Talk:Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Categories

Help adding the appropriate categories to this page. As it's not 100% considered a "terrorism" inciden.Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

There should be a reference on Mahmoud al-Mabhouh bio page to the assassination page. I am not familiar enough with wiki procedure to do it.Slowflyer (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowflyer (talk • contribs) Is it necessary to have so much emphasis on the passports in the lead? One line that jumps out is "The case has attracted much attention around the world as there has been 11 "agents" with European passports[2] who have been put on Interpol most-wanted list and the photos and names fraudulently used on their passports made public officially." The reason it made news was because someone was assassinated. That line should be reworked and the bulk of that paragraph might be better in the Suspects section.Cptnono (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a review of the reliable sources cited in the article will show that the passport issue is a large part of the controversy, though I agree with you that the primary controversy revolves around this being an extrajudicial assassination and murder. The lead still needs a lot of work. I have not yet touched it as I am focusing on updating the body of the article The lead should be crafted to reflect the body. A mention of the passports should stay however, given that the suspects section revolved heavily around that very issue. Tiamut^talk 12:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Followed from Syria

The statement that the suspects came from Syria was improbable from the start, and later clearly contradicted by Dubai police who now say the team of assasins arrived a day earlier, 19 January http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7029669.ece. I think this info needs to be in the article, and the false statement in the lead needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisG (talk • contribs) 16:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Tiamut^talk 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, sources from Dubai still say (as of Feb 20): "Mahmoud Al Mabhouh was tracked by his assassins from Damascus to Dubai. He was travelling without bodyguards, and was en route to China, said Lieutenant General Dahi Khalfan Tamim." [1] Is your quesitoning of the veracity of this statement based simply on the conclusion that because some of the suspects arrive dbefore he did, they could not have been following him? Because if so, that's OR and we should go with what the police chief says. Tiamut^talk 18:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess, it depends on what they mean by 'followed'. Clearly, the arrival of the team from different European airports and not from Damascus is documented by the minute (from Dubai police statements). I think what they mean is that the surveilance team tracked his arrival from Damascus at the Dubai airport. But all the same, the lead is a mess anyway, it requires a complete rewrite. Maybe this can wait until the events unfold. I agree we should not change something attributed to an official, until all this is completely resolved.BorisG (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I changed "followed" to "tracked" because later reports indicate this what was intended. (i.e. an agent was on the ground who say him board the plane and phoned back to Austria and let them know he was on it).

I also did a bit of rewriting on the lead. It still needs more work I think, but at least its a bit more up to date now. Tiamut^talk 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There should be a reference on Mahmoud al-Mabhouh bio page to the assassination page. I am not familiar enough with wiki procedure to do it.Slowflyer (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There already is a reference in the form of a link to this article at the top of the "Death" section there. Perhaps it should be made more prominent by placing a header at the top of the page? I've noticed people adding info on the death there instead of here, so its possible they are not seeing this article. Tiamut^talk 16:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tiamut, the lead is much better now. I have simplified one sentence slightly. I still believe we can further streamline the lead, replacing a particular statement of a particular official with a summary of all statements, and doing away with references. References do not belong in the lead of any article, in my opinion, as its function is to serve as a summary of the article, where all references can be found. Selective references look random in the lead, as do clarifications like we have in the brackets.BorisG (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you too. Saw your fixups and added a few more on my own. You are right that ideally there should be no need for refs there (though sometimes in controversial articles, we still need them since people tend to delete things when they are not there). We can keep working to get it up to par as the days go by. Tiamut^talk 17:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement about sanctioned by... is unnecesary. If we say 'Israeli agents', this already implies Mossad and government. Not just Israelis, but Israeli agents. Does it matter if it was Mossad, or, say, military intelligence? We can be more specific in the article itself, but more general in the summary. I just want the lead to be easy flowing, short and to the point. If you want to be precise, then it will be the same as article itself.BorisG (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey. The govenment-sanctioned part in the lead is necessary because part of the controversy is over the legality of extrajudicial assassinations (i.e. state-sponsored killings of people without a trial). If its removed, that doesn't come across, and the controversy seems to be only about the use of European passports. While its true that's a large part of the controversy, the other part is about the government sanctioned assassinations in general. Tiamut^talk 12:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed the following

In 2004, Mossad operative, Urie Zoshe Kelman, a dual citizenship israeli entered New Zealand with a Canadian passport to try to fraudulently obtain a passport from that country. He was sentenced with an accomplice to a six months prison term. Kelman had previously traveled to New Zealand in 1999. During his stay he obtained from the Canadian embassy a temporary replacement Canadian passport having declared his lost.

The link doesn't lead to the article. Replacements are welcome if found. Tiamut^talk 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree.BorisG (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The link does indeed lead to the article! The National post 2004 article is reproduced on UJA Federation of greater Toronto web site www.jewishtoronto.net/page.aspx?id=64351).It is also on the Sott.net webpage www.sott.net/.../203058-Using-Canadian-passports-Mossad-agents-assassinated-leading-Hamas-member-in-Jordan What else do you need! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowflyer (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Arrests

"Two Palestinians were taken into custody in Dubai, on suspicions that one of them provided logistical assistance to the hit team. " What about the other one? If you are joking, this is not a place to joke.BorisG (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As the article body states, the other one is related to the one who provided logistical assistance, and because he fled Ramallah earlier after being sentenced to death for collaborating with Israel, Dubai authorities took him into custody as well, apparently to protect him from revenge attacks. Its all very confusing, though I'm sure things will clear up a bit as time goes by. Tiamut^talk 12:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with the reference. However I do not think we should reproduce such confusing statements. Moreover I think the way it is worded in the WP article is even more bizarre than in the reference. BorisG (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this has already been corrected.BorisG (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

More interesting information

This article- http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,679530,00.html contains a lot of interesting info. I tried integrating some of it into the article (in the header section) but more can be added.

