Talk:Beitunia killings

Where to begin?

Not sure what to say, guys. This article . . . has issues. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, this gal asks you to specify how we can make the .....issues disappear. Huldra (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All tags of this kind, unexplained drive-by tagging, should be removed if no discussion, as asserted in the tag, has taken place. The gentleman has said nothing in 5 days, so I will remove it, if only because the tag alludes to a discussion here that never took place.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, Huldra (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Points

• The title per sister articles should be

The murder/killing(s) of Nadeem Nouwarah and Mohammad Udeh Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As the article history shows, that is what I was planning to name it but a number of sources had named it the Beitunia killings. Sepsis II (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The comparable Israeli victim articles don't have, as far as I remember, a strong source base for the choice of title, so I don't think, with that precedent, that this principle counts. I advised against writing this article, and just noticed it was already present on wiki. Since it exists, and its existence seems, as dlv said on my page, looks obligatory now, I'll try to thoroughly work it up in the following week or so.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I posted this poor article after the kidnapping article. There is just such an imbalance of articles, everytime an Israeli is injured there's an article yet over 95% of Israeli attacks on Palestine/Palestinians receive no mention, no article. Sepsis II (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is necessary for balance between the two sides. I also agree that the current title is not optimal --> 28200 hits on Google, while "2014 Nakba day deaths" gives 214000. I therefore propose to Sepsis II that it be changed accordingly Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see that Sepsis II is indisposed. Further to maintaining a balance, I now propose that the title be changed so as to bring it in line with the title of the article on the deaths of Israeli teenagers a few weeks later - 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers and that this current article should be re-named "2014 Nakba Day killing of Palestinian teenagers". Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Eishton's research

I tried to add this to the page, but somebody undid me saying that blogs aren't reliable sources. I have no idea where to put it, so I post it here: Eishton is a serious and reliable blogger, and has been mentioned in the Israeli media, and this particular research of him was also mentioned by Channel 10 in Israel, so I'd consider his work reliable enough in this case (Almost all the source on this is in Hebrew, sorry).--85.250.85.192 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

@Plot Spoiler: Care to elaborate on why you placed the POV tag? Just an edit summary asserting that it is heavily based on anti-Israel voices is very vague and not useful. What is POV here? Specificity is useful, and in fact, required for one to put a POV tag. Kingsindian (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler: Removed POV tag. Can put it back once someone discusses it on the talk page. Kingsindian (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliance on highly partisan sources that may not fulfill RS as well as highly partisan opinion from activists e.g.:

• Jonathan Cook op-ed in The National[1]
• Charlotte Silver op-ed in Al Jazeera[2]
• +972 mag (blog)[3]
• Aldo Guerrero op-ed in Information Clearinghouse[4]
• Musa al-Gharbi op-ed in Al Jazeera America[5]
• Rachel Shabi op-ed in Al Jazeera[6]

Furthermore, content and language has tendentious quality. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I do see a POV problem we can't use op-ed for facts and why the opinion of those commentators are relevant at all?--Shrike (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler and Shrike: Going through the points in order

