Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs) Tag: Manual revert |
Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
{{done|done}}: Thanks! [[User:मल्ल|मल्ल]] ([[User talk:मल्ल|talk]]) 17:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |
{{done|done}}: Thanks! [[User:मल्ल|मल्ल]] ([[User talk:मल्ल|talk]]) 17:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
==Artists4Ceasefire== |
|||
See [https://www.artists4ceasefire.org/about Artists4Ceasefire PIN DESIGN AND SYMBOLISM] - "Artists4Ceasefire enamel pin is composed of a red background to symbolize the urgency of the call to save lives. The orange hand conveys the beautiful community of people from all backgrounds that have come together in support of centering our shared humanity. The heart being cradled in the center of the hand is an invitation for us to lead with our hearts, always, to lead with love. When we lead with love, we understand that all of our fellow beings deserve to be loved and protected." This is inconsistent with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Ramallah_lynching&diff=1213420706&oldid=1213094900 this content] written using Wikipedia's editorial voice, no less. That is a very obvious problem that any competent editor should be able to understand and avoid. And let me take this opportunity again to remind people that there is a Universal Code of Conduct. [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#3.3_%E2%80%93_Content_vandalism_and_abuse_of_the_projects Section 3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct], prohibits "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". In other words, willfully biased editing is not allowed. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 03:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:56, 13 March 2024
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the kind of detailed reconstruction that sources supply and that the article fails to provide.
The incident
Two drivers in the IDF reserve, Sergeant-Major Yossi Avrahami (38)[1] of Petah Tikva, a toy salesman,[2] and Corporal Vadim Nurzhitz (33)[3][4] of Or Akiva,[5] a truckdriver who had made aliyah from Irkutsk 10 years earlier,[6] returned to duty that day. Nurzhitz set out at 7 a.m. in his Ford Escort, picked up Avrahami and phoned his father at 9 a.m., stating that he had been ordered to turn up at an army base near the Israeli settlement of Beit El.[6]
- ^ Yonah Jeremy Bob, 'Prisoner convicted of 2nd Intifada murder suddenly released following new evidence,' Jerusalem Post 2009 March 2017.
- ^ 'Families mourn lynch mob victims,' The Guardian 13 October 2000.
- ^ '15 years for a lynching in Ramallah,' Arutz Esrim 12 10 2015
- ^ David Pratt, Intifada, Casemate Publishers 2009 p.102 reverses these designations, making Avrahami the corporal and Nurzhitz the sergeant, as does the official Israel government site.: First Sgt. Vadim Norzhich, ;Corporal Yossi Avrahami.
- ^ Judy Lash Balint, Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times, Gefen Publishing House, 2001 pp.80-82.
- ^ a b Sharon Waxman, 'On Both Sides, Toll Is Personal,' Washington Post 14 October, 2000
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)
- And incorrect. They were called up on 1st October. They were both released on a 1 day furlough on the 11th of October (which is common in Israeli reserve duty - both 1 day and 3 day furloughs) - and on the 12th of October they returned to HQ together in Nurzhitz's car. See - [1].Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- not incorrect either. You have, as with almost every detail here, source conflict. Even the roles they are given, first-sergeant, sergeant major and corporal, are reversed according to the source you use. The MFA says they were called up for duty 'a few days before', which is not almost 2 weeks earlier. Waxman interviewed the family and friends and one Lev Piltz stated that he met Nurzhitz on the 9th and that on that datea, Nurzhitz was told to put off the date for his call up to active duty but he didn't because, he wanted to go." With such obvious contradictions in secondary material, editors cannot go beyond their remit by picking and choosing preferred terms or descriptions of the 'facts'. They must gloss all of the details, excluding none.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- A few days is not far off from 10. They were both on a 1 day furlough - which is why they were driving together - sourcing for this particular aspect is best in Hebrew and is reported in multiple reports - I chose to cite a very late report (2015 for an anniversary) which I think hashed these out better than at the time reporting.. regarding ranks - Israeli soldiers are regularly promoted posthumously (by approx. 