Talk:Killing of Rouzan al-Najjar

The non-free image

I uploaded a fairly bad image (current one). User:PlanespotterA320, in good faith, uploaded a better one from here. I am just a bit worried that it is not permitted. The thing is, it is from a an article with "...Posted by Mike Sivier in Uncategorized ≈ Leave a comment..." above it. I am not sure the website owns the copyright, and I think I saw the image elsewhere. Also, if they are using the image, and we do not know who owns it, then it might be AP or some news agency that provides images, in which case, not permitted.

So, I'm posting here in hopes that we can find a third, best image. Also, I will post elsewhere to find out if this images is allowed. Hopefully it is.

In the meantime, I have reverted to the fuzzy image, the one where she's wearing rubber gloves. Your feedback here is most welcome.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I just posted here for an opinion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I've uploaded two graffiti which you can find in c:Category:Razan al-Najjar. Cheers, --Marsupium (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Marsupium. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Birthday

Do we have RS confirming her birthday? Scaleshombre (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Was added here by @Michaelrooney124: without a source. --Tumbledee (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Without an RS, I find the September 11 reference a little jarring. Any objections to my removing it? Scaleshombre (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

All sources in English that I read mention her age being 21 when she died. I guess this is why it was 1996/1997 previously in this article. The Arabic wikipedia mentions 1997 as her year of birth but I have no idea whether or if, how that is sourced. --Tumbledee (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reliable source to support that date. Without a reliable source to support September 11 as the birthdate, I would support its removal, and listing 1996/1997 as the article did previously.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Human shield and throwing gas canister

Najjar's stmt saying she is a human shield and throwing a gas canister has been widely covered, e.g. NYT, and is clearly relevant to her life and circumstances of death, and should be included in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I agree. That should be covered in the article. Scaleshombre (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It should also been included that the IDF's video is being widely lambasted as being misleadingly edited.Rafe87 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Not widely - some have criticized the cutting of the interview, others have not. They released a short clip. There hasn't been any real criticism of the gas canister throwing bit.Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

" Not widely - some have criticized the cutting of the interview, others have not." LOL, c'mon. And there has been criticism of the gas canister video as well. Rafe87 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Independent: The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has been widely criticised for releasing a video in which footage of killed Palestinian medic Razan al-Najjar has been edited in order to portray her as “not an angel”. Widely. nableezy - 23:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. It will make no sense to blow out of proportion the relevancy of a deliberately edited video that's out of context with a misleading translation to begin with. The only revelancy of that video as reported by major news outlets that care to shed light on the issue is that it is a misleading video. If it is relevant enough it can be added to the Public diplomacy of Israel entry. Kokaemo (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The publication and context of the video should at least be mentioned. Regardless of what you think of the video the release of it and commentary on it from several sources is certainly relevant to the article.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine to mention the video as long as it is emphasized that it was doctored, is misleading, and was meant as an attack on Razan's character, as several reliable sources have said.Rafe87 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We should, of course, mention the majlr Hamas propaganda efforts around the persona of Najjar followwing her death.Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The day Hamas produces a false video of her, and is widely lambasted on the press for that, we can do that as well. Rafe87 (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your very first statement in this section is literally pushing Israeli propaganda, now an unsourced claim about Hamas propaganda. Source please. nableezy - 21:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I erred perhaps in saying Hamas without a source. The widespread publicity campaign has been hard to miss - e.g. [1][2].Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How are those sources evidence of a "publicity campaign"? Mondoweiss describes how Israeli victims tend to receive more coverage in Western media than Palestinians (true). The second mentions how the hashtag "Angel of mercy" trended on Twitter in support of her and protecting nurses. And is a "publicity campaign" for a slaughtered nurse a particularly bad thing? The attempts to pass the Israeli video as legitimate in this article over the past few days is much more damaging to the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit claims to be "match[ing] source", however the source explicitly says that the IDF has been widely criticized. It does not say it was by "critics of Israel". @Icewhiz:, can you explain why you removed "widely" and why you attribute to "critics of Israel" what the source does not? nableezy - 16:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Intercept (a highly partisan source with reliability issues - lookup Juan Thompson), does not say widely, it does say The smear campaign outraged Palestinian and Israeli observers who oppose Israel’s ongoing occupation and lying. - so in short criticized by anti-occupation oobservers or activists - which the Intercept then goes in to quote (various +972 figures, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The IDF spokesmen arer highly partisan sources (defending a war against partisans) with, to put it politely, reliability issues. We quote them.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The IDF is a side to the events in question and stmts are widely covered - and we use them attributed. The Intercept is not as widely quoted, and in this case we are using them without attribution, in our voice.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Ok, I see the sourcing was confusing in the sentence. This Independent article does however support widely and does not attribute that material to unnamed "critics of Israel". Ill return the material with the correct sourcing. nableezy - 20:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Independent in the next sentence clarifies the weasly widely to fiercely criticised by Palestinians and rights activists as an ... - which we should do as well if we use them as a source.Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not the same thing as saying "critics of Israel" or negating that the criticism was "wide". And that is certainly not the next sentence. nableezy - 20:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that use of "widely criticized" has been repeated by numerous outlets of various nationalities and persuasions is proof solid of just how wide 'widely' is in this case. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Citations