• The Jonathan Cook article, together with the Jodi Rudoren NYT piece is used to establish the "...and initially denied responsibility, saying the cause of the deaths was unknown, the deaths were faked, that video clips of the killings either failed to capture the violence of the scene shortly before, or might have been manipulated, that soldiers had been provoked and that only rubber bullets had been fired." All of these are facts about the Israeli claims, which nobody doubts. See the section "Events" below. If you have any doubt about any fact, let me know, and I will add references.
• Charlotte Silver, quoting Yesh din. Is there any doubt about the quotation? The quotation is attributed correctly, and is clearly relevant, about how many people have been killed and how many soldiers have been sentenced. If you have any contrary data, feel free to add it or discuss.
• The 21 gigabytes claim by 972mag is attributed correctly, and is based on B'Tselem getting the raw footage, which is also mentioned. The full 6 hour footage is also mentioned in the CNN report. The footage of this incident is obviously relevant. Kingsindian (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• The rest of your points refer to the last section "Conflicting views of the aftermath". That seems a bit unrelated to the main article. Whether it deserves space here should be decided by consensus. I will open a new section on this section and ping the person who wrote it. For those parts, please reply in the section below. Kingsindian (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The basic issue remains that these op-ed pieces by ideological activists are not WP:RS for factual assertions. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler: What on earth does that mean? I responded in detail to each of the points, while you give a one line answer repeatiing your own point without any consideration at all of what I said. If they are not WP:RS for these claims take them to WP:RSN. Kingsindian (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Plot partisan op-ed and blogs should be removed there going against WP:RS and WP:SPS--Shrike (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid simply saying "I agree with Plot" doesn't advance things. I tried to address all claims above. The Jonathan Cook article is not used to establish any facts, they are all present in the "events" section. For the second point, I added another reference directly from Yesh Din, so Charlotte Silver is not used to establish facts either. I have now removed the 972mag reference. It seems to me that "21 gigabytes" is not important. That there was 6 hours of video, is already present in the section. The claim is that 972 is not WP:RS (pinging Nishidani since he added it, maybe he wants to say something.) Kingsindian (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines re blogs were based sensible general principles, but like all principles they are not intended as unequivocal rulings that deny any use of blogs. We are writing an encyclopedia, and the caution is to avoid unreliability, the danger of just citing any website, personal blog, that opinionizes, i.e. 99% of the WWWW. Most editors know this. Where there is a grey area, one goes to RSN to challenge or gain consensus, which is never done by drive-by taggers or eliders of information they dislike on putative policy grounds.

'"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.'

'Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")..'

'Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.'

if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

That just doesn't work for numerous articles, because things like small towns, settlements, rabbis, local public figures, are uncontroversial and not reported in the mainstream world press, though regionally significant. And that is why, contextually, editors must exercise commonsense, discernment and discretion.

In terms of practice, numerous articles on Israelil towns and cities, moshavs, kibbutzes, and Israeli settlements, use self-published sites, as do nearly all articles on rabbis. (Ohelchabad.org.; kehot website;Jewish Educational Media; Sichosinenglish.org.;asknoah.org;nmajh.org. etc.etc. as at Menachem Mendel Schneerson, She'ar Yashuv Cohen, Alon Shvut. You can see, almost comically, the irony of this at Susya, which I mainly wrote. Editors sat on it challenging anything on Palestinians that was not in absolutely mainstream sources (fine) but the result was that I couldn't write the parallel section on the Israeli Susiya, because by that criterion, almost no mainstream sources mentioned it (and in any case, for POV pushers, the Palestinians are the problem)

Were any POV obsessive on the other side to vindictively mirror or mimic Plot Spoiler's habitual practice, of not improving articles found defective, but either (a) removing wholesale information whose sources fail a puritanical restrictive reading of WP:RS (b) or splashing POV tags everywhere, the I area of the I/P articles could be happily devastated in a few hours of malicious drive-up work. One doesn't do that. Jonathan Cook is perfectly adequate to our criteria. The fact that he has a highly critical view does not translate as 'unreliable'. His information is not 'unreliable': it is for some 'distasteful'.

As Kingsindian's commonsensical notes indicate, conscientious editors examine the blog to see where their information came from, and if it is independently verifiable, to Gisha, Yesh Din, B'tselem, etc. or if the information is uncontroversial (21 gigabytes): +972 is a group journal that has numerous professionals with experience on major Israeli papers, and does what most mainstream newspapers outside Israel fail to do, cite what is being mentioned in the local Hebrew press. It is certainly a better source for such views and facts than Arutz Sheva, which is used all over the place. If you want to challenge it, argue the case at RSN. Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