1 rank, but rules on this vary by period, rank tenure, and circumstances of death) - which causes some confusion in sources - since the promotion is 1-2 days after the event (typically in the funeral), and not all reporting picks up on this - but it actually does not really matter - as most Israeli enlisted ranks are pretty meaningless and are mainly an indication of length of service - the actual posting held by the soldier in question is usually more important (to a certain extent this also true for officer ranks in the IDF, but enlisted ranks are really meaningless beyond indicating length of service - the vast majority of non-officer reservists don't bother wearing their rank insignia (and move about in work uniforms with no ranks)).Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Please reread the above. When you have source conflicts, on Wikipedia, you don't guess. You describe all RS versions, particularly if you have a POV conflict. All the rest of the above is second-guessing, which I told you is of no interest here.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- No. You generally prefer to take the most reliable sources for the task at hand - which usually requires some subject matter acquaintance (for instance - on IDF posthumous promotions - differing ranks are not really a conflict here and are ROUTINE for most IDF death reporting). Regarding details of the service, where they were travelling to, etc. - these are the sort of details that the Hebrew sources are best for in this case - both because they kept on reporting on this following the event, and because they actually cared about these details - which are NOT POV issues. Regarding the exact events in Ramalleh - before and after the lynch - we have perhaps a POV issue. We also have a problem here in that later reporting (on the investigation and prosecutions) - was mainly in Hebrew or Israeli source.Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by the most reliable sources here. As shown, all sources, Israeli, Palestinian foreign differ in details. The English Hebrew press reports are also in conflict. I'm not interested in details that are not directly in sources relating to this incident (one of the 2 that day was reported to be a sergeant. Many sources we have are written in English by Israeli specialists, or scholars familiar with Hebrew, That's enough. Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Icewhiz, feel free to supply some recent Hebrew sources. We can use those. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, to a point. All things being equal we prefer English language sources, this being the English Wikipedia. If there are comparable in quality English sources we should be using those. Otherwise yeah sure, Hebrew, Arabic, all good. nableezy - 03:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- All it requires is a translation on this page so other readers can examine it, no problem. By the way 'as most Israeli enlisted ranks are pretty meaningless and are mainly an indication of length of service,' means a Sergeant First Class/-Major is not a rookie, a word that might apply to Nurzhitz still, at a stretch after 10 years in Israel, but inappropriate to a 38 year old man like Avrahami. Nishidani (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nurzhitz was shlav-B - he did a very shortened mandatory service since he made Aliya in his 20s - hence his very low rank (his time in the Russian military was not recognized by the IDF). With 3 year service terms, the cast majority of enlisted Israeli men make "Samal rishon" (sergeant first class) upon their discharge (exceptions would be early discharge or incarceration / gross misbehavior during service - or on the upside (Rav Samal) - some additional keva service). Subsequent rise in rank, by enlisted men, during reserve duty is really just a function of how much reserve duty is done by the soldier (as enlisted ranks are almost strictly (there is a possibility of promotion as a meaningless (because the ranks are) merit act) by time serve) + promotions after death in service. All this being said - in the IDF (unlike other forces) these ranks are for the most part meaningless - lower ranked enlisted soldiers routinely command (NCO) higher ranked ones - and in reserve duty absolutely no one wears these ranks.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Icewhiz, feel free to supply some recent Hebrew sources. We can use those. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, are their any objections, additions, etc., to this, or is it a fair summation of what we have so far of the beginning of that day?Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, there may be some contradictions with sources Icewhiz supplied? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I examined Icewhiz's point, and changed the text to conform to his source, so that what was written was not longer 'incorrect', introducing it in a footnote. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding ranks - I suggest we go with this source - [2] (also raised above) which matches the Hebrew Wikipedia. I'll note that in addition to posthumous promotions, ranks often get garbled in translation (and actually even just cross-country conversions without translation) - all sorts of issues (e.g. literal transation vs. functional translation (e.g. "Rav Samal" would be "Sergeant first class" literally, but in terms of rank equivelance it is OR-6 or "Staff sergeant")). The article lists Avrahami as "Rav-Samal" and Nurzitz as "Rav Turai" - which according to the table here Israel Defense Forces ranks - is Sergeant first class and corporal.