Here I did a major edit on the citations of the article by adding the name of authors of each article (since we used a brief quote from one such attribution is a must) and removed ciations of duplicate republications of a popular article from the New York Times that was published on various websites (including the Middle East Eye). It's weird to have seprate citations that link to the same article of which all but one are just verbatim of the same article.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Nurse?

I read that she intended to attend nursing school, but hadn't done so yet. She was working as a first-responder. Paramedic might also be the correct term. But she isn't a nurse, which is a professional title — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaunaTime5000 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

The Intercept is a far-left anti-Semitic site that constantly tells lies about Israel. It's chief propagandist is Glenn Greenwald, an anti-Israel activist. The Independent is a left-wing British paper, and the British left is known for its strong anti-Semitism and support for Arab terrorism against Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.165.136 (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Lol, this isn't worth the effort of refuting.Rafe87 (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. nableezy - 04:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

67.149.165.136 (talk · contribs) - I am afraid that your personal views matter little in terms of Wiki's 5-Pillars. All of your comments are unsubstantiated by reliable sources and hence ... worthless. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding The Intercept at worst it is a whistle-blower web site ... and what is encyclopaedically wrong with that? At best, in February 2016, The Intercept won a National Magazine Award for columns and commentary by the writer Barrett Brown, and it was a finalist in the public interest category. Attacking the messenger is VERY poor debating style. The Intercept has won accolades and stands as WP:RS unless convincingly shown to be consistently incorrect. Even the NYT shows bias and makes mistakes. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the author, Robert Mackey, he is an ex-NYT analyst specialising in fact-checking (as done to this notorious IDF video edit) and creator of the pioneering NYT column "Open Source". Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As a result, I am editing-in The Intercept analysis of the IDF video. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

