Talk:Vittorio Arrigoni

Untitled

discussion to yellow^^^ If suspected then other suspected should be mention too. It is very easy having high pay intelligence to create suspected... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2011

Notability missing from lead

The reason for the existance of this page is not mentioned in the lead. Chesdovi (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Where should be put the notability note (lead?)? What is missing that is instead in a page like, say, Fabrizio Quattrocchi? Media coverage and references are not enough? What should be added exactly and where? I am not an expert, but now the page looks better than other "bio" pages. --Ittakezou0 (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:People murdered in the Palestinian territories

Why was this category removed here:[1] ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder that too. I suggest re-adding it.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't see a reason for its removal. Actually, it's a very appropriate category and I re-added it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

as a palestinian, i would like this page to emphasize how the people who murdered him were tiny tiny tiny tiny group of the palestinian people

the content could be misleading, and could cause people to interpret his murder as a Palestinian deed, the Palestinian authority plan to convict the murderers of treason, one of the murderers was not of Palestinian origin, and all true and sane Palestinians condemned the murder and would have risked their lives to save his life. i for one would have.

emphasize how its an insignificant group, al qaida linked, and not related to any significant palestinian faction. emphasize the fact that he was given a palestinian passport as a symbol that he was one of us.

thank you for the assistance, id do it myself, but im not that great at copywriting, and not too familiar with wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raid85 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We say no to revisionism here. Whatever was reported in the papers is what will be repeated here. -- Y not? 15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Y. I'm Palestinian too. Anyway, thanks to info detailed in the papers we already say it was a Salafist group (not sure if they're linked to al-Qaeda though, there not even a known salafist group) and we have provided all the reactions from the major and minor Palestinian groups, including the accusation of "treason." It is interesting that he had a Palestinian passport, I'll be sure to look into that and add it to the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

i appreciate and respect that you require sources for the facts, all i mentioned above i know from news paper articles, sorry i cant give the sources, since i didnt save them, my main point was regarding: "Cause of death Executed by hanging by a Palestinian militant group" is there not a way to clarify that this militant group is not the "usual resistance" that all the media has mentioned over the years. all militant groups unanimously condemned the act. say a random person opens this page and speed reads it, he would get the wrong idea before reaching the condemnation part at the bottom.

keep up the good work, wikipedia <3 :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raid85 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

regarding my comment above, i found the source (and photo) for Vittorio receiving the Palestinian passport. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/world/middleeast/16gaza.html Raid85 (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's still not added into article, if you had wished it to be added you should've done it yourself rather than expecting someone else doing that work for yourself. ChaChing! (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation of the sources

The referenced sources do not confirm informations from the following sentences:

"Arrigoni was kidnapped on April 15, 2011, by suspected members of a Salafist militant group operating in Gaza known as Tawhid and Jihad." - In the referenced source there is no mention of Tawhid and Jihad.

"For uncertain reasons, before the deadline expired, the captors executed Arrigoni by hanging in an empty house in the Mareh Amer area in northern Gaza." - In the referenced source there is no mention of captors executing Arrigoni.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the group's official name. The source uses a shortened version of their name which is many words long, there common name is Tawhid and Jihad so for the sake of simplicity let it be.

94.170.94.249 (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that "Suspicions of Israeli involvement" section is based on the statements of Hamas spokesman and Inge Höger. I think that Hamas is not neutral source and Inge Hoger is not credible source because she is nor witness or expert in this matter.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Political Views section