Also- I saw reports that the suspects were in Dubai with those passports in the months before the murder. They were also in Dubai the during the second to last visit of Mabhouh in Dubai. This should be added, but I cant find an english source. 94.159.141.130 (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New info

Just FYI, Dubai police released two incredibly detailed travel diagrams for 2009 and 2010 (you can find them through this article, and two "Australian" passport holders left Dubai via boat to Iran. Interesting stuff to keep an eye on. Unfortunately all this info will be difficult to integrate. For some it will probably have to wait till the investigation is over and facts aren't changing daily. Good job everyone so far. Joshdboz (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There was even another picture released available here: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/02/24/101364.html (in very low resolution). Can someone please find the original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.141.130 (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and FYI, UK passports issued from about 2001 onwards do not allow these photos with glasses, smiling faces etc guess Mossad slipped up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.72.61 (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Passport photos

Just saw this photo in the NYT. Don't know its copyright status, but since it was released by Interpol you'd think it would be available somewhere. Gene Omission (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

Interpol press releases are by definition public domain, as they want the widest possible distribution - this picture could be included in the article if desired. DaysOfFuturePassed (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Comprehension, Grammar/Punc and New Info

Please people, try to consider grammar rules while editing the article; it is quite tiring to edit the whole article for removing a "the" or something like that. I have massively edited the article against that, even added new info that he was firstly drugged. Should "the exact cause of death is yet to be concluded" sentence be changed into "the exact cause of death is was to be concluded until the latest discovery" or so? Thanks. Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the diff you provided, it seems you undid most of my edits to the article. I had merged the two suspects sections and added new refs. You undid the merge and removed those refs. You also removed other updated information and introduced some sentence fragments. Do you mind if I undo your edit? Tiamut^talk 22:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not it might have been an edit conflict and I did not notice or something. But no sure. Also consider the fixes that have been made please. Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked again I have literally not removed anything, might have been someone before my edit. It was only clarification of some sentences, links, rearrangement of paragraphs, the drugging-issue addition. Check it out again. Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I did and you did, but I'm sure it was a mistake (maybe a technical glitch of some kind; I've seen it happen it before). Anyway, I've fixed it now. Sorry if I sounded pissy, I didn't mean to. Its all okay now. Tiamut^talk 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Machine Readable Passports and Name/Number Disconnects?

It would be great if someone knowledgeable on the subject could help shed light on how electronic passport readers at Dubai immigration could, at the time of the suspects' arrival, fail to pick up the disconnect between the legitimate numbers on the passports and the substituted, false names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.68.106 (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Source with original research in the death section

I removed the paragraph in the death section according which " later experiments show that person with slender arms could do that easily" in regard to the fact that the door to mabhouh room was found locked from the inside. The source provided to support this statement is "The Mail on Sunday" [2] in which it's specifically mentioned that this "experiments" were carried out by the newspaper editorial board and it's not mentioned where and how. So, it make a little sense to keep it relevant here.--Gilisa (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am afraid you have misunderstood the WP:OR policy. This policy only applies to original research conducted by Wikipedia editors. It does not concern original research conducted by sources such as newspapers.Factsontheground (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Do *not* put names from passports per BLP

Innocent people whose identities were stolen (or most probably stolen) absolutely do not deserve to be identified as assassins on Wikipedia. Ray^Talk 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

