Talk:Israeli transfer of Palestinian militant bodies (2012)

Style of Writing

While the author of the article does good work, I am a bit concerned of the style of writing done here. Here, it reads more like a journalistic approach to what has happened, and doesn't really look like something Wikipedia wants. I think revamping of edits is the next step and make it sound as neutral as possible. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 14:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Style objections are not grounds for deletion. You don't like the style? Fix it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am certain that several editors will soon attempt to redress the neutrality issue of this article. This article has just been made, it is likely that it can be significantly improved and if you would specify how I might do so, I'll try and see to it.Ankh.Morpork 14:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is what the source actually says.

So why haven’t we disposed of the ashes of the terrorists at sea? Why are we providing “holy places” for the ethos of Jew-hatred and murder, which has turned into the essence of their national existence? Who do we seek to make peace with, and what kind of peace can we expect of someone whose heroes are the murderers from Jerusalem Machne Yehuda Market (16 fatalities,) the buses in Beersheba (17 fatalities,) or Jerusalem’s Route 2 (23 fatalities)?

Here is your attempt at summarsising that passage.

Elyakim Haetzni questioned Israel's tolerance of the "ethos of Jew-hatred and murder" and the viability of peace with someone "whose heroes are the murderers"

Here is my version, which you removed without giving any reason. '

Elyakim Haetzni asked why the ashes of these individuals had not been buried at sea, but had instead provided the opportunity for what he termed 'holy places' to be an ethos of Jew-hatred and murder.

Why dd you revert my version? Where do you get the words tolerance and viability from? Please improve your effort, by using my work. I know that you are looking for suggestions, so i do expect a reply.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I can expand upon his statements to clarify exactly what his thoughts are regarding this issue but I thought that a single sentence providing an overview was preferable. The thrust of his argument is not why the "ashes of these individuals had not been buried at sea" but what this represents. Ankh.Morpork 00:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

ak when you say that authors will try to resolve the neutrality issue, is thst an admition that the article is not neutral? When you say it is just been made, dont you mean thatnit has just been copied from another article, from which you appear to have ignored comments of how to mprove the neutrality?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

NoAnkh.Morpork 00:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Stick to the sources

Here is the current wording In June 2012, Israel handed over the bodies of Palestinian suicide bombers and other militants as part of a goodwill gesture to PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas to help revive the peace talks and reinstate direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians

Here is what the 2 sources that you give state on that gesture.

. Israel said it hoped the gesture would build confidence between the two sides and help revive the moribund peace process, which run aground in late 2010 in an intractable dispute over settlement building.

"We hope that this humanitarian gesture will serve both as a confidence building measure and help get the peace process back on track," said Mark Regev, spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Your claim is therefore pure OR, and you should restore my text that the reference to a goodwill gesture, is entirely an I sraeli claim, and is not substantiated by other sources. Please make that change.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Cited sources state: "Israel on Thursday began handing over the bodies of 91 Palestinians killed over four decades of conflict in hopes of reviving moribund peace talks with the Palestinian Authority" and "Israel’s repatriation of the bodies is part of a goodwill gesture to Abbas." This has not been disputed by any source who cite a different reason. I agree to an amendment to "in hopes of reviving..." as the source reports it if that is your preference. Ankh.Morpork 00:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Article's name

Anyone has a better suggestion? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I prefer "Transfer of ..." although I agree that your re-titling was an improvement. Ankh.Morpork 14:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's better BUT, in my opinion, not good enough as it is too long. Does anyone think they can come up with a better shorter name? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Transfer of Palestinian militants bodies (2012)"? Ankh.Morpork 20:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Return of Palestinian militants bodies. Ths is better. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Israeli return of Palestinian militant bodies. Marokwitz (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How about Israeli return of Palestinian militant bodies (2012)? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 alone isn't good. Just recently in the news there was more talk about a possible incentives package for the Palsetinian Authority that may include the release of more bodies. Therefore, I propose to include the month here next to 2012. --Activism1234 03:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

'Palestinian militant body/(bodies' in standard English, as taken naturally by native speakers, would mean: a corporate body, or institution, like Hamas. The expression 'militant(s) body(ies)' is itself extremely, risibly crass, since in normal English it suggests that the dead are still fighting, very much like the horde from the dead at Vergil, Aeneid 7.685-690.

