Ohiostandard (talk | contribs) →How the foregoing applies to this article: new section |
Ohiostandard (talk | contribs) →Really: WP:RS disqualification would be immediately obvious to even a marginally experienced editor. |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
==Really== |
==Really== |
||
You must know that "Scottish Friends of Israel" is not a WP:RS. Must I take it to WP:RSN? [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
You must know that "Scottish Friends of Israel" is not a WP:RS. Must I take it to WP:RSN? [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Please go ahead.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 22:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
:Please go ahead.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 22:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
::I can't recall seeing a response from an experienced editor that has seemed more intentionally disruptive to me. Anyone who's been active here for more than a month or two would instantly recognize that [http://www.scottishfriendsofisrael.org/arab_quotes.htm a wholly unreferenced collection of claimed quotations put up by a partisan advocacy group] isn't even ''close'' to being a reliable source, and Passionless was right to credit you with that knowledge. |
|||
::To cite to such a source in the first place, and then to abuse our process by forcing another editor to start [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91#Scottish_Friends_of_Israel | an RSN thread]] to expunge it speaks volumes about your priorities here. You need to exercise ''far'' more respect for the integrity of the encyclopedia and the policies designed to protect it, and you need to let that overrule your private political interests and motivations. I'm sorry to have to speak this directly about so basic a matter to an experienced editor, but if you can't do that for some reason then you have no business editing here. – <font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 11:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Unexplained removal of sourced information == |
== Unexplained removal of sourced information == |
Revision as of 11:59, 24 March 2011
Palestine Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Proposed rivolous deletion request
I am not sure how one could claim this article to be wp:event, if there was a new Act passed by US Congress and named for one of the victims! I am not sure how one could claim this article to be wp:event, if there was a foundation and a comedy tour created for one of the victims. I am not sure how one could claim this article to be wp:event, if the article is sourced for 2001,2010 and 2011! May I please recommend you to take the template off ASAP. It is a bad faith edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- You can always take it down without discussion, but than a discussion of the AfD begins. Also, the things that followed seriously lack notability, where I'm from when someone dies there is a very good chance a trust is started in their name- awards, grants, parks, buildings, scholarships, and so on, so these don't really add notability. Passionless -Talk 19:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Really? What about US congress Act? Is there "a very good chance" for that to occur too? Listen, please don't take neither mine time not yours, better take the template out, or nominate the article on deletion, and let the wider community to decide.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- And how many "murders" get mentioned in books by a different authors. Really your template for this article was added with the only reason: I just don't like it --Mbz1 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- The US congress act which was made a year or two later, has no mention of the murder victim outside of the title. It is a quite general act which does not appear to be in response to the incident. It would be like naming a car-safety bill after a random person who died in a car crash, the bill was needed regardless and is in response to the whole situation, not just one small event. Oh, oops I put the template for 'uncontroversial page deletion'....uh, how do I add the correct one that starts the !vote?? Passionless -Talk 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- And how many "murders" get mentioned in books by a different authors. Really your template for this article was added with the only reason: I just don't like it --Mbz1 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Really? What about US congress Act? Is there "a very good chance" for that to occur too? Listen, please don't take neither mine time not yours, better take the template out, or nominate the article on deletion, and let the wider community to decide.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The event already has an article, it's called Koby Mandell. The information is largely the same. They should just be merged, problem solved. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I saw the article Koby Mandell, but I am strongly oppose merging the articles. Koby should has an article on his own, but this article should be a separate one. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:BLP1E they should be merged. But that would be if the people/event was notable enough to survive deletion under WP:EVENT,WP:VICTIM, and WP:BIO1E. Passionless -Talk 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the merge template for now. First we have to see what will be the result of DRs. Merge template just adds to confusion.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Mbz1, I will accept your suggestion to wait for the end of the AfD, but please don't remove merge templates in the future. Merge templates should only be removed if either the request if obviously frivolous (i.e. can be considered vandalism), or there's a consensus not to merge over a long enough period (usually 1 week, similar to AfD). —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the merge template for now. First we have to see what will be the result of DRs. Merge template just adds to confusion.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:BLP1E they should be merged. But that would be if the people/event was notable enough to survive deletion under WP:EVENT,WP:VICTIM, and WP:BIO1E. Passionless -Talk 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I support the merge per WP:BIO1E - to be coarse, the kid did nothing aside from get killed that would merit a separate article on him and on the murder. Please note also that the Koby Mandell Act never passed and as such does not confer notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like the Act did pass--Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- That source doesn't support that claim, but I found a Forward blurb about Congress passing it and a JPost opinion piece which indicates that it was signed, so I'll add those. We should be able to do better than this, though. Is there no actual news coverage of its being signed? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- wheee Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Final clarification (as I wrote in the article): the bill itself was never passed, but elements of it were added to an omnibus spending bill, which passed. Per Jewish Journal source. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Really
You must know that "Scottish Friends of Israel" is not a WP:RS. Must I take it to WP:RSN? Passionless -Talk 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can't recall seeing a response from an experienced editor that has seemed more intentionally disruptive to me. Anyone who's been active here for more than a month or two would instantly recognize that a wholly unreferenced collection of claimed quotations put up by a partisan advocacy group isn't even close to being a reliable source, and Passionless was right to credit you with that knowledge.