These names are public record and were published in every major newspaper around the world. There's absolutely no legal reason not to add them, in fact these are the names Interpol is actively using to search for them. (Added: Since many have spoken openly with the media and their governments have publicly protested, they and the ID theft have become a major sidestory) Joshdboz (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, they are public record. However, newspapers are not encyclopedias, and not everything in the public record gets entered into Wikipedia. We are specifically enjoined to be conservative and to protect the privacy of private figures. ID theft victims would qualify on both those counts. Ray^Talk 16:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how reporting what other reliable sources are reporting is a BLP violation. Our article makes it clear that these identities were used by the assassins, just as the newspapers cited do. There is no BLP violation. Removing the names would deny readers' important information being freely offered elsewhere. Wikipedia is not censored. The names should stay. Tiamut^talk 16:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ray, I understand the concern. I think the BLP policy is often applied to improve Wikipedia. But this is blatant self-censorship. These names are no longer private, regardless of whom they may have been copied from. They are part of an international manhunt and a number of bilateral disputes with Israel. Joshdboz (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Joshdboz, I absolutely agree that what I'm proposing is blatant self-censorship. However, it is *tasteful* self-censorship, aimed at preventing casual additional damage to peoples' privacy, where the people involved are emphatically innocent victims who had no say in this whatever. That, it seems to me, is the very spirit of the BLP policy's enjoinder to be cautious and conservative where living people come up. Tiamut, I'm well aware that the information is public, but that has not prevented Wikipedia from engaging in censorship in the past - news articles come and go, but Wikipedia is part of the enduring historical record. Does it add anything to the article to mention their names? I don't think it does, as they were nothing more than convenient aliases for the actual assassins. Ray^Talk 18:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no casual additional damage to peoples' privacy by repeating what has been widely reported. These are stolen identities, it has been made very clear in every news source that these identities were fraudulent. By reporting them here, as with every other publication, we are not endangering their lives or privacy - their privacy was irrevocably violated by the parties who conducted this assassination, not by the authorities and publications who have striven to shed light on this matter. And I totally disagree with your notion that newspapers are not part of the enduring historical record, whereas a malleable online encyclopedia is. Newspapers must consider the privacy implications too, they too have the burden of responsibility, and to date - I have not come across any publication decrying the publication of names as irresponsible or ethically dubious. - hahnchen 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am with Ray here. BLP clearly states that Wikipedia should not mention names of people if these names are not notable. As a specific example, it stipulates that names of victims of crime should not be mentioned. This provision applies even if they are named by reputable sources. Besides, the names themselves are not notable and add nothing to the article.BorisG (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I might agree if we're talking about, say, the son of celebrity X committing a minor crime against random person Y. Clearly Y doesn't need to be mentioned. But these aliases are the only things we have to identify/distinguish the different members of the hit team. Click through this Interpol page. Nobody else has any reticence in using these aliases in talking about this crime. Joshdboz (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Josh, "everybody else does it" is not a reason to contravene our policy, which explicitly states "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Putting out their names here definitely counts as participating in the damage to their identities, particularly with some of the phrasing here. The trouble of distinguishing between the assassins -- do we really need to? Ray^Talk 17:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This does not, and will not prolong the victimization. It is very clear, and has been made clear by everyone reporting it, that these identities were stolen. Identity theft has been an important facet of the assassination and investigation, it has drawn responses from governments, newspapers and commentators from around the world. This wasn't just some random assault or rape, confined to the pages of a county newspaper - this was a professional crime with impacts across the world. These names have been widely reported by scores of responsible sources, they've felt that these identities were notable, they even interviewed some of them. A policy of futile self-censorship is of no benefit to Wikipedia or the victims - this is a place to set things straight. - hahnchen 18:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahnchen, you missed the first verb, which is "participating." To the extent that people were hurt by having their identities stolen by assassins and being identified with them, where the harm consists of the linkage of their identities with assassins, we are certainly participating in that. This is, IMO, a pretty clearcut case of BLP - for me, the iffy cases come when people involved might have done something to deserve it, which these emphatically did not. Furthermore, I am deeply worried about the way we use these identities, which is to say, rather than only saying they were stolen we use the stolen names to identify the assassins and suspects, which is, to say the least, very far from setting things straight. Interpol's priorities are different from ours - we write an encyclopedia with the goal of avoiding further harm, they want to maximize the chances of finding the criminals and regard a little collateral damage as acceptable. Ray^Talk 16:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I clearly do not believe that naming the aliases is participating in the victimization, which is why I've mentioned the plethora of reliable and responsible sources that have covered this. We're not quoting Perez Hilton or TMZ, we are citing the BBC and the Associated Press - not exactly the biggest exponents of tabloid sensationalism. If you are worried in regards to the context of the identities, and how they are used in the article, you can edit that and make it more explicit. I repeat - A policy of futile self-censorship is of no benefit to Wikipedia or the victims - this is a place to set things straight. - hahnchen 20:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is true that events surrounding the stolen identities are notable, but can anyone please explain how the names themselves are notable?BorisG (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

People should reread WP:BLPNAME, especially the following extract: Following the arrest of John Doe's son, Doe publicly recants his previous stand and now promotes treatment for heroin addicts. The son's arrest may now be included in the article about John Doe, although his name should still not be mentioned, even if it has been widely reported in the media, as he has still not become notable in his own right. It is important to understand the difference between an encyclopedia and the media. What is notable for a serious media outlet (such as the BBC) may not be notable for an encyclopedia. - BorisG (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, whereas a son's drug use is a trivial side issue to the main John Doe article in your example, the identity theft is central to this one. Your example is from the world of irresponsible tabloid reportage, this is not. This is the place to set things right, we need to state that these names are not the assassin's names, that these identities were stolen, and that these people are innocent. This is the place to set things right - we are doing no harm, we are not "participating or prolonging the victimization", and a policy of futile self-censorship benefits no one. - hahnchen 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I remain convinced of the need to include the names. But I'd like to point something too that isn't yet reported in our article:

Lieutenant-General Dahi Khalfan Tamim, Dubai Police Chief, on Sunday told journalists that another European suspect had been identified. These 27 suspects carried European and Australian passports. "Another Palestinian man too has been identified as a suspect. Hence, with the Palestinian, there are now 28 suspects," Dahi said. Dahi stressed that those who claim their identities were stolen and used by the assassins were not necessarily victims in this operation. "They could be potential collaborators," he said.[3]

