Talk:2014 Gush Etzion kidnapping and murder/Archive 2

EP. Unacceptable from an editor of experience

The former's brother was killed in a clash with the IDF in November 2005 as the brother was trying to throw explosives at soldiers, while the latter's uncle, a Hamas military commander, was killed in a battle with an Israeli SWAT squad in June 2003.[125]

Epeefleche, in your last several edits you have rewritten completely this reportage while ignoring the talk page section, flying indeed in the fact of its evidence, stating as facts what happen to be the IDF official version, restoring material removed because patently inexact or partisan, while repressing the fact that Palestinian accounts as I showed here on the talk page give a different version. That is the most elementary of POV pushing errors, and violates WP:NPOV, and you certainly should know better.

Ischaroff evidently used one of several official reports and got either the details wrong or to spun, against several witnesses, the IDF official version.I went into great detail, researching the lost versions, before making my own edit, while withholding the details except for the talk page in order not to complicate or distort reportage.

• Palestinians called the killing an assassination, and one witness, Mohammed Nasser Eddin, 26, said Kawasme was unarmed. Nasser Eddin said Kawasme had just gotten out of a taxi outside a mosque when three vans approached from different directions."He (Kawasme) started to run into a field, and then there was shooting from one of the vans, and then a lot of army jeeps came to the area and they (soldiers) told us all to go inside the mosque and not leave."LIHEpA Chronological Review of Events Relating to the Question of Palestine MONTHLY MEDIA MONITORING REVIEW June 2003, UNISPAL June 3003.

• Israeli troops shot dead a top Hamas official in the West Bank city of Hebron as drafters of the peace "road map" prepared to meet on Sunday to discuss ways of salvaging peace efforts imperiled by two weeks of violence. Witnesses said soldiers shot Hamas leader Abdullah Kawasme on Saturday as he got out of his car near a large mosque known as a Hamas stronghold in Hebron. Palestinians labeled the killing an "assassination," but Israeli security sources said troops attempted to arrest Kawasme. A political source said Kawasme was one of Israel's most wanted militants responsible for a series of attacks on Israelis, including last week's bus bombing in Jerusalem that killed 17 people. 'Israeli troops kill top Hamas official,' China Daily 22 June 2003

• Abdullah Kawasme, a top Hamas leader was assassinated by the Israelis in the West Bank city of Hebron on Saturday, Israeli military officials said.Israeli Radio said he was shot dead by an elite army unit while trying to resist arrest. Witnesses said they saw soldiers shooting at a car in which Kawasme was reportedly trying to flee. 'Israel kills Hamas leader,' AlJazeera 21 June

The same goes for the 2005 incident where you have 'trying to throw explosives' as the only version. This is how Haaretz reported the incident at the time.

• A Hamas militant was shot and killed Friday night by soldiers after he was injured when the explosives belt he was carrying blew up. The incident occurred near the settlement of Telem, southwest of Hebron in the West Bank. Israel Defense Forces troops in a jeep heard an explosion that was apparently the result of a `work accident.` Arriving at the scene, soldiers shot and killed the man, Zeid Abu A`isha, 24, of Hebron, after they saw him lying on the ground with injuries. Remnants of the explosives belt were found on his body, and an additional device was on the ground nearby. Jonathan Lis, Nir Hasson and Arnon Regular 'Hamas man killed by soldiers after bomb malfunction,' Haaretz 20 November 2005

No mention at all of 'throwing explosives'. That is the second version. The first IDF handout simply says he blew himself up, and was approached and shot dead. We don't know the truth, and pretending you do is not acceptable. PS. The swat squad, if you examine the record, was actually a Israel Border Police’s special Yamam unit Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nish -- I don't have time now to go back and show you where in the refs it supported that language, but I do recall that the refs did support it. In fact -- and this is a bigger issue, that courses through the document, including the infobox ... if one did not know better one might thing there is an effort by some to hide the fact that the deaths here took place in what may be viewed as somewhat different circumstances ... the Israeli deaths mentioned took place while the boys were in the act of hitchhiking; many of the other deaths took place while the individuals were engaged in somewhat different activities. It makes little sense, from a non-POV perspective, to conceal that from the readers of the article, though it has been done repeatedly. Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the refs you used supported the edits you made, EP. The problem is, to cite one which I recall, by Avi Isacharoff, he is one of several sources on that day. I tried throughout to get several sources in order to ensure that NPOV was maintained, since a large amount of our reportage comes from Israeli accounts of what official Israeli sources state. And, secondly, since confusion reigned, I went back and checked the original accounts on both cases, and found, the confusion compounded. Therefore, since Isacharoff had chosen only one pro-IDF version, he could not be used, since it conflicts with both some IDF versions and Palestinian versions.