- To cite to such a source in the first place, and then to abuse our process by forcing another editor to start an RSN thread to expunge it speaks volumes about your priorities here. You need to exercise far more respect for the integrity of the encyclopedia and the policies designed to protect it, and you need to let that overrule your private political interests and motivations. I'm sorry to have to speak this directly about so basic a matter to an experienced editor, but if you can't do that for some reason then you have no business editing here. – OhioStandard (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Unexplained removal of sourced information
user:passionless removed a section that was sourced by wp:RS because ... who knows why. Please revert yourself and discuss any feature substantial edits to the article before you make them.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did explain that edit, it was located in the edit summary which said- "coatrack, synth, not sure, but I know it has nothing to do with the murders from 2001." And as I said that section has no relevance to the murders of 2001. Passionless -Talk 02:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Accusations spouted as fact
There is no source which says Palestinians committed the attack, many say they believe Palestinians committed the attack, but of course this is only an accusation and people are innocent until proven guilty, which I believe no was has been, correct? The anonymous phone call also adds nothing as the phone call might have come from anywhere, even Sharon himself could have made that call which blamed Palestinians. Passionless -Talk 02:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- It sure is [1], and besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's way out of line, dude. Stick to discussing the sources and don't make gratuitous racist comments. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where do you see a racist comment? Yes, I hate terrorists whatever nationality, ethnicity and religion they belong to. Any problems with that?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Who else but a Palestinian could dip his hands in blood" is racist, yes. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, not Palestinians, Palestinian terrorists. Are you capable of seeing the difference? And yes, I do not know about anybody else, but Palestinian terrorists, who did in all the curse of I/P conflict. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then perhaps you shouldn't have brought up this random thing in response to problems in the sourcing of "Palestinians" - it suggests that you don't see a difference, and since you claim that you do, it's an odd connection to make. Are we done here? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, not Palestinians, Palestinian terrorists. Are you capable of seeing the difference? And yes, I do not know about anybody else, but Palestinian terrorists, who did in all the curse of I/P conflict. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Who else but a Palestinian could dip his hands in blood" is racist, yes. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where do you see a racist comment? Yes, I hate terrorists whatever nationality, ethnicity and religion they belong to. Any problems with that?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's way out of line, dude. Stick to discussing the sources and don't make gratuitous racist comments. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone with a hand could of course. Mhhh, personally I don't trust information from non-textbook books anymore than I trust facts comnig out of fiction novels. They have no legal duty to supply the truth, well to the extent of causing harm, unlike news sources, and they do not rely on respect or have peer reviewing like many other sources do. Passionless -Talk 03:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
A comment on strategy for supporters of Israel's current policies
For quite some time I've wanted to ask my friends who believe they're supporting Israel's interests on Wikipedia to consider whether their cause might be better served by a much more candid and evenhanded approach to the articles they create to do so.
It really is very troubling, for example, to see everything in a news source that's likely to evoke support for the actions of the current Israeli government used in one of our articles, while everything in that same source that could be perceived as favorable to the legitimate rights and interests of the Palestinian cause is excluded. I'm sorry to have to say that this appears to have been the governing principle by which this article was created.
I'll give examples to support that statement below, but here I'd like to observe that any non-partisan reviewer must conclude that both sides in the seemingly endless violence between Israelis and Palestinians have repulsively bloody hands, and that a selective presentation of only facts that are favorable to one side is likely to produce not the sympathetic response that is hoped for, but rather a backlash of negative feeling, instead.