I'm not sure how that affects the issue being discussed here. But it seems that the idea that all of those whose names were used are completely innocent is being questioned, at least by the Dubai police chief. Tiamut^talk 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to speculate, I assume he is implying that some of those whose identities wore stolen may have, say, actually given permission for their documents to be used, as has apparently happened in the past according to news reports (see [4]). Though to my knowledge, all the interviews so far with dual-nationals have confirmed that they had absolutely no idea that their identities might be being used, and had never given permission for such a thing. Joshdboz (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the quotes above make it clear that we should not report Dubai police statements as facts. - BorisG (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"all the interviews so far with dual-nationals have confirmed that they had absolutely no idea that their identities might be being used". This is conclusive proof? --vvarkey (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Why Dubai was chosen

I found this Reuters article that speculates about why Dubai was chosen as a venue to have the man killed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6231UT20100304

Does this have a place in the article? (Of course I would say "A 2010 Reuters article says XXXX") WhisperToMe (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Current Event Tag

Someone removed the current event tag, stating that the article "is not being heavily edited". I would love to know what being heavily edited is if this isn't being done here. Look at the number of edits per day and it is clear this is still a current, developing event. There were all kinds of news stories every day on it since it occurred, and their number and constantly new revelations have not stopped. Clearly this is an ongoing and current event by any reasonable definition of those words. DaysOfFuturePassed (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. It was me who added it but I don't know whether it's appropriate to get it back again now? Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Read the instructions given at template:current. They say that this tag is wholly inappropriate:

• Note that every article on Wikipedia has a General disclaimer indicating that the article contents may not be accurate.
• As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters, the death of celebrities, or other breaking news.
• It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.
• Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or so, occasionally several days.
• If you desire that an article be noticed as a topic about or related to a significant current event, see Wikipedia:How the Current events page works, and also Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

• I shall therefore remove the current tag, and will regard any reinsertion as against consensus. Abductive (reasoning)

Sorry, your personal interpretation of the guidelines is not a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisG (talk • contribs) 08:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain this please

For years, Israel (and other countries) have thought nothing of targeting terrorist leaders. Hamas was, for many years, considered a terrorist organization, and many people still consider it that. This person was the leader of the paramilitary wing of the terrorists. So why all the fuss? The world is better off without terrorist leaders. Sure I'm not being P.C. but surely this is what many people in Western countries are thinking. Maybe it should be mentioned in the article. 99.67.54.40 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well personal opinion isn't part of the Wikipedia writing process. The article clearly states that Mabhouh was a founder of Hamas's military wing. If there is a section on why he might have been targeted by Israel it would probably include the 2 soldiers killed in the 80s (with an appropriate citation suggesting that as a potential reason). Joshdboz (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could create a media reaction section and investigate why certain outlets in certain countries are pursuing the story and others not bothering with it or put it in a certain major or minor perspective? --Shuki (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"surely this is what many people in Western countries are thinking.". Why don't you make a new Wikipedia & call it Western Wikipedia. This one is global. --vvarkey (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"The world is better off without terrorist leaders"

The State of Israel was founded on acts of terrorism. The 6th Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, was a member of Irgun, a Zionist paramilitary terror group that murdered British citizens and plenty of Arabs as well (see King David Hotel bombing) in the years leading up to the creation of Israel. The Likud party is a direct descendant of Irgun, as is the IDF. (Of course, once granted the mantle of "statehood" acts such as these are no longer labeled "terrorism" for obscure semantical reasons) If terrorism can bless the world with something as wonderful as the creation of Israel, shouldn't Hamas have a chance as well?204.210.134.40 (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is missing some information

The article contains all the details about the hit itself, but not a lot about how the suspects got to Dubia and how they left. In addition the article contains very little information about what the mossad/(whoever else did it) did to prepare for the operation. There is not much information available, but Im pretty sure that they said that the second wave of 15 suspects were only involved in the planning. Im also pretty sure they used credit cards by metabank, and obviously they were in Dubai at least once before the actual hit.

Also many Israeli newspapers have interviewed the Israelis whose identities were stolen. Only some of those have been referenced in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.207.245 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

According to an article in the Independent, two suspects took a flight with the Emirates Air to the OR Tambo International Airport of Johannesburg from Dubai, and then they took a flight with the israeli El Al. But the article is unfounded - it doesn't include the name of any authority that claims that this happened. So, yes, it might hint at the Mossad, but unless a reliable source is found for that claim, it's better to leave it out of the article. -- Gabi S. (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Gabi, mainstream newspapers, such as The Independent, are considered relaibles sourses, as per WP:SOURCES. - BorisG (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought that the article was from The Independent, but it's actually from a small, unknown South Africa web site. In addition to not providing any details, the news article is NPOV, and definitely cannot be considered a reliable source. -- Gabi S. (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Two Issues

I have two issues with this article –

1. in the introduction, Hamas should not be referred to as a terrorist group. This is POV; just because the US and Israel call it that, does not make it so.