misleading and context

@Icewhiz: This edit is simply dumbfounding to me. How exactly are you removing the well sourced material on the fact that the interview was misleadingly cut and presented to just "cut a short segment of a prior interview"? Why are you removing the portion of the quote that the IDF removed? nableezy - 20:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a factual representation of this 10 second clip - analysis of which has mushroomed in our article beyond proportion.Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A factual representation that neglects what reliable sources have said about. That it cuts out material that undercuts what the IDF was saying. You have removed the very portion of the issue that reliable sources find important, that it is manipulated to misleadingly portray al-Najjar as something other than what she was. Regardless, the source very specifically supports what you removed, and I dont see any reason in your response for why you did so. nableezy - 21:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A 'factual' representation of a cherry-picked IDF edit is no 'fact' at all; and 'beyond proportion' is clearly subjective POV. Sorry, Nableezy (talk · contribs) has both logic and protocol on his/her side. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The deliberate doctoring of the video by Israel is an important part of the story and must be presented in detail. Trying to present only the doctored version here is a disgrace. Zero^talk 11:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The video is not alleged to have been "doctored" (which would entail modifying the video or audio in the clip) - it has been, as per the NYT, been described as "tightly edited", which is rather typical for 10 second clips, in that two extremely short video segments are presented in the very short clip.Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious bullshit. "Doctoring" does not require physical change of content, it applies to any editing that distorts the content. Which is what was done this time, with an obvious intention to deceive. Zero^talk 12:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Per [3] - doctored: the act of making different in order to deceive, tamper with, falsify, or adulterate. A doctored video requires making changes to the video or audio. Presenting a short clip of a longer video (something that is done routinely by any media outlet) is not doctoring, but editing. Such editing may be done with an intention to deceive, but it is not doctoring. Deceptive editing - omission - is distinctly different from doctoring which requires modifications to the video. The vast majority of media outlets are using "edited" to describe this clip, a very small minority is using the technically inaccurate "doctored".Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Whatever wording you want to apply Icewhiz, the fact is the video was presented in a purposefully deceitful matter--and sources support that. I get why you are fighting these types of details, but it does not make it any less disappointing. In other news, can we work on the lead, please? The article needs to be way more precise than it currently is.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Cutting a sentence in the middle in a way that changes its impact is a perfect example of making it different, and the "in order to deceive, tamper with, falsify, or adulterate" parts fits perfectly too. Don't you have anything better to do than misread dictionaries? Zero^talk 13:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of any tendentious argument anybody would like to make as to the type of propaganda at play here, presenting the propaganda as though it were the whole story is, well, not in keeping with the requirements of NPOV. The entire quote belongs, and what reliable sources such as the Independent have said the IDF has done with that original quote also belongs. nableezy - 18:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a clear-cut case of tampering with the evidence in order to create a false impression and should deserve an analytical section chronologically citing the IDF's various positions, and the way they were exposed. I'm not suggesting we create a Tellywood page, though there would be more legitimate substance for such a page than what we have at Pallywood.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

What an ridiculous discussion - a clip that is "doctored" is a clip that is fundamentally altered to a far greater degree than editing a clip. By that measure, every political ad in history that has provided a soundbite has presented "doctored" audio or video. Provide a reliable source that calls the footage "doctored." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you really responding to a comment from ten months ago? Expecting what exactly? And why? nableezy - 02:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I could care less if it happened ten months or ten years ago—your and other editors' arguments here are thoroughly misinformed, and this type of blustering/bullying should have no bearing in the article, unless you can show a reliable source that uses the wording you've advocated for here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well thats just all sorts of special. Open the article. Search for the word doctored. See it? Nope? k. nableezy - 12:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

As it should be—and when editors refer to this talk page, they'll understand why: because the most reliable sources do not use the word doctored, and despite the insistence of several very aggressive editors, it is not the appropriate word to use in this context. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Haha, that wasn't a very good save, but what can you do? Meanwhile, when you make a video saying "I don't like Jews being persecuted" and someone puts it on youtube with the words "being persecuted" cut off, make sure you don't claim that your video was doctored. Zero^talk 14:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously pretending that anybody insisted on using the word doctored in the article? Do you have even the slightest idea what this is about? Or do you just like showing up where certain editors are to provoke conflict? Would you like that favor returned? nableezy - 14:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz's and your versions of the text reflect different readings of the sources, even though the word "doctored" was not used. It was the use of that term here that inflamed the discussion, and, this may surprise you, other editors are permitted to weigh in with opposing views without being called disruptive. A scenario like the Zero you described could accurately be described as misleadingly edited, not "doctored." That's also far more dramatic than the example here: the subject in fact used the words "human shield," though clearly WP:RS view the remarks that were edited out as a qualifier. Icewhiz's changes did not contradict the source, but presented what they reported in a different manner. However, as I said earlier, Zero should find a reliable source that uses the phrase doctored—the NYT says it was "tightly" or "tendentiously" edited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