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Addendum: However since the lower Israeli rank of "Samal Rishon" translated literally to "Sergeant first class" as well, I think we should use the literal translation (in same rank table) of chief sergeant.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- And there they go off the rails with readability. François Robere (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding ranks - I suggest we go with this source - [2] (also raised above) which matches the Hebrew Wikipedia. I'll note that in addition to posthumous promotions, ranks often get garbled in translation (and actually even just cross-country conversions without translation) - all sorts of issues (e.g. literal transation vs. functional translation (e.g. "Rav Samal" would be "Sergeant first class" literally, but in terms of rank equivelance it is OR-6 or "Staff sergeant")). The article lists Avrahami as "Rav-Samal" and Nurzitz as "Rav Turai" - which according to the table here Israel Defense Forces ranks - is Sergeant first class and corporal.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Addendum: However since the lower Israeli rank of "Samal Rishon" translated literally to "Sergeant first class" as well, I think we should use the literal translation (in same rank table) of chief sergeant.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- not incorrect either. You have, as with almost every detail here, source conflict. Even the roles they are given, first-sergeant, sergeant major and corporal, are reversed according to the source you use. The MFA says they were called up for duty 'a few days before', which is not almost 2 weeks earlier. Waxman interviewed the family and friends and one Lev Piltz stated that he met Nurzhitz on the 9th and that on that datea, Nurzhitz was told to put off the date for his call up to active duty but he didn't because, he wanted to go." With such obvious contradictions in secondary material, editors cannot go beyond their remit by picking and choosing preferred terms or descriptions of the 'facts'. They must gloss all of the details, excluding none.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
'Coy' editing
Icewhiz. You removed +972 magazine recently as not RS. Now you add 4 sources that have even less credibility to uphold an edit that is, even in its own terms, contradictory. Your edit has the two soldiers being disemboweled and having their eyes gouged out inside the Ramallah police station, and yet at least one of your poor sources says this occurred outside the policestation, etc.
When something produced as a fact cannot be found in the vast mainstream reportage on an incident, you require exceptionally good sources to document it. So far no one can find the NYT, Haaretz,Jerrusalem Posdt, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal etc.etc.etc etc., mentioning this detail. The following therefore are unacceptable for asserting a contested or controversial 'fact'.
- (1) Ruthie Blum 'Full Details Emerge Surrounding Palestinian Police Rescue of Female IDF Soldiers From Lynch Mob, Following GPS Mishap.' The Algemeiner September 13, 2016 (Fails RS for crucial facts no mainstream newspaper hasa)
- This concerns a completely different incident in 2016 from the Ramallah lynching (2000) which is only alluded to later in the article with standard ‘cite wikipedia’ reference that runs: 'The crowd stormed the building, then beat, stabbed, disemboweled and gouged the eyes out of the two men.'
- (2) Hillel Fendel, Ramallah Lynch-Mobster Acquitted, Arutz Sheva, 17 Oct 2010,
- Again this reports on a trial of one of those who was convicted of beating one of the two soldiers. It reports a decision made in 2010 and reproduces the usual ‘cite wikipedia’ meme : ‘The soldiers were beaten, stabbed, had their eyes gouged out, and were disemboweled,’ (utterly unreliable for facts)
- (3) The Middle East: Abstracts and index, Part 2, Northumberland Press, 2006, page 64
- The link doesn’t show what source is being reported, and is not verifiable as thus linked.
- (4) Nechemia Coopersmith, Israel: life in the shadow of terror : personal accounts and perspectives from the heart of the Jewish people, Targum, 2003 p.149:’Two Israeli reserve officers abducted (false) by Palestinian police, had their heads beaten into unrecognizable pulp and were then disemboweled by a waiting crowd outside the Palestinian Authority’s Ramallah headquarters, who then danced, entrails in hand through the city’s streets.’
- Totally unreliable source, with details nowhere I can see in the mainstream press. Your own (useless) source contradicts the timeline you insist on in your edit, since for Coopersmith the crowd outside disemboweled them, not the mob inside.