2. in the reaction section, the quote from Tzipi Livni should be removed. She labels him a terrorist (POV again), especially ironic as both of her parents were members of a terrorist organisation. Logicman1966 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your point #2 shows your lack of understanding of the WP:NPOV policy. Just because you happen to disagree with her doesn't make her comment inappropriate for the article. Anyone who says anything is using POV. That's the whole idea behind having an opinion. The question is whether or not the source reporting her comment is reliable, and also whether or not her opinion is notable. The answer to both is yes. Breein1007 (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Major editing by me

I just edited the article as you can see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassination_of_Mahmoud_al-Mabhouh&action=historysubmit&diff=351661484&oldid=351653524 . I reorganized one part, updated the article and added new info. Please tell me if there is anything you disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALUOPline2 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Killing vs. Murder

I reverted the edit of Factsontheground reasoned by him with "soldiers are being killed, not murderd". When kidnapping soldier and then after killing him it's a murder-as like in Iraq and in some other places. Killing of war prisoner is murder by any law. Please avoid edits with POV.--Gilisa (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, killing someone you have in custody (like in a kidnapping) is murder. I've been over this with user:factsontheground before. Apparently he waited a couple of weeks and tried to insert his POV again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I must dissent. Consider the sentences "The terrorists killed/murdered thier hostages when the police tried to raid the compound" or "Stalin had German POWs killed/murdered before they could be rescued". It seems in both these cases "killed" would be the more appropriate verbage. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think "executed" would probably be more correct for your second example. "Murdered" still works for the first, IMO. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well, could be. Ultimately there's going to be debate about which verbage is most appropriate. It strikes me though "killed" is the most generic, and least encumbered by potential POV issues. "Murder" is a word that shouldn't be bandied about liberally, or else you will get POV wars with people on both sides of a debate shouting "what your side did was murder, what my side did wasn't". We should probably avoid "murder" in cases where consensus is lacking over the use of the term.

As an after-thought the reference doesn't actually talk about the killing/murder. NickCT (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I can't see how "killing" avoid POV in this case. Murder is very suitable for any case of kidnapping followed by a killing of the prisoner.--Gilisa (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Eichmann was murdered? NickCT (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I was realy, upon my word, thinking on Eichman when I wrote my comment. However, the differences are so clear that I was kind of trusting that you won't come up with that. The comparison is devoid of any meaning. Just to not leave my comment out of arguments to the matter of fact, even I think the all issue is obvious, I will only say that those two soldiers were not wanted in half of the world fpr their part in genocide.--Gilisa (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli soldiers were tried and convicted of crimes against humanity? Breein1007 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"the differences are so clear " - Clear to me, clear to you, but I think some Palestinians might accuse Israel of "war crimes" without necessarily being called WP:FRINGE (as indeed some Afghani's/Iraqi's might accuse America of perpitrating war crimes). I still feel "murder" should really be avoided unless there is unanimity that it's appropriate (i.e. with Jack the Ripper and such).

I'd like to note, that I've argued against "murder" language being used regarding the Mahmoud al-Mabhouh assasination. In these cases, the word really only serves to inflame. NickCT (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, clear by the international law. You can find always definitions with which some groups don't agree-had we avoid each of these, I doubt you have even one tenth of the articles we have today on wikipedia. At least in this kind of subjects, to put it mildly. And of course, you forgot that any of your arguments can serve against the using in "killing" as well. --Gilisa (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Eichman was executed as I'm sure you know. I think very few people would make the case he was murdered. I'm not sure what your point was regarding Israel and war crimes. Would you care to elaborate? Are you implying that it's ok to murder any Israeli one gets his hands on regardless of what that person has done?

Unanimity is not required here. Just consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"No, clear by the international law." - Look, I'm not claiming that wasn't a difference between the execution/murder/killing of Eichmen and that of Israeli soldiers. All I'm saying that a signifigant opinion exists (rightly or wrongly) that Israel and by extension those soldiers were guilty of crimes.

"which some groups don't agree-had we avoid each of these" - If the "groups" are large enough, and thier viewpoint is not WP:FRINGE then yes, I think we should avoid them.

"serve against the using in "killing" as well" - Don't understand this point. I thought we'd agreed earlier that "killing" didn't have the same POV issues "murder" does?

"I'm not sure what your point was regarding Israel and war crimes" - In virtually every major conflict throughout history someone is accussed of war crimes. Whether they be cluster bombs, white phosphorous, or paramilitary massacres. Whoever captured these Israeli soldiers probably didn't kill them thinking "Hey, I'm killing these guys because I like murder", but instead "Hey, I'm killing these guys because they are criminals".

"Are you implying that it's ok to murder any Israeli" - Of course I'm not, and I'd thank you not to cast aspirtions of that nature. For the record, I think execution of anyone is always wrong. But this misses the basic point, which is that the word "murder" is often not NPOV. NickCT (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"..Don't understand this point. I thought we'd agreed earlier that "killing" didn't have the same POV issues "murder" does?.." Where did you see such agreement?--Gilisa (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not casting aspirations, I'm trying to figure out what you're saying. Basically you're speculating on the motivations of mabhouh as he murdered these people. I don't see how that's relevant. Do I really need to evoke Hitler to show where we can go with this?

By the way, please use italics rather then underline. As you may have noticed, they're much more common here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, people. The correct English is "cast aspersions". <awaits ban for the heinous incivility of correcting someone's English>. Factsontheground (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it's your job to correct other editors' English? You understood what we were talking about, I'm sure. Now you're just trying to make a WP:POINT on your (somewhat amusing) quest for martyrdom. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, please don't use this TP as a forum.--Gilisa (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is everyone's job to correct each others' English. That's what Wikipedia is about. If you don't like people correcting you, "No More Mr Nice Guy", you should probably stop editing here. Factsontheground (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, cease this WP:SOAP and read again WP:TALKNO. You probably missed my first comment here, but again-don't use the talk page as a forum.--Gilisa (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I heard you the first time, Gilisa. I am not using this talk page as a forum, as you well know, and your threats are distracting and irrelevant to this talk page. Either report me to an administrator/noticeboard or stay quiet and let us discuss the article and not users.

