delete without a check via google, in this case, only means the reportage is amputated of an important item, and editors seeing this have to hang around, thinking of 1R, for a day or two before restoring it with correct attribution. That wastes time. Nishidani ( talk) 09:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably also worth noting regarding point one that the Epeefleche edit was in violation of the 1rr restrictions on all IP related articles as it was the second deletion of other editor's additions in 24h. [2] [3] 1rr restrictions don;t really work unless they are strictly adhered to by all editors. It is a bit frustrating waiting to correct errors so as to meticulously abide by the rules, and then to see other editors plough in making multiple reverts that do not even improve the article. Dlv999 ( talk) 14:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
A Palestinian government spokesman maintains that holding them responsible for kidnappings in Area C of the West Bank,where Israel exercises full military control and prohibits a Palestinian police presence there, places them in an impossible position.(William Booth, 'Israel accuses Hamas of abducting 3 teens,' Washington Post 15 June 2014)
<-For interest, if you go to google maps [4], the highlighted point is the UNRWA health clinic for the Qalandiya refugee camp, on its western edge. The camp extends to the north, east and south of the clinic. Qalandiya itself is about a kilometre to the west on the other side of the airport/military base/barrier. This Applied Research Institute report has details for the camp if anyone fancies updating the main article at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
In the Day 10 paragraph the following statement caught my eye:
while 9 (Israeli version) to 38 (Palestinian statistic)
Shouldn't both be version? What makes the Palestinian numbers a statistic?
Or maybe the other way around, both should be a statistic (though it doesn't sound quite right to me)?
OK, that makes sense. I'll take a look and see if I can't find any more info.
Thanks!
Chocom (
talk)
06:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that the image of the teens be moved up to the infobox, as the infobox image. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I would have preferred using a simple picture without the Israeli army branding but couldn't find anything that would be guaranteed to fit within the Wikipedia usable allowance. Any alternative picture would be appreciated. Chocom ( talk) 06:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In which case I will simply crop the pic and re-upload it. Thanks Chocom ( talk) 07:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to a bit later. Done. Replaced the attempted cropping with an edited original. I think it's much better.
What about moving the pic to the infobox?
Chocom (
talk)
15:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There is one thing that is odd here. The total of deaths we have is 5, yet even today the standard report in the Western press in updated articles refers to 4 dead. At first I thought this meant Ali Abed Jabir, the old man who died of a heart attack in the vicinity of, or as a consequence of (versions differ), Israelil raids, was excluded since we have no objective criteria for determining if his death was a direct result of a raid. But, I see, he is excluded from the 5 victims we name. Technically, he might go into the list, because 'deaths' does not literally mean people shot during clashes or in raids. I'm somewhat diffident about this, however, for the simple reason that 'deaths' contextually lists deaths caused by Israeli fire, and to include him there would be tendentious, and a violation of WP:NPOV by the implication the bunching in would carry. Perhaps we could resolve this by having a 'casualty' voice below this, to register the anomaly. Or, of course, one could omit it altogether. Thoughts? Nishidani ( talk) 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it looks like the problem I hinted at earlier is on us. We can't keep (well, we can) adding days with little information. If this is going cold, then we will need a week 2 synthesis, and that is why here I am adding
My suggestion therefore is that we refrain from the day to day reportage in the following days except for adding details in this work section, if nothing turns up to change events, until Friday morning, and then reframe the section in terms of week 1, week 2. Nishidani ( talk) 09:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing to indicate that any of the claims are credible.20140615TOI"
Good practice before removing work is to google the key phrases to check, and, as here, you will often find sources justifying more or less the words you initially feel are not source-related. You correct the fucking phrasing, you don't expunge and hang around for others to do the work.
(1)An obscure Salafist organization claimed responsibility for the abduction on Friday, followed by a second unknown group. Neither group offered up proof, and there was no indication that the claims of responsibility were credible. 'Israel rounds up senior Hamas men in West Bank sweep.' The Times of Israel June 15
(2)In its statement, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the armed wing of Fatah party in the West Bank, said the three missing Israelis are in safe hands outside the area of Hebron."The Israeli government will never have the honor of finding them and they won't be handed over unless thousands of prisoners, mainly females, are released," it said.Earlier, two smaller West Bank groups also claimed responsibility for the kidnapping, but neither claim was considered credible by Israel. And the latest claim by the group is also not confirmed. 'Fatah-linked armed group claims abduction of three Israeli teenagers,' Xinhuanet 16 June 2014.