Non illis omnibus arma,

nec clipei currusve sonant: pars maxima glandes

liventis plumbi spargit, pars spicula gestat

bina manu, fulvosque lupi de pelle galeros

tegmen habent capiti, vestigia nuda sinistri

instituere pedis, crudus tegit altera pero.

where the bolded words indicate that the warriors are dead.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The RS international media outlets properly use the word "militants" to describe the perpetrators of these attacks. I'd remind you that Hamas and similar groups did perpetrate many of these attacks - at a quick glance, just look at the first one, the bus bombing. I'm sure there are people here who would like to call them terrorists, but that's not the wording that is commonly accepted on Wikipedia articles and in RS references. "Militant" is the word that is commonly used, and it's silly to seek to change that and glorify the perpetrators to something they were not. It is stated in the article they were considered "martyrs" to the Palestinian people, and "terrorists" to many Israelis, but neither word will be used to explain the perpetrators, to maintain NPOV. And I'm sure that there are many people who are furious that they are called "militants" and not "terrorists" but that doesn't change the fact of how they should be referred to on Wikipedia. --Activism1234 03:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

An interesting insight that perhaps acknowledges the attempts to vicariously perpetuate the stated goal of the dead and embody their ethos through their apotheosis and veneration, thereby resurrecting the deceased's fundamental ontological nature, their ideas, which as adherents of metaphysical solipsism will tell us, is the totality of reality. Welcome back Nishidani. Ankh.Morpork 16:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So what name do you think should be used instead? (for the record, I like the current name best - Israeli transfer of Palestinian militant bodies (2012)) TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This is about the return of the remains (pieces of bodies are not bodies) of enemy combatants, by one state, Israel, at war with a people aspiring to statehood. Sources, which are reliable, but predominantly sided with state actors, think non-state soldiers are not, ipso facto soldiers, but 'militants'. But since the I/P article area is conducted as though it were a Clausewitzian war by other means, we are never going to get any NPOV consensus and sense on these things. How you guys fix this is up to you. I merely dropped a note because the title is patently awkward, and no one seemed to notice. That's about it.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping by and sharing your view about these "non-state soldiers" that valiantly staved off the rogue No.2 bus, that defied the guileful pincer attack of the Afula shopping mall and the Hadera market place and withstood the wiles of the insidious Stage night club. The saga of the Clotwitzian war continues. Ankh.Morpork 18:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

State soldiers with tanks and ultramondern weaponry, GPS guided bombs, etc. of course are moral, indeed proud of the purity of their arms even when, with their massive surveillance guidance systems, they fire on a peaceful crowd and kill mainly children. It's not my view, whatever. It's standard jargon for asymmetric wars. That ends the conversation for me. By all means have the last word. Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The plodding, self-reassuring "but they do it too" makes its arrival, incidentally, serving as a microcosmic intimation of the distinction of views: one side condemns and regrets, the other condones and rejoices. Ankh.Morpork 19:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Waffle on. But one word of advice. If you can't even manage clear, simple English, or understand the vernacular crassness of the language in your title alone, you'd do well to review the basics instead of trying to write your painful parodies of hi-falutin English. I'm sure you enjoy the exercise, but you have an audience of one, yourself. And as to the matter you allude to in a tone of remonstrative bantering, with a kill ratio of 1:10 percent in your favour, where civilians are 30-40% of the latter, saying 'sorry' every blue moon is nothing if not 'self-reassuring'. I don't think these complacent gestures impress anyone, esp. as with the case of Iman al-Hams, they only turn out to be rather emblematic of the culture of smug impunity that passes for purity of arms, where those who kill in cold blood are rewarded with court damages and promoted. Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The ad-hominem, the diversionary attacks and the laboured self-justification; an interesting case study in cognitive dissonance. You can continue to reference lurid events and the harsh circumstances of civilian deaths, but you will notice a recurring theme: they have been denied, criticised or investigated, but never justified or celebrated. I would similarly exhort you to "review the basics"; that the inviolability of civilians is an unshakable right that your tones of justification and jubilation will never attenuate. Ankh.Morpork 12:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if people saw this above, since I made the edit after a discussion was in the works here and there were more indentations, so I'll copy and paste it here - "The 2012 alone isn't good. Just recently in the news there was more talk about a possible incentives package for the Palsetinian Authority that may include the release of more bodies. Therefore, I propose to include the month here next to 2012 in the title." --Activism1234 21:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Check your sources, those you yourself introduced, before removing words in them

Ankhmorpork. You

• (1) removed a key word in the very source you introduced, saying 'which source, though the line indicated the source. This is very odd editing.