The section on political views describing Arrigoni as an anti-semite is highly problematic, if somewhat predictable. This is why I've added the POV template. The second through fourth paragraphs, although they seem to marshal many different sources to give their claims validity, all link to the same article from the Jerusalem Post. This publication itself is pretty far to the right, but even if it weren't, the JPost article itself is a travesty. It deploys misleading implications of causality (the ISM played "a major role" in the Mavi Marmara incident, as if they were to blame), ad hominem attacks and guilt by association (Arrigoni was friends with prominent critics of Israel, some Jewish, which is enough evidence for the JPost to editorialize them as "noted Israel-haters") quotations taken out of context, and misleading inferences (the ISM supports terrorism). I submit that this is not an adequate source for claims of this gravity, and basically amounts to slander. Furthermore, the sources quoted on this page from the JPost article - Fiamma Nirenstein, the Emergency Committee for Israel, NGO Monitor, and Steven Plaut - are all identifiably rightwing Zionists and/or groups that explicitly lobby for Israel, and their contribution to Wikipedia's picture of Arrigoni is more slanderous than useful. This is not because their political views invalidates whatever they might have to say, but because a few minutes' research shows that they're predisposed to reject any critical stance vis-a-vis the Israeli occupation, from pacifist to militant, as extremism, terrorism, and anti-Semitism. Quoting them in this way does not help the quality of this article. I would suggest adding more information: helpful, thorough information on Arrigoni's political views from neutral, and plural, sources, and contextualizing the claims of these three paragraphs - which at the moment dominate the section - by introducing them along the lines of "prominent Zionist criticism of Arrigoni's views includes...", or even "conservative criticism of Arrigoni's views includes...". For a reader, whatever their politics, who might not know much about the context, this would be the fairest way to contextualize the different views and criticisms. Please note that I'm not advocating a hagiography or calling to restrict criticism - it just needs to be clear for all readers that these views are coming from a particular, well-defined position. Sindinero (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sindinero. I don't think that the new added information should be in the "Political views" section. It's more the opinions about Arrigoni than the opinions of Arrigoni. I've researched other public figures in Wikipedia and I think I found the proper platform to put this information in - "A praise and criticism" section. In this kind of section we could also put all the information from more favorable sources. As for the "Political views" section I doubt if we will find "neutral sources" about Arrigoni's views, as Sindinero suggested. I suggest using primary sources such as the writings and various other publications by Arrigoni himself to fairly describe his political views. Three main sources come to mind, Arrigoni's Guerrilla Radio, his Facebook page and Youtube videos of him. Unfortunately, one should know Italian to use this sources. M. Scribe (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the most outstanding problem in the section in terms of WP:NPOV is the Guardian article, which is simply a eulogy of Arrigoni by a personal friend and which doesn't attempt to dispassionately assess his political views. The suggestion of prefacing the critical assessments of his views with "prominent Zionist criticism of Arrigoni's views includes..." is absurd, but I believe in a case like this the institutional affiliation of every commentator should be noted, which is why I did so. There is no dispute that Arrigoni was affiliated with designated terrorist organizations, so it should not be surprising that his political stances are seen critically by many. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The other commentators quoted are also incapable of dispassionately assessing anything whatsoever to do with the Israel-Paelstine conflict so I don't think there is a rational and dispassionate basis to regard the Guardian as the the most outstanding problem. Having said that, I agree that the institutional affiliation of every journalist/commentator/polemicist/propagandist should be noted. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a "praise and criticism" section would be a good solution. It's just misleading for the section on Arrigoni's political views to come largely from figures all pretty far to the right. Agree w/ M. Scribe that one good place to go for Arrigoni's own views would be his writings. I also think that, in a praise and criticism section, we should consider noting that the three paragraphs in question are all from the same JPost article (which, again, is a very conservative publication that tends to lump any anti-occupation work under the banner of terrorism, and is perhaps not the most nuanced source to be using here) until other sources can be provided. Readers can click the citations, to be sure, but many never do, and the impression one might get from these three paragraphs would be of a barrage of opinion from all quarters directed against Arrigoni, rather than the result of one problematic article that assembles a loose collection of criticism in a way that blurs the lines between editorial voice and the voice of its sources. Just a couple ideas. And to clarify, right, "neutral" was the wrong word - probably meant "balanced." Finally, could you elaborate, Jalapenos do exist, why identifying these commentators as "Zionists" is absurd? That seems like a pretty non-controversial statement from their own (sometimes fairly extreme) positions and self-identifications. (Check out Nirenstein's quotable quotes, for example.) But if people think that Zionists would be a controversial label, why not "conservative"? At least that would provide the reader with useful orientation, without passing judgment. Sindinero (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Jalapenos do exist, if you say something like "There is no dispute that Arriogoni was affiliated with designated terrorist organizations," this is exactly the kind of claim that needs substantiation. Are you saying there is no doubt that he was affiliated with organizations that have been designated 'terrorist' by motivated stakeholders who might not have the most neutral view of what constitutes 'terrorism', or that there is no doubt that these (yet unnamed) organizations are terrorist? I don't mean to impute bad intentions on your part, but this is the kind of formulation that is dangerously close to slander. Who has no dispute, who designates what organizations as terrorist? If this is a charge that amounts to something like, "Certain parties who condemn Arrigoni's work do so because he works with groups they don't like, and which they describe as 'terrorist organizations,'" then it becomes much clearer that this is a claim with POV problems. Incidentally, I don't think Arrigoni's wp article is a place where we should, can, or want to come to a final assessment of what counts as 'terror' - rather, in sections like "Political Views" and "praise and criticism" we should present the reader with exactly that, in the most balanced, well-sourced way. Sindinero (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is somebody (Plaut) who has been convicted of libel quoted on this page? There are many other positive quotes that could be included, such as anything from this piece by Ramzy Baroud, or any number of other articles. But instead of that we include Stephen Plaut (Plaut!!!!) as though his views deserve to be quoted anywhere besides a libel case. nableezy - 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact the someone was convicted of liber, doesn't automatically rule him of as a source. I've checked Plaut and he is provocative, but also a legitimate source. Besides, I don't think a "positive" source is better than a negative one. As Sindinero defined it - a balanced source is usually the best one. The example you gave is far from balanced - but again, that doesn't disqualify it. I didn't fully understand the policy of using online sources - but if it is considered a legitimate source I'll include it (or you can do it yourself, since I'm working on Arrigoni's own writings). M. Scribe (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Legitimate how? I dont think either source should be used, my point was that somebody could just as easily assemble a number of quotes that are the opposite of what largely fills the section now. That is not how it should be done. Plaut should not be quoted on anything in an "encyclopedia", he makes these outrageous and unsupported comments about anybody who dare criticizes the justness and righteousness of Zionism or its effects on the natives. But if such garbage is to be included I will assemble other comments made by those on the other side of the spectrum of Mr. Plaut or the other two fine, upstanding, authoritative, unbiased "sources" currently used. nableezy - 15:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It it legitimate in the way that when someone is quoted in a recognized newspaper - it can be quoted in Wikipedia. At least, this is how I understand the rules. For example, I've quoted Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar and German politician Inge Höger blaming Israel for the murder. This is of course a ridiculous claim since the perpetrators are salafist Palestinians - a fact claimed by Hamas itself. Nevertheless, I've used these mendacious quotes, or "garbage" to use your words, since they appear in recognized newspapers. Furthermore, I'm in the process of checking Arrigoni's Facebook page and Blog and I've found at least one of Plaut's statements to be true (Arrigoni's approval of the sign denying entrance for dogs and Israelis). M. Scribe (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're fact-checking, though, what is the procedure for qualifying quotations without it being OR? Plaut's other statement about blood libel is clearly ridiculous and, in a strict sense, nonsensical. Medieval blood libel claims didn't tend to feature 'Zionists', and Plaut is conflating an anti-Semitic claim (the Jews killed Jesus) with a very different discourse (Jesus would have a hard time of it if he were born in occupied Palestine today) in order to suggest - but not demonstrate - that Arrigoni was anti-Semitic. Any ideas on how we could tease apart Plaut's muddled slander without it being OR? Sindinero (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Arrigoni did not "approve" of the sign on facebook. He wrote the following comment in a comment on the photo of the sign: Sarò eccessivo, ma se i palestinesi non possono uscire, perchè agli israeliani deve essere concesso entrare???. Translation: I will be excessive, but if the Palestinians cannot get out [of Gaza], why should Israelis be allowed to enter [this shop in Jordan]???. nableezy - 13:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Then we should add this following Plaut's claim. Are you willing to do this, Nableezy? Sindinero (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That isnt the answer, the answer is removing such nonsense from the article. Not everybody who is quoted in a newspaper should be quoted in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 15:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." (taken from Wikipedia:Verifiability). M. Scribe (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability is a minimum requirement. It does not mean that anything that you can verify should be in an article. nableezy - 14:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (taken from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). M. Scribe (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Plaut does not present a "significant view", he only gives malicious and outright untruths about people who criticize Israel. Both quotes included in the article are outright falsehoods. It is not a "blood libel" to say that if Jesus were born today in the occupied territories he would have a difficult time, and it is plainly absurd for it to be called that. Arrigoni did not say he found the picture "delightful", and it is simply a malicious falsehood to say that he did, or that he "approved" it. An encyclopedia article is more than a collection of the most ridiculous things you can find in a newspaper. nableezy - 14:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we read again: «editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views». That's the point I guess. There are a lot of "supposed notable" opinions on Arrigoni around the world, but if we want to be «fair» and «proportionate» we have to give a honest relief to them. Most of all we have to present "facts" about the life (and death) and not "opinions" about the life. Currently the article is pretty nNPOV, in his structure first of all: there are a lot of opinions and just a few fact. Arrigoni wasnt "agaisnt Israel", he was simply against violence and war: actually he was kwnon and he described himself as an utopist. Arrigoni was against Hamas too when Hamas use violence (there are a lot of references and proof about that, first of all his autobiography and his blog). Before Gaza, he worked in Eastern Europe, Africa (and so on) as a pacifist, therefore minimizing his political view in «Arrigoni was an adamant supporter of the Palestinian cause. Arrigoni was also an outspoken critic of Israel» is simply a partial and unfair description. Second: put some partial, personal and unnotable point of view about his life is again not neutral. --Lucas (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

For eg check this interview too, he says: "Personally, as a human rights activst, I don't like Hamas at all. I have something to say to them too: they have deeply limited the human rights since they have won the elections. But I am nobody and I dont have the right to impose my point of view and my lifestyle to the civilians of Gaza. They have chosen Hamas". --Lucas (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I think the article gives as many fact as one can find online (if you can find more factual sources - write them in the article). As you can see I've updated the murder method three times already, as scraps of facts are being revealed in the newspapers (most of them just copy the facts from one another). "Opinions" are also part of the game. Arrigoni was an involved member in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. As such, his life and death attracts the typical crossfire between supporters of both sides. When it's a "significant view", printed in a "recognizable newspaper" - it should be in the article. Check every other politically involved figure and you'll find the same structure. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the factual aspect of the article is far from satisfactory. I've read the English portion of Arrigoni's Facebook page, but unfortunately I don't know Italian so I couldn't understand the Italian portion of it, nor his website. I thought about putting it all in Google Translate, but I'm not sure if an automathical translation will accurately reflect the nuances of Arrigoni's writing. It seems that you know Italian, so why not using it to enrich the article yourself. If you choose not to use this knowledge in expanding the article - give me more quotes and other data from the Italian sources, in my talk page or in this arena, and I promise you I'll add it to the article. M. Scribe (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I used part of the quote you've mentioned, because the last part of it differed significantly enough from the Google Translation solution (your translation is probably better, but I can't really know for sure). Furthermore, I'm not sure if the Peacereporter is as an acceptable source for Wikipedia, but since they interviewed Arrigoni, I've used it in this case as a primary source. M. Scribe (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to address the second of Plaut's accusations, that a photo that Arrigoni included – and thought was just delightful – is a sign in a store that announces that dogs and Israelis may not enter. The actual facebook page is here. The page consists of one comment by Arrigoni and the reproduction of this story from Adnkronos. Arrigoni's comment is Sarò eccessivo, ma se i palestinesi non possono uscire, perchè agli israeliani deve essere concesso entrare???. Translation: I will be excessive, but if the Palestinians cannot get out, why should Israelis be allowed to enter??? The actual news story is about the picture. The picture shows a notice, in English, that has the words Sorry. We do not receive dogs and Israelies (sic). Next to the words are two pictures. I'll quote the news report's description:

Nel volantino, fotocopiato in bianco e nero, appare anche la foto di una donna palestinese che viene attaccata al braccio da un cane al fianco di un soldato israeliano.
Una seconda foto, invece, mostra un militare dello Stato ebraico che aggredisce una donna palestinese.

Translation:

In the flyer, photocopied in white and black, there is also the photo of a Palestinian woman. A dog, accompanied by an Israeli soldier, is attacking her arm.
A second photo, instead, shows a member of the IDF assaulting a Palestinian woman.