But its not our case because if someone challenge its indeed controversial hence we shouldn't use bad sources like 972mag and the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove the source is reliable not on those who challenge it.--Shrike (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, there are indeed arguments presented as to why the source is not unreliable in this context. Secondly, I have simply removed the 972mag source because I felt the 21 gigabytes claim is not important to include, since the hours of video etc. are already present. Thirdly, none of the points I raised are being addressed. I do not feel that it is fair to put a POV tag and not discuss the issue. If you feel there are problems with reliability, open a discussion at WP:RSN. Kingsindian (talk)

Collapsing to reduce nuisance with above discussion
@Plot Spoiler, Shrike, and Erictheenquirer: Nobody has responded, so I have moved the tag to just the last section for now. If there is no response within a few days, I will remove it altogether. Kingsindian (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler, Shrike, Kingsindian, and Nishidani:Many thanks for your diligence, Kingsindian. This POV discussion demonstrates what I see as failures to apply Wiki protocol properly.

1. Sources are claimed to be non-WP:RS without any support for the view, such as from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
2. Instead, 'justification' of the type "Reliance on highly partisan sources that may not fulfill RS as well as highly partisan opinion from activists" is provided, which itself is simply POV.
3. Specifically these objections/POVs are disproved as follows: The National - [7]; Aljazeera.com - [8]. The RS of Information Clearing House has never been challenged; its RS depends on the archived source.
4. Shrike is incorrect in claiming that "the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove the source is reliable not on those who challenge it". I refer him to [[9]] where "Burden" on the text provider is only mentioned in relation to provision of VERIFIABILITY of the text through a WP:RS source. The provider does not have to disprove a negative; the challenger needs to prove non-WP:RS.
5. In particular I would point out to Plot Spoiler and Shrike the following from -[10] - "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

I therefore fully support Kingsindian in his analysis that the original texts are perfectly acceptable and that the POV tag should be removed.

I would also point that similar objections to other sources such as 2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire are invalid for the same reasons Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting views of the aftermath

@Erictheenquirer: You have added this "Aftermath" section connecting the kidnapping/murder of the three teenagers with this incident. Plot Spoiler and Shrike have objected to it, see above. Please make any comments about this section here. Kingsindian (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:@Plot Spoiler:@Erictheenquirer:I placed an observation by the senior NBC Middle East news correspondent that the departure point for the 2014 chain of conflict could just as easily be viewed as being the Beitunia teenager killings. Al Jazeera echoed the validity of this alternative perspective. NBC and AlJazeera are both WP:RS, but because the references were opinions about equal validity of alternative views, I attributed them to the authors.

If there is a problem with this, then there must equally be a problem with the Section "Aftermath" in 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers in which Operation Protective Edge is linked to the Israeli teenager saga; and likewise in the section "Immediate Events" in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict where lengthy attention is given to prior teenager deaths. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

OR tag on unarmed, posed no threat claim

@Shrike: I do not understand the placing of OR tag. The Guardian source has its headline "Video footage indicates killed Palestinian youths posed no threat". The HRW source says: "Video footage, photographs, witness statements, and medical records indicate that two 17-year-old boys whom Israeli forces shot and killed on May 15, 2014 posed no imminent threat to the forces at the time." What else is required? Kingsindian (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Because no of the sources mentioned doesn't use this phrase or anything similar such summary of the sources is WP:OR.--Shrike (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Also some of the sources is outdated for example guardian source is dated 20 may while there are newer sources that discuss the event with more facts available.--Shrike (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: What phrase is not used? I just quoted two sources using "posed no threat". And if newer sources are there, add them. I don't understand why this is OR. Kingsindian (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What sources say "as well as many first-hand accounts, including those of international journalists reporting on the protest," also who released this video was it DCI?--Shrike (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: Beaumont is an international journalist. HRW source gives various witness accounts. The video was released by DCI and B'Tselem and viewed by many journalists, like the CNN source. I don't see what is OR here. Kingsindian (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Again no source use such phrasing.--Shrike (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: Can you agree that WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR? Kingsindian (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No we can't its not simple calculation from one source also it does advance position.--Shrike (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