No, they emphatically do not, Icewhiz's edit did not reflect a reading of any source, except maybe a tendentious one in which the entire story is covered up. You know this has been settled for ten months right? As far as your patently silly reading of Zero's example, no, that is not more dramatic. It is actually exactly the same. Cutting a statement where its meaning is neutered and pretending otherwise. Which is why reliable sources called the editing misleading, and why we too do so. I see you didnt answer my question though, so Ill just assume that you follow the golden rule and would like done unto you what you do unto others. nableezy - 14:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're issuing some sort of threat, but if you are, that would be a violation of WP:CIVIL, which I don't like to bring up but for the fact that your comments and behavior regularly cross the line. Icewhiz's edit did not "cover up" anything; it accurately conveyed what the source reported: that the IDF presented an edited video in which she called herself a "human shield," and he also went on to quote the portion that was removed. And at no point was this discussion closed so I'm not sure what you mean by "settled," but any editor is entitled to comment on an open discussion at any point and make changes to content in the article no matter how long it has been there (and ten months is hardly a long time) unless there is explicit consensus or DS to the contrary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Your zeal to oppose me has led you to make a series of uninformed statements (Icewhiz actually removed the portion that was cut out). Since there is literally nothing in the article you are talking about changing I leave you to the last word. Im going to start doing some research on some new topics. Later. nableezy - 15:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

My "zeal" is for facts, and you're just dead wrong—Icewhiz included the portion of the quote not used in the edited video. The line after his edit read: The video that was released cut a short segment of a prior interview that al-Najjar gave to a Lebanese television station in which she had said "I’m here on the line being a protective human shield saving the injured". Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sherlock, he removed what they cut out. Yes, he included one quote. He also removed what part of it the IDF misleadingly edited out. He removed the bit however the IDF released video cut out everything past "human shield". He also removed the part of the quote "save the wounded at the front lines". And again, this has been settled for damn near a year. I would very much like to leave the last word to you, but not when you keep making false statements. nableezy - 16:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy, what I said was correct: Icewhiz included in his edit a portion of what was excised in the video. The two of you apparently disagree how much to include, but that's not a justification for the invectives you've made here. The next time you accuse someone of making "false statements" without basis, expect a dispute resolution report. I'm actually not going to go down that path, but you need to moderate your tone and the extent to which your comments contains a personal insult in every other sentence. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Except he did not say what was manipulatively edited out. And you are now qualifying what you said earlier, which makes it less than correct. In this section you have written that others are blustering and bullying. Ive called a false statement a false statement. You want to issue a report go do that. This is an abject waste of time. I will strive to no longer debase myself in engaging in it. Toodles. (and stop pinging me, Jesus I obviously have this page watchlisted). nableezy - 17:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Is black and white text difficult to read? Perhaps I should bold it. Icewhiz's quote included what was edited out of the video. And if you're worried about debasing yourself, I couldn't tell. It was a reasonable edit, and the fact that you disagree with it does not make it "tendentious." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

OTRS request

Can someone who can write in Arabic send out OTRS requests for a photo for Commons? This article is translated into several language encyclopedias that do not allow fair-use images at all, such as Spanish. The photo in the infobox right now isn't very good for visual identification since its so grainy. Thank you.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Stuff to be restored

this. Since when has a direct interview with the deceased's mother, as reported in Middle East Eye, become unreliable? This is the usual POV-driven nonsense reverting. Nishidani (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Middle East Eye is a small outfit which some associate with Qatar or the Brotherhood - it is not a WP:RS and shouldn't be used. This subject has been covered by much more mainstream outlets, and we should rely on reporting in them - if no one else bothered picking this up, it is UNDUE regardless of the RS issue. See also this RSN discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