The story goes on to say that these flyers began to be printed around the time of Israel's "Cast Lead" operation in Gaza (Gaza War). Now, from the reproduction of this news story and the single comment that if the Palestinians cannot get out, why should Israelis be allowed to enter? we include an accusation that this person found this flyer "just delightful"? How exactly is it that a Wikipedia article includes such an inflammatory claim that is both malicious and patently false? Yes, a newspaper quoted somebody saying this. So what? How does that it make such a view "significant"? nableezy - 00:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/ Nableezy's removal of Plaut's 'delightful' claim on the grounds given. Sindinero (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

@ 174.143.205.51 - Since you deleted it on your talk page, I'm posting my comment here since it's germane to this discussion and concerns your evident counterproductive attempt to continually revise this article in questionable ways without giving adequate reasons:

Hi, I noticed you reverted a change to the article on Vittorio Arrigoni twice without giving reasons on the talk page. It might be helpful for you to consult the substantial discussion of this issue that's already taking place on that page, and justify your reasons there in more detail. Unless you give plausible grounds for your reverts, you might give other editors the impression you're making changes that are nNPOV. You state that the claim in question 'points to worldview' but this has been found problematic (whose worldview?) by a number of editors, since Plaut's claim is easily disprovable by reference to the original source he cites. Why don't you explain your reasoning in a little more detail on the talk page so that we can come to a solution that's acceptable to all the editors working on this article? Sindinero (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Image

I've replaced the free-use caricature with a fair-use image, as I think that this person's appearance is certainly encyclopedic, an image represents the appearance better than a caricature, and since he is deceased, a fair use claim is acceptable. As the caricature is free use, it can be added anywhere in the article if desired, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible vandalism by 174.143.205.51

A user with the IP of 174.143.205.51 has been mechanically reverting a deletion that had been discussed in good detail on the talk page. Can this be considered vandalism? The user so far has failed to give detailed grounds for the reversion or to engage with other editors on the talk page - I posted a comment on 174.143.205.51's user talk page about this, but it was promptly deleted. This is not a registered user but just an IP address, and a look at the history shows that it's a fairly recent account dedicated almost exclusively to vandalizing this page. I also notice that my comment on the article talk page has just been deleted. We could a) simply mechanically revert this change, but with a broader consensus, b) include a citation of the facebook page in question in Plaut's disputed claim, or c) seek some sort of arbitration and/or page protection. What, assuming this comment isn't deleted straightaway, do people think?

Sindinero (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Praise and Criticism section

Re: Savasorda's recent edit: The three figures cited by the JPost article are all identifiably conservatives, and identifiably Zionist. I don't think it's nNPOV to contextualize them as such, since a quick look at the various wikilinks verifies this. But rather than revert, I'd like to see if we could build some sort of consenseus - should these figures be politically contextualized as conservative or in some other way? My fear is that the uninformed reader will get the impression that these are just three public figures who happen to view Arrigoni as an antisemite, rather than three highly problematic figures who seem to view any criticism of the occupation as antisemitic. It seems pretty descriptive to call them 'conservative.' If reliable sources can be found for this label, is this something we can include? Sindinero (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also, since this is probably the appropriate thread to use, I would suggest we expand the "praise" part a little more. He was certainly praised more than he was condemned, but currently the section looks unbalanced in the favor of criticism. Of course, that might be a little assumptive on my part. Any views available by human rights groups? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have just removed all the references to this after I saw another editors replacing "conservative figures" by "people". Please, feel free to go back and to modify this point the way you think the more appropriated without taking our action into account. Noisetier (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded that section to characterize the figures as conservative, for the reasons discussed and agreed upon on this talk page. I still think that the section gives undue weight to (identifiably slanderous) criticisms from conservative, Zionist figures. What are others' thoughts? Does wikipedia policy have guidelines for distinguishing criticism from slander? Sindinero (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The two recent edits[2][3] are both marked improvements to this section, although I wonder whether now wouldn't be a good time to return to some of the more fundamental questions about the paragraph on "criticism." It's been two and a half months since Arrigoni's death, and this article has lost the character of being a current event, and increasingly comes to represent Arrigoni for posterity; personally, I still have doubts that we need this paragraph at all. Originally, this content was put into the "political views," but that was felt to be a misrepresentation, so we moved it to a new section. But I still feel that the material here is less criticism than slander, for a few main reasons:

• The Jerusalem Post is, as a major daily, a reliable source. However, the article cited seems stuck between reportage (as the title would indicate) and polemic editorializing (referring to friends of Arrigoni as "noted Israel-haters," without quotation marks). Generally speaking, on questions of Palestine, JPost is pretty far to the right, and I question whether this article meets the standards for reliable sources.
• The figures quoted and their institutional affiliations—Fiamma Nirenstein, Steven Plaut, and the Emergency Committee for Israel—are all very conservative on the issue of Palestine, and have backgrounds that indicate that they consider any criticism of Israel's policies towards Palestine to be anti-Semitic. A quick check on the wikilinks of their names verifies this. I'd refer in particular to Plaut's libel case, or Nirenstein's statement that 'every Jew in the world is an Israeli even if he's not aware of it. Anyone who doesn't know it is making a big mistake.'
• The figures quoted are not experts on Arrigoni or on the ISM, and it seems unlikely that they even really knew who he was before the JPost writer went trawling for talking points from conservative Zionist pundits. This seems like a circular methodology to me.

I'm certainly not opposed to including substantive criticism of Arrigoni, or any figure - but to my mind, these points and the fact that this content was originally placed in the article as political views attributed to Arrigoni indicates that this 'criticism' is simply slander, and I don't think wikipedia should be a soapbox for that. What do others think? Sindinero (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• JPost is a reliable source per WP:RS and can be used here. We don't disqualify sources because we think they are pretty far to the right or left.
• The RS decides who they want to quote. Editors' personal opinions about the figures quoted are irrelevant.
• Again, our opinions on the figures quoted are irrelevant. They're used by a RS.

I think it would be a gross violation of NPOV if this article did not include criticism of Arrigoni. And this is pretty mild criticism for a guy who had "resistance" in Arabic tattooed on his arm while this article describes him as a "pacifist" in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are all points well taken, and like I said, I think your change was a definite improvement, so thanks for that. However, the article in question seems to suffer from a categorical confusion between reportage and opinion (for the reason I gave above). If it is an opinion piece, it's no longer a reliable source except on the fact that the article's author believes these things, as per WP:NEWSORG.

I'm a little confused as to the relevance of your last points. NPOV nowhere states that all biographies have to include criticism, and many don't. I'm all for criticism, I love criticism, but I think it weakens wikipedia to include slander (defined as baseless accusations, not as any negative statements whatsoever). And would it make a difference if "resistance" were tattooed in a language other than Arabic? Are you suggesting there's a contradiction between pacifism and resistance, or between pacifism and Arabic? Sindinero (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the word "muqawama" does not exactly imply "passive resistance". But that's beside the point. Currently the article says that a few people said he could not be considered a peace activist because of the groups he supported. That's very mild criticism and could hardly be considered slander. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

International work before Gaza

Please give a look to the italian version of this article: there are a lot of relevant information about the international work of Arrigoni as a human right activist around the world. --Lucas (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Role of Israel

It is not apparent to me that this section is in any way appropriate. There is substantial evidence that Arrigoni was murdered by Islamist extremists and zero evidence (or reason) to suggest Israeli involvement. Neither of Barhoum nor Höger has a shred of credibility. Both are overtly hostile to Israel. Neither offers any evidence, their statements are patently groundless and there is no reason to give a platform to their spurious opinions. Although the section leads with the substantive information that refutes their comments, the discussion and publication itself gives them unwarranted credibility because, don't you know, anything that warrants such a fair and balanced exposition must be, at least, the subject of reasonable debate. Well, there are plenty of things that are not subject to reasonable debate.

This section is no better than a discussion of, for instance, whether all gays are pedophiles. I'm sure one can find plenty of homophobes willing to provide quotes to support that one. Now, I am not saying that it would be inappropriate to have an article dealing with, say, the historical fact of such slanders (who did it, why, the impact of the victims of the slander). It would, however, make a farce of Wikipedia to include such a discussion in an article about someone who was a victim of a pedophile.

This "Role of Israel" section should be removed. It is inappropriate, irrelevant, does not belong in an encyclopedia and diminishes Wikipedia. Nxnw59 (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed some text from this section, copied below:

Mahmoud al-Zahar, a member of the Hamas leadership, indirectly accused Israel of engineering the killing of Arrigoni in an attempt to scare off international activists from coming to Gaza.

Why? Because the source no longer exists. If someone would like to put this section back up, please find a source.