(3)There have been no credible claims of responsibility for the kidnapping.' Jodi Rudoren 'Bedouin Trackers Hunting for Israeli Boys,' New York Times 23 June 2014
(4) The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors militant Web sites and activity, reported Saturday that two jihadist groups had posted claims of responsibility for kidnapping the teens. A group calling itself the West Bank branch of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria said it had carried out the abduction to avenge the deaths of three fighters. Another group, Brigades of Global Jihad, also posted on a jihadist Web forum, but the communique was deleted, according to SITE. A third group, Liberators Battalion of Hebron, sent a message to Israeli media claiming responsibility, according to news reports in Israel. An Israel military officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing said Saturday that “there are a lot of statements floating around, and they will be evaluated.” But he cautioned that such groups, if they exist, often make claims that turn out to be false. William Booth and Ruth Eglash , 'Israel says three missing teens were kidnapped by a terrorist group,' Washington Post
(5) At least three different statements claiming responsibility for abducting the teenagers have reportedly been issued by different groups, one claiming to be affiliated with the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, one calling itself Ahrar al-Khalil, and one claiming to be the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades; this last statement was reported to have been subsequently denied. It is entirely unclear whether any of these claims are credible. 'Abducted Israeli teens must be released, Israel must cease collective punishment of Palestinians,' Amnesty International 17 June 2014.
Waiting for RS details to emerge, this is the family background of the two suspects.
Week 3 Friday 27 June. 3 Palestinians were wounded in the Balata refugee camp overnight. The villages of Salim, Aqraba and Qablan village near Az-Zawiya were raided. [9] Hundreds of Palestinians from Umm al-Fahm demonstrated against the IDF operation and the practice of administrative detention. [10]
Saturday June 28.18 Palestinians, 12 described as Hamas operatives were arrested overnight. Israeli shrapnel wounded a 15 year old boy from Duheisha refugee camp, where two arrests were made. Two arrests were made in the al-Saff neighborhood and Marah Rabah. The chief clerk of the Ramallah court was detained in Deir Abu Mash'al, and a student at An-Najah National University in Nablus, and a former prisoner was re-arrested in the al-Bathan area north of Nablus. [11] Nishidani ( talk) 11:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The only Sanjar I know of in the West Bank is the area in the Old City of Hebron around the Al-Jawali Mosque. Any one, esp. those reading the Israeli-Hebrew newspapers, got a clue as to what the Ma'an report is hinting at? Nishidani ( talk) 19:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Brecrewer. I was about to revert the following snippet canelled by your self-revert when I realized that, in doing so, I would break IRR. Actually, I think you are correct that this
|reported missing = 3; Israeli-American Naftali Frankel (16, from Nof Ayalon), Israeli Gilad Shaer (16, from Talmon), and Israeli Eyal Yifrah (19, from Elad)
should be in the infobox above deaths, per NPOV, other than its intrinsic importance. Both should be represented in the infobox. I certainly won't object if you put it back there. Perhaps someone without revert problems will do so, otherwise. Nishidani ( talk) 16:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
A lot of refs have been added without the information available (perhaps some contradictory) in Israeli sources, which are to be preferred. The text for the moment should read On June 30th, 2014, a search team located the bound bodies of the three boys in an open field near Khirbet Aranava in the Wadi Tellem area, between Halhul and Karmei Tzur, about 3 km west of the former, just north of Hebron. [12] [13] [14]
I might add that this appalling site reawakens memories not only of the 2007 Nahal Telem attack but, since it is in proximity to Telem where one of the suspect ( Ammar Abu A'isha)'s brother's was killed (Zaid Abu A`isha) it almost looks like a signature of a personal vendetta by one of the suspects.
(2)Could some editor be kind enough to restore File:Mohammed Dudin body after Day 8
Day 8 (20 June).
It was taken out immediately after the news of the youths' deaths was announced, and the edit looks vindictive. It was done by an IP and was unmotivated. Nishidani ( talk) 19:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)