Talk:2014 Gush Etzion kidnapping and murder/Archive 1

NPOV issues

Article is basically a selection of cherry picked material to portray the purported viciousness of the Palestinians. For instance regarding reported Palestinian support of the (alleged) kidnapping, RS give the context of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike against mass detention without trial and the Palestinians hope that kidnappings can be used as bargaining chips for justice. This sourced detail was deleted without explanation by one of the editors who has been adding the cherrypicked material.

Adding material only supporting one POV while (deleting without explanation) sourced material detailing other significant published viewpoints is not consistent with out core WP:NPOV policy. Dlv999 (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't created this article, just reviewed. If you really want to make this article better, then please attribute whatever you know about this subject, along with the reliable sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

See my sourced addition to the article that was deleted without explanation :With 300 Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike protesting Israel's practice of holding them without charge for periods of six months and longer, many Palestinians support the kidnap of Israelis as bargaining chips for justice. The 2011 Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange set a precedent for the return of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the return of a kidnapped Israeli.

Source:Bryant, Christa (14/06/2014). "Why were kidnapped Israeli teens hitchhiking in the West Bank?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 15/06/2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) Quote: "Palestinians backing almost 300 prisoners on hunger strike due to Israel’s practice of holding them without charge for six months or longer. With Israel’s track record of releasing Palestinian prisoners for kidnapped soldiers, such as the swap of 1,027 prisoners for Sgt. Gilad Shalit in 2011, many Palestinians advocate the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers or civilians as bargaining chips for justice." Dlv999 (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Restored . OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice this on the talk page, when I did my first edit. I think it was removed again, and I put it back, but it's hard to get anything in giving the flurry of edits and tweaks.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Dlv999 is correct. This article is appallingly written, with a clear POV attempt to apportion blame through cherry picking, lack of context and synth. We are MUCH too early for such conclusions to be drawn, or even by implied, in wikipedia's neutral voice. Hopefully these guys will get home soon - let's not pre-judge a rapidly changing situation. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Many Palestinians, and militants,

This edit by brewcrewer (how many changes or reverts of other editors' work have you done today? Does this count?) eliminates an important distinction. It is not copyediting. Militants are Palestinians, but Palestinians are not thereby militants. 'Many' begs questions. The proper way of saying this is (all)'militants, and many Palestinians'. Erase the distinction and you do what the article's editing history shows is the intent of this new article, to make a POV case against Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Brewcrewer. Your copyediting is constantly changing sourced language. Leaving aside other dubious edits, eliding 'militant' reverts my edit, and now (2) changing the sourced "bargaining chips for justice" (in quotations (CSM=With Israel’s track record of releasing Palestinian prisoners for kidnapped soldiers, such as the swap of 1,027 prisoners for Sgt. Gilad Shalit in 2011, many Palestinians advocate the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers or civilians as bargaining chips for justice) by expunging 'for justice' (which is the reported Palestinian POV) again is a revert, a bad one at that because 'a bargaining chips' ain't proper English, since the indefinite article here cannot take a plural. Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you want. I don't see the POV angle in changing "many Palestinians and militants" to "many Palestinians." Please explain succinctly what exactly you want and please provide a source in support of your wording. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are not sure what I mean, reread what I wrote. I used language from two sources, you twice erased the usages. Explain yourself.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Brewcrewer, you have misrepresented the source. Please use it with proper context. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Title - "possible kidnapping"

The title of the article should say "possible kidnapping" until it is beyond doubt. It appears to be speculation at this stage. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It's quite clear[1]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Its no longer a possible kidnapping, and it never was. Israeli sources confirmed and US accepted that it was a kidnapping that resulted in brutal murder of school age children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.90.182 (talk • contribs)

POV background section

Background Many Palestinians support the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and civilians as a bargaining chips for the release of Palestinian prisoners. Some 300 prisoners are presently on a hunger strike against the Israeli practice of holding Palestinians in detention without laying charges for six months or more. In 2011, Israel released more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli kidnapped by Palestinian militants. According to Israeli intelligence officials, more than 50 kidnapping attempts of Israelis were stopped in 2013.

I have moved the above here for discussion. My concerns are:

• (1) A background solely devoted to kidnappings is inappropriate for a "possible kidnapping". We should not be getting ahead of ourselves, until things become clearer
• (2) A background which starts with a clear attempt to tar all Palestinian people for a possible crime / tragedy is both partisan and offensive. We need to maintain balance
• (3) A more appropriate background would focus on the background of the three missing teenagers. They are the subject of the article, and it is their background that should be respected

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this should be in a background section either. But the text as it stands, with the correction of Brewcrewer's inept truncation of my use of the source quote "bargaining chips of justice", is impeccably sourced, and should be reintroduced. In terms of POV balancing, the effort by the originating editors to make this into an 'attack the Palestinians' page by using anything in sources that refers to Palestinians generically and not 'militants' and 'many Palestinians' is problematical, which is why I put in 'militants' (as per source). 'Many Palestinians' can mean anything from 10-50% and one would really need a survey for that.