Hamas identified the perpetrators with a Palestinian group affiliated with al-Qaeda, but Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said he suspected Israel might be responsible since the death appeared to be timed to deter foreign activists from joining a flotilla due to sail to Gaza in May to break Israel's naval blockade of the area.

Why? Because the source cited makes no reference to Barhoum. If someone would like to put this section back up, please find a source.

208.118.163.99 (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The LA Times piece is still available via Google cache here. I fixed the link. The Independent source says "Mr Barhoum condemned the killing as "shameful" and said he suspected Israel might be responsible since the death appeared to be timed to deter foreign activists from joining a flotilla due to sail to Gaza in May to break Israel's naval blockade of the area." I have restored the material...although it could probably be summarized a bit more if anyone wants to try. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

request for semiprotection?

This article's been getting a lot of tendentious, disruptive, nonconsensual blanking lately from different IP addresses that seem to be the same person. Should we request semiprotection? I'm not too familiar with the process; if others agree that this is necessary for this article, what would it involve? Sindinero (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have requested it.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Other info

You can watch this reportage on Arrigoni's life shooted by Al Jazeera International. --Lucas (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

just lie and war

There is next of a group who use lie[4] to blank Israel response in war of edits. Now 3x reinstate section Criticism . Lie since it is quite visible content was moved not deleted and since section criticism was reinstated 3x hard to think it is coincidental. Wp: criticism state it si not OK. Here section criticism is used to separate Isreal response as critique to brake the logic of article. Why so holy cow? mean: why response from Israel should have called especially "critique" and only from Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's really hard to understand what you're trying to say. Could you be a little clearer, more precise, and more specific? Sindinero (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you can ignore the edit summary by Velella "Reverted unexplained removal of content". It was probably a mistake. You moved rather than removed content. However, I think the version restored by Velella here is better than your version here. For example, you created an empty Criticism section. There is no reason for the article to have a section just for criticism especially if it is just for criticism by one party e.g. Israel. Praise and criticism are combined. The responses are grouped together. The article doesn't seem to include the official response of the Israeli government yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

now is good. The empty section criticism of course should be deleted 1 since since it was empty 2 because criticism was quite clear the Israel response and can be logically placed in section response to death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Now what.

Nableezy (talk · contribs), what's the deal with you. You edited my edit, changing the word "Alleged" to "Accusations against" and citing WP:WTA. Alright. I mean, that's fine. If there's a sound policy-based reason to prefer "accused" over "alleged," then your edit's well-intentioned and I don't care that you edited my edit. But I went to WP:WTA and scrolled down to WP:ALLEGED. And what's it say there? "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." That means "alleged" and "accused" are equivalent. Where one's appropriate, so's the other. So what's going on? Are you just trying to get under my skin? Is that it? Please share with me what compelled you to replace "Alleged" with "Accusations against."—Biosketch (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And speaking of captious edits, what guideline motivated your removal of Steven Plaut's occupational background here? You removed details relating to Plaut, supposedly on account of his name being wikilinked, yet you did not do the same for Fiamma Nirenstein. So where's the consistency? I'm finding it increasingly difficult to escape the feeling that these petty changes are the result of WP:OWN and would appreciate clarification to the contrary should that not be the case.—Biosketch (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Really? You want to go this way? All right. You want to include that Plaut is a professor? Fine, lets include that, but lets also include that he is a professor in business administration, with no expertise in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or antisemitism, and then lets also include that he was convicted of slander for making similar charges against Neve Gordon. At least his latest target is dead and thus does not have the ability to sue him for libel. That sound good? Why did I remove "Prof."? See WP:HONOR. Also, his field of expertise is not in any way related to the topic, adding that is simply a transparent attempt to add greater weight to the views of a convicted libeler. What do you think is more relevant here, that he is a professor in an unrelated field or that he has been convicted of libel for similar statements made against another person? Why did I change alleged to accusation? Alleged gives an implication that the accusation is not true, accusation makes no such implication. Finally, an article talk page is meant for discussing the content of an article, not other editors. Do not continue making personal accusations here, there are other forums for you to complain about my editing an article that you hounded me to. Do not continue to abuse this page. nableezy - 16:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 1. You didn't just remove "Prof." If all you had done was removed "Prof," there wouldn't have been any problem. I criticized your removal of Plaut's "occupational background." There is nothing at WP:HONOR that addresses removing a wikilinked individual's occupational background, so WP:HONOR does not account for your edit. 2. In explaining the edit changing "alleged" to "accusations against," you initially cited WP:WTA. Having subsequently been shown that WP:WTA is irrelevant here, you're now applying an unsourced subjective semantic interpretation. These are exactly the problems I was alluding to earlier. Were your edits policy-based, they would be fine and you could follow me around to every article I edit for all I care. But as neither WP:HONOR nor WP:WTA apply here, I think I have the right to inquire what your motives were in making those edits. 3. Show me where I made a personal accusation in my messages from yesterday. I asked if you're trying to get under my skin. That was a genuine question, and I've just demonstrated its validity. I did not diagnose you with a disease. Speaking of which, when did I ever hound you at an article, as you're accusing me? (And wasn't it two articles the last time you accused me of that?)—Biosketch (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you did not understand what I wrote I cant do much, but Ill try. 1. Plaut's professorial expertise is in a completely unrelated field, that is why it is irrelevant to this article that he is a professor. I specifically removed Prof because of WP:HONOR, I removed the rest because it was a transparent appeal to authority, and, worse, to somebody with no expertise on the subject. But could you answer my question? What is more relevant to this page, that Plaut is a professor in business administration or that he was convicted of slander for making similar statements against Neve Gordon? Next, if you feel that alleged and accusations are equivalent, why exactly are you crying that about my substituting one for the other? Since you feel it is all right to question others motives Ill assume you have no problem answering this, is it just to be as annoying as possible? Dont answer that here, really, because, again, an article talk page is for discussing the content of the article and only that. I do not wish to waste any more time on your personal feelings about me. If you insist on writing these things, kindly do so on my talk page, not an article talk page. Finally, to answer 3, these petty changes are the result of WP:OWN is very obviously a "personal accusation", one that has no place on an article talk page. You cannot expect that people treat you with respect or "professionalism" when you do not do the same. nableezy - 07:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's clear from your own reply that our dialog is about your edits and only peripherally about you, so kindly stop accusing me of abusing this Discussion page. In answer to your question: between Plaut's professorship at Haifa University and his slander conviction, the former is the more prominent biographical detail. And the reason I'm carrying on about "alleged" and "accusations against" is precisely because your original reason for changing my edit has been shown to be invalid, and I'm trying to establish why you made the edit in the first place and whether it was policy-based or something-else-based. Lastly, I can call the changes "petty." It's a comment about the edits themselves, not about the editor. And the edits were indeed petty, because they contributed virtually nothing of substance to the article and only raised concerns of WP:OWN – again, not an evaluation of Nableezy (talk · contribs) but of that user's edits.—Biosketch (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. You continue to make personal accusations, kindly stop doing so. How is it a prominent biographical detail that is relevant to this article that Plaut is an associate professor in a completely unrelated field? How is it at all relevant to this article? How is it not an appeal to authority, made even more of a fallacy by the fact that he isnt even an authority in the topic? Finally, I dont care if you think I am owning the article, if you wish to make that case you can do so in the appropriate venue. I dont have to remind you just how much I enjoy you running to ANI or AE, so please feel free to do so. But stop doing so here, this page serves a purpose, a purpose that you are abusing. nableezy - 15:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "alleged" to "accused". I also don't see what Plaut's conviction of slander (most of which was overturned on appeal, and there's still an appeal to the Supreme Court pending) has to do with this article. It certainly wasn't for "making similar statements against Neve Gordon". Unless you have a RS comparing the two? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And why pray tell do you prefer alleged? nableezy - 15:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds better to me. Now that your claim that it violates WTA has been proven false, do you have any policy based reason for the change you made? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WTA has indeed changed over time, and the current redirect to a style manual does say both accused and alleged may be used. However, I see no reason to use alleged over accusations of, and I feel that alleged carries a a connotation that accused does not. As such, I feel it is more in keeping with NPOV to use accusations of. Or, to use your words, it sounds better to me. Do you have a policy based reason to use alleged over accusations of? Because if not, the repeated mantra of "policy based reason for the change" rings quite hollow. nableezy - 17:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "accused" and "alleged" have different connotations. An allegation is typically without proof, as is the case here.

