Jump to content

Talk:2014 Gush Etzion kidnapping and murder/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Background section

[edit]

I realized what bothers me with the background section. Other than the fact that the first paragraph is SYNTH, the second deals mainly with whether this incident is what lead to Protective Edge or not. The Ayman Mohyeldin stuff, the Rachel Shabi stuff and the Christine Leuenberger stuff all deal with that issue. This stuff probably belongs in the PE article or maybe could be used at the end of this one, but it's certainly not "background" for this incident. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has anything to say about this? Should I remove the section? Move it somewhere? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The background section was done carefully and collegially, and has a substantial amount of material, and should be removed only if there is a substantial consensus. Could you elaborate on its putative defects? Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I did so above. It deals mainly with the issue of whether this incident was what caused the war or was it something else. That's not "background" for this article. That, and the fact the first paragraph is mainly OR, the link with the topic of this article being made by the editors including it, rather than the sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In logical terms, there are three events: A (Beitunia), B (Teens' murder) (C) Operation protective Edge. Most narratives connected B and C causally. Several sources connect A to C, and protest the ascendancy of the B/C narrative. You are saying that sources connecting A to C cannot be used to connect A to B, except by inference, i.e. WP:OR, rather than WP:SYNTH. That's a fair objection, and I will examine the sources more closely tomorrow. My may concern is that, removal of an inadequate (I would prefer, now that I've examined it closely to call it a tad 'inept') background, leaves one with a known POV, i.e., since B and C are all connected, Israeli kids were killed, Palestinians were responsible, and war was the result, a known semi-official POV, but one contested by the other party, which looks at the longer context and background. I am in general opposed to removalist editing, even of inadequate stuff. I think it incumbent to write or rewrite what we have by improving sourcing, not to demolish whatever we have because it is not of GA quality.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that whatever caused C, it can't be "background" for an event that happened prior to C. Aftermath maybe, but not background. "What caused C" is background for the C article. That's besides the SYNTH thing which should be solved regardless. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you reformulate that? In a sequence of events A↦B↦C, both A + B qualify as events prior to C. You imply that A, prior to B, cannot however be adduced as background for B, regardless of what caused C which sources variously connect causally to either B or A or both. That doesn't follow logically. And in any case Pappé speculates"The killing of three Israeli teenagers (B) . . was mainly a reprisal for killings of Palestinian children in May (A). Whether A or B caused C is, in that statement, irrelevant, because one source argues that A mainly caused B.
It is not WP:SYNTH in a background section to cite elements temporally prior to an event (B) which retrospectively are considered relevant to the context of that event. Events are not-context free. That B is thought to lead to C is not background, but aftermath, as you note. That A is considered by several sources connected to both B and C, does not mean however that, ipso facto A cannot be considered background to B. That flies against commonsense and sources. The problem is not the content, or sources, but poor organization and drafting. What is pure aftermath, should be relegated to the Aftermath section (C), not deleted.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not imply that "that A, prior to B, cannot however be adduced as background for B". On the contrary, I said an event can be background for something that happened after it occurred. In this case, A could be background for B (assuming V) and A and B could be background for C. But C can't be background for A or B, as is the case here.
You have also misunderstood what I said about SYNTH. The SYNTH part is the parts in the background section that have not been "retrospectively [are] considered relevant to the context of that event" by a reliable source. That is obvious by the fact that most of them were written before the event. There's nothing retrospective about them.
As for Pappe, he wrote an opinion piece where he speculates about a news story. He is not an expert on current events, he's an expert on history. He is speculating about a 3rd party. Why is his opinion relevant and notable here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll just remove the Pappe stuff per REDFLAG. This is something you'd expect to be covered by multiple reliable sources if it wasn't fringe. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the opinion is reiterated again and again and again. Anything after -
Mainstream western media ascribe the initiation of the major 2014 conflict to the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers.[59] Some news analysts believe that earlier clashes might also have played a role in the chain of events. On 15 May two Palestinian teenagers were shot dead during the Nakba commemorations in the Beitunia killings. An autopsy report published on 9 June proved the death of one of them to be due to "live fire", i.e. not rubber bullets.”[60]
is repetitive. I would leave the sources and get rid of the text.95.86.89.17 (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge of burial place

[edit]

Brewcrewer You removed (The Israeli authorities) also knew where (the) victims’ bodies were probably dumped’.

horrifically misleading. the artcile makes ti clear that they could not find the bodies

Are you saying that the source is horribly misleading? Because what you removed was precisely the phrasing in the source.