The most problematical section is the Palestinian reactions pastiche, with the high focus on what idiots put on a Facebook page. It's sourced, but, there is a vast spin operation going on, coming straight from the Prime Minister's office, well documented in Mairav Zonszein 's 'The kidnapping: Israelis aren't the only ones facing national tragedy,' +972 Magazine 15 June, 2014 which reports on it, and everything the Israeli and foreign sources ignore contextually i.e.

Incidents that received less or no coverage in Israeli media are reports that settlers threw barrages of stones at Palestinian cars over the weekend, damaging 15 cars and injuring three people. In the south Hebron hills, some 30 settlers reportedly invaded the Palestinian village of Susya, threw stones at homes and attempted to attack a 13 year old.Many in the twittersphere have responded to the IDF campaign by hijacking the hashtag #BringBackOurBoys with statistics and photos of Palestinian children detained or killed by Israel, including a Palestinian child killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza this week and the (191) administrative detainees currently in Israeli prisons without charge or trial, all of whom the online activists are adamant to “bring back” as well. Since April, some 120 of them have been on hunger strike (that’s 53 days now) and there have been solidarity protests throughout the West Bank and Israel on a regular basis. . . Think of the 80,000 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem who have been living without regular running water for months now. Or remember that exactly one month ago, on Nakba Day, two Palestinian teens were killed by IDF fire during protests in Beitunia while presenting no immediate threat to anyone.

Unfortunately, or shamefully, we cannot use, I believe, the excellent Mairav Zonszein because the magazine is a blog, an excellent one, dedicated to filling in the vast gaps of zero or underreportage in the I/P area. Systemic bias is well and alive here, and we are obliged to calibrate the article to avoid that, which in this case is going to be difficult.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reintroduced the section. I needs tweaking and development, but I think the context is impotant enough to warrant it as an contextualizing incipit. I also think someone should ask the RSN if, not +972, but Mairav Zonszein's article there, though on what is a 'blog' has the quality to warrant inclusion on a page like this, which suffers from systemic bias in any case. It is a very good example of close reasoning on the overall context, and would certainly contribute to the WP:NPOV issue that has been a sore point from the outset here. I avoid blogs like the plague, but, on the other hand, don't believe in reflex rigourism, and consider that borderline cases should be judged on their merits.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A tag has been put up on this, saying the renamed section 'Possible Motives' has dubious neutrality and that a discussion is taking place. I can't see this 'discussion' but suggest that questions regarding its putative lack of neutrality be listed below.Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Aa42shirley

The Time line is already implicit in the sequence of events. I think whoever reverted you was correct. All that is required is to break the 'sequence of events' flow into its respective days.

• Thursday night-Friday:Day 1 (12-13th)
• Saturday: Day 2 (14th)
• Sunday:Day 3 (15th)
• Monday:Day 4 (16th)
• Tuesday:Day 5 (17th).

The choice of details, moreover, in your time line, is aleatory and just redoubles the text. Reconsider.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I was the editor who removed the time line. A relevant part of WP:OR I would draw Aa42shirley's attention to is "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". I really don't see how the following two can be justified as per WP policy - certainly the given citation for these does not anywhere mention the actual topic of this article:

• A two-storey Palestinian house in Hebron was demolished by the Israeli military [1]
• A Palestinian was shot in the chest by the Israeli military [2]

Alfietucker (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Image

I am wondering about the choice of image to accompany the article. Wouldn't the portraits of the three missing teens illustrate the subject better than a rather generic image of Israeli soldiers? 80.179.9.7 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Triggerhippie 4

Following on the note above, you added here a tag which reads:'Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.' The dispute, I believe, was resolved with the relevant points addressed. So, since you have not made your point, please list here your remarks on its lack of neutrality so the discussion can be reopened and resolved. Otherwise it will be removed.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No response. Therefore such a drive-by tag can be removed. If any one has a case, they should add it to the section after making a case for its relevance on this page.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've remomved this since Triggerhippie refused to list his reasons, and no one else has given any. Don't put it back it. The rule is: make your objections on the talk page and if no consensus over the issues is forthcoming, the tag can be reintroduced.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

AmirSurfLera

Look, this is a difficult article because of the potential for disruption, so frivolous repetition of what is already in the text and (b) the use of blogs is intolerable. I https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_kidnapping_of_Israeli_teens&diff=613286951&oldid=613282441 noted to another editor a few days ago what every editor in the area should know, blogs esp. army blogs are not acceptable. Yet you go ahead, and reintroduce one. Worse, everyone knows that attribution is required yet, you give no attribution to the IDF/Israeli thesis that the use of charity and schools in a fundamentally poor society is just to further terrorism. It is highly offensive to at least one constituency since 'charity' is obligatory in Islam, as it is in Judaism. Israeli and other sources are entitled to the POV, but our policy of neutrality cannot state that as factual. And in any case, the text already says, with attribution, that this is Israel's justification. So your edit just jammed up the page. Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, relax mate, I didn't know anything about the prohibition to use blogs. I was acting in good faith. I'm removing the source. The information regarding Hamas' use of Dawa to reach Palestinian society is supported by a well-known newspaper anyway. Have a good day.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

this had the same report, easily googled instead of that dumb source from EUreporter, which, given that we don't use fine Israeli online resources like +972 magazine, is at a mere cursory glance, crap. I'm relaxed: editors who redouble the text aren't, arguably, because if they read the page before editing it they would not reduplicate. And of course, things like RS, not using blogs have been discussed on this page before your edit. Erring, and then reverting when told you are repeatedly making dubious edits is wasting serious editors' time.Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

al-Bireh

I'm having trouble reading the rationale for removing the item re al-Bireh here, EP, since it's not clear from the edit summary. I figure that one can perhaps think too much detail is problematical, esp. in terms of page length, if this things, fingers crossed, drags on. But we won't know, for a day or two or even a week, depending on how events play out, how to judge this. My approach is to give all details available, and then, once the affair is concluded, with statistics in or better comprehensive reports available, one can then cut back. Could you share your thoughts on this? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor Yuvn