The policy based reason to use alleged is that both Biosketch and I prefer it, while you're the only one who doesn't. It's called consensus I believe. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus? On the basis of two users supporting? How quaint. You basically admitted that you prefer alleged because it represents the view that the accusation has no proof. Accusation against does not make any judgement on the veracity of the accusations, and is more neutral because of that. So the policy based reason is WP:NPOV, one word makes a judgment in the narrative voice that the other does not, and makes that judgment on the basis of the viewpoint of 2 Wikipedia editors. nableezy - 19:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care which it is but the obvious sock that made this edit needs a clear message from everyone that nothing happens until the discussion is concluded. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "accusations" as well, for the reasons Nableezy gave. It's more neutral. Beside that, I find attempts to circumvent consensus either with a sock puppet or by declaring "best two out of three" to be distasteful and disruptive. Sindinero (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the point about Plaut is that he's not the most reliable source for criticisms of critics of Israeli policy, and that's why the libel case is relevant. He's a professor of business administration, which perhaps qualifies him as a skillful networker, one who can instrumentalize other human beings, or make reductive models about human behavior, but doesn't particularly speak to his critical-analytic skills, and certainly not to expertise on the Israel-Palestine issue. The paragraph as it stands now is much better, since it states that these three figures don't believe Arrigoni was a pacifist: earlier it contained some pretty specific slander about Arrigoni being an anti-Semite based on willful distortions of his facebook page. Hardly something that would pass any kind of peer review. Plaut is a strange one, and it seems pretty clear to me (although I obviously don't have a reliable source) that his extreme-right Zionist political position would lead him to imprecate anyone critical of Israel. Plus, no joke, he has a recent article saying that the solution to the situation in Libya is to—wait for it—return the country to its rightful owners, the Jews. The technical term for someone like that is, I believe, "bat-shit crazy."

My basic point is that I don't think including unsupported views of wingnuts makes Wikipedia a better place, that goes whatever the politics are. If it were irresponsible, slanderous, and not particularly intelligent people on the left slandering someone on the right without any credible evidence, I'd want that gone too. I don't think Plaut's, Nirenstein's, or Pollak's views here are particularly reliable or notable; any critical reader of the JPost article can see that it was just quote-trawling, and that doesn't lend much weight to their criticisms. Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sindinero (talk · contribs), why do you insist on stoking the fires of an already-inflamed discussion by invoking that "batshit crazy" remark, knowing full well that it was a recent bone of contention between Nableezy (talk · contribs) and myself? He did the right thing and redacted, so let bygones be bygones and try to make comments that actually contribute to the consensus some of us are trying to construct here.—Biosketch (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

@Biosketch (talk · contribs) - Not stoking any fires, just saying my piece. Plaut seems, from everything I can tell, to be a pretty fringe figure, and I'm sorry for the contentious language - if you look at my contributions you'll see that I generally try to avoid this - but anyone who can editorialize that the solution to the situation in Libya should be based upon a far-out ethnic supremacism is, technically speaking, bat-shit crazy. Perhaps my timing wasn't great, but if you'll look at the article and talk page history, you can see that this is a discussion that has been going on for awhile, and I'm not convinced that the criticism paragraph meets the standards for reliable sources or those under WP:GEVAL. I'll tone it down in the future, but I do think that including Plaut's slander in the name of a mythic balance makes this article worse than it could be. Sorry if I offended. Sindinero (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), would you stop accusing me of making personal accusations when I've taken care to comment strictly on your editing behavior and not on you personally? Whether or not you're doing it deliberately, remarks like the ones you're articulating are making this all a lot more difficult than it needs to be. There's no reason you should have to clash with me like this every time our paths cross in the I/P area (though it seems there are editors here who derive enjoyment from watching when that happens and will do what they can to egg us on).

Now, when I say that Plaut's professorship is foremost among the biographical details that he's known for, I mean that that is the most natural and neutral way to contextualize him for the reader. The first line at his BLP is not Plaut was convicted of slander in 2006; it is "...associate professor of Business Administration at the University of Haifa and a writer." The conviction isn't even in the lead. Ok, someone could argue that it's because of Wikipedia's purported pro-Zionist lobby that the lead is written that way, but that argument wouldn't hold a molecule of water. The lead is written that way because on the hierarchy of prominence, Plaut's professorship is what he's most known for in the sources.

And I'm still waiting for that policy-based reason to prefer "accusations against" over "alleged" – at your earliest convenience.—Biosketch (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have already given the "policy-based reason", accusations against does not have the implication that "alleged" does and as it makes no judgment on the veracity of the accusations it is more in keeping with NPOV. Is there a "policy-based reason" for "alleged" over "accusations against"? Because if not, your repeated requests that I provide one ring hollow. The question I asked is not what is the more notable piece of information for a biography of Plaut, but rather what is more relevant here. Is it more relevant that Plaut is a professor in a completely unrelated field, specializing in such things as fluctuations in home prices in urban environments, or is it more relevant to his accusations, completely unsupported by reality, that he made similar statements regarding Neve Gordon and was convicted of slander for doing so? Would you like to answer those questions, or are you going to make me repeat them? nableezy - 02:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Alleged" does not make a "judgment on the veracity of the accusations". It implies the assertion was made without proof, not that it is wrong. And since in this case there is an assertion without proof, "alleged" would be the correct English word to use. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Plaut's professorship has no relevance to this issue whatsoever. This is obvious. At least Richard Falk is a professor of something relevant to the things he talks about most of the time i.e. international law, but surely we don't have to go around amending articles like United Nations Human Rights Council and many others to tell people he's a professor ? What would be the point ? In the I-P conflict, he's usually not speaking as a professor just like Plaut isn't speaking as a professor of business administration when he voices his completely personal (and in no way relevant to an encyclopedia) opinions. Even Erik Demaine, probably one of the smartest people on the planet, and the youngest ever professor at MIT, isn't described as a professor anywhere but in his own article as far as I can tell from a quick look. So, what is going on with this Plaut chap that makes it important ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let's try this again. 1. Nableezy (talk · contribs) replaced the word "alleged" with "accusations against." He cited WP:WTA, but that guideline was shown not to be relevant to his edit. He then suggested a semantic nuance distinguishing "alleged" from "accused." When asked to cite an objective source for that distinction, he did not. If he does not furnish this Discussion page with a verifiable source supporting his claim, it will invalidate his edit and I will revert it. 2. Even if Steven Plaut's professorship is not relevant in the context of his comments vis-a-vis Arrigoni, his involvement with Middle East Quarterly certainly is. If the professor's academic background is such a problem for people here, I have no objection to introducing him as "an editor for Middle East Quarterly."—Biosketch (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, you have "validated" your position how exactly? This game of demanding that I supply "proof" for my position or the result is that your position gets accepted as fact is not amusing. Two of us here feel that "accusations against" is more in keeping with NPOV, given that the section title is in Wikipedias voice, than "alleged". You have said that you see no practical difference, so why exactly do you oppose accusations against? And since you keep demanding one of me, what policy supports your position? nableezy - 03:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point my opposition to "accusations against" has become a matter of principle. If you cannot cite a valid reason for editing my edit, then what reason was there to make it in the first place other than maybe just to screw with me? I don't know...maybe my English has eroded over the years because 90% of my day-to-day communication is performed in another language – but I don't perceive there to be any difference between "allegation" and "accusation." Is it so difficult for you to cite a source that demonstrates that there's a difference like you're arguing there is? The original version was "Alleged." You changed it based on an irrelevant guideline. When it was shown to be irrelevant, you changed your argument, and then Sindinero (talk · contribs) suddenly appeared with his "batshit insane" remark. Now it's you and him against me and No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs). So I will revert because you do not dispute that the original language before my edit needed to be changed, you did not have a valid reason for making your edit after mine, and there is no consensus supporting your later edit. But I'm not in any hurry. If there are more counterarguments to be voiced, I'm still open to hearing them.—Biosketch (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No consensus? There is no consensus for your edit either. You keep playing this game of demanding others comply with some standard that you alone set but only applies to others. I have given you a reason for the edit, that "accusation against" does not make any judgment on the veracity or quality of the accusations, where allegations does. You dont see a difference, so your insistence on changing it back is rather disruptive, not principled. WP:WTA has changed over time, and I had not read it in a while. Once upon a time that was its own guideline, now it is a redirect to a part of the MOS. Forgive me for not keeping up with the latest happenings in WP space, Ive been here a while and dont check to see what every guideline says each morning. Nonetheless, my point on the neutrality stands, and given that you yourself see no difference in the choice I see no reason to debate it further. You want to claim no consensus? Fine. We can go back to the way it was prior to any edits. That is, a section titled "Role of Israel". That sound good to you? Or does no consensus mean that you get to choose which version of the article we go back to, with the choice being your edit? Is that how this consensus thing works? Or maybe you can stop wasting time on something that you consider to be a meaningless difference. nableezy - 05:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, "alleged" does not make "any judgment on the veracity or quality of the accusations". I'm also not seeing where Sindinero said he prefers "accused". Is it in this section?