'Different circumstances?' The Beitunia killings jhust a month earlier were almost identical, since we now know the kids were killed almost immediately and yet got some coverage for two days, and then fell off the radar screen.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As to your second point, you don't read the Palestinian press or, I gather, much of the Israeli reportage that covers what happens to them. What happened to the Israeli kids, happens dozens of times over each month to Palestinian kids, and that is why they have a hard time figuring out why Israeli tragedies are known throughout world through massive press coverage, and their tragedies, statistically several times higher, are unknown or, as you intimate, invariably noted en passant as accidents (1,000 in a decade) in which kids throwing stones are shot dead. I.e. Israel doesn't abduct people, which it is does; Israel doesn't shoot innocents, which it does, repeatedly, and the soldiers are not punished.

One doesn't justify the other. As wikipedians, we are obliged to give both sides of any story, and do so in a way that does not violate the pillar of reportorial neutrality. It is undoubtedly true that, had not those kids been kidnapped, 7 Palestrinians would be alive today. It is probably that, had those children not been hitchhiking in an occupied territory in an environment where 129 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,523 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000 (I Israeli vs 11 Palestinians happens to be the historic ratio governing the whole history of the conflict) such events would not occur. It's a tragedy for all, not a uniquely tragic event for just one party. You have your POV, I mine. They pressure us, and we are obliged to rein in temptations to spin it one way or another, which most of our sources, however, do.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Nish -- I don't have time now to cull through all the articles, but I as a general rule support inclusion of RS material. I don't think I've deleted any. And in my (relatively few) edits to this article, I believe I've included some text but only with RS support. If you have other RS-supported text that conflicts (not mentioning x is not a conflict, but text that says "not-x" is a conflict), then I expect I would not have any issue with its inclusion w/regard to material covered in the article. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In The News homepage

This should really appear on the 'In The News' section on the homepage of Wikipedia, as it is all over the media. Not sure how to get it there, but much appreciated if some of you manage to get it done. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

photo caption: Street in Ramallah after IDF raid

The photo show the result of a violent conflict between the Palestinian and the soldiers which were searching for the missing teenagers. The current caption is misleading since it implies the devastation was done only by the soldiers. 21:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.28.168.139 (talk)

It violates WP:OR too. Deleted. Wikieditorpro (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleting all non-IDF propaganda images from the article is obviously not going to fly. Dlv999 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your attempt to only include anti-Israel propaganda images combined with your own propaganda captions won't fly either. Start by showing an RS for those images. Wikieditorpro (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Justifications

Besides for the emotive and highly POV tone of the paragraph ("begged his Israeli listeners" etc.) the Background, possible motives, and suspects begins with a justification for the attack which is irrelevant as per WP:ROC. The BBC and others are reporting that the teens appeared to have been killed soon after the kidnapping, so the "motive" that they were abducted in exchange for terrorists being held in Israeli prisons does not appear to be relevant. Wikieditorpro (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Typical of these news stories is that a fact emphasized initially is found to be not relevant later and vice versa. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What is relevant is what RS reports as relevant. Obviously we have a systemic bias in the IP topic area where a proportion of the editors hold opinions that prevent them from accurately representing certain sourced facts and viewpoints per RS. Wikiedipro's speculation is just that, speculation. If you look at the latest news reports: "Although other possibilities continue to be weighed, according to this view, Shaer’s phone call to the police triggered an immediate end to their lives." The assumption behind this viewpoint being that the abductors were panicked by the phone call to the police and immediately murdered teenagers. Obviously this does not rule out the possibility that their original motives involved some sort of prisoner exchange. Again let's just represent what the sources say. Any speculation that editors may have outside the sources is irrelevant. Dlv999 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, not to preclude the possibility, at this time, that they did not plan on killing the three initially. However editors are supposed to use their editorial discretion via consensus to determine what reliably sourced content is more relevant and what content is less relevant. The background apologist section rationalizing kidnapping of kids should have been trimmed to begin with and undoubtedly should be trimmed now.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states that viewpoints should be given weight according to there prominence in RS. Local agreement between editors to remove significant viewpoints in RS or to not represent them according to their prominence in RS is not consistent with our WP:NPOV policy. Articles are based on sources, not the opinions and ideological agenda of groups of editors. Dlv999 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about viewpoints. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You have expressed a strong opinion against a particular significant viewpoint that has been published in RS covering the topic. You are also advocating deletion of the particular significant viewpoint that you disagree with. In my view that is classic POV pushing, editing on your opinions and not source analysis. The important thing here is that the possible reasons and motivations for the kidnap is something that is widely and extensively discussed in RS. Your view that this discussion is "apologist" "rationalising" is irrelevant. Dlv999 (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