Stop the nonsense. Judea and Samaria was the subject of a long and extenuating debate, and its result formed the basis for a high level decision, affecting all I/P articles. No knowledgeable editor challenges the consensus that the neutral wikipedia voice for the area is West Bank (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) point 4). Read policy and precedent, and kindly revert this useless provocation.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood me. Judea and Samaria is an official district by Israel, even if occupied and not annexed, and they were probably kidnapped in area C, which is under Israeli control. So adding the other name of the West Bank, the district where they were kidnapped, seems appropriate in this case. Yuvn86 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"Judea and Samaria", lol. That's practically Likud/"Settler" terminology, isn't it?

As a matter of fact, it isn't. It's the official Israeli term, not a term used by only part of the Israeli population like you seem to suggest. The term "Judea and Samaria" dates back to biblical times, and was used again during the British Mandate. Israel keeps to it. The term "West Bank" dates to the time Jordan controlled the land in question. There was thus the "East Bank" - Jordan, and the "West Bank" - the extra lands Jordan took in 1948. The Arabs who live there naturally kept to this term when the land was retaken by Israel in 1967. Why this is the term that became used worldwide, rather than "Judea and Samaria", I don't know.

192.114.16.121 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

So much of Israel is dominated by anti-Palestinian sentiment ("How dare they have the audacity to live in the homeland of the JEWS!") and likud-speak isn't exactly an obscure thing?

I suppose it's good to hear you confirm it. Also there weren't any Jews who could claim biblical ownership to any part of Palestine at the beginning of the Zionist project and there certainly aren't now, although the "settlers" do like to pretend otherwise, don't they? 70.27.160.169 (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC) 70.27.160.169 (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I understood you perfectly, and your reasoning is flawed. 90% of the West Bank can be argued to fall into an administrative district of Israel, and therefore 90% of the time you could push the gloss 'Judea and Samaria' for virtually anything. Your edit summary also gave it away stating that 'Judea and Samaria' were the historic names for the West Bank, meaning you were thinking of the geographic extension, not the district designation. Also, don't cite wiki articles. There are regional admiknistratived councils under an occupational military governorship on foreign territory and these 'districts' are not in Israel. They have a bureaucratic structure completely different from what obtains in Israel. Everyone understood that at the time, and only twice in memory has anybody tried to pretend it ain't thus.Nishidani (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletions

An editor deleted many of the see alsos -- all kidnappings in the West Bank/Gaza area -- without explanation. I think they should be restored, as appropriate for see also's. --Epeefleche (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, as someone who feels obliged (per WP:NPOV which is a pillar of our wikipedian ethics), despite the waste of time better spent elsewhere, to do the work the editors who created this page should have done - create an article and not a stub that looked like it should have been up for deletion immediately - I have two comments.

A pathetically thin mention of the incident, as yet assumed (on reasonable grounds) to be a kidnapping, doubling as a lead and article, was followed by the 'Reactions' section, which threatened to be larger, but was mostly devoted to what idiots on Palestinian facebook pages are said to have done.

To this there was a rush of editors thrusting in every possible cat to parallel events, Palestinian criminality, terrorism, Israeli suffering etc.

All this is based on prejudgement. We have almost no detailed information on the event. We have a nucleus of facts flooded by a deluge of innuendo, suspicion, conjecture. The sources themselves are highly conflicted with one Israeli general saying, we do not collaborate with the Palestinians, and others saying, 'yes, we are closely coordinating with the PA'; Fox News says 50 kidnappings were stopped by Israel in 2014, another saying 65,(both ignoring that many of these were blocked with input from PA security forces providing assistance): most sources speaking of three teens, while only one gets what the cited ages explicitly indicate is right -two minors, and a 19 year old., etc.etc.etc. That we have a kidnapping must be assumed, but it is not proven. In the rush to get the wiki charge sheet against 'Palestinians' up and running, the cats are the last thing that should be added, when a clear picture of what took place emerges. Only then can we classify the content of the resultant page.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you take a chill pill and stop your WP:personal attacks and WP:AGF? How about a Wikibreak or do you need to keep lecturing us about your very clear POV on the situation? Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually Nishidiani's comment is grounded in source analysis and Wikipedia policy aimed at improving the article. Your comment has nothing to do with the article and as such is just a disruption to this talk page. Please do not post any more irrelevant disruptive comments. Dlv999 (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've waited ... and this isn't quite a cat, but rather a clearly appropriate see also -- other people who went missing in Palestine. Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And again links have been deleted. On the assertion that the rationale is that the others who went missing in Palestine were not civilians. I don't see that as a reason to delete -- it's a difference, but as is appropriate for a see also, you list it because of what is similar ... in this case people who went missing in Palestine. Epeefleche (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry being late to reply - I was busy elsewhere. What would you like put back in? If the 'see also' suggestions or cats can be listed, they can be discussed here quickly to see if there is consensus. I thought putting many in on day one wrong, but if they are now appropriate, I won't object - though, I repeat, this whole affair is still mysterious and labelling is difficult until we have hard data.Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Chibok schoolgirl kidnapping is already present in the article body, so that one isn't necessary in the see also section. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani. I'm referring at this point to "see also's" of 4 articles, all of which refer to people who went missing in Palestine, since '89, where the Israeli government treated the disappearance as a kidnapping, where the Israeli government blamed Hamas -- that they are soldiers can be indicated in the see also ... there are sufficient similarities to warrant a see also in each case ... a see also need not be precisely the same, in every manner possible (if that were the requirement, we would never have a see also). The rule in any case is that the links in the "see also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "see also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. And, per your suggestion, we've waited ...:

• Kidnapping and murder of Yaron Chen, by Hamas
• Kidnapping and murder of Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon, by Hamas
• Kidnapping and murder of Nissim Toledano, by Hamas
• Kidnapping of Nachshon Wachsman, by Hamas

Epeefleche (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem in reintroducing those 'see also' examples (of course, I'm not the 'consensus' here!, but other editors shouldn't remove them unless they argue their case convincingly on the talk page). Technically, there is no public evidence that (a) they were kidnapped (b) that Hamas did it, but in my own view, we should try to provide the widest coverage to all angles, and these cases do certainly underline the kind of precedent uppermost in the minds of many who study these things. So they are relevant (as would be the operation Israel conducted to kidnap as 'bargaining chips' 21 Lebanese, holding them in prison for many years, in the Ron Arad case. It forms a perfect parallel to the strategy apparent here. But of course, that article, like dozens of others where the victims are not Israeli, was never, and probably never will be, written. They were held, without trial, as hostages by Israel for 15 years). In any case, let's hope this sad story for them particularly, and for the bewildered Palestinian bystanders doesn't end tragically, and ends quickly. I wake up every day hoping we can end the day numbering. **** help us if this drags on for weeks or months. Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done the revert, so you have a free hand (1R etc) to revert back if anyone, without talk page discussion, tries to remove them again.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Nish. One mistake I see (not sure; did you create it?). The phrase in the see also to Arrigoni, saying "captors ... condemned to death by Hamas", seems to be flat-out wrong. Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

One thing that could be taken out

The lead has this, which is now dated, since also the possible actions have now, at least for Ramalaah, tken place.

Israel's Deputy Minister of Defense, Danny Danon, threatened "possible actions" in Gaza and Ramallah.[9]

The lead of course should summarize the main sections. I don't think revising it to make it fit the body of the text should be regarded as reverting. If anyone cares to look over it? Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche

(*)in this edit, with the summary ‘d sentence not reflected in ref.’ the deleted sentence runs:

A Palestinian government spokesman maintains that holding them responsible for kidnappings in Area C of the West Bank,where Israel exercises full military control and prohibits a Palestinian police presence plays them in an impossible position. Source Booth, William. "Palestinian President Abbas condemns kidnapping of Israeli teens". Washington Post. Retrieved 16 February 2014

Your call was technically correct for that article by Booth doesn't contain the sentence.. But it took just 15 seconds to find how the error occurred, (name confusion as I transferred the data from my file of newspaper references) The precise text on which the deleted sentence was based came from Booth’s article the day before. William Booth, 'Israel accuses Hamas of abducting 3 teens,' Washington Post 15 June 2014, which reads:

Palestinian officials said they have been put in an impossible position. Ehab Bessaiso, a spokesman for the unity government, said the Palestinian Authority cannot be held responsible for abductions in Area C of the West Bank, on the outskirts of Hebron, near the Jewish settlement communities of Gush Etzion, where the Israeli military has complete security control and where Palestinian police are forbidden.