While the guideline may have changed since you last checked, your edit summary misrepresents current guidelines. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I say I prefer "accused" in this section, above. Perhaps this discussion thread should be split into two? Biosketch started this section as one dealing with two issues: alleged/accused, and Plaut's credentials; maybe these should be discussed separately for the sake of clarity. And Biosketch, again, I'm not sure why you insist that I've just suddenly materialized as if to hound you, or, worse, as if you were alleging sockpuppetry or canvassing. Before making shrill claims like this, it's good to know what you're talking about. Please read the older sections on this talk page, you'll see that the discussion about giving weight to fringe figures like Plaut has been going on here for longer than your involvement with this article. As to alleged/accused, it's troubling to see that it's now become "a matter of principle" for you - that seems equivalent to saying that you're now in it just for the fight. A word is not an elaborate claim, and it strikes me as a little ridiculous that you ask Nableezy to provide a source for the semantic distinction between the two. Why don't you work in good faith here and look it up yourself? Dictionary.com, gathering definitions from various print dictionaries, gives as a secondary sense "doubtful" or "dubious." "Alleged," while in a literal sense equivalent to "accused," has a connotation that makes it less neutral than accused in this context. Sindinero (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC

And, if we decide to go with Plaut's editorial credentials instead of his professorial ones, as Biosketch suggests, I think we should have "...who serves on the editorial board of the conservative journal Middle East Quarterly." "Conservative" is not, I think, in question here - a quick glance at the WP page for the MEQ can verify this. Also, Plaut is not the editor, but serves on the editorial board, which is quite different. In my view, "an editor for Middle East Quarterly" has the same problems with an appeal to authority that "Professor" does. Sindinero (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If everyone here was working in good faith, we would not need to have an argument about the fact the word "alleged" (used daily by newspapers and TV news around the English speaking word to mean "it has been claimed but no proof is provided" and in no way implying the assertion is incorrect) is what you use when describing an assertion without proof rather than "accused" which has legal implications (as I'm sure you're aware of from your search of dictionary.com). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if everybody was working in good faith we would not have arguments over the choice of a word that one of the users arguing for changing says there is no substantive difference, and is only arguing for the sake of arguing. Of course, I am sure you meant other people are not working in good faith, as opposed to you or those you agree with. Funny how that is. Answer this question, are the contents of that sections "accusations" made against Israel? nableezy - 14:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I meant you. The contents of the section are allegations made against Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And I meant you and Biosketch. Is your non-answer answer supposed to mean something? Are they "accusations" against Israel? I did not ask if they are "allegations", I asked if they are "accusations". nableezy - 14:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Are they not allegations? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this game you are playing fun? How about this, you answer my question, because I asked it first, then Ill answer yours. nableezy - 15:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who's playing games. I answered your question. You can answer mine or not, I could not possibly care less. It's not as if any argument would ever change your mind, so there's really little point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? I am the one demanding "policy based reasons" for your edits but refusing to provide them for mine? I am the one ignoring questions asked of me and trying to turn them back around. You actually did not answer my question, but if you feel you did you could simply point me to where that happened. To repeat, the question is "are the contents of that section 'accusations' against Israel? That, if you needed clarification, is a yes/no question. nableezy - 15:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to get catty, NMMNG. Yes, I'm aware of the definitions and usage of "accused" as well. The point of looking out for connotations is that they give impressions to the reader that we may or may not want to convey, and it's important to be aware of these. "Alleged" does connote "dubious" or "doubtful," as in "the alleged miracle cure," or "the alleged hero." You're right that "accused" is also a legal term; as such, it has legal connotations (not "implications"); however, in this context, I find it doubtful that a reader of the article would take "accusations against Israel" to mean that formal charges had been filed against Israel, while a phrase like "alleged role of Israel" or "allegations against Israel" is quite likely to be understood as passing an implicit judgment in an editorial voice, something we want to avoid. Sindinero (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[5]. Do these connote "dubious" or "doubtful"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to be engaging with, or even understanding, my point. A connotation is not a denotation, nor is it necessary that a word connotes something in every instance. The fact that you can come up with context-specific instances where "allegation" doesn't carry that connotation isn't really relevant to the fact that it does carry it in others. Biosketch, somewhat nonsensically, asked for a "source" for Nableezy's point about the difference between allegation and accusation. I took the time to provide it - "dubious" and "doubtful" are secondary definitions of "alleged," so it's not really disputable that "alleged" or "allegations" can carry those connotations. Your use of google is like saying that because "rack" is a torture device, it's never a shelf. Please try to stick to the point here. Do you disagree with the dictionary definition of "alleged," or do you find it irrelevant to the article for a specific reason? Sindinero (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It is you who is not engaging with my point. I provided you a google news link with over 10,000 hits ("allegedly" gets many more, by the way) which shows that in the context of reporting something which may or may not be true but for which no proof has been provided, "alleged" is used quite commonly. If you do a similar search for "accused", you'll see it is usually used in the context of legal proceedings. These are the ways these words are normally used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote above. I acknowledge that "accused" does have a legal connotation, but the point about connotations is that one has to be sensitive on how the reader might interpret a given use of a word. Do you think that it is more likely that "accusations against Israel" will cause readers to mistakenly think that this is a legal issue, or that "allegations against Israel" will carry the connotation of "dubious"? For me, this is the only issue. Sindinero (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think "accusations" is more likely to cause readers to think these were made by people or groups who have the authority to later judge if the assertions are true, as it is normally used in English newspapers etc. I also don't think "allegations" will carry the connotation of "dubious", again as per normal usage of the word. The connotation is that no proof has been provided (yet). Have a look again at google news. The top hits are about a newspaper hacking the viocemail of a teenage murder victim. At this point there's little doubt they did it. Yet it's "alleged". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

People or groups who "accuse" others do not have the authority to judge is the accusations are true. That is why there are "accusers" and "judges". nableezy - 15:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment:
Editor A: Create section "Role of Israel."
Editor B: That formulation is flawed. Change "Role of Israel" to "Alleged role of Israel."
Editor C: Basically accept the point B is making, but change "Role of Israel" to "Accusations against Israel."

Problem: Miles of circular caviling between B and C with some potentially valid points on either side but with no end in sight, regarding which formula is more neutral.

Recommendation: RfC.—Biosketch (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Second that. Do we want to compile our best options for phrasing, so that it's clear to all editors what the choices are? Sindinero (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrigoni, Hamas, Israel

1. Again about Arrigoni and Hamas. Take a look at this interview by it:Roberto Morrione; he says: "Rather, Hamas is losing approval with his senseless campaign of restriction against individual liberties and in favor of a gradual "Islamisation" of the morals in the Gaza Strip." (Semmai Hamas perde consensi oggi, con la sua dissennata campagna di limitazione delle libertà individuali in favore di una progressiva “islamizzazione” dei costumi all’interno della Striscia. --Lucas (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Another intersting quote for this article. In 2010 Arrigoni says: "Zionism is an abominable, racist and colonial movement. Like with all of the colonial and apartheid systems, is in the interests of all to swept it away. My hope is to see it replaced, without any bloodshed, with a democratic, secular and laic state - for example on the borders of historic Palestine - and where Palestinians and Israelis could live under equal rights of citizenship without ethnic and religious discrimination. It's a wish that I hope will soon become a reality." --Lucas (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Here you can find a copy of the website where arrigoni was threatened with death by some Israeli extremists (the website was later closed due to a complaint form the Italian authorities). --Lucas (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
4. And here is a picture of him hugging and looking quite friendly with a very high level Hamas official. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

...you left out the bit about it being when Haniya had just been presented him with a Palestinian passport. I imagine he was quite pleased about that. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

