Talk:2008 Dimona suicide bombing

Conflicting reports

According to these news report:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2252970,00.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d4aifBJXqcQ&feature=dir

It was a different set of bombers than those named on this page. Does anyone know more?Mezigue (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thwarted

There were two bombers in Dimona. One was shot on the spot. be sure to add that. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

POv removal of crucial detail in the lead

User:Epson Salts. This edit, with the es 'this level of detail does not belong in the lead' not only eviscerates a lead summary of the body of the text, but cancels a crucial point made by the follow-up scholarship, giving the reader the impression Hamas assumed responsibility. It did, but neither the Israeli Secret Service nor scholars of the incident believe Hamas in Damascus knew anything about it. As it stands, the text is spun by selective showcasing of one quotation and the suppression of the other evidence.Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hamas did assume responsibility - that is made clear by all the sources. One author that you found claims they did not know in advance about it - that level of detail can be discussed in the article (assuming , generously, that it even is notable), but not in the lead. There is indeed spinning going on - by you - an inexplicable attempt to clear Haams of any responsibility for terrorist attacks on civilians, not just here, but on a range of similar articles. Epson Salts (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That is not an answer. A precise parallel would be for a Palestinian POV extremist editor to see a text in the lead like the following:

'The Irgun and Lehi at Deir Yassin claimed responsibility for killing 254 Arabs. Aref al-Aref counted 117 victims, 7 in combat, and the rest in their homes.'

And editing out the second part,

'The Irgun and Lehi at Deir Yassin claimed responsibility for killing 254 Arabs.Aref al-Aref counted 117 victims, 7 in combat, and the rest in their homes.

with the justification:'this level of detail does not belong in the lead'

This is obvious. I have spun nothing, and I would ask you to desist once more from insinuations, repeated by the other editor as well, that I am trying to 'clear Hamas'. Me purpose here is to get the record comprehensive, straight and neutral. Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is an answer. You may not like it, and you may disagree with it, but it is an answer nonetheless, based in wikipedai policy ,and like every other wikipedai editor, if you disagree with it you are going to have to find consensus for your change, or let it go. Epson Salts (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No wiki policy does not give any editor the right to follow (as any one can see) my edits around, to step in and revert or challenge them, and then say:'you need my consensus to restore that material.' There are a number of names for this:WP:HOUND, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:Editwarring, and as Zero also noted, this gives the appearance of editing in such a way as to deny other editors a right to contribute to the encyclopedia. That is an absurd interpretation of what we are supposed to be doing here, and a recipe for reverter omnipotence across the board. You have no explained why the lead fails to summarize what the relevant section clarifies in detail, with all perspectives duly and neutrally given. Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't need my consensus (whatever that means) , but you need a consensus of editors for your change - which you do not have. two editors have objected to your POV-push, citing wikiepda policy. So for now, that change is out. Epson Salts (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The history timeline does not substantiate you there. You alone challenged the new material I added in clarification of what the prior editor wrote (and that editor has not since eviscerated the lead as you did). You had no 'consensus' for your cancellation, nor support afterwards for the way you took out the important lead balancing.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the new text removes information which it would be better to retain. I've tried to write a more condensed version of the original which retains the important information, but failed to come up with anything shorter. The best I can come up with is: "The Damascus leadership of Hamas later assumed responsibility, though sceptiscism has been expressed that that group was the genuine instigator. Israeli intelligence sources consider it probable that the operation was executed at the request of some Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip." Having failed to come up with anything shorter, I would recommend the restoration of the orignal text.     ←   ZScarpia   18:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