To the extent it is factually moot it no longer remains a "viewpoint." If from subsequent sources it becomes known there was no intention on keeping them alive (Hamas has done this in the past) the background section rationalizing kidnapping for prisoner exchanges becomes moot and is no longer a "viewpoint" requiring consideration. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It was always speculation -- speculation that can now be discarded given what is being reported now. I already removed this information and I'm not sure why Dlv999 reverted given that there is no longer any basis for this justification/speculation, and the tone of the paragraph is clearly POV. Wikieditorpro (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as it is the speculation of reliable sources in connection with this kidnapping it is eligible for inclusion. At this time, it is still unclear whether the operation was intended as a kidnapping/murder or a kidnapping/hostage so I don't think I can support removing entirely all material relating to the "justification" for such kidnapping. I am open to being corrected.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Days of the week

In "Sequence of events", other than (at most, perhaps) in Day 1, I don't think it is relevant to mention the day of the week in the parenthetical immediately following the title. The same may hold for any other references to the day of the week within that section, but one would have to look at them. I suggest excision where it is not adding anything of material value, as this has lingered more than a week. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Week one and week two might be required at this point. On the other hand, one could argue that stating the date rather than using 'Day 1/2/3' is more useful to readers. Day 6 etc..just leaves the question open, 'when precisely?' and in offering our readership this focus, the 'day 1,2,3..' system is probably at this point the one to go, if a change were needed. In any case, let's see what the general opinion here is.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

One of those approaches makes sense. In addition to my prior post in this thread, IMHO, which could be acted upon now. Epeefleche (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

While we're waiting for imput from others here, what about if we agree in the meantime to take out the days (Saturday, Sunday etc.) leaving for the mo', for example, just day 1' (12/13 June) etc.? (These things, like your edit overnight, shouldn't count as reverts. In my book, I think we should establish consensually here that reverting edits that overturn talk page consensual points, like I/P edits that are patently disruptive, don't count in that scheme? Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree as to the dates. And as to your second point -- makes sense, certainly. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Done (I'll do this stuff, so the rest can reserve their revert rights, just in case). I left in the first (Thursday-Friday) because it is the only one that could be justified (in that the reason for the lads hiking at that time was to return to their respective homes for Shabbos, a point which isn't explicit. Perhaps we could make that clear?)Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Time to revisit this? I like the comment above along the lines that dates would provide better context to readers than just a day count. This holds true even after they become weeks. Days of the week? Take it or leave it. WIthin a week, it provides better context than simply a date. I for one would be happy to see ==Week 1== Summary of key points for the week === Day 1: Thursday, 12 June=== details === Day 2: Friday, 13 June=== ... Dovid (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

*Problems

• were identified as key suspects in the kidnapping by the Israel Security Agency on 26 June

Nope. They were identified as suspects within 24 hours of the kidnapping according to intelligence officials. The ISA revealed their names publicly (which had been under a press gag order) on the 26th.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• What is the suggested change? That the word "to the public" be added after "identified"? And that after "26 June" we add ", though that had been identified as such by the ISA within 24 hours of the kidnapping."? I don't have time to check the refs, but if that matchs that sounds right. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We have this in Day 1

• Police placed a gag order re the abduction on Israeli news services by 13 June (the identity of the presumed kidnappers, acolytes of senior Hamas members, being known almost from the beginning.