False on two counts. this discussion has no determination that Middle East Eye fails RS. It concerns Ma'an. In the discussion, 3 differed from 2 regarding the general issue. We don't use it generally meaning, one looks for better sources if the same information is supplied. But since this is an interview MEE alone appears to have, directly with the mother of the deceased, then it is clearly acceptable and the information innocuous. If the content 'has been covered by much more mainstream outlets' then your option was to provide those mainstream sources for the content, which you didn't do. You removed both the content and the source and therefore your objection is to the content, not to the source.Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The RSN discussion linked does touch on MEE - the longest such discussion there I found. MEE wouldn't pass a full fledged discussion at RSN. MEE doesn't pass WP:BLPSOURCES which is an issue given the WP:BLP mother and WP:BDP subject. The objection here is to the source. Beyond the source issue, it is also UNDUE if only covered by MEE.Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Your 'wouldn't pass' is just an hypothesis, nothing more. I have taken it to the relevant board. You don't understand WP:Undue. That is not an argument for excluding innocuous background material to reconstruct the outlines of the life of a slain person. When you are killed, if your life is notable, if only because you were slain, background is what editors do.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE does not mean you can remove material because it appears on one source. Please read WP:UNDUE. Nothing in it restricts the amount of coverage a topic is given, it restricts how much coverage disputed views are given in proportion to each other. I am restoring the material from Middle East Eye. Its an interview with the victims mother. If youd like to challenge whether or not the site accurately and faithfully reproduced her words feel free. You dont however get to make a blanket rule that you can remove whatever you dislike from the article. nableezy - 18:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Some reversals

I've reversed the lead back to its previous state. I particularly dislike the recent insertion that, "The IDF interpreted the video footage as showing her admitting to participating in the protests as a human shield, supposedly at the request of Hamas", which seems to imply that the IDF's tampering with the video is a result of honest differences of interpretation of meaning. We can't enter inside their heads to know what the IDF editors were thinking and if they were honestly engaged in an exercise in interpretation (which is unlikely). We do know they purposely omitted important things said by Razan from their release. And that's what the entry should say, without embellishment.Rafe87 (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

lead rewrite

I tried to rewrite the lead to make it a bit tighter. I dont think I actually removed anything from the article, but I did move some details into the body. If anybody requests Ill gladly self-rv but I personally think this is an improvement and not a change in "POV" in any direction. But like I said, anybody asks Ill gladly self-rv. nableezy - 04:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Name

In this lengthy article by The New York Times, you can see her death certificate in the opening video (at 1:52) and you can see her first name is actually spelled روزان and not رزان. Not only should that be changed in the intro of the article, it should probably also be taken into consideration for proper transcription (Rouzan -- as in the NYT article linked -- vs. Razan). --Johnny Durianseed (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, will request the article be amended CaptJayRuffins (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The article has a correct title now but the Arabic of her first name is still incorrect. Please replace رزان with روزان if you can. Thanks. --Johnny Durianseed (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Algeminer