C'mon, Shrike. Your complaint has been answered, and this is just futile fishy obstructionism. To what poipose? The IDF set forth a large array of innuendoes, denials, false statements and then, when the video proof came in, even without seeing it (Moshe Ya'alon), said it was faked or manipulated, and then, well, it suspended a soldier and buried the case in one of those (in)famous promises to investigate that you never hear about for years. Everyone save blinkered patriots, knows the youths were shot dead by live fire, who, on video, are not throwing stones. I'd remind you that the IDF protocol says you must not use 'live' fire against stone-throwers, unless your lives are under threat, and a specific order to that effect was given to troops at Beitunia that very day, and the two Israeli squads stood uphill at two points, 50 yards and 150-200 yards away from the point where the two were killed, out of stone-throwing range, as any bloke with a wild adolescence knows. (above comment by Nishidani 13:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Dispute_on_Beitunia_killings_page. Kingsindian (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: The discussion on WP:NORN seems to be inactive. Do you mind if I ask for WP:3O? Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure--Shrike (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for a WP:3O. For the responder: the full statement and sources can be seen at the WP:NORN link above. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Beitunia killings and cannot recall any prior interaction with Shrike or Kingsindian which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." My opinion is only whether the OR tag is justified in reference to the phrase, "as well as many first-hand accounts, including those of international journalists reporting on the protest". I believe that it is justified, but only in reference to the terms "many" and "international". If those two words were eliminated, I do not believe that the OR tag would be appropriate for the rest. There is a fine, but important distinction to be made between summarizing a source and describing it. Just because a source lists or mentions several different things, we can summarize those things ("witnesses said x, y, and z" or "witness x said a, witness y said b, witness z said c") but we cannot count them either by an exact number ("12") or by a generality ("several" or "many" or "more than 10") unless the source itself does so because to do so risks giving weight or significance (or the lack thereof) to them that the source did not. "International" is a similar principle: by saying "international" we give emphasis to the journalist's nationality that the source may not have intended even if it mentioned the specific nationality of the journalist.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with removing "many" and "international". Dropping a couple of adjectives or determiners is OK in the context of getting a consensual text. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me as well. Thanks TM.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the "many", "international" and the OR tag. If Shrike does not feel this is sufficient, let me know. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RS Failure

Nishidani, your continued noncompliance with WP:RS in order to press a questionable WP:POV is becoming increasingly audacious. Please abide by WP:RS. In this edit, none of these sources are WP:RS, in particular for factual assertions:

• Forward opinion blog post [11] - nope
• 972 opinion blog post [12] - nope
• Jewish Press opinion post [13] - nope Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sudopeople just gave an exemplary instance of what to do when an editor is dissatisfied with the sources used by another editor. The lazy option, which characterizes also the WP:IDONTLIKEIT editor, is just to declare RS failure (blog ergo, no), and play the removalist. The constructive editor who actually undertakes to build articles, examines the internet to (a) see if the information given is reliable, and repeated in sources no one takes exception to. You never do that, as far as I can see, and that is why your use of WP:RS strikes me as pretextual.

(1)The Forward is RS. Had you read Jordan Kutzik ‘Pallywood’ Killing Was Exactly What It Looked Like,' you would have noticed that the remark for which the blog was used, contained a link to the source where Oren makes his comments, i.e. . CNN. Therefore, the librarian at the Yiddish Book Centre who also writes for The Forward provided direct evidence. If you dislike his mediation, all you had to do was to cite his reference, and the material was safe. No, you deleted it. It makes 'our guys' look bad?

(2) Larry Derfner was a columnist and feature writer for The Jerusalem Post, as well as the correspondent in Israel for the U.S. News and World Report, and feature writer for the Sunday Times. It hasn't to my knowledge been shown that the on-line mag, written by notable journalists with Derfner's absolutely respectable record, is unreliable. The article in question, namelyDay of catastrophe for ‘Pallywood’ conspiracy theorists, had you read it, contains a link to Danny Ayalon’s Facebook page where he makes the comment Derfner cites him for. I dislike citing sources like Facebook, and prefer these private blogs to be accessed via a reliable journalistic source, as here.