that text relies on a single source, and provides a level of detail not appropriate for the lead. It can be discussed (as it is done currently) in the article body. I like how the second-in-command of the military wing of Hamas and the co-founder of Hamas becoem "some Hamas members" in your version. That certainly bodes well for NPOV in this article. Epson Salts (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Look. Stop this farce. You could eliminate or challenge 99% of any article on the claim this or that part of it 'that text relies on a single source.' That's, again, wikilawyering. Atraln is an academic specializing in this topic who interviewed both top echelon Israeli and Hamas sources as part of his fieldwork. Seconbly WP:LEDE summarizes the section, and that is what I briefly did. All that you objected to was that I summarized the distinction drawn in the source, and your objection was answered by the other editor, who had the decency at least to offer his version of a summary, as Scarpia also suggests. Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Look, stop these double standards. you and your fellow POV -pushing buddies have been following me around for months, undoing edits on spurious grounds, and when I objected, you told me I have no consensus (see for example [1]. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and you;re going to have to deal with it. The level of detail you want to put in the lead, based on a single author who quotes anonymous sources is simply not appropriate. as multiple editors have said. There are multiple venues open to you for dispute resolution, start using them. Epson Salts (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you invite those "multiple editors" to contribute to this thread so that their opinions can be taken into account?     ←   ZScarpia   21:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Just read below. Epson Salts (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you waiting for anyone other than TheTimesAreAChanging to appear?     ←   ZScarpia   22:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No, why would I ? Epson Salts (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Best not to use the expression 'multiple editors' when you mean just two, particularly when there's an equal number of editors disagreeing with you.     ←   ZScarpia   23:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to read this [2] Epson Salts (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

For you: [3].     ←   ZScarpia   17:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks, but I think I speak English well enough, and the dictionary definition I supplied you with is clear. Epson Salts (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Something is clearly wrong, otherwise you wouldn't constantly be misconstruing or missing the point of what I've written. Ask yourself: here, was it inherent in what I wrote that two is not a multiple?     ←   ZScarpia   10:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You apparently think it is not, otherwise I do not see the point you are trying to make. Epson Salts (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Write according to the source

Please don't rewrite my paraphrases unless you have checked them against the source I used (or any other one you turn up): Atran writes:

The Hamas leadership in Damascus later claimed responsibility for the Dimono attack (after Fatah’s Al-Aqs’ Martyrs Brigades had claimed it) but the politburo clearly did not order it or even known about it (Usama Hamdan, who handles external relations for Hamas in Beirut, initially said he didn’t known who was responsible; and when I asked senior Hamas leaders in the West Bank if this meant that he didn’t know about it, they said, “You can conclude that; we certainly didn’t”). Sources close to Israeli intelligence told me at the Knesset that Mahmoud Zahar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, and Ahmed Al-Ja’abri, the military commander of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, probably wanted to launch an operation across the Israel-Egypt border after Hamas breached the border wall between Gaza and Egypt but couldn’t; so al-Ja’abri called upon his clan ally in Hebron Ayoub Qawasmeh to conduct an operation. Ayoub Qawasmeh then tapped into the young men on the soccer team who had been earnestly waiting to do something for theior comrades and their cause.

The remodulation 'it is believed' (by whom?) etc ignores that probably meaning 'they conjecture'. It is only one account, circumstantial and hypothetical. The way Atran phrases it, his Knesset sources told him planning some operation 'across the Israeli-Egypt border' which is unintelligible unless we assume Hamas wanted to send people into Egypt from Gaza, and from Egypt back into Israel, from which we are led to guess 'Dimona', but only by conjecture. The reason is not given for why 'they couldn't.' We don't know if Mahmoud Zahar is involved or that is just a guess (this because the academic lit on hamas has outlined several rifts between the political and the military arm concerning such activities in Gaza) The language further suggests by an operation that Dimona wasn't specified. Lastly the source says nothing about a 'cell'. The Hamas soccer team. To understand the point you have to have read the whole chapter where Atran writes for example:

Soccer, paintball, camping, hiking, rafting, body building, martial arts training and other forms of physically stimulating and intimate group action create a bunch of buddies (usually not less than 4 and not more than 12, with a median of 8), who become a “band of brothers” in a glorious cause. It usually suffices that a few (usually at least two) of these action buddies come to believe in the cause, truly and uncompromisingly, for the rest to follow even unto death.

and

For example, Hamas' most-sustained suicide bombing campaign in 2003-2004 involved several buddies from Hebron's Masjad (mosque) al-Jihad soccer team. Most lived in the Wad Abu Katila neighborhood and belonged to the al-Qawasmeh hamula (clan).