Anyway, I agree with NickCT. "Murder" is an extremely emotive term and to use it for the killing of soldiers in an armed conflict is inappropriate and in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Factsontheground (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? What threats exactly?--Gilisa (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I could explain why correcting other editors' English on a talk page is not "what Wikipedia is about", and in fact is quite the opposite, but since your behavior will probably get you perma-banned soon, I won't waste my time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. Factsontheground (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. If you think anything I said constitutes a personal attack, I encourage you to take the issue to the appropriate administrative board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. This discussion has moved a little off-base. Look, I'm just going to rehash my points, and leave it at that. I don't feel much love in here, and I think we have a gang here trying to maintain a particular POV. So anyway, my assertions are -

• 1) The term "murder" can be subjective. EG - I might say "John murdered Jack" while you might say "John killed Jack in self defensive".
• 2) In the case of the Israeli soldiers, there probably exists a significant viewpoint that thier deaths do not constitute murder. Hence, using "murdered" pushes one particular POV.
• 3) Everyone probably agrees the soldiers were "killed".
• Thus "Killed" is going to be something that doesn't have POV issues.

Anyone disagree with any of these points? I'd like to reiterate that I've warned against the use of the term "murder" on both sides of IP issues. It seems to get inserted by people trying to push POVs. If editors here refuse to seek NPOV language, I will be less inclined to try and maintain it in other places. NickCT (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to my last comment I'd like to point out that I'd disagree with this edit, in-as-much as I think using language like "the mossad murdered" is inflammatory and has POV issues. Can we not come to agreement to simply avoid the use of the term "murdered" altogether in relation to specific people or groups? E.G. "The mossad is suspected of murdering Mahmoud" bad, but "Mahmoud was murdered in his hotel room" ok. I think this is a good rule. NickCT (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note an aspect that everyone appears to have overlooked. The article says that he was wanted by Israel for murder. If that's what Israel's judicial authorities sought him for, then that's what should be said. The article does NOT say he murdered or killed or ordered the killing of these soldiers.BorisG (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently - " al-Mabhouh was wanted by Israel for the kidnapping and murder of two Israeli soldiers "

I'd agree w/ Boris, if we can get references saying Israeli police wanted him specificly for murder, we might say "Israel had charged al-Mabhouh with the kidnapping and murder of Israeli soldiers, and sought his detention". This way the article doesn't explicity say "it was murder" but says "Israel says it was murder". That would be acceptable. NickCT (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mossad or Israel Perpetrators?

As Breein is likely going to edit war this (see 1, 2, 3), it would probably be good to open a discussion here, and possibly poll later. Frankly, I think that as Israel has been accussed by two seperate nation states of producing passports for the alleged assasins, calling Israel/Mossad "perpetrators" or at least "suspects" in the info box would be called for. Can other editors weigh in? NickCT (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Going from "they were accused of cloning passports used by the assassins" to "they are the assassins" is OR. It's really that simple. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we may have a semantic issue here. In my mind to say "to perpetrate" means to bring something about, or to help bring something about. Additionally, to be a perpetrator doesn't necessarily infer guilt, only suspision (see [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetrator 1], [courts.delaware.gov/how%20to/court%20proceedings/ 2]). If we agree that they are accussed of forging passports for the alleged asassins, then I think that is context enough to say they are perpetrators.

But perhaps perpetrators is too strong a word. Maybe we can compromise with "suspects"? NickCT (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To perpetrate means to bring something about, not to help bring something about.

Anyway, since Dubai specifically named the Mossad as suspects, that certainly can go in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"To perpetrate means to bring something about, not to help bring something about."  ;-) How bout this def "To be responsible for; commit; to accomplish; to bring about." (American Heritage Dictionary)

But whatever. I think putting the disputed material under either perp or susperp would be acceptable. If I hear no objections, I'm going to request the article be taken off lock down. NickCT (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh
Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.jpg
Location	Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Date	January 19, 2010
Target	Mahmoud al-Mabhouh
Attack type	Assassination
Weapons	Pillow, muscle relaxant
Deaths	1

NickCT has it right when he says to use susperp, which is designed for situations where the perpretrator(s) aren't confirmed but only suspected. I suggest this - simple, factual, nothing contentious, nobody should have a problem with it. Both points are represented, that Mossad are suspected of doing it but that it isn't confirmed. 2 lines of K₃₀₃

NickCT, you are again showing a severe lack of adherence of WP:AGF with your comment that I am "likely going to edit war". I don't appreciate your public personal attacks. Breein1007 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@ One Night - Thanks for the comment.