I hope I got the source right there, and if so, then it creates dissonance with the later statement I cite above, where 'identify' suggests that on June 26 the ISA figured out who the culprits were, in conflict with the source for the earlier line (Day 1) which says their identity was known on day 1.

I'm rather fatigued, but I'm sure you can iron this out, as with many other points here.Nishidani (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Some more information about the identification of the alleged perpetrators in this source Dlv999 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Good digging. Epeefleche himself in a link to the name twigged (as I had but didn't get round to the link because I thought it reflected my personal suspicion rather than any textual justification) precisely what Shlomo Eldar suggests. This is very good quality RS and unusually insightful. I haven't looked at the page today, but it should go in.

Shlomi Eldar, 'Accused kidnappers are rogue Hamas branch,' Al-Monitor 29 June 2014. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Title of article

At the moment the title of the article, 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teens, is completely wrong. 8 people have lost their lives, not 3 (as the title implies). Should we perhaps move it to Operation 'Brother’s Keeper'? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No. The subject of the article is as stated. This is also consistent with similar articles of this type. We do have to split the article soon, however -- we are at the 96.5% point. Once it hits 100K, which will be momently, it should be split. And, as you point out, the Operation is part of what is currently covered in the article. It would make sense to move that out to a new, separate article. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Epeefleche, except for splitting the article. Spin-offs are huge technical disasters unless there is thorough preliminary groundwork, and any number of articles exceed the 100% because the sources are so numerous. In any case, this should be mulled in serener moments than at the moment.Nishidani (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As to the size, I started the discussion about it a day and a half ago, so people would have time before the split to mull. I pointed to WP:TOOBIG. Which states that: > 60 kB -- Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material) ... > 100 kB -- Almost certainly should be divided". We're at the point that per the guideline it already should be divided. And soon it will be at the "almost certainly should be divided" point. By all means, as we move inexorably to 100K, people should mull further. And chat here further. But as we are already at the point, and have been at it for some time, where it probably should be divided, and as the failure to follow the guideline is leading to confusion and complications in the infobox, now would be a perfect time to mull further and address the issue. Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be very wary about splitting the article. The main concern I see is WP:POVFORK as unfortunately it will probably be used as a means to keep sourced relevant details out of (or given less weight) in the more prominent article. Dlv999 (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-issue. It's an appropriate divide. See all the other articles mentioned on this tp, where the "event" and the "operation" are different pages. Including Gilad Shalit, and the operation, which is a very similar event/operation circumstance. Plus, as to what an inappropriate fork is, see again the comments on this page re article length, and understand how that appropriately leads to forking, per WP:SPINOFF. A complete non-issue. Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, let's see what others have to say. Dlv999 (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The main effect of the proposed divide is to completely isolate the incident from its historical context, and create another example of the 'wild Arab terrorist/we victims paradigm' . Every time these articles are written, initially there is an attempt to describe an incident, out of the blue, in which Israelis are victims of terrorism, without any context. See the edit history of Death of Yehuda Shoham. No context please, nothing about the surrounding events even if mentioned in many sources. Since all of our sources contextualize the kidnapping within this larger picture, the length is not a problem. Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

All casualties are a direct consequence of the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers. The title is appropriate. See for example Kidnapping and murder of Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon, Kidnapping and murder of Nissim Toledano, Kidnapping and murder of Yaron Chen, Kidnapping and murder of Nachshon Wachsman (resulting in two Israeli soldiers and three Palestinian militants killed), Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran, Kidnapping and murder of Eliyahu Asheri, Kidnapping of Alan Johnston.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

comment by Grawp/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis deleted per WP:BANREVERT Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(Not responsible for the "terrorist cockroaches" remark above) - I don't really know why WP has articles like this about very emotive highly charged events written right in the middle of when they are taking place. I agree with the comment on AN/I that this is more suitable for a newspaper than an encyclopedia and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, it's just asking for trouble.It wasn't possible to write an encyclopedia articles on paper about war crimes etc the day the victims were buried, perspective and calm were a by-product of the unavoidable time lapse. These articles on WP get a lot of attention worldwide and I have to ask why are amateurs like me allowed to have a say in them? however that is the way things are and since "anyone can edit" my opinion is that this article's focus should stay about the murder of the three teenagers, not the "operation" following or around it and the title should not be changed.Smeat75 (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

