Talk:Ziad Abu Ein

Page Protection

Can we add this to the Israeli-Palestinian arbitration protections? I don't know how to do it. Rustandbone (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The entire article is biased and unprofessional. Firstly, it fails to mention that Abu Ein was a mister of the government of Palestine. Secondly, he is called a terrorist without citing a source. Thirdly, he is claimed to be a 'convicted murderer', the claim being linked to an article that doesn't even mention his name etc. The article should be written from scratch by someone who has some idea what (s)he's talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklludwig (talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Franklludwig. Thank you for weighing in and I appreciate your critique. I agree that this article can certainly be improved, though I feel that most of it is fairly well-sourced. I would encourage you to make whatever edits you feel are necessary to further improve the quality of it. Rustandbone (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The article has certainly improved since I first read it, it sounds a lot more factual and neutral than before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklludwig (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew Wikipedia

Hi, עדירל. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of this article. In regard to your edit using the Hebrew Wikipedia site as a source, I do not believe that we accept Wikipedia as a source. I also believe that an English Reliable Source is strongly preferred, compared to a foreign language. Would you mind providing an English language citation for your edits? Rustandbone (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't just that it's in Hebrew. Hebrew sources are fine. The problem is that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. The basis for that article is fine but the Wikipedia article itself is insufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of newspaper archives of English language newspapers available for free on the Internet, and surely not ones that showed special interest in Israel. But if you are aware and have access, feel free to find a corresponding source and replace the Hebrew source. Here is a translation of the article:

"This morning will begin in Ramallah the trial of Ziad Abu Ein, after IDF authorities decided to indict him under charges of plotting to perform a severe crime and Incitement. Abu Ein, released in May from Israeli Jail as part of the Jibril agreement, is the first released prisoner indicted with security related charges.

The main charge against him is plotting with four residents of Gaza to hijack an Israeli bus. The group analyzed the mistakes made in the bus 300 hijack (my note: the hijackers were unarmed). The released prisoner promised his friends that if they do not succeed to get hold of weapons he will do it. The security establishment was able to prevent the scheme from materializing."

I hereby certify that I am fluent in Hebrew and English and that a qualify to translate between these languages and that the above is an accurate translation of the December 19, 1985 article from Maariv.

In a personal note, I do not think reverting my edit within 40 minutes, without checking the Hebrew article and seeing, as can easily be done using google translate, that this statement is based on a newspaper article which link is provided and content can be verified with any of several million Hebrew speaking people is the right way to go about things. My statement see the Herbrew article for the reference was not a statement that the Hebrew article is the reference, but that the Hebrew article gives the reference which can be taken from there (and I do not know how to present Hebrew language newspaper articles in the English Wikipedia). עדירל (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

עדירל, thank you for providing a source for your changes. I took the liberty of translating your citation into English. Thank you also for providing a secondary English source, even though the Hebrew one appears to be of a higher quality. Rustandbone (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:עדירל, the source doesn't have to be available online. I imagine sources about a 1982 conviction are going to be difficult to find and I thank you for that work; we just need enough so it can be verified by others. It just makes it easier across the board for others to verify the claims and I think you recognize that this kind of topic will be heavily 'examined' by various people and the best way to avoid disputes is to have sources that are the most easily available but a source that's not easily available is better than no source at all. Thanks again! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Article title