...They both look quite pleased. What's your point? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is that you left out contextural information pertinent to the image and replaced it with your own interpretation. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Was that one of your clever jokes? I think what you meant to say is that you have an interpretation of your own you'd like to provide for the picture of Arrigoni putting his arm around Ismail Haniya and both of them looking quite happy. The picture speaks for itself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that statement is, in the strict sense of the term, a naive view of images. Even a superficial foray into visual studies would tell you that no image ever speaks for itself; by saying that it does, you're already incorporating a host of cultural and political presuppositions, assumptions, and associations into your reading of the image. Sindinero (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess in some cultures a guy putting his arm around another guy and both of them smiling broadly means the hugger is a pacifist who deplores the deliberate targeting of civilians and repression of its own citizens by the group the hugee is head of. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly not understanding what I mean, so I respectfully suggest you do some basic reading on visual studies and image theory if you're interested in pursuing this farther (Clive Scott and John Berger might be good places to start). You have, however, demonstrated my point quite nicely - "the deliberate targeting of civilians and repression of its own citizens by the group the hugee is head of" is already a substantial amount of context, information, and interpretation that you bring to your reading of the image; it is not contained within the image itself. The picture is not speaking for itself - you are speaking for it. Sindinero (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking to people from Mars here. We all know who these people are, we all know what groups they belong to, and we all know what their body language means. If that wasn't the case Sean wouldn't have bothered trying to supply "context" that is not obvious from looking at the picture. He could also see the picture speaking for itself. And so can you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't meant to be a joke. I was being serious. The picture is of something. It has a context. The NYT provided thee context because it's important. You didn't, and that is how to turn this place into the cesspool that you mentioned a while ago. If you had said "he has a stupid hat" I wouldn't have mentioned anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the things that turns this place into a cesspool is that people like you, who pretend to be neutral about the topic area, never fail to ascribe nefarious motives to everything people like me (who you identify on a certain side of the conflict) do. It's not like I said "look, here's Arrigoni congratulating Haniya for not allowing the Red Cross to visit Gilad Shalit". I said he looks quite friendly with a Hamas leader. Which he does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted and faoir enough, you are entitled to your opinion, but for the record I don't pretend to be anything. I just try to edit according to the rules as best I can. You can check my contributions. Today I was called a Zionist amongst other things. I get accusations from both sides. This is good. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You might not be talking to people from Mars, but as a wikipedia editor you are talking to people from very different cultural, political, economic, and social backgrounds. "We all know who these people are" - you're assuming an interpretive consensus on Hamas that simply doesn't exist. As a thought experiment, you could come up with a number of different captions that would all impart different meanings to the image. Here are two to start with:

• Anti-apartheid activist Vittorio Arrigoni with democratically-elected leader of the Palestinian territories, Ismail Haniya
• Known anti-Semite and Israel-hater Vittorio Arrigoni embraces terrorist thug

You see the difference it makes? Lest you misunderstand me, I'm neither proposing a facile relativism (i.e., one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter) nor am I a fan of Hamas. I'm just trying to point out that any interpretation of any image depends on the context of the image and the assumptions one brings to it. Sindinero (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether Hamas are freedom fighters or terrorists, they are a group that employs violence. And I think very few people would have a problem interpreting the body language in this picture. The picture speaks for itself. That you think I am giving it some deeper meaning is your problem, not mine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much hope of coming to an understanding on this issue, since you seem to consistently miss my point. I'm not saying you're giving it a "deeper meaning," I'm saying that you're giving it any meaning at all, while suggesting that this meaning is self-evident in the photo. The body language is open to question - it's a photo op after all, and it could be either genuine affection, the standard pose for one of these political photo-ops, or any number of other things that brings the two together in this pose. You seem to be suggesting (and saying it's self-evident) that because Arrigoni has his arm around a figure belonging to a group that employs violence, this casts doubt on his pacifism. Can you name many political groups or governing bodies that don't use violence? If Arrigoni were embracing Obama or Netanyahu (both leaders of "groups that employ violence"), would that cast less doubt on his pacifism? And are you speaking of the violence Hamas has directed towards Israel, towards the Palestinians of Gaza, or towards other armed groups in the conflict (sometimes in the temporary interest of suppressing rocket fire, which isn't contested)?

Look, my basic point is that all this photo self-evidently demonstrates is that at one moment, Vittorio Arrigoni and Ismael Haniya were standing next to each other in a sort of embrace. Strictly speaking, that is what the image documents. Anything beyond that is interpretation - of course, we must interpret it, the image is meaningless without interpretation, but we must also always be aware of the presuppositions and assumptions we're bringing to interpretation. That's called critical thinking. The fact that you posted the image as a sort of evidentual counter-claim to Lucas' posts suggests that you view the photo as proving that Arrigoni liked Hamas and, by extension, their particular approach to violence. What I'm saying is that this depends on a host of interpretive factors which it is either naive or disingenuous to elide. Sindinero (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This has strayed way off topic, but just to address a couple of points you made. I think the body language is pretty self explanatory. You think it's not. You are of course entitled to your opinion. I'd be very surprised to see a picture of the man who posted a picture of a sign that says "dogs and Israelis not allowed" to be hugging Netanyahu and looking like he does in this picture. As an exercise, imagine that's not Haniya but Netanyahu (body language and facial expressions staying the same) and what you'd think of Arrigoni if that were the case.

Personally I think a principled pacifist would not be looking so comfortable and friendly around a Hamas leader (or Netanyahu or Barak or Obama, etc), but that's just my opinion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You write: I'd be very surprised to see a picture of the man who posted a picture of a sign that says "dogs and Israelis not allowed" to be hugging Netanyahu and looking like he does in this picture. That's something of a cheap shot, and also a perfect example of how important context is to an interpretation of an image. He posted the picture with the commentary that if Palestinians aren't allowed to leave Gaza, Israelis shouldn't be able to enter that shop in Jordan (see Nableezy's comment on the picture far, far up this page) - I'm not saying I agree with it, but to say he "posted a picture of a sign that says etc." is really disingenuous, and implies that he agreed with its content in an uncritical way. Context, context, context. And to say that a principled pacifist wouldn't be looking comfortable around a [political leader who has commanded violence], although I think I agree with the underlying sentiment, is kind of bizarre. Do a google image search for Martin Luther King and JFK. Does the fact of rising involvement in Vietnam invalidate MLK's "pacifism" for you? These things are more complex than you make them out to be, and I think you're also bringing a set of (not necessarily accurate) assumptions to bear on the relationship between pacifism, opposition to state violence, non-violence, civil disobedience, and passive resistance. All very different things, and just because Arrigoni, or anyone else, may have been opposed to oppressive state violence in the form of military occupation doesn't imply that his view of resistance was a parody of passive nonviolence. The mainstream discourse of violence (e.g. "both sides use violence"), especially in the west, is sterile, one-sided, oversimplistic, and not in line with serious academic analysis. Rather than bringing our own presuppositions to bear, either on images or on the political views of strangers, we need to find whatever sources are available and use them. If Arrigoni's writings consistently evince a pacifist view, and if those who knew him describe him that way, and if other sources showing that he did violence or directly supported violence can't be found, then it's definitely WP:OR to assert on the basis of an image that inferences about his relationship to Hamas suggest that he wasn't a pacifist. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, seemed to be the original reason you introduced the image into this thread in the first place, a thread that, agreed, is now quite off topic. Sindinero (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The sign says "dogs and Israelis not allowed". Whatever rationalization he (and you) might like to use, it says what it says and draws from what it draws. It's not like there aren't other ways to say you don't think Israelis should be welcome in Jordan. But again, we're off topic and this is pointless. Just for the record, I posted the picture in response to the quote criticizing Hamas. He may have been critical of some aspects of what they're doing, but he certainly not critical enough of them not to accept an honor and look mighty friendly (again, try to imagine this being Netanyahu). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous still, or recklessly obtuse, but you're getting rude. For the record, are you actually suggesting that I endorse the statement "dogs and Israelis not allowed"? In that case you should probably read up on the policy on personal attacks. I'll read your third sentence in good faith and assume that your use of "you" in "you don't think Israelis should be welcome in Jordan" is just a sloppily imprecise use of the general "you," and not directed at me personally. (For the record, I think every human being should be allowed in every country.) The possibility that you think I'm a fan of either Haniya or Arrigoni shows how completely you've missed my point about context, but we can let that rest.