My recommendation is to avoid structural changes while the article is still in very active editing. This will probably take another couple of weeks while information is still fresh and editors add more info that they come across. Once the article is more stable, we can discuss how (if?) to make such changes. Otherwise, we risk starting an orthogonal set of issues (aren't we argiuing enough about the facts alone?), and likely lose some edits to the breakup. Which is guaranteed to violate 1RRDovid (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I thoroughly concur. Some tighter collective control should be exercised over arbitrarily or conspicously POV editing here (I commend Epeefleche for his exercise, rather tiresome quality control generally). I saw that someone plunked in 'justifiable deaths of Arab terrorists and rioters during Israel's operations on the West Bank' for the UN Security Council's words about collective punishment. How long as that been there? We are all obliged to remove that kind of stuff at sight, and report offenders for distorting the sources with blatant POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

tangential material in infobox

I removed the deaths from the infobox. The deaths may be a direct result of the kidnapping a partial result of the kidnapping or may not result from the kidnapping at all. Infoboxes are limited to the basic facts of the incident and not background or consequences of the incident that may or may not be original research. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

All the deaths in the infobox are confirmed by RS to be related to the disappearance of three Israelis. The Palestinians which were killed by Israelis in the same time period but not confirmed as related to the disappearance were not included. Sepsis II (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That is pure speculation. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Israel routinely carries out military operations in the West Bank. There is no way to say with certainty that any particular operation or incident was caused by the kidnapping and murders. Some of those arrested by Israel were for other reasons i.e. they would have been arrested sooner or later, for reasons not related to the kidnappings. This just happened to be a convenient time since they were already conducting searches in the area. Wikieditorpro (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

These are people who have been killed as a direct result of the IDF's "Brother's Keeper Operation in Judea & Samaria". Each death is directly linked to the subject of this article by multiple reliable sources and there are many additional uncited sources available. There is no original research. These are basic facts of the incident that should be included in the infobox. Can you confirm that you believe that information about people who are killed as a direct result of the IDF's "Brother's Keeper Operation in Judea & Samaria" (and it doesn't matter who they are, Israeli soldiers, settlers or Palestinians, they just happen to all be Palestinians at the moment) should be treated as "tangential material" and excluded from the article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You're setting a very dangerous precedent where the infobox of every article about a singular terrorist attack or incident, can have all kinds of historical and tangential information not related to the event itself.