Cmon, an op-ed from Algeminer? nableezy - 02:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Considering we're reflecting various pro-Palestinians views widely, an opposing viewpoint is certainly DUE. Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Seriously I can't understand why you want it. This childish invective just advertises the lack of a serious response. Zero^talk 08:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That isnt how DUE works, and I think you know that. A random op-ed in a source not taken seriously by actual reliable sources does not grant weight to it because it is an opposing viewpoint. What "pro-Palestinian view" are we "reflecting widely"? Am I missing any other opinion included in this article? nableezy - 16:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Nableezy, the New York Times published an investigation. Ira Stoll wrote a column in The Algemeiner attacking the investigation. Stoll's column was incoherent, rambling, tendentious nonsense. Many other WP:RS repeated the same points, so it's not "random," it's representative. I summarized Stoll's column to demonstrate the nature of the attacks. Why don't you want to let readers of Wikipedia see for themselves that the attacks on the Times investigation are tendentious nonsense, and there is no serious response? --Nbauman (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Who is Ira Stoll and why does he matter? I submit that his opinion in a non-reliable source does not matter, and that his view being included in an encyclopedia article violates WP:DUE in that it gives an undue amount of weight to a view that no reliable source takes seriously. We dont just include opinions as "balance", we use reliable sources to determine what weight a given viewpoint should have. And here, for this opinion, there is no weight that any reliable source has given to that view. nableezy - 23:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The Algemeiner (beyond being a long running publication is a WP:RS for the attributed opinion of Ira Stoll (published in a syndicated column). I'll also note that disliking the editorial POV of The Algemeiner, does not make it unreliable. Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is reliable for the attributed opinion. It is however not reliable for the purposes of according WEIGHT per WP:DUE to such an opinion. Note whatever you like to note, you are elsewhere arguing a person cannot be quoted in their own biography for violating UNDUE but are here trying to include some literal nonsense from a random person? Please. nableezy - 17:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The question is, how do we handle opinions which you believe are nonsense, and which I believe are nonsense, but are published in sources that meet the formal definition of WP:RSs, and in addition are so widespread that they meet WP:WEIGHT? (Ira Stoll is actually a well-known writer, who has views that I think are nonsense.) I believe we should include them, so that readers can see all viewpoints and make their own decisions. I believe we should include them, so that readers can see how stupid and unfounded the objections are. An intelligent reader should ask, "Is it possible that there is something to these criticisms of the Times investigation?" After seeing the criticisms, the intelligent reader should answer, "No." --Nbauman (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The way that WP:DUE tells us to. If those opinions are given coverage in secondary reliable sources include them. However, there is not one other opinion piece in this entire article, despite the dishonest statement by Icewhiz that we're reflecting various pro-Palestinians views widely. Not one "pro-Palestinian view" is given any coverage outside of what reliable secondary sources give them. If such criticisms of the NYTimes investigation find their way in to something other than an op-ed then sure we can include it. As it stands, we should not include some unimportant non-expert opinion on a topic that some random person wrote. nableezy - 17:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the accurate facts are pro-Palestinian. For pro-Palestinian views, there is Al Jazeera, Ali Abunimah, Bethan McKernan, Robert Mackey, Gideon Levy, Amira Haas, and B'Tselem, among others.

Why do you keep calling Ira Stoll a "random person"? He has a long, distinguished journalistic history (although he's distinguished by his failures). He was part of the attempt by some wealthy right-wingers to turn The Forward into a neocon outlet, like the Sun and the WSJ editorial page. He was fired when some of the Forward coverage went completely over the top. They seem to have taken over The Algeminer instead, which used to be a reasonably liberal German-Jewish publication.

But if you want to know what the Hasbrah is saying, you're going to wind up with people like Stoll. And in a Google search I saw that these views were repeated widely in many WP:RS sources. This is what Israel's dishonest apologists were saying in response to the NYT investigation. Why do you want to hide this evidence of dishonesty? --Nbauman (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Al Jazeera news reports are news reports, not "pro-Palestinian views". Literally the only thing Ali Abunimah is cited for is that she lived in Khuzaa and that there was a tweet "Medical workers are #NotATarget!. Amira Hass is cited in a news report, McKay is cited in a news report, Levy is cited for a reaction by the Israeli ambassador, and once for saying the video was filmed from behind her. Btselem is a human rights organization, I dont take seriously the view that including them is including a "pro-Palestinian view". None of those are personal views. Why do I refer to him as a random person? Because he has no expertise in this topic that would confer upon him the title of "reliable source". One last point. You keep saying you see this in several WP:RS sources. Im sorry, but an op-ed is never a reliable source if it is not written by an established expert in the field. It is reliable only for a person's own opinions, no matter how widely syndicated that column is. Absent actual reliable sources showing that this view is given any weight by them, as in a quote in a news article talking about the reactions, then they merit no weight here. nableezy - 16:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

A biased source can qualify as a WP:RS to demonstrate that a particular viewpoint is held by the source. According to WP:RS WP:BIASED "Biased or opinionated sources":

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. 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.