So it has to be restored with the correct article from Booth. I'd appreciate the courtesy of asking me on this talk page for clarification before deleting anything I add, since I try very hard to be meticulous, and a speedy delete without a check via google, in this case, only means the reportage is amputated of an important item, and editors seeing this have to hang around, thinking of 1R, for a day or two before restoring it with correct attribution. That wastes time.Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• (2)In the infobox on the Palestinian deaths, also, changing Qalandiya refugee camp to Kalandia, while at the same time tweaking Ein Beit al-Ma' refugee camp is contradictory. In the first instance the mention of a provenance from a refugee camp is elided, in the second it is showcased. In both cases, the fact that a refugee camp is indicated is in the sources. And my practice, in referring to Arabic place names is to use the stand Arabic transcription, which the Kalandia article doesn't have.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• (3) And this Andy Warhol edit obviously must be deleted. Nishidani (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably also worth noting regarding point one that the Epeefleche edit was in violation of the 1rr restrictions on all IP related articles as it was the second deletion of other editor's additions in 24h.[2][3] 1rr restrictions don;t really work unless they are strictly adhered to by all editors. It is a bit frustrating waiting to correct errors so as to meticulously abide by the rules, and then to see other editors plough in making multiple reverts that do not even improve the article. Dlv999 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I guessed that, but I suggest, given the complications of that rule (being discussed over at some page or another, that a gentleman's agreement be relied on in these cases. Most of the troublesome crap is by drive-by editors or newbies. I don't want to create a special right for old hands, but someone of EP's experience doesn't do this intentionally. We should just notify each other and either give time for the revert to be done (keeping in mind sleeping hours in various countries) or notify the page, so that a general revert each day of IR violations and dubious material can be done by consensus. Otherwise, quickly developing pages like this become unmanageable. One should waive this discretion only if the editor concerned does this frequently, in which case it should be reported.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think any sanctions or other drama are needed. But it wouldn't hurt to take a bit more care when reverting the work of other editors. Dlv999 (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nish -- As to what I assume you intended to denote as item 1, though it is referenced above as item * (perhaps in a humorous effort on your part to reflect that nobody is perfect), good for you for figuring out how to fix it. I saw it was incorrect. I addressed that appropriately. WP:V and specifically WP:BURDEN are clear in this regard, and the edit was appropriate within them. I was not aware -- btw -- and did not spend time -- as it was not my burden -- to see if there was in fact any other RS source that had failed to be supplied, but that would satisfy wp:n ... per wp:burden, I'm pleased that you took on that burden. You may want to take a second look at it, btw, and scrub it for possible copyvio issues. As to item 2, I used -- where different names are used -- the common names, as reflected in the common names in the wp article titles (which articles also list less-common names). If you disagree that those are the common names, a good place to begin to have that discussion may be on the talk pages of the respective articles. As to item 3, that wasn't my edit -- I'm unclear why you are raising it in a thread titled with my name, without any explanation. As to 1RR, I'm not aware that this would be a 1RR issue (and item 1 did improve the article, as it brought it in line with wp:v, and item 2 did improve the article, as it brought it in line with wp article titles which are based on common name). Epeefleche (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Kalandia vs Qalandiya transliterations, I think that's probably a close call in terms of which is actually the common name, not that it really matters. They are probably both used roughly the same amount by English sources, although Q would make more sense I would have thought. Bear in mind though that whatever the spelling, the village and the refugee camp and not the same locality, although they are covered by the same Wikipedia article. So if we mean the refugee camp we should say the refugee camp. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

My basic beef is with 1RR. If an accomplished editor like yourself does something someone like yself finds questionable and is tempted to revert, he immediately loses his ability to work the page, and, sure enough, we had soon after the 3rd diff crap. Since experienced editors working together suffer from the rule, it's best to make things easier, so all of us can keep our revert rights in for the inevitable nonsense that hits pages like this.

Quite early last week, someone put in two dubious lines, and, rightly, when the pace of editing is intense, another editor tagged the questionable material with signals. That helped to fix the text rapidly. You are quite within your rights as the policy you list show, to remove on sight something that fails verification. It may be a failing of mine but I appreciate discretionary judgement among colleagues, where the wikiwork is tough-going. As to Kalandia, your edit removed the 'refugee camp' specification, while retaining it with the other, which is contradictory. You say you brought it in line with the article title, but doing that, you expunged the 'refugee camp' phrasing associated with my Qalandiya. As to K/Q, notoriously Islamic sources distinguish the heart (qalb)turned upwards to God, from the kalb(dog) turned down to mundane trash. But my objection was to your elision of the 'refugee camp'.(3) No intention to smear your good reputation by the third diff, which is self-evidently by a drive-by blow-in drongo in a POV-suv. I listed it pro memoria for the third thing that merited reversion. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that editors said they're not looking to make this into a drama. But just to clarify, if I've neglected to do so sufficiently, as to my clean-up of the infobox ... in which I also added missing parentheticals, deleted needless non-conforming words and references, etc., the effort to clean up the names -- which was not to my knowledge reversing a prior edit (which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously), but rather conforming the existing reference, was to: a) where it pointed to an article, use the name as it appeared in the title of the article, which is to be chosen by the editors to the article per wp:commonname (if the name chosen as the title of the article is wrong in anyone's opinion, they can raise it at the article talk page), and b) conform where appropriate in format otherwise to the rest of the infobox references. So ... if the title of an article used "Refugee Camp," I retained it. If it did not use "Refugee Camp," I conformed it to the title of the article. If you think the article is incorrect in the title used in it, that's fine -- raise it at the article talk page, and if you gain consensus change the article title. There's nothing improperly contradictory in what you described as contradictory -- rather, it is consistency and conformity with the Wikipedia article titles. Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Your decision procedure is clear and reasonable but Kalandia/Qalandiya and Kalandia/Qalandiya refugee camp are not the same place. So when referring to events in the refugee camp we need to use a piped link or a redirect to the article that covers both localities. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sean -- thanks. As to your other point, that hasn't been clear to me, and wasn't clarified ipso facto by the earlier edit, but on the assumption that you are correct (I've not had time to research it carefully, beyond the obvious), you suggestion seems to make sense. Feel free to make whatever change you think reasonable on this basis, without it counting as a revert. If indeed they are different, the question remains as to whether the "r" and "c" are lower case ... per wp:common name, that seems to be the more common usage in the higher level RSs. See, e.g., here and here Best. Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to fork out for Sean, since his point was exactly the one I tried to make from the outset. I need a spokesman (too many newspaper articles read, and, apropos copyright violations EP, if you read 150 in a week on the same topic, they are 95 percent copyright violations!). I'm fine with lowercasing, as you suggest. I also intend restoring this, in the ce rephrasing to avoid to Copyright thingo you hinted at:

A Palestinian government spokesman maintains that holding them responsible for kidnappings in Area C of the West Bank,where Israel exercises full military control and prohibits a Palestinian police presence there, places them in an impossible position.(William Booth, 'Israel accuses Hamas of abducting 3 teens,' Washington Post 15 June 2014)

I think we've ironed things out? Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Haven't had time to look into the specifics of the latest post, but I believe that in concept we've ironed things out. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

<-For interest, if you go to google maps [4], the highlighted point is the UNRWA health clinic for the Qalandiya refugee camp, on its western edge. The camp extends to the north, east and south of the clinic. Qalandiya itself is about a kilometre to the west on the other side of the airport/military base/barrier. This Applied Research Institute report has details for the camp if anyone fancies updating the main article at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Day 10 diffs

In the Day 10 paragraph the following statement caught my eye:

while 9 (Israeli version) to 38 (Palestinian statistic)

Shouldn't both be version? What makes the Palestinian numbers a statistic?

Or maybe the other way around, both should be a statistic (though it doesn't sound quite right to me)?

I thought quite a while about that, having written 'version' in both cases. The problem is, the IDF version supplies no names, whereas the Palestinian 'version' supplies a complete list of names, according to the town, and anyone out there in the blitherscape can, theoretically, check the statistics and challenge them, something no one can do with what the sources state is the IDF version. That is why I distinguish them. I don't think it unbalanced, as much as fidelity to the sources. Of course, that's just my judgement, but the IDF should do a better job in presenting its figures than it has to date. They are extremely vague, their figures suffer adjustment almost invariably. By the way, I see your mother tongue is modern Hebrew, so if there is anything you can access to ameliorate this specific problem, it would be deeply appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I'll take a look and see if I can't find any more info.
Thanks! Chocom (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

I suggest that the image of the teens be moved up to the infobox, as the infobox image. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A simple photo not containing Israeli army branding would be more encyclopaedic. Dlv999 (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Why? We are covering the event -- not just the kids. And this seems to be something that was put out relative to the search ... which was a search for them ... following and directly related to their kidnapping. If anything, it is more encyclopaedic as it is. And it's certainly better than no image in the infobox, or any other image in the article - for the infobox. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

We are covering the event and but we aren't participating in the campaigns by Israelis and Palestinians associated with the event. Putting imagery produced by one of the campaigns in the infobox would be inconsistent with Wikipedia's strictly neutral position in my view. Also, the social media campaigns are not the most (wiki-)notable aspect of this event and the images associated with them are not the images most used by independent secondary sources (who are not participating in the campaigns), in their reports about this event. I think cropping the image to just show the 3 boys would make a good image for the infobox but I think the best image would be a pushpin map simply showing approximately whether the abductions took place. That would also solve the issue of the article lacking coordinates. Unfortunately it seems that the Infobox event template doesn't allow for that (unless someone makes a dedicated map/image). Perhaps there's an alternative infobox template. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I would have preferred using a simple picture without the Israeli army branding but couldn't find anything that would be guaranteed to fit within the Wikipedia usable allowance. Any alternative picture would be appreciated. Chocom (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The IDF's images are usually issued with creative commons licenses, and the source image in this case seems to be tagged with CC BY 2.0. So, the image could be cropped to just the boys and loaded to Commons as long as the image description there complies with the conditions i.e. "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." Sean.hoyland - talk 06:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

In which case I will simply crop the pic and re-upload it. Thanks Chocom (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well done, thanks. Just a niggle, but any way we could get the image slightly expanded so the vertical distortion disappears? Sorry if this is a bother.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to a bit later. Done. Replaced the attempted cropping with an edited original. I think it's much better.
What about moving the pic to the infobox? Chocom (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Go ahead. I've checked a dozen cases at random from 1830s to the Egardo Mortara James Bulger and Klaas kidnappings and that appears to be normative. The original objection no longer stands.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ali Abed Jabir