Two 'buddies' from this soccer team were contacted by Ayoub and the Qawasmeh is notorious for disobeying Hamas directives (see 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers). I don't mind anyone entertaining crazy fantasies about my putative 'Hamas whitewashing POV' but that should not affect the correct interpretation of sources I bring to clarify what experts know, or what they say might be the case.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but your source doesn't actually support the specific spin you would like to put on this incident (i.e., that Qawasmeh definitely acted alone), and your objections to my summary are absurdly trivial: The lead says "It is believed," and the body explains exactly who believes this—"Israeli intelligence"! According to Dictionary.com, a cell is "a small group acting as a unit within a larger organization." Am I using the word incorrectly?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't reply if you invent things. I didn't say the Qarasmeh acted alone. You are consistently conjecturing about my putative motives, and these co njectures appear to govern how you read my edits. I edit what the best sources say, punto e basta. So please focus on the sources, not the editor.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere in the long block of text above do I see a specific suggested change to the language. What, exactly, do you propose? (All I can guess is that you want the lead as well as the body to mention "Israeli intelligence," and that you want "cell" to be replaced with some other term. But if that were really the extent of it, I can't imagine you would have taken the time to "explain" Atran to me, rather than making the edit directly. Or maybe you will only accept a blanket revert to your version?) As a general point, I do think the "Perpetrator" column should be limited to those that carried out the attack—not those that didn't. (In the same way, I don't think the "Perpetrator" of 9/11 should be listed as "non-Taliban factions, probably acting without approval from the Taliban leadership."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

So you made your edit without reading the source article. One can edit looking at a snippet or read it in the overall context. I try not to impose my terms on the texts I paraphrase, esp. loaded ones. Every Hamas-affiliated person or terrorist referred to in newspapers belongs to a 'cell'. The extensive literature on it makes that organization look far more complex (Atran's point is that pre-existing buddy structures are used because they encourage group solidarity, from which one sounds out potential suicide bombers, without recruiting all of the group to a 'cell'): it has divisions written all over it, infights, disputes between different regional centres; in Hebron alone it has over two or three groups. This and the source I cited show familiarity with this, and sre careful to note that just saying 'Hamas' for anything connected directly or directly to it is dangerous. In the present case, you have one specific incident, and a controversy of claims of responsibility. Where the truth lies is beyond us, the public in so far as the facts are sparse. So, if one has a good source on it, one hews as closely as copyright laws allow to what that source says. It's as simple as that. One must not presume to know the 'truth' or have recourse to simplifications that are belied in our sources. Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

there is no controversy over claims of responsibility: Hamas claimed responsibility, and praised the perpetrators. There' a preponderance of sources that says this, quit plainly. Epson Salts (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

If there's no 'controversy' then surely All sources should state what you claim, not merely a preponderance?     ←   ZScarpia   22:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

there's indeed not a single source that says Hamas did not claim responsibility. They all say that. Epson Salts (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The hypothetical preponderance of sources would refer to newspaper reports on the day the attack occurred or in the immediate aftermath. The one source that over 2 years, interviewed the relevant actors came to a different conclusion. Contemporary newspaper reports are worth little if we have scholarship which actually studies the background and details that later emerged, something a newspaper writing at the time cannot have had the time to analyse. Epson Salts. Please reread the evidence given above, rather than ignore it. There is no controversy that Hamas in Damascus made that claim. An informed scholar, who ahad access to Israel intelligence experts, denies there was substance to that claim, and Israeli intelligence thought two leaders in Gaza may be responsible. One does not write encyclopedic articles by erasing some stuff and showcasing other stuff, which is what your edit did.Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The single source you cite does not claim Hamas did not take responsibility. It only claims the attack was done without foreknowledge. that is what the article says. Epson Salts (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That is not the point. Not on editor here has denied that the Hamas executive in Damascus made a statement claiming responsibility. The issue here is why you removed the fact that this is not considered a trustworthy claim. Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

(a) I didn't remove it (b) it is not a fact this is not considered a trustworthy claim. Even your single source acknowledges it was an act planned and executed by the senior Hamas leadership in Gaza. Epson Salts (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

EC: Nothing has been removed. Despite your repeated suggestions to the contrary, I did read your source, and I think the following is a fair summary: "Israeli intelligence believes the attack was ordered by Izzedine al Qassam Brigades commander Ahmed Jabari with the support of Gaza-based Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar; Jabari contacted an ally in Hebron's Qawasameh clan—Ayoub Qawasmeh—who recruited the eventual perpetrators from a local Hamas soccer team. Scott Atran states that the Hamas politburo in Damascus was not informed of the attack." You've repeatedly refused to answer my direct question of how that summary should be improved.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope. If the sentence reconstructing what probably occurred is prefaced by 'believe that', the rest cannot be framed in the historic tense as a set of facts. This consideration lay behind my edit. It is elementary.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)