For the purposes of this article, what I do want to convey to you, unambiguously and without remainder, is that your attempt to extract a political viewpoint (of Arrigoni's) from a single image constitutes synthesis and original research, neither of which is an acceptable way of writing a wikipedia article.

Your final two sentences above demonstrate not only that the image cannot speak for itself in the way you want it to without a set of imported and methodologically sloppy assumptions, but that you see pictures as the discursive and epistemological equivalents of verbal utterances (put simply, that you see pictures and words as "meaning" in the same way). This is false, and I suggest you do some basic reading on this topic. Finally, you seem to be wanting to manage Arrigoni (i.e., he oughtn't to have hugged Haniya if he was really critical of Hamas and a pacifist) rather than writing about him objectively using reliable sources. Only the latter falls within our purview here. Respectfully, Sindinero (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I did mean the general "you" above.

This is a talk page. I didn't try to put any of this in the article, so SYNTH and OR are not really relevant. Particularly since we both acknowledged the discussion went off topic.

Body language is an integral part of human communication, but we can pretend it isn't if you like.

I'm not trying to "manage" Arrigoni. He did what he did and I'm entitled to my opinion about his actions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Did you also mean the general "you" when you said "The sign says "dogs and Israelis not allowed". Whatever rationalization he (and you) might like to use, it says what it says and draws from what it draws"? Or are you suggesting that I endorse the sign's message?
• This is a talk page, for discussion of the article and not a general forum on the issue. If the image you included, and your implication about Arrigoni's political positions, were not relevant to the article at all, why post it in the first place? I assume that, because you posted the image, you thought it had some relevance - to that degree, then, SYNTH and OR have relevance in potentia. Either you posted the image with no consideration of the actual article, which isn't a great use of the talk page, or you posted the image in connection with the article, regarding either a current issue or a potential future change, in which case my concerns about SYNTH and OR stand.
• I don't think that any intelligent reader would infer from my comments that I don't believe body language is integral to human communication.
• Of course you're entitled to your opinions. But for the purposes of this article, our opinions, preferences, presuppositions, assumptions and allegiances have precisely zero relevance. But if we've exhausted this question, perhaps we can both move on to more productive ways of improving this article using the best available sources in the most neutral possible way? Sindinero (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I was saying you were trying to rationalize his usage of the sign. That doesn't mean you agree with it. I go on the assumption that people don't endorse this kind of thing unless I have compelling evidence to the contrary, and still I'm surprised every time I actually see someone who does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, you're mistaken. I have no intention of "rationalizing" the actions of any subject of any article. Our job here isn't to rationalize anything - but the inclusion of statements, facts, or images out of context isn't helpful to readers. When a figure like Plaut does it (see the discussion far above), it can be slander; when we do it, it's tendentious editing. Sindinero (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

External image
"Vittorio Arrigoni...a pro-Palestinian activist from Italy, received a passport from Ismail Haniya, head of Hamas's government in Gaza, in 2008."—The New York Times

The black-clad bearded guard in the back also looks quite pleased. Anyway, I've prepared a Template:External media linking to the image in a way that's immune to any kind of criticism some might otherwise have been inclined to raise against including it. The only question remaining is where to put it.I've gone ahead and stuck it in the first paragraph of the "Political activism" section since it deals with Arrigoni's sojourn in Gaza in 2008, and that's the year the photo was taken.

References

—Biosketch (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lucas, do you have a more detailed description of the source for this text? Was this an interview, a blog of Arrigoni's, or something else? Sindinero (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I searched a while, and as far as I can understand it is a peronsal post on his blog. It's interesting this quote too: "I'd like to remember to our sionist President Napolitano that being anti-zionist do not mean at all being anti-Israeli: it means to care about Israeli people and, in the meantime, to fight for the human rights."--Lucas (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Trying to reach a point

I just think that there's no need to put this imagine in the article: it would need too much contextualization. I totally agree with Sindinero. We could, instead, put some of the quotes i cited at the beginning of this paragraph, they are netural and explain the Arrigoni's vision about Palestine. "My hope is to see [the system] replaced, without any bloodshed, with a democratic, secular and laic state". Someone who wish a laic state couldnt by "pro-hamas". Someone who says: "Hamas is losing approval with his senseless campaign of restriction against individual liberties and in favor of a gradual "Islamisation" of the morals in the Gaza Strip", coudnt be pro-hams. At the same time he says: "Zionism is an abominable, racist and colonial movement". Therefore the context is pretty clear: he was first of all against violence and non-secular states; second he was against the violence and the politics of Israel when Israel was using violence; and then he was against the violence and the politics of Hamas when Hamas was using violence. Please remember that Arrigani was in the Gaza Strip BEFORE the electoral victory of Hamas. So: it's wrong and shortsighted to define Arrigoni just as a Hamas supporter. You can realize that just by reading his biography before Gaza. --Lucas (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your original analysis. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you interested in improving this article or stonewalling it? We don't need to expand upon or interpret the quotes, but are there any good, policy-based reasons not to include them in the "Political views" section? The second one says that he's anti-Zionist; this is a specific view that would provide readers with useful information. The first one suggests that he was in favor of the one-state solution - this would also be good to include. Is there other material that shows his support for the one-state solution? If we could put this material into the political views section, that would expand considerably upon its current state, which is somewhat vague (pro-Palestine, anti-Israel, pro-human rights). But I agree, to draw conclusions about his views on Hamas from quotes not about Hamas is either WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or both. Sindinero (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not say I object to including quotes, I said I disagree with the analysis Lucas supplied with them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, my misunderstanding. Sindinero (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, here's another interesting quote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Is there something you would like to include in the article on the basis of that tweet? nableezy - 18:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A pacifist calling another pacifist a "traitor" for not wanting to do military service is pretty interesting. I guess I'm going to need to find a reliable source discussing the tweet though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Again I totally agree with Sindinero. There's obviously no need to put "my opinion" in the article but the quotes are pretty interesting to describe his "political view", and let the readers evaluate by their self. Arrigoni criticizes Israel, Hamas, and Islamic fundamentalism, not just Israel: this is a fact that should be reported, I think (and, as far as we know now, it is one of the reasons for his murder). --Lucas (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrigoni on Hamas

Other info about the political vision of Arrigoni regarding Hamas, in this interview (February 2011), he says: "The Hamas government in Gaza suffocates civil rights. In Gaza, women's rights are being cramped more and more. You can even end up being arrested if you strum a guitar in the street, because Hamas doesn't like music." (original text: il governo di Hamas a Gaza, invece, soffoca i diritti civili. A Gaza i diritti delle donne sono sempre di meno. E ti può anche capitare di essere arrestato se suoni la chitarra per strada perché ad Hamas non piace la musica.) --Lucas (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

'Execution' removed

I have removed instances of the word 'execution' from this article, and replaced them with 'killing' or 'murder'. Execution generally refers to capital punishment carried out in accordance with the law. That is not what happened here: this person was unlawfully killed by a criminal organisation. 'Murder' is the appropriate word to use. Robofish (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"See also" section

The entry on Alan Johnston is fine, but I have again removed 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, by Hamas" as irrelevant and blatant POV-pushing. The former is relevant as a similar kidnapping of a westerner in Gaza (except that Johnston wasn't murdered). The latter really has nothing to do with this article, being (1) in the West Bank, not Gaza, and (2) being the kidnapping of settlers, members of a group that is stealing their land and property and all the rest of the horrors that happen under foreign military occupations, not the kidnapping of someone who is trying to help the Palestinians. But, more seriously, it violates NPOV, otherwise we would then have to include here the much larger number of Palestinian children (effetively) kidnapped and murdered by Israel. See here and here for starters.

--NSH001 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sadness

His pointless death diminishes us all. Adamm (talk • contribs) 11:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit citation

I have gone back and separated the two citations with the name "Guardian" that were causing grief for the original Hooper, John. Vittorio Arrigoni: pacifist supporter of the Palestinian cause. The Guardian. 2011-04-15. citation. This was caused by a good faith edit by User:Al Ameer son at 10:30 17 April 2011, his citation I have renamed "Guardian 2". The only snag is that there have been additional revisions over the last 4 years (!) that have used the ref tag Guardian, and there is no way of knowing whether they belong to the original Guardian ref tag, or the citation added by User:Al Ameer son. I also note that the User:Al Ameer son reference is now a dead link, and wonder whether another active reference might be secured. I mean no disrespect to Al Ameer son - I have also made citation formatting errors in the past! Adamm (talk • contribs) 09:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)