This kind of infobox stuffing only happens with articles involving Israeli victims when certain editors attempt to bury any information about the deaths of Israeli victims because it isn't helpful to the narrative they are pushing.Wikieditorpro (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep the infobox relevant to the incident of the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teens, not other incidents. Wikieditorpro (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ask yourself, Brewcrewer; would you even use the word "tangential" if, say Israeli soldiers had been killed as a consequence of the the kidnapping? Oh, but Palestinian lives does not count? They are "tangential". Hmmm. Thank you for charing. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Brewcrewer is bringing up a legitimate issue. You on the other hand are just using slogans and harsh wordings to make your point. If you have a something to add to the discussion, by all means please do, Brewcrewer might just be wrong. Saying that he's a racist or differentiates between deaths of different people is baseless slandering.Chocom (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes you might want to withdraw your despicable accusations of racism. I'm not accusing anyone here of not "charing" (sic) about the kidnapped Jews. You can show the same decency.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• I do think that the IDF's "Brother's Keeper Operation in Judea & Samaria", which is largely connected directly to the kidnapping (though not exclusively) -- were it made into a wp article -- should have such information in the infobox on the Operation. And perhaps someone should start such an article. And I do think at this point that mention of the operation and the deaths seems to be relevant within the article. But since the article is "the kidnapping", it makes sense that deaths and injuries related directly to the kidnapping should certainly be reflected, but I do not at this point believe the infobox itself should list such information that is two steps away -- which is the case here. So, connected enough for discussion in the article, but not sufficiently directly related to warrant inclusion in the infobox. Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Why limit it to the deaths? why not add in all the arrests that took place? Or add in the three-finger celebration that is prevalent now in the Arab world? Or the other kidnappings that reliable sourced find germane to this one? There is no reasonable line that can be drawn if editors want to put into the infobox material that is not limited to the kidnapping itself. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Or add in the three-finger celebration that is prevalent now in the Arab world?" There's no way a reliable source would ever link that with this event just because a few propaganda sites are recaptioning old photos of supporters of Mohammed Assaf as being related to this event doesn't mean we should even think about it. Sepsis II (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any sense at all to have a separate articles covering (i) the disappearance of the teenagers and (ii) Israel's response to the disappearance of the teenagers as suggested by Epeefleche. It makes much more sense to have one article covering all aspects of the incident, that is certainly how it is covered in RS. Clearly if we are going to have one article covering the whole topic Palestinian deaths cannot be treated as "tangential material". Dlv999 (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't think it makes "any sense at all" to split this article? Have you failed to read the below? I don't see any WP-supportable reason for that "any sense at all" assertion. Just look at the examples. Plus, we are at a size where we should be in any event splitting the article shortly, per Wikipedia:Article size. Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment -- Yes, to my prior point, we had World War I follow Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. But there, we list in the infobox, for number of deaths -- 2. Not 37 million. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 infoboxes similarly don't include deaths resulting from the follow-up military actions by the U.S. Epeefleche (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think those examples are particularly relevant to this topic. A better analogy would be something like the Boston Marathon bombings. If you look at the infobox there the deaths and injuries included are those that occurred on the day of the bombing, and also those that occurred during the police response and manhunt. There are not two article for the bombing and the police response to the bombing. Dlv999 (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

With the Boston bombing, those were the deaths of the bomber, and a victim of the bomber which were obviously linked.

If the terrorists who carried out the kidnappings and murders were killed you might have a case to include that in the infobox. However what you are trying to mix in here involves completely separate military engagements with completely different people.

And since Israel routinely carries out military events in the area, there is no way that any particular death can be linked to the kidnapping and murder itself besides for the fact they happened around the same time. I suggest you educate yourself on the propter hoc fallacy which your entire case is based on. Wikieditorpro (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Unacceptable. As the precedents in articles strictly related to the I/P area show, this inclusion of 'collateral' deaths is quite normal, and has never been questioned to my knowledge by anyone when the infobox deaths' include non-Palestinians.

• Kidnapping and murder of Nachshon Wachsman
• Kidnapping and murder of Nissim Toledano
• Munich kidnapping and massacre
• Entebbe kidnapping and shootout etc.

In other words, no one here objecting to the inclusion sights problems when Israeli or foreigners are mentioned as being killed during the operation to retrieve the kidnapped. Everyone objecting finds it problematical that Palestinian casualties are mentioned when these Israelis are the primary victims. Double standards.Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Each of those 4 examples clearly prove that the double-standards and hypocrisy of those who attempt to use every article mentioning Israeli deaths, as an opportunity to criticize and condemn Israel and to justify the deliberate cold-blooded killing of civilians.

No one attempts to hijack articles about the deaths of other people in this way. For instance no one attempts to include all of the fatalities of the Afghanistan war in the article of 9/11 despite them clearly being linked.