There is one thing that is odd here. The total of deaths we have is 5, yet even today the standard report in the Western press in updated articles refers to 4 dead. At first I thought this meant Ali Abed Jabir, the old man who died of a heart attack in the vicinity of, or as a consequence of (versions differ), Israelil raids, was excluded since we have no objective criteria for determining if his death was a direct result of a raid. But, I see, he is excluded from the 5 victims we name. Technically, he might go into the list, because 'deaths' does not literally mean people shot during clashes or in raids. I'm somewhat diffident about this, however, for the simple reason that 'deaths' contextually lists deaths caused by Israeli fire, and to include him there would be tendentious, and a violation of WP:NPOV by the implication the bunching in would carry. Perhaps we could resolve this by having a 'casualty' voice below this, to register the anomaly. Or, of course, one could omit it altogether. Thoughts?Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through them and there are decent sources for all 5 (excluding Ali Abed Jabir). My guess is that the reports with a total count of 4 might exclude Mustafa Aslan because he was reported to have died later from his injuries. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. You're probably right, but once more the famous fact checkers at the NYTimes missed, as they miss the fact that the Golan is not Israel, also missed Aslan's demise shortly afterwards. The citizenry of wiki can do better.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Week 2 etc. Perhaps it is better to note the events here for a while before putting anything more on the day by day section

I think it looks like the problem I hinted at earlier is on us. We can't keep (well, we can) adding days with little information. If this is going cold, then we will need a week 2 synthesis, and that is why here I am adding

Day 14 (June 25).17 Palestinians were arrested overnight in Yatta, Beit Ummar, Hebron and Bethlehem among them legislative council members Khalid Tafish and Anwar Zaboun,, both of Bethlehem, bringing the number of Palestinian legislators arrested in the campaign to 12. Of the 19 people arrested in Beit Ummar since the start of the search, 14 are minors. A Palestinian youth in Khursa,Younis al-Rjoub (18), was shot in the abdomen during a clash with Israeli soldiers.

My suggestion therefore is that we refrain from the day to day reportage in the following days except for adding details in this work section, if nothing turns up to change events, until Friday morning, and then reframe the section in terms of week 1, week 2.Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Day 15 (June 26) 136 structures were searched overnight, and a further 10 Palestinians were arrested in the Hebron area on suspicion of being terrorists. Israel figures state detentions now number 381, of whom 282 affiliated to Hamas. The number of locations searched rose to 1,955, including 64 Hamas institutions. An additional 136 structures were searched Wednesday night.. Fatima Ismail Issa Rushdi (78) died of a heart attack during an Israeli raid on the Arruba refugee camp. 9 youths were injured by tear gas and rubber bullets. Two boys, aged 13 and 14 were arrested in Dura. Since the campaign began 6 Palestinians have been shot dead, and over 120 wounded.44-year-old Ismail Ahmad al-Hawamda was shot in the foot, running away from a checkpoint in the Hebron district town of al-Samu.Despite the Oslo Accords requiring coordination with the PA security service for Israeli entry into Area A, i what was called an 'unprecedentedì move, Israeli units raided the Tunis and Rafidia neighborhoods of Nablus and Balata refugee camp without prior clearance. 200 homes in Awarta were also raided.

User:Wickey-ni. Don't remove. Revert or rephrase according to the sources you should have checked before making a stupid edit.

NPOV and distorted citation ?

There is nothing to indicate that any of the claims are credible.20140615TOI"

Good practice before removing work is to google the key phrases to check, and, as here, you will often find sources justifying more or less the words you initially feel are not source-related. You correct the fucking phrasing, you don't expunge and hang around for others to do the work.

• (1)An obscure Salafist organization claimed responsibility for the abduction on Friday, followed by a second unknown group. Neither group offered up proof, and there was no indication that the claims of responsibility were credible. 'Israel rounds up senior Hamas men in West Bank sweep.' The Times of Israel June 15

• (2)In its statement, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the armed wing of Fatah party in the West Bank, said the three missing Israelis are in safe hands outside the area of Hebron."The Israeli government will never have the honor of finding them and they won't be handed over unless thousands of prisoners, mainly females, are released," it said.Earlier, two smaller West Bank groups also claimed responsibility for the kidnapping, but neither claim was considered credible by Israel. And the latest claim by the group is also not confirmed.'Fatah-linked armed group claims abduction of three Israeli teenagers,' Xinhuanet 16 June 2014.

• (3)There have been no credible claims of responsibility for the kidnapping.' Jodi Rudoren 'Bedouin Trackers Hunting for Israeli Boys,' New York Times 23 June 2014

• (4) The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors militant Web sites and activity, reported Saturday that two jihadist groups had posted claims of responsibility for kidnapping the teens. A group calling itself the West Bank branch of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria said it had carried out the abduction to avenge the deaths of three fighters. Another group, Brigades of Global Jihad, also posted on a jihadist Web forum, but the communique was deleted, according to SITE. A third group, Liberators Battalion of Hebron, sent a message to Israeli media claiming responsibility, according to news reports in Israel. An Israel military officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing said Saturday that “there are a lot of statements floating around, and they will be evaluated.” But he cautioned that such groups, if they exist, often make claims that turn out to be false. William Booth and Ruth Eglash , 'Israel says three missing teens were kidnapped by a terrorist group,' Washington Post

• (5) At least three different statements claiming responsibility for abducting the teenagers have reportedly been issued by different groups, one claiming to be affiliated with the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, one calling itself Ahrar al-Khalil, and one claiming to be the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades; this last statement was reported to have been subsequently denied. It is entirely unclear whether any of these claims are credible.'Abducted Israeli teens must be released, Israel must cease collective punishment of Palestinians,' Amnesty International 17 June 2014.

There are many more. Excising things on sight is lazy-mindedness.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Therefore, (a) Several groups have claimed responsibility . ."Regiments of Hezbollah".

(b)'The claims for responsibility are not considered credible.'(Jodi Rudoren 'Bedouin Trackers Hunting for Israeli Boys,' New York Times 23 June 2014) must be restored to the lead.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A background note until RS come forth

Waiting for RS details to emerge, this is the family background of the two suspects.

• Ammar Muhammad’s brother Zaid Abu Eisha, was shot dead, age 24. The Israel version is that, on the evening of the 19th of November 2005 he was shot near the Israeli settlement of Telem southwest of Hebron when (a) either an explosive belt he wore blew up, and he was injured (b) or while trying to "throw and explosive" at them. In (a) Drawn to the noise, the IDF soldiers went over to him as he lay on the ground, and shot him dead. The Palestinian version is that he was walking home and was shot dead by a passing patrol near a gas pump at Farsh al-Hawa, northwest of Hebron. The IDF left his body at the Tarqumiyah crossing.
• Marwan al-Qawasmi’s uncle 'Abdallah 'Abd al-Qader Husseini al-Qawasmeh (41) was assassinated by a special IDF undercover squad in a targeted killing on 10 pm on 21 June 2003 as he left the Al Ansar mosque in Hebron. (He's listed at List of Israeli assassinations) Both sides agree on this. The only difference is that the IDF said they tried to arrest him, whereas local journalists and witnesses to the event said no attempt to arrest him was made. As usual we have conflicting reports, and it will be of interest to observe how RS spin or represent the background.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Times of Israel source used writes of Abdallah al-Qawasmeh that he died in 'a battle with SWAT officers in November 2003'

The name is identical with the Abdallah al-Qawasmeh registered by B'tselem as being assassinated in June of that year. I have thus changed the date (WP:OR overruled by WP:IAR). However, there is a further problem. Both the IDF and the Palestinian reports concur there was 'no battle'. He was just shot as he came out of a mosque/or got out of his car/a taxi near the mosque. I presume the journalists just slipped into the standard jargon. I've left it in, but it looks dubious from crosschecking original reports, at least so far. Checked. The IDF report said he was shot dead while attempting to run away. No armed 'clash'. I have removed the troublesome words. Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2014(UTC)

Week 3 Friday 27 June. 3 Palestinians were wounded in the Balata refugee camp overnight. The villages of Salim, Aqraba and Qablan village near Az-Zawiya were raided. Hundreds of Palestinians from Umm al-Fahm demonstrated against the IDF operation and the practice of administrative detention.

Saturday June 28.18 Palestinians, 12 described as Hamas operatives were arrested overnight. Israeli shrapnel wounded a 15 year old boy from Duheisha refugee camp, where two arrests were made. Two arrests were made in the al-Saff neighborhood and Marah Rabah. The chief clerk of the Ramallah court was detained in Deir Abu Mash'al, and a student at An-Najah National University in Nablus, and a former prisoner was re-arrested in the al-Bathan area north of Nablus. Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sanjar

The only Sanjar I know of in the West Bank is the area in the Old City of Hebron around the Al-Jawali Mosque. Any one, esp. those reading the Israeli-Hebrew newspapers, got a clue as to what the Ma'an report is hinting at?Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

=Sanjir neighbourhood, near Dura, and the place where the Hyundai was found.(Gideon Levy, Alex Levac ‘The Palestinian teen whose death went unnoticed by Israel,’ Haaretz 28 June 2014). Nishidani (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Brecrewer. I was about to revert the following snippet canelled by your self-revert when I realized that, in doing so, I would break IRR. Actually, I think you are correct that this

|reported missing = 3; Israeli-American Naftali Frankel (16, from Nof Ayalon), Israeli Gilad Shaer (16, from Talmon), and Israeli Eyal Yifrah (19, from Elad)

should be in the infobox above deaths, per NPOV, other than its intrinsic importance. Both should be represented in the infobox. I certainly won't object if you put it back there. Perhaps someone without revert problems will do so, otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it in making that remark since I see it is there. My point therefore is, it should certainly be shifted above the death list. I tried to do this, but somehow my attempt failed. Epeefleche, surely you have the competence to shift it up?Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Requiescant

A lot of refs have been added without the information available (perhaps some contradictory) in Israeli sources, which are to be preferred. The text for the moment should read On June 30th, 2014, a search team located the bound bodies of the three boys in an open field near Khirbet Aranava in the Wadi Tellem area, between Halhul and Karmei Tzur, about 3 km west of the former, just north of Hebron.

I might add that this appalling site reawakens memories not only of the 2007 Nahal Telem attack but, since it is in proximity to Telem where one of the suspect ( Ammar Abu A'isha)'s brother's was killed (Zaid Abu A`isha) it almost looks like a signature of a personal vendetta by one of the suspects.

(2)Could some editor be kind enough to restore File:Mohammed Dudin body after Day 8

Day 8 (20 June).

The body of 15 year old Mohammed Dudeen killed by the IDF in Dura during operation Brother’s Keeper, 20 June 2014

It was taken out immediately after the news of the youths' deaths was announced, and the edit looks vindictive. It was done by an IP and was unmotivated.Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)