1. Do you agree that Ira Stoll is an incoherent, rambling, tendentious apologist for Israel?

2. Do you agree that Stoll's column demonstrates a particular viewpoint about the NYT article?

3. Do you agree that his column demonstrates how this viewpoint is incoherent, rambling, tendentious nonsense? --Nbauman (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. a biased source may qualify, provided it is reliable. However, Ira Stoll's op-ed is reliable only for his opinion. NPOV actually requires us to include views that are published by reliable sources. Ira Stoll is not a reliable source. His op-ed is not a reliable source. If a reliable source finds his views to merit inclusion in their coverage of this topic then of course we can include it. Until then however it is strictly a personal opinion that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. As far as your questions, I have no real opinion on Ira Stoll except that he is not a reliable source. Do you agree with that? If so, then we need not include it in the article. If similar views are found in reliable sources then we should include them. Unless and until that happens we should not. nableezy - 20:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Ira Stoll's column was published by a RS. Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What is that a response to? Because, as I think you well know, his column itself is not a reliable source. Which is what matters here. Or, as you referred to an op-ed in Haaretz (which is itself a reliable source no?), WP:UNDUE - highly fringe political activist, in an op-ed. Or does that belief that "highly fringe political activist in an op-ed" only apply to those whose views dont align with your own? nableezy - 15:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Stoll's column has been the subject of WP:SECONDARY analysis in WP:RSes - e.g. this JTA piece - [4] - "Ira Stoll, who runs a website that critiques The Times, says the article is one-sided in its description of the Israeli-Gazan conflict, using “language to exculpate Palestinian Arab terrorism” — for example, by describing rockets from Gaza in the passive voice without noting that they are aimed at Israeli civilians by Hamas operatives. He asks why the paper devoted so many resources to the death of the Palestinian medic but has so far ignored the murder of Ari Fuld, an Israeli American who was killed in September by a Palestinian terrorist in a stabbing attack near his hometown of Efrat. “The New York Times’ investigation,’ for all its dignified trappings, is just the same old Israel-bashing you can get for free on any extreme right or extreme left Internet site or social media feed,” Stoll writes in The Algemeiner.". Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to cite that. nableezy - 02:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see Ira Stoll's opinion as valid here, no matter who he writes for, or in. It's an apologist's attempt to deflect from the Israeli's policy that put's medics at risk in a conflict zone. Shooting directly at a clearly identified medic, regardless that it was a shot that skipped like a stone on a lake, it still struck home, which is where the shooter intended and where it landed. No amount of deflection can hide that, as such, it is a war crime. Charges should be brought, and consequences to be had. No deflection can allay that, this was one of many targeted shootings that day. #MedicsareNOTatarget !CaptJayRuffins (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

SYNTH / OR

This revert re-introduced content from a source that doesn't mention our subject. The connection to our subject is WP:OR.Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I might normally agree with you, but the actual report (here) actually discusses al-Najjar at some length. It finishes talking about her with

The Commission finds that Razan did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to the ISF when she was shot.