There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia about terrorist attacks that only relate to the attack themselves without people trying to score cheap political points off them.Wikieditorpro (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a personal attack on my bona fides, apart from a profound misreading of the evidence. To try and assert from articles where several thousand people died, who remain unnamed, that articles dealing with a handful of deaths whose names are mentioned in sources should not name collateral victioms, is not an argument. I would have you note that I have many times argued against the use of wikipedia to notorize every death, be it Israeli or Palestinian, in an ongoing '(kidnapping and)Murder of (names)' series that that someone started years ago. I have consistently advised people identified as editing on behalf of Palestinian realities not to imitate (because it looks retaliatory and non-encyclopedic) this practice, which is vigorously promoted by 'pro-Israeli' editors. And generally, the statistics show that, despite a 1 to 10 kill ratio in Israel's 'favour', the number of articles reflecting these events, highlighting an incident, is way in favour of the latter. It's a favourite topic, and the impression is that the events are jumped on in order to publicize a contra-factual image of victimization by 'terrorists'. This article certainly stands out of that because, whatever its origins, it meets all criteria of WP:NOTABLE (all deaths are notable, but most, esp. Palestinians', are not noticed except in obscure obituaries.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What Wikieditorpro said. Furthermore, the Operation is not devoted solely to the boys. Furthermore, the deaths -- being crammed into the very same infobox as the boys who were kidnapped and killed while captive -- are different in nature from the deaths of those killed while attacking people. Plus, this is the article about the boys. The deaths of others will be related. But they are not as directly related as the deaths of the boys. An example of the kidnapping of an Israeli leading to an article on him, but the Operation by the IDF that followed being a separate article, is Gilad Shalit/Operation Summer Rains. As indicated above, we have many examples of such "related" deaths not being included as people have included them here. The above examples of mentioning deaths of the captors, in battles with the captors, to release the imprisoned kidnapped people, is of course (as is obvious) easily distinguishable. I believe, and believe the weight of comment here, that is wp-supported, that the cramming-in in the coffin of the kidnapped boys of the names of those who were killed while they attacked the men searching for the boys is obviously inappropriate. Sad that others were killed as well; this article is now at 97% of 100K, at which point a split is in order, and a split of the Operation makes sense, and in that infobox it would be completely appropriate to mention the deaths of those in the Operation. But not here. Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Epifleeche but you are just pushing your own perspective there. Making unsourced personal statements about the people that have been killed during Israel's operation is totally inappropriate. Editor's basing content decisions on there own personal value judgements over the dead is not wp-supported. We judge sources and policy not individual editors personal perspectives. If you look at relevant examples outside the IP topic area (such as the Boston Marathon bombings) all deaths and casualties are included in the info box. Those on the day of the bombing and those that were killed during the subsequent police operation and man hunt. Unfortunately we have a massive systemic bias in the IP topic area, based on the viewpoints of editors operating in the topic area not wp-supportable reasons. Dlv999 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no precedent for this on Wikipedia besides heavily biased anti-Israel editors trying to contaminate all articles with their own POV. For example, the article on the death of Jean Charles de Menezes doesn't include all of victims of 7/7 and the 7/7 victims do not include Jean Charles de Menezes despite them being closely linked.

Numerous articles on terror attacks don't include as victims, the directors and commanders of the operations who are killed in subsequent operations. For example the Flight 253 article does not list Ibrahim al-Asiri as a victim, and the article on the 2004 Madrid train bombings does not include as victims the terrorists who were killed a few days later by the Spanish Police forces.

The only deaths included in the Boston bombing article is the deaths of the bombers and their victims.

What you are pushing here, is to contaminate the article with information from completely separate military operations and different people with no evidence that they are actually linked to the kidnapping and murders. Israel routinely carries out operations in that area for all different reasons. You cannot just connect every one of those incidents with the murders just because it suits your cause.

If Israelis were killed from the rockets launched by Hamas in Gaza today would you include those? If Israel invaded Gaza would you include all of the victims of that operation in the infobox too?

At what arbitrary point in time do you decide that military operations carried out by Israel are no longer linked to the kidnappings and abductions? I suspect at the moment of the first Israeli casualty.

Once again I would advise you to read up on the correlation and causation fallacy, because your entire argument rests on that fallacy. Wikieditorpro (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