Does anyone think the article should moved be "Death of Ziad Abu Ein" rather than Ziad Abu Ein? I'm not certain Abu Ein himself was likely be considered a notable individual but his death has become a notable event. Maybe wait and see but just a thought. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ricky81682. Is there a strong precedent or an established guideline for deciding this? On the one hand he was a minister in the Palestinian Authority, while on the other hand, news sources don't seem to consider him very notable outside of his death (and possibly his previous extradition). Searching for examples elsewhere, I looked at two other individuals who were only made notable for their deaths, with split results. Leon Klinghoffer is an eponymous article, as ours is currently, while Shooting of Amadou Diallo refers to the event itself, as you are proposing. Perhaps we can find some general guidance for this. Rustandbone (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are relevant but like you said, it seems like it depends. Death of Ben Zygier focuses little on his biography and similarly the focus is his death and the aftermath from it. It's probably too early to tell where this goes at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Good pick up on WP:BIO1E. It states "Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." I feel that this applies here. Had he not been a ministerial member of the Palestinian Authority, I feel that he may not have been notable. In this case, even though he is famous for his death, his senior government position made him (and his death) notable. Frankly, if he didn't have that position, we probably would not be writing an article about him, as an event such as this has occurred in the past without generating the same level of media coverage. Do you concur? Rustandbone (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Abu Ein is a convicted and extradited terrorist and PA professional about whom nobody felt the need to write in wikipedia, doesn't make the case for a change to "death of Abu Ein". Abu Ein is part of history, because he was a member of a terrorist org, a convicted terrorist, 1st extradited Arab from US and a PA politician, now he is dead because of his chronic ishemic heart condition and heart attack - so what! Notice, that he was prejudgmental called a "martyr" and his death early on was used as a means against Israel. heading this article death of and focussing on his death seems to be a little propagandistic? His long career as a professional arab terrorist and criminal who later became part of PA pay-list should be appropriately taken into consideration also! --85.179.113.130 (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

knocked out teeth

The 2nd video footage from RT embedded in my sourced A7-article (about that you had the urge to revert) shows that all teeth of Abu Ein were present at the site. Look up the evidence for yourself. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/188475#.VI4fCl0ZFQI and on youtube-vid right in the beginning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iarP_e9vKv0#t=19
Your argument, my source only reports what was reported in other source therefor was not neccessary, is unbalanced judgement, you just can not have only lefty media -with all it's undertones- sourced in an wikipedia article. And RT alone is not reliable - or am I wrong? So, help me please, I did a good faith edit, showing claimed teeth were'nt knocked out - must be within Palestinian medical care (resucitation) issue. What should we do to get in that evidence? Only rename the name="" tag?--85.179.113.130 (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey there. Thank you for working to improve this article and for taking the time to pose this question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is created by sourcing Reliable Sources. One example of such is a news source. When sourcing material, we can only add to the article what is actually stated in it. Wikipedia's policy on Original Research states that we cannot analyze a primary source on our own, we can only provide that which is actually written by the primary source. In the example that you are referring to there is a video of an event. That video is a primary source and any analysis that we provide on that video, no matter how basic, would be considered original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia. However, any information about the video that is stated in a news source, can be added to the article. We can't look at the video and say that it's obvious that he was uninjured or injured. We can source news sources that say that, based on the video, he was injured or uninjured. I hope I have done a fair job of answering your question, but I am more than happy to discuss further with you, if you would like. Rustandbone (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Rustandbone.

Thank you for your good answer. You did a good article-edit! --78.49.250.245 (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

'Terrorist and convicted murderer'

Hi, all. I reverted an edit in the lead that changed Abu Ein's description from 'politician' to 'terrorist and convicted murderer'. While I felt the edit was POV for removing 'politician', and I didn't see what he was actually convicted for in Israel (it just says "for his role"), I am also not convinced that there isn't any merit to the edit. Can anybody here make an NPOV argument, citing RS and Wikipedia policy, on why we should or should not include "terrorist" after politician? Can someone tells me, according to Wikipedia, what makes someone a terrorist? I know that this subject inflames passions, but I would ask that any answers be calm, rational, and well-sourced. Rustandbone (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to take a step back and let an editor with more experience weigh in. Rustandbone (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Concisely enough, WP:TERRORIST is probably accurate. I don't see sources that directly call him a terrorist. They call him a politician and say that he was convicted for his role in the bombing, which he I think denied. Even the article cited uses "murderers" in the context of one person's view in contrast to Rabin's calling them collectively terrorists. I'd keep it out at the moment simply on the view of caution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Convictions

You cannot expect that a Palestinian will face a fair trial before a racist occupation kangaroo court, so you cannot state as a fact that someone has done something, merely because he is convicted by an Israeli court. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but it is not really relevant . I can state for a fact that he was tried and convicted of multiple murders. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and loaded terms

If you don't want me to start labeling Abu Ein a 'terroist' using reliable media sources as , then stop using the equally loaded term 'political prisoner'. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

References