I'd say just cite the report. And no, that is not a primary source, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is not an involved party to this. nableezy - 16:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a primary source. A secondary source would be preferred. However - it does at least mention al-Najjar. If used - it should only be used in the context that al-Najjar is mentioned. It definitely should not be combined (SYNTH) with the Guardian which does not mention al-Najjar. Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not a primary source. The UNHCHR was not in any way an involved party to the topic they are covering. It does not just mention Najjar, it says she is an example of attacks on medical personnel that were not a threat to Israeli forces. It also covers the propaganda campaign by Israel over her killing. It says that the attacks on protected groups, among them medical personnel, may be a war crime. That is the context in which she is "mentioned". nableezy - 22:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Originally edited by AA - in Arabic

Just an interesting fact here. Still showing on the web at this minute, it is clearly seen that whoever edited the full interview with the "Lebanese TV" was NOT ISRAEL, see here. Just saying פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The more I watch the more I'm troubled by what is currently listed in the WP article. Here's an Arab version from the Al Mayadeen channel posted on June 3 2018 without the grenade throwing. The interview shows she clearly supports the rock hurling and fire-balloon sending. Also, it clearly shows her with the brown head cover. The section about the grenade was clearly edited out on this take and instead, there is a still image of her recovering from tear gas, still wearing the same brown head garb.

The version shown by the New York Times is even more troubling. Their movie begins with the images of the medics holding their hands up. BUT THEN THEY CLEARLY EXPLAIN that this incident ended in the medics pulling away from the fence, and only LATER ON IN THE DAY when things seemed to calm down, was the fatal shot heard. So a long and important header, with the caption of "Nurse Killed by Israelis" showing her holding her hands up, is simply misleading. Almost all the violent sections have been moved out, except when it comes to the other three killed during the incidents, who are accepted or at least shown to be viewed as falling into the categories that the Israelis put forward, in which cases they said they would shoot. The case of Rouzan is meant to show that Israel is failing even their own claims, and is supposedly deliberately killing Gazan's who are supposedly seen by Israel and Israelis as subhuman.

Shooting a bullet to the ground is supposed to be a warning after shooting in the air, and is common military practice as ordered by the Geneva convention. The NYT video clearly shows that the bullet hit the ground and then killed Rouzan. From the current wording in the WP article and the sources which are showing the anti-Israeli narrative, it is clear that there is an initiative to show Israeli soldiers as directly and deliberately targeting Rouzan, clearly NOT the case.

Here's my take on the whole thing. Israel WANTS to tell the people of Gaza that Israel will shoot to kill, in hopes that it would deter citizens and even fighters from crossing the border. But on the other hand, Israel is saying that they only shoot if the fence is being breached or if weapons are detected, as they wish to remain a "moral army". They are clearly acting so, otherwise, there would be no use for the tear gas and other rally dispersing equipment. Israel WOULD LIKE to say that they will shoot anyone who gets close to the border but refrains from saying so. Meanwhile, Hamas has two narratives as well. On the one hand, they would rather the ISRAELIS DO NOT SHOOT and would like their protesters to know that if they behave according to certain rules, most of them are in no real life-threatening danger. It is clear from the orchestration, the hand waving, the planned paths and movements, and the filmography, that this is so. Then on the other hand, just like the Israelis, they are interested in INFLATING THE NUMBER of REPORTED casualties. This is for the purpose of showing how Israel is inhuman. The inflated-number policy is clearly seen from the publications, which get repeated by the media, usually without question, mixing militants and civilians and never disclosing or exposing any of the problems with the information and how it is well orchestrated.

So we, the people who simply would like to know the actual facts, have to work through the given numbers and released images, through the missing and mostly skewed narratives from the media on both sides, and reconstruct what is actually happening.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please note that this is not a forum and we can't use anything based on personal analysis, including conclusions reached by drawing sources together. Zero^talk 03:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 03:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Rouzan al-Najjar → Killing of Rouzan al-Najjar – This article covers an event, al-Najjar's killing, not the person, and as such it should have a title about the event. Per WP:DEATHS and the exceedingly low likelihood the IDF will ever prosecute somebody for what the UN considers a possible war-crime, Killing is the preferred form for a homicide that does not result in a criminal conviction. nableezy - 23:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DEATHS BilledMammal (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.