what is important here is the sources, no the personal viewpoints of editors. Your (unsourced) personal opinion is that they are not related. On the other hand the cited sources used in the article directly relate the deaths and the kidnapping. Dlv999 (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You fail miserably at basic NPOV and logic. I did not state the incidents were not related, the burden of proof is on you to show that they are and they belong in the infobox as victims of this incident. You have no sources for that. Try re-reading the points that I made and then respond in a logical manner. Wikieditorpro (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Div--as pointed out in many examples, by me and others, it is just the opposite. Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I just deleted a ninth name that someone tried to sneak in. Two weeks after the murders and people are still trying to pollute the incident of the three murders, with the names of every other Palestinian killed in every other incident with no evidence that they are actually connected or belong here. I imagine this won't stop until the next Israeli is killed in which case the POV pushers will suddenly decide that that event wasn't related. Wikieditorpro (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikieditorpro, people dying isn't pollution no matter who they are. Please try to cool it and stay focused on building the article based on the information available in reliable sources in as detached a way as you can manage. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe the issue Wiki is correctly raising isn't at all whether other deaths are unimportant. But rather the quite reasonable questioning of whether in an article whose focus is "2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers" -- its very title -- it is inappropriate to lump into the "coffin" part of the infobox the name of persons not as directly a focus of the title. In this case, lumping in with the kids kidnapped and killed while hiking, those killed in an Operation, part of the goal of which was to find them (though there was another distinct goal), and most of which are asserted to have been engaging in violent activity with the IDF at the time they were killed. It is a distinct apples and oranges case. The trio are far more clearly the subject of the article. And the lumping together of hitchhikers and accused violent attackers together is certainly a case of wp:undue. Though it would not be undue to have an infobox reflecting them on the Operation -- once the article is fixed (as it should be) by the Operation being made an individual article, and this article is brought into what our guideline says is an appropriate size. Epeefleche (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand but my concern was the tone, which was unnecessary. I commented on the issue at the beginning of the discussion. It can be summed up as, it doesn't matter who they are, they are all people, as long as the death is directly linked to the subject of this article by multiple reliable sources, which is the case right now. I'm not going to say anymore on the matter apart from that I think this discussion may be one of the worst I've seen for a long time and that it won't be possible for me to accept (or even understand) arguments that advocate inconsistencies in the treatment of the information related to the people who died as a direct result of this event according to RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sean, you are trying to make the issue of people dying into an emotional one (as you did at the beginning when you questioned whether it is appropriate to label deaths as tangential). But this is about logic, reason and rules. I have made numerous logical arguments supporting my position all of which have been completely ignored. You can look at any article involving terror attacks not against Israelis, and there is no attempt there to stuff the infobox with events from other operations. That has been proven several times by myself and others. Wikieditorpro (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Decisions on Wikipedia are not based on assertions made by the IDF. Especially when we have alternate sources which describe the IDF actions as "collective punishment" with "excessive force" imposed on the occupied Palestinian population. You are making a value judgement about those that have died during the IDF operation imposed by the Israeli army on the occupied Palestinian population. WP:UNDUE is about weight of viewpoints in sources. It is not about personal value judgements of editors. The sources clearly give due weight to the deaths of the Palestinians, unfortunately here on Wikipedia we have a number of editors whose personal opinions and ideology prevent them from accurately reflecting certain sourced facts such as Palestinians that have been killed in the conflict. Dlv999 (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have provided dozens of examples above and below proving your extreme POV as well as your attempts to pollute this article with all kinds of extraneous information. You haven't responded to any of those. The only counter example you brought was the Boston bombings which as I mentioned only includes information about the two culprits and their victims. Wikieditorpro (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) @Sean - I believe that mis-states the issue. The crux of the issue is whether: a) in an article, the subject of which is "kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers", it is appropriate to lump into the death section of the infobox not only the deaths of the 3 teenagers ... but also the deaths of others, killed in the Operation which had as one of its two purposes a search for the teenagers. And whether: b) given that in all manner of wp articles we cover the kidnapped person (e.g., Gilad Shalit) or the like in an article separate from the follow-up action (Operation Summer Rains, in the Shalit example), with separate infoboxes, whether it is not consistent to do so here (many other such examples abound in comments on this page). And whether c) given that this article is in any event at the point where it would be appropriate for it to be split due to its size, we should do so, per the guideline WP:TOOBIG ... which, btw, will ease the ability to reference the disputed deaths in an appropriate article infobox. Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Whether those instances should be included in the article at all is a different debate. But including the deaths of every Palestinian killed in the last 3 weeks in every military operation (which happens routinely) in an article about the kidnapping and deaths definitely has no precedent. And then trying to stuff that information into the infobox too is clearly POV.

Let me ask the same questions I asked before:

1. If Israelis were killed in Hamas' rocket attacks from Gaza today would they be included?

2. If Israel invaded Gaza, would all of those killed in that operation also be listed as victims of this event?

Most importantly:

3. Given that the event of the abductions and murders happened almost 3 weeks ago, at exactly what arbitrary point in time will editors suddenly decide to stop putting every other Palestinian killed in other military operation conducted by