'One of the attackers returned to the window to proudly show the jubilant crowd his blood-soaked hands. Moments later, the body of one of the soldiers came flying out of the window, smashing into the ground below, where the mad crowd danced, beat it some more and celebrated before parading the corpse through the streets. Palestinian police handed over the other soldier, badly mutilated, to a nearby Jewish settlement just before he died.' Lisa Beyer, 'Breaking Point,' CNN October 16, 2000
My grounds for removing that passage until strong RS can be found to support it remain. The sources above are way below the minimal RS bar for facts, esp. contested 'facts' and you ought to know that by now. To pretend otherwise is to edit 'coyly'. Nishidani (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Algemeiner has an editorial board and is a RS. Multiple outlets report mutilation - e.g. - [[3]], CNN you just cited. Most do not go into the gruesome details of what mutilation specifically occurred. Events inside the police station are mainly known from confessions or other testimonials of the people who remained alive and that were inside.Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- I do not insist on the timeline itself - given the inconsistencies on timing of exact elements between sources. The state of the corpses themselves is known. We could expound on the specifics of mutilation (disembowelment and eye gouging) without specifying an exact timeline which isn't all that important either way (though possibly can be sourced).Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- What you did is revert back an assertion with spurious sources, without looking at them. I.e. you cite a source which says one Israeli soldier was disemboweled by the crowd outside, to support a text which states they were both disemboweled inside the police station. That is why you have to be reverted, because if you fail to understand the (a) contradiction in your sources (b) the conflict over the timeline per sources (c) the contradiction in sources between stating both were disemboweled and only one was disemboweled, or (per silence of sources) perhaps neither were disemboweled (as distinct from suffering numerous savage stabbings. There's a difference: a Japanese friend of mine disemboweled himself ritually, and the coroner's report makes the diff clear).
- In short, you are not paying attention to the numerous problems here. Then timeline is fundamental, the distinction between the respective ends of both soldiers made in sources, and finally, all of those sources aren't worth a nob of goat shit. They are uncannily repetitive of what some wiki editor, without a source at hand, wrote.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- I do not insist on the timeline itself - given the inconsistencies on timing of exact elements between sources. The state of the corpses themselves is known. We could expound on the specifics of mutilation (disembowelment and eye gouging) without specifying an exact timeline which isn't all that important either way (though possibly can be sourced).Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Arrests of lynching suspects
"Mohamed Abu Ida, a former member of the Palestinian police force in Ramallah, was arrested by Shin Bet in 2005. During the investigation, he admitted to having had led the two Israeli soldiers to the Ramallah police station after which he joined the other rioters."
" … he admitted to having had led … " is poor: either " … he admitted he had led … " or " … he admitted having led … "
I can't edit it. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- To editor Prisoner of Zenda: done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 18:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Al-Aqsa Intifada
Please change the reference in the first line to the neutral "Second Intifada", instead of the terror-promoting "Al-Aqsa Intifada". The way it is currently presented disrespects the lives of the victims in the terror attacks that made up the Second Intifada. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.136.155 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2022
This wasn’t an incident, but an attack. Moreover, the writer of this page seems to have an opinion and not just telling facts about the attack but trying to justify the attack. instead of explaining the Ramallah lynching it tells what happened before, which is not the subject. Happy to see it fixed thank you. 2001:4DF4:8BA0:2:A56F:4616:593B:588A (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Broken link
References 19, 20, 23, 24 are broken links. Reference 19 have a right archived version this. References 20 and 23 have an archived version this and this. Reference 24 is a Google Translate link, but the correct archived version is this. I can't make edits due to the page's protection. --Vgg5465 (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
done: Thanks! मल्ल (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Artists4Ceasefire
See Artists4Ceasefire PIN DESIGN AND SYMBOLISM - "Artists4Ceasefire enamel pin is composed of a red background to symbolize the urgency of the call to save lives. The orange hand conveys the beautiful community of people from all backgrounds that have come together in support of centering our shared humanity. The heart being cradled in the center of the hand is an invitation for us to lead with our hearts, always, to lead with love. When we lead with love, we understand that all of our fellow beings deserve to be loved and protected." This is inconsistent with this content written using Wikipedia's editorial voice, no less. That is a very obvious problem that any competent editor should be able to understand and avoid. And let me take this opportunity again to remind people that there is a Universal Code of Conduct. Section 3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, prohibits "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". In other words, willfully biased editing is not allowed. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)