(3) ‘PA, Left, Int’l Media Continue to Cite Pallywood Video,’ The Jewish Press 29 May 2014.’

This is interesting because your most recent contretemps consisted in twice endeavouring to remove stuff from the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict article, on RS grounds. Yet that article uses 18/19 blogs you do not trouble to apply your RS principle to, and it also cites The Jewish Press thrice for facts. Meir Siegel is a staff writer on it, and the fact that his work includes a blog, does not mean he is blogging. He is providing several links, easily verifiable, to what skeptics stated about the Beitunia killings. Click on each of them, and you can follow the trail. In any case, automatic reverts more tuo still require more than a vague assertion of policy failure. What remains self-evident is that you exploit the RS move to elide content easily verifiable also in major newspapers almost instantaneously, and that, I suggest, shows the real motivation for removing the material, I.e., constructive or collegial editing is apparently outside your remit. Nishidani (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler: "noncompliance with WP:RS" - You've got to be joking. The statements in what you're calling "opinion" are easily confirmed facts. It took me all of 20 seconds to click through to the transcript of Michael Oren making those statements on CNN. It took me another 60 seconds to go ahead and cite them since I was in the neighborhood. Even if the referenced portions of the sources were biased, they can still be valid according to WP:BIASED which you seem to overlook each time you Wikilink us to its parent, WP:RS. sudopeople 00:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's try for a reasonable compromise, PS. If you have any doubt about RS involving substantial text in I/P articles (not just what I edit) then just add an additional request in the text, and ping me, and I will try to improve it. That way I am obliged to work more, and you are relieved of the temptation to keep removing easily validated text?Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

---

On a similar theme, @Plot Spoiler: regarding your revert on 13 December at 17:39, and your very arrogant message - “(these are so clearly not WP:RS, don't include such garbage again)”, you have done the same to me on a previous occasion in this article. Again you made zero effort to address the issue in “Talk” as I am doing now. Again you made zero effort to substantiate your claim, as I will proceed to do now. I therefore intend to ‘re-revert’ based on the following:

1) No proper ‘Talk’ discussion by Plot Spoiler 2) Regarding Plot Spoiler’s claim that ‘adsagainstapartheid’ is an unreliable source: a) I failed to find it listed as such on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard; b) Before posting it, I failed to find any negative reports on Chadi Salamoun or Richard Colbath-Hess or IsraelPalestineNews.com c) I would point out that on Wiki “reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.” 3) Regarding [[User:Plot Spoiler|Plot Spoiler]’s claim that Prof Ilan Pappe is an unreliable source: a) I have just checked 8 archives on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and I found views that, if Pappe was no-go, then so was Dershowitz (and all that all references to the latter was also fail WP:RS); I found Pappe being compared to Shlaim (try to get Shlaim, author of The Iron Wall, accepted as being non-WP:RS) and also to Morris and Khalidi; I found that Pappe was a reactionary and an activist – so was Nelson Mandela - but nothing about him being generally unreliable; I found that his books were not favourably received in certain reviews but praised in others b) At the end of the most vigorous debate (Archive 34) the final word was that Pappe displayed bias, but (I repeat as in 2)c above) lack of bias is stated as NOT being a Wiki criterion for WP:RS, neither is neutral or objective. It was stated that on certain topics (e.g. 1948 massacres) his views should be accredited and not passed off as being authoritative. So at worst Pappe does not present all sides of a story, and should not be used as a prime source on certain subjects. But how does that render him non-WP:RS in stating that one event was possibly a revenge act for a previous event, when there are obvious parallels between the two, notice by other commentators also?

I am therefore reverting. To echo your words – “don't include such garbage again” without having the decency to resort to “Talk”.

Today, again without any discussion in "Talk", Plot Spoiler repeated a revert. With such reasonless activity and disrespect for Wiki's system of checks-and-balances, and based on mere mindless repetition of his claims that sources are not WP:RS, he has established himself as a negative and deliberately destructive editor. I will not stoop to his level and will be seeking an injunction against him. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler: - for the sake of avoiding an edit-war I will concede that Wordpress has a 'bloggy' sense to it, but that does not necessarily make it not WP:RS. That said, you have yet to address my response to your reverts concerning Ilan Pappé as not WP:RS. You have also failed to provide any evidence that Chadi Salamoun and/or Richard Colbath-Hess are not WP:RS.Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wordpress is not advisable.Richard Colbath-Hess is a clinical psychologist, at Smith College, and, though an activist and son of Holocaust survivors, should not be cited from IsraelPalestine.org or the against apartheid. We all have views. It is not 'garbage' but Wikipedia aims optimally to cite from RS by specialists. Pappé is a specialist but with a decided POV, and therefore requires attribution for his views, but should be avoided for facts (as a caution. Dershowitz has no knowledge of the I/P area, unlike Pappé who is a qualified researcher in that area, but his views are also citable with attribution (unfortunately). As a working principle you should try to respect the high bar for RS in this area. Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for helping me to become (?) a better editor. Given this opinion, I believe it should appear in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But first, do you mean that ALL WordPress sources are not advisable? WordPress is the largest blog hoster on the planet, but I am unclear about the use of Blogs as WP:RS, especially if they are written by recognised experts with a sound publishing record.

Finally, regarding Pappé, I see that, combined with your comment, the consensus on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard #34 is that Pappé is indeed WP:RS, but should be used with caution on the topic of 1948 massacres of Palestinians. Since the Beitunia killings have nothing to do with the cautioned topic, so I am reinstating the Plot Spoiler revert but removing the WordPress reference in respect for its unproven reliability. I will also attribute Pappé's observation of the teenager parallels. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

All word press sources should be avoided. Blogs should be avoided, except when the author is high profile, notable and, cited for his/her views. Most of what might interest an editor here never gets mainstream coverage, but one should not succumb to the temptation to ignore the encyclopedic ambitions of Wikipedia. Most facts can be ascertained in any number of NGO or observer sites that state them: the PNA provides a daily round up of events in the territories. The importance of using good sources is that they provide a certain guarantee of stability to the newly added text. Use poor sources and you only give hostile editors an open invitation to revert you, and compel you to waste valuable time on boards. In any search process, if you cannot at first find a relatively mainstream source, scroll through the listed pages given by the search until you see the topic mentioned by a mainstream source. Often most problems can be resolved by altering the word combinations in your google search.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Description of Nakba Day

In what way is Netanyahu's view of Nakba Day relevant here? --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note to editors

Derfner has top be restored. His remark is independently verifiable by the link Derfner gives. That is as reliable as you get, since it's from the horse's mouth. So stop your tagteaming revert game, and do some work for a change, like reading the sources.Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

So just source directly the Facebook post. +972 is not WP:RS. Period. Should not be linked to. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion, Period. it's obvious from your triggerhappy reverting behavior that you didn't check what Derfner sourced. That's why you are a lousy editor in this area. You need someone to tell you to click on the obvious. And, as to derfner, I always prefer to source a direct primary statement through a secondary source. That the secondary source provides the evidence, independently verifiable, is proof that in this case, it is reliable. That's obvious, except to revert automatons.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, what's stopping you from citing Ayalon on facebook?Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

POV tag added last August

I have removed the POV tag, pursuant to guidelines (point three). The discussion has become dormant: some of the original concerns were addressed and some were argued against. If someone wants to add the tag, open a discussion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beitunia killings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227212815/https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/002/2014/en/349188ef-e14a-418f-ac20-6c9e5c8d9f88/mde150022014en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/002/2014/en/349188ef-e14a-418f-ac20-6c9e5c8d9f88/mde150022014en.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

BLPCRIME issue

The policeman involved has been convicted on a negligent homicide charge due to mistaking live and crowd dispersal cartridges. Per WP:BLPCRIME we should not be suggesting in our article, that this individual who is relatively unknown, has comitted a warcrime.Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

...except there were no crowds to disperse...(as you can see from the videos.) Also, the two boys were shot with about an hour between them. Someone is lying here, quite simply. Huldra (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There was stone throwing (per [14] Nawara threw a stone four moments prior to being shot). Regardless of our own OR and opinion we should heed BLP policy.Icewhiz (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, AFAIK, that is a claim by the Israeli army, I have seen no evidence of it. Certainly not in the footage of his shooting. Also, remember all the other lies that the Israeli have told here (remember, they first said that they had not used any sharp ammo, then said the video had been doctored, then that they had been killed by a Palestinian gunman[15]), I frankly do not believe any claim from the Israelis about stone throwing from Nadeem, unless I see some proof of it, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The whole disturbance was captured by at least 4 different cameras (that have been synchronized) and there is hours worth of footage - I have seen the full footage in the past - it is on there IIRC - you see it better in a different camera angle (the security cam catches the moment they are shot very well, but it is too zoomed in on a specific section). Guardian is saying they were not throwing stones when shot. In any event - this is neither here nor there as we have actual proceedings since 2014.Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

IcewhizYou have now been using anecdotal/subjective opinions to drive your destructive editing over a two-month period. As an example of this from above - you offer as "evidence" only a cherry-picked excerpt of an IDF charge sheet, and we have well sourced text that various IDF members have lied on successive occasions regarding the topic of this article. In the example your rebuttal is therefore very weak and unreliable. You also ignore text from your own source which states "A video clip of the shooting in Beitunia showed that the two teens were shot after the confrontations had already subsided between the security troops who were in the area". Your next "evidence" is an irrelevant personal observations of purportedly viewed video (without references or other evidence) - this is by definition blatant NPOV. In addition in 21 deletions you resorted to Talk only once - claiming BLPCRIME exclusion. That is farcical because the killer was accused of the crime already on 28 May 2014 (4 years ago!!!), thereby rendering BLTCRIME void of editing restrictions. Your distinction of "warcrime" in the context of BLPCRIME is unfounded - a clear chat to the strawman. In the process you provided not a single quality source as opposed to the well-reference texts that you deleted. In view of this cavalier disrespect for Wiki protocols I will be reversing your deletions, and invite you to reformat them, WITH QUALITY SOURCES and also WITH TALK. So far you have once again been practising wilful destruction of decently-sourced Wiki-compliant material. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. As for WP:BLPCRIME - suggesting that the border policeman, who was convicted for negligent homicide for using the wrong ammunition by mistake, is guilty of anything else - is a clear BLPCRIME violation. The policeman is not a public figure, per BLPCRIME - For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. - no conviction has been secured for anything but a mistake.Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Since when can a court find someone guilty of a non-crime!! Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Reading WP:BLPCRIME: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." He has been found guilty of "commiting a crime" - absolutely 100% sourced in the article Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS please prove that sources are reliable for these analysis.--Shrike (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the contested material - e.g. this diff - it is based on letters to the editor, op-eds, blogs, and book by "Just World Books" - none of which appear as a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

And as for this diff - it presents a clear minute minority opinion - as significant.Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

BLPCRIME is actually not an issue in what you are contesting - though it is an issue should you insert material that suggests a different crime than the crime the BLP was convicted for.Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

He was accused of a "grave" negligence; of having killed Nuwara. Please point out where, in all of the text that you destroyed ... ALL of it ... the killer was accused of having committed a crime that he did not commit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictheenquirer (talk • contribs)

As I said - BLPCRIME is not an issue - nor did I ever claim it was an issue for the content you are seeking to include (I did however reply to your assertion it was an issue - prior to your introduction of this poorly sourced material). I am somewhat confused as to why you chose to post under this section heading, instead of a new one.Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Update Forensic link

The link to forensic architecture is broken, it should be: https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/the-killing-of-nadeem-nawara-and-mohammed-abu-daher Mcdruid (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks, Huldra (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)