@ Breein - Please see what WP:AGF says about "citing this principle too aggressively". Additionaly, please keep comments not related to the article on user talk pages. Thank you. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My pointing out your lack of good faith is not citing it too aggressively, because I am not mistaken about your bad faith in making the comment. Your comment above cannot be made in good faith in any stretch of the imagination. I will repeat: I take offense to your public personal attack on this article talk page. Breein1007 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not into bickering on article discussion pages. Take it user talk please. NickCT (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not bickering and I have nothing further to say. I made note of your personal attack and other than that it is up to you to decide how you will act in the future. Breein1007 (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Breein1007, please don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to be rather rude. Politeness costs nothing mate, please be more kind and less aggressive fella. Cheers IJA (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey mate, please don't take this the wrong way, but your opinion of how I seem isn't worth shit. You don't know the first thing about me. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down and stick to the topic, Breein1007. Factsontheground (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The mainstream view amongst the public and commentators, even in Israel, is that Mossad perpetrated the assassination. Wikipedia should reflect this mainstream view. There is a minority who still doubt that Mossad was involved, but that is a fringe view and should be treated as such. Factsontheground (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying that the Mossad perpetrated the assassination is WP:OR and contrary to Wikipedia policy. That is of course unless you can find a WP:RS that definitively implicates them, which you very well know you cannot do. This argument is a waste of time... there's no point you can make that supersedes WP:OR. Breein1007 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not original research because there is a wealth of reliable sources arguing that Mossad must have committed the assassination. The original research policy only applies to material that is unsupported by reliable, published sources.

And might I add that there is nothing "original" about the observation that Mossad must have committed the assassination; it is an extremely unoriginal and common observation that many in the media have made. Applying the OR policy here goes against both the word and spirit of the guideline. Factsontheground (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you gonna provide us with some of these supposed reliable sources that definitively implicate the Mossad? Or just continue enlightening us with your endless wisdom which while great, is of no use on Wikipedia unless you back it up... Breein1007 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow Bree. Feeling a little angrier than usual? We are not asking whether RS exists to say "the Mossad is the perpetrator", we are looking for RS that says "the Mossad is the suspected perpetrator". Given that multiple sources point out that the UK and Australia have accussed Israel of forging the passports of the alleged assassins, would you not agree that this is enough for the "suspected perpetrator" tag? NickCT (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Factsontheground clearly advocated labeling Mossad as the perpetrator. I was clearly talking to her. I think it would be wise for you to fight your own battles. And keep your comments about my emotions to yourself. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to "definitively implicate" Mossad. Remember Wikipedia is not concerned with truth, it is concerned with verifiability. If the mainstream opinion is that Mossad was involved, Wikipedia should reflect that. Factsontheground (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How many times can I reiterate the same thing? You are not the spokesperson for the "mainstream". If you want to insert something on the basis that it is widely supported by reliable sources, why don't you show us some? Breein1007 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC

Ok. Note that the allegations against Mossad have become so conventional and mainstream that even the headlines are clearly stating Mossad's involvement now. And note that none of these are op-eds, they are ordinary news reporting. Newspapers take care not to presume the guilt of the innocent until guilt has become well established and widely accepted.

• "The killing of Mabhuh has been widely blamed on Israel" - [5], Agence France-Presse
• "Locals accept Dubai assassination was Mossad operation" - [6], The Australian
• "Mossad assassination squad used British passports" - [7],The Times
• "Mossad hit snares Australians" - [8], The Sydney Morning Herald
• "Britain to expel Israeli diplomat over ‘Mossad’ assassination in Dubai" - [9], The Telegraph
• "More fake British passports in Mossad assassination" - [10], The Mirror
• "UK MPs probe Mossad killing" - [11], Cape Times
• "Hamas official accused of helping Mossad hit squad" - [12], The Guardian
• "Israeli: Mossad hit didn't upset intel ties" -[13], Washington Times
• "Aussies linked to Mossad hit fear for safety" - [14], NineMSN

Notice that these reliable, mainstream news sources don't refer to the incident as the "Dubai assassination" or the "Hamas assassination", but they call it the Mossad assassination (or killing or hit). And they don't use language like "alleged" or "claimed". This is because Mossad's culpabiliy is universally accepted and mainstream. Wikipedia should reflect this view; anything else would be giving WP:UNDUE prominence to a WP:FRINGE view (that Mossad is innocent and some other party performed the assassination).

Also, in case there was any doubt that the UK govt. has now officially adopted the view that Mossad committed the killing:

• Police in Dubai have already said they are "99% certain" the Mossad was behind Mabhouh's killing, and Miliband's remarks represented the first official endorsement of that view by a western government. [15], The Guardian

Thank you. Factsontheground (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you read those articles (and not just the headlines) carefully, you'll see most of them are very careful to say that Mossad is suspected of carrying out the hit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Which articles say that Mossad is only "suspected" of carrying out the hit? Does that mean you agree with putting Mossad as the susperp then? Factsontheground (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read above. I agreed to say Mossad are suspects a few days ago.

And to answer your question, almost all the articles you posted above say Mossad is suspected of carrying out the assassination, rather than stating as fact that it did. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I think we've reached consensus that the susperp tag is acceptable. Without further objection I'm going to request the page be unlocked. NickCT (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Page unprotected

At the request of NickCT, I unprotected the article based on the consensus in the preceding section. If edit-warring resumes, I'm going to protect it again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. I've made the edit we agreed upon. Thanks Malik. NickCT (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the article to what we actually agreed upon. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... I think you changed it to what 2-lines-of-K303 suggested, not what we reached consensus for. My reading of the above is that we simply agreed to move the existing content to susperp rather than perp. I don't necessarily disagree with your edit, but it would have been nice if you'd consulted before you did it. FotG might reasonably argue that you are trying to obfuscate Israel's involvement. NickCT (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, would it be more correct to say "The Mossad" rather than "Mossad"? NickCT (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you let FotG make her own arguments? Anyway, how am I obfuscating anything? I said I agreed that the infoxbox should say Mossad are the suspects. That's what the infobox says. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok whatever. I will blame you if this gets edit warred though. And how about my second point? Is "The Mossad" better than just "Mossad"? NickCT (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this should be edit warred. It's NPOV. It's V. What else do we need?