"Within days of the kidnapping, investigators knew roughly what had happened and where the bodies had probably been dumped. But lacking precise intelligence, all they could do was scour the area until the bodies were found."Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brewcrewer: Please see this edit by No More Mr Nice Guy and the discussion here, which led to the consensual text. If you dispute the wording, suggest a better one, instead of removing stuff like this. See WP:PRESERVE. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the authorities only "strongly suspected" that the boys were killed, they obviously could not know where the bodies were buried. The wording should reflect that. All Rows4 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is second-guessing the source, which we don't do. Harel has better sources within the Israeli security services than I you or anyone else here has.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not, it is basic English reading comprehension. All Rows4 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian:You skipped the second sentence of the Haaretz article that Nishidani quoted above. Also this one sentence is not the consensual text agreed to in the discussion you link to. I will not PRESERVE misleading pov pushing, but will remove pronto.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll construe the sentence for you.

investigators knew roughly what had happened and where the bodies had probably been dumped. But lacking precise intelligence, all they could do was scour the area until the bodies were found

That means the investigators knew the area where the bodies were buried, but not the actual burial point.
This allows one to write, with perfect fidelity to the source,
'The Israeli authorities knew the approximate area where the victims’ bodies were probably dumped’.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, if they didn't know (as opposed to 'strongly suspect') that a killing had occurred, they can only 'Strongly suspect" (but not know) what the approximate area of burial was. All Rows4 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are contradicting the source (WP:OR) which uses the word know.Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it says "probably". They thought they were probably dead and the bodies were probably in a certain general area. They didn't know for sure, and kept looking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I commend now NMMGG's edit on this, with one reservation. It creates a dissonance with the preceding sentence. We should be able to iron this all out, with a little good will. I.e.,

Within days, Israeli investigators strongly suspected that they had been killed, but lacked conclusive evidence. They also knew the approximate area where victims' bodies were probably dumped

You cannot logically 'suspect strongly' someone was killed and know roughly where they were probably dumped'.Sometimes the source is to blame for these problems, as I think here.

'Within days, Israeli investigators, though lacking conclusive proof, strongly suspected the teenagers had been killed, and, if so, knew where the victims' bodies would probably have been dumped.'

That's what Harel should have written had he been less guarded about the implications of what his sources were telling him. He wasn't, and screwed up. The first sentence says 'They suspected' (hypothesis), the second 'they knew' (certainty). My proposal is actually a distortion of the source because it makes the objective certainty of 'knew' into a circumstantial hypothesis. But something like that is required logically, even if it ncancels out an important implication in Hsrel's report. Otherwise we stay with NMMGG's edit, and leave it to readers to figure out. Nishidani talk) 17:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A. Kindly stop commending me. That's patronizing.
B. I felt there was something wrong with the way it was worded, but wasn't sure how to fix it. This is why I usually ask other editors to propose text. Keep this in mind for next time.
C. I'll make the edit per your suggestion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'A. Kindly stop commending me. That's patronizing.' Sigh. You won't believe me but I appreciated that edit as a an intelligent and rapid compromise. I commend such things often, and you are no exception. But, I'll drop the courtesy if you find it distasteful.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brewcrewer: I linked to the edit made above because it was not even me who wrote the text in the first place. I linked to No More Mr Nice Guy's edit to dispel any notion that there was any "POV-pushing" since anybody can see that NMMNG does not have the same POV as me. Since the reference cited explicitly states that the location of the bodies was roughly known, but not the exact area, if you wished to find a NPOV version, you could have easily changed the phrasing the reflect that. But no, you removed the text, with an assertion that it is misleading. Why? Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it is misleading to say that Israeli authorities knew where the boys bodies were, when we say they didn't even know they were killed, only suspected it. Words do have meanings. All Rows4 (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

The lead is very long. We should trim it considerably. I thought taking out the Hugh Lovatt thing would be a good start since this is someone nobody has heard about and who doesn't appear anywhere else in the encyclopedia, speculating on something, basically saying "either it's true or it isn't", and not appearing in the body of the article. Apparently some of you think it's very important. Could you explain why?