After a modest military ceremony attended by the families of the dead, the coffins were carried out one by one into the streets by emotional relatives who loaded them onto trucks and into ambulances for burial in their hometowns.

So, please restore the adjective, as per source. And please don't delete information without checking the source beforehand.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• (2) you removed 'in the wake of international pressure' which is in the NYT source. The edit summary is spurious because 'in the wake of' does not amount to caused.

• (3) you removed 'killed' which is the NYT source, with a vague appeal to 'most sources'. IF the NYT says 'killed' and other sources 'died', you have a problem in judging what is the most appropriate source.

• (4) You omitted mentioning that the agreement goes back to May 2011, when 84 bodies were to be transferred but the deal was blocked by Ehud Barak, partially to keep back two bodies, those of the Awabdullah brothers of Hebron, needed as bargaining material for the return of Gilad Shalit. This to is alluded to in the NYTs piece. Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And other sources state "Hamas will hold a full military service for the remains in Gaza, with each coffin receiving a 21-gun salute", describe "an official ceremony and prayers for the dead," a "a mass funeral prayer" and a "national rally". Cherry picking? Ankh.Morpork 12:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking is what you are doing, because the 'full military service' was conducted by Hamas at Gaza, not by the PNA at Ramallah, as your drafting insinuated. It's called (and looking like systematic now) distortion of sources. You had a phrase appropriate to Hamas, and threw it at the PNA.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Point noted. I think it is best if the various commerative events are placed into separate paragraphs to clearly delineate them from each other. Ankh.Morpork 12:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As to killed vs. dead, since you think 'dead' more appropriate to suicide bombers, of the 91 bodies, how many were involved in suicide attacks, and how many were killed in the usual military action between Israeli and Palestinian forces? One can make a rough calculation of the former from the list of terrorist incidents given.Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I quote the NYT, "The dead, considered martyrs by most Palestinians, were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israelis, many of them civilians." Is this what you describe as "usual military action between Israeli and Palestinian forces?" Ankh.Morpork 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Reminding editors that the prelude in 2011 when the transfer was set up only to be blocked by Ehud Barak still isn't mentioned, as the reports that the move was influenced by foreign requests to make a gesture. It's all there in the sources. Do it.Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Impact on peace process

This section does not seem to belong here.

This part is really a repeat of the lead <<<<The Israeli government transferred the bodies as an incentive to restart the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. Mark Regev, the Israeli government spokesman, said, "We hope that this humanitarian gesture will serve both as a confidence-building measure and help get the peace process back on track... Israel is ready for the immediate resumption of peace talks without any preconditions whatsoever.">>>

This part does not seem to relate to the subject matter. Unless it can be related, then I think it should be removed. It probably belongs in another article about the I-P peace process.

<<<However, the transfer did not restart the peace process, and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said he would only negotiate if Israel re-froze settlement construction and negotiated based on the "1967 lines."[5] The Jerusalem Post reported that Israeli authorities are upset over the Palestinian Authority's failure to respond positively to a number of goodwill gestures, which indicates that Mahmoud Abbas is "unable to enter into negotiations that will require concessions" and "despite a series of steps taken by Israel, the Palestinian Authority nevertheless continues in a very negative pattern of behavior." Other goodwill gestures included agreeing to start negotiations with the Palestinians on developing the Gaza Marine gas field off the Gaza Strip coast, the signing of an economic accord with the Palestinian Authority to enhance trade and crack down on tax evasion, the decision to transfer NIS 180 million of tax money to the Palestinian Authority so salaries could be paid; and the decision to increase the number of Palestinian construction workers allowed to work in the country by some 5,000.[14]>>> Rusko skins (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)blocked sock of User:Dalai_lama_ding_dong

Well, the lead is supposed to be based off of the article, and the section seems to go into more detail than the lead as well. --Activism1234 16:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Israeli transfer of Palestinian militant bodies (2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130318055227/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEK8rcriKzc to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEK8rcriKzc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)