I've seen both "The Mossad" and "Mossad" used. Either works for me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to change to "The Mossad". It seems awkward without the "the". Sorta like "Suspected Perpetrator - CIA" would seem odd. "The CIA" feels more right. NickCT (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mossad is Hebrew for "institute". "The institute" is more grammatically correct, although whether you can apply English grammatical rules to foreign loanwords is another question... Regardless I'm happy as Larry about the result and the fact that a silly edit war has been avoided. Good work NickCT and No More Mr Nice Guy. Peace in our time!Factomancer (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

will someone please remove postings about israeli public or media taking responsibility.

citing an article in the Australian with no basis is not a good source for this. There is no broad consensus in the Israeli public that the Mossad is responsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.199.65 (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your source for saying that? NickCT (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, mainly because it's not what the source says. The lead now says that Israelis think the Mossad did it or should have. I'm not sure why this belongs in the lead, particularly since it's not in the article, but I'm not going to edit war over it. IMO it just makes the article look silly. It's a pretty obvious generalization that is not exactly based on any concrete fact other than the opinion of an Australian guy.

Perhaps you could explain why you think this generalization belongs in the lead? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no source for something that doesn't exist, such as a poll asking the Israeli public of their opinion on the matter, you can try and look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.199.65 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, at the moment we have one published journalist saying that the sentiment inside Israel is that Mossad was or should have been responsible versus you who says no such sentiment exists. The journalist is RS, you are not. Find RS that disputes this. I'm sure there must be some measure of public opinion about this matter in Israel somewhere. NickCT (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

@NoMore - "opinion of an Australian guy" - An Austalian published in a RS! Look, I'll admit this could be a generalization, but journalists on-site all around the world say things like "the sentiment on the street is that....." Do reports like this not have place on wikipedia? NickCT (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)To be honest, no, I don't think a reporter saying "the sentiment on the street is..." has a place in wikipedia, and certainly not in the lead. A poll by a respected pollster does. I'm pretty sure you understand the factual basis for this generalization is weak. You don't have to put everything you find on the internet (even if it's from a RS) in the article you know. The idea here is to make an encyclopedia that's as accurate and professional as possible. I don't think what you added to lead contributes to that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Find RS that disputes this. I'm sure there must be some measure of public opinion about this matter in Israel somewhere" what makes you so sure? the statement about the sentiment on the street in Israel appears no where else but in this one opinion column, and therefore - yes, it does not belong on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.199.65 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

After review, I'm more neutral about the material's inclusion. I think the concern might be that one reading the article might think that "Israel refusing to comment" means there is reason to believe they were not involved. I think the person who initially put in this text wanted to make it clear that public sentiment is that Israel was responsible, hence not giving "Israel's refusal" UNDUE weight. However, this is a slightly tenious arguement by which I'm not fully convinced. Perhaps we can think up some compromise language (i.e. "Though Israel has refused to comment...... many have speculated the Mossad is responsible")? Eitherway, I'm neutral. Delete it if you wish. NickCT (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think deleting it is the best thing to do until someone confirms that a group of people in Israel were polled about their opinion about the assassination and replied that they think the Mossad did it (or should have done it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.199.65 (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Find RS that disputes this." is a very interesting approach. Find a reliable source that says "no poll has been conducted on this matter"? You can't be serious:) The onus is on the one that asserts what public opinion is. An idea that anything that is in RS is appropriate for Wikipedia is absurd. It must be encyclopedic. Speculations aren't.

The situation is slightly different about Israeli media. If one can find a number of references to the main Israeli papers, who all agree on this, then we can put this in the article in some form. - BorisG (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Boris - If you read the reference in dispute, this is basicly just one reporter saying that "the opinion in Israel is X" without giving any explination for how he arose at that assertion. I have to agree with NoMoreMNG that using this reference to state as fact that "the opinion in Israel is X" is a little dubious. To be frank, I credit most Israeli as being smart enough to realize this was an obvious Mossad hit job. But this is not a good reference for stating that that "realization" actually exists.

Additionally, I think the complaint about this material getting included in the lede is also legitimate. It seems a little awkward having it where it was. NickCT (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Hamas terrorist had multiple passports too!

Where is the mention of the numerous countries that aided the now dead Hamas terrorist to travel freely? A few articles noted that the dead terrorist Mohammed was in possession of several Arab passports. What countries did they belong to, what were his aliases and why is this being covered up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.249.173.20 (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Hamas terrorist had multiple passports too!

Where is the mention of the numerous countries that aided the now dead Hamas terrorist to travel freely? A few articles noted that the dead terrorist Mohammed was in possession of several Arab passports. What countries did they belong to, what were his aliases and why is this being covered up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.249.173.20 (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Melvyn Adam Mildiner is similar to Zev Barkan

Can I say that Melvyn Adam Mildiner is look like the Mossad agent Zev Barkan from the NZ passport affair (Zev or Zeev or Ze'ev Barkan)? Jo 217.132.100.234 (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NoChangehimnow (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)