In the same vein, I think that whole paragraph should be shortened considerably. Meshal said Hamas didn't do it but approves, al-Arouri said Hamas did do it, if we have more than one guy speculating that Arouri is lying we can mention that, then Goldberg saying there's nothing in the indictment and that's it. How long does this need to be? The lead is supposed to be a summary.

Also, barring the BBC actually reporting about it, I think the reporter's tweet and the denial should also be removed. If the BBC itself didn't report this, that's a good indication the information is problematic. Noting again this does not appear at all in the body and is not a summary of anything, per LEAD.

And lastly, the lead is not organized chronologically. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead could be one paragraph. The problem is, that if one starts excising stuff from the lead, while not simply relocating it down to its proper place 8details) down the page, any thinning of the lead risks being an exercise in removalism, on whatever grounds,as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers&diff=665384070&oldid=665381516 lot Spoiler's recent edit shows. If it's not appropriate to lead, then it's a simple edit to take it out of the lead, and' place it lower down. Not to do this is to engage in information removal tout court, and invite POV edit warring. Nishidani (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's quite acceptable to remove stuff from the lead because it's not in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarize, and something that's just in the lead is not a summary. If the reason you're reverting is because you want the information to be retained then put it in the body instead of just reverting the removal.
I have no problem with any of the stuff I suggest removing form the lead above being moved to the body. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between a neutral edit involving the removal of material from the lead and a POV motivated removal is that in the former, the material excused is relocated in the body of the article. In the latter case, it is simply thrown down the gurgler. What is as stake is the reliability of the material, and the appropriate place to put it. Editors who fail to conserve useful material by simply expunging stuff invite editwarring, and place the burden of an adjustment they can easily make on others. The drift is, in my POV this doesn't stand. If someone with a different POV objects, then restore it, but not here. That is obvious gameplaying or laziness, present company excluded.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not in the body it shouldn't be in the lead. That's what I think and I believe Wikipedia guidelines support this. Moreover, the WP:ONUS is always on whoever wants to include material. So the only thing causing an edit war in these cases, are those editors who are not familiar enough with the rules or are gameplaying as you said. Present company excluded. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Translation, if it is in the lead, and not in the body of the article, self-evidently the editor noting this should transfer it to the appropriate section. The argument is not about WP:ONUS (since many edits remove material of long standing that is well-sourced. Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on this and it was actually in the body of the article but less detailed. I mentioned before that Arouri's comment is placed in three different sections here (one of them including the doubt expressed about his comments) and it is still the same now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article from today in Haaretz about Saleh Arouri's comments: "After the bodies were found, Arouri boasted about the kidnapping. But the defense establishment believes this was empty boasting, and that he had nothing to do with the plot". --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nishidani and IRISZOOM. While No More Mr Nice Guy is correct that there shouldn't be material in the lead that isn't in the body, or with more detail than the body, that doesn't mean the correct course is to remove such material. If the info should be in the article then it should be moved to the article. If you can't be bothered integrating it properly either leave it for someone else, or move it to somewhere else even if it's not properly integrated. It's unfortunate that people like to randomly stick stuff in the lead which often not only doesn't belong, but which they never bothered to add to the article, however it happens all the time all over the place. (And yes I find it frustrating too.) If you really want, it would be acceptable to politely remind editors who did that not to do so, unless they're IPs which show no sign of being sticky in which case it's probably pointless if it's been more than a day or two. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas stance

[edit]

In the interviews linked as a source, the Hamas leader did not say that the kidnapping and killing had been "legitimate", at least he did not use such words. I think a better word would be "understandable". Here is the exact quote:

But we understand people are frustrated under the occupation and the oppression, and they take all kinds of action
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.612039

--89.14.103.230 (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Gush_Etzion_kidnapping_and_murder/Archive_5&oldid=1225333147"