The murder of these two boys is piteously tragic; no sane person could feel otherwise or could wish to discount the reality of that tragedy. The deaths and murders of many Palestinian kids at the hands of pro-Israeli forces have been equally tragic, though, and no less important. If you can't actually feel that in your emotions, and you don't have the same motivation to create articles about the deaths and murders of Palestinian kids at the hands of pro-Israeli forces, then I'd respectfully ask you to examine whether your identification with Israeli interests has overwhelmed your conscience as an individual, as a person who's responsible not just to your tribe, but to all mankind and to God as well, whatever you conceive him to be. I'd say the same to any Palestinian who had lost his ability to feel grief for Israeli's suffering, or who had lost the ability to recognize their legitimate rights and interests.
To return to more immediately practical considerations, though, the presentation of information to paint the opposing side in a conflict as all black, and one's own side as all innocence certainly cheers already-decided partisans. But no relatively neutral observer - the only kind one has a realistic chance of persuading - will maintain a favorable view toward any group that consistently tries to influence his opinions with a politically-motivated selective presentation of the relevant facts. People dislike that almost as much as they dislike being explicitly lied to. And when they discover such attempts - as they usually do, eventually - it "poisons the well" and creates a strong resentment toward the group responsible that isn't easily overcome by any future reporting, even if that new reporting happens to be entirely evenhanded and truthful.
Saying, "But those opposed to Israel present a one-sided view, too!", while true, is no defense, nor do I believe that it does the pro-Israeli cause any good at all. Even if it did, editors here have a profound and inescapable moral obligation to put Wikipedia's principles of fairness and NPOV above their own political convictions. Those who can't do that shouldn't be editing here at all, regardless of which side of the issue they're on. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
How the foregoing applies to this article
The statements I made in the preceding section apply directly to this article, in its current form. For example, this section, as it currently exists in our article relies much on this ABC news source. But the only content currently included from that source is that Ariel Sharon apologized for the death of a Palestinian infant, and an accusation by Sharon that the Palestinian Authority encourages violence against Israelis. That exact same ABC News report, however, also says that
"The two Israeli teenagers were the latest victims in more than seven months of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that has claimed the lives of 143 Palestinians under the age of 18", and although "Sharon blamed the Palestinian Authority for the killings", the Authority's response was as follows: "But while expressing regret for the loss of life, a Palestinian official today said he had no idea who was responsible for the attack."
The same ABC News article reports, "Since September, the fighting has claimed 437 lives on the Palestinian side and 73 on the Israeli side." That, too, was passed over by those who have edited this article so far, as was the mention in the USA Today article of the most common mainstream media view that it was Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, an area known to Muslims as Al-Haram Al-Sharif, that touched off the wave of violence that these murders have been presumed to be a part of. USA Today also reported that Sharon's vow to continue building Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza has also fueled Palestinian anger. But as our article is currently written, Sharon is presented only as the spokesman for an outraged Israeli public.
These were horrific murders, no one denies that. But even if we accept the unproven claims of Israeli spokesmen that they must have been committed by Palestinians as acts of calculated terrorism, it's fair to say that they didn't happen in a vacuum, either. Our current article presents so little context as to give the false impression that they did.
The death toll statistics for kids reported by an article from The Guardian that our own article also cites are different from those reported by ABC News. But our current article doesn't mention the stats from that article, either, which report that far more Palestinian kids were killed in the then-current wave of violence than were Israeli kids: "In the past seven months of violence, dozens of Palestinian minors and at least six Israelis under the age of 18 have been among the victims."
Further, and quite disturbingly, our current article presents it as an absolute certainty that this was politically-motivated terrorism committed by Palestinians. That's certainly possible, and it may well have been the case. But our current article neglects to mention that the murderers were never identified by the police, despite the fact that, according to a Jerusalem Post article our own article cites, Israeli "security forces had arrested 20 Palestinians from villages in the area, seeking to determine if they were involved in the brutal murders." Nor is it disclosed in our article that the multiple news sources it cites also mention speculation by Israeli police that the killings might have been related to the theft of "dozens of goats" or "around 100" (depending on which source one believes) from a village half-a-mile away, that same night. This information, too, is excluded from our article, presumably because it would detract from the view it presents that these murders were a calculated act of politically-motivated terrorism.
Apologies for the long comments here, but I know this is a place that many of my friends on both sides of Wikipedia's I/P wars will notice. My hope is that these comments might cause at least some editors to reconsider the way they edit here in light of their own deeply-held values of honesty and integrity, without which we all become something less than fully human.
Selah re that last sentence, if you please, and thank you for undertaking the difficult challenge of considering views that you might, incorrectly, and at first glance, be inclined to dismiss out of hand as merely being opposed to your support for the policies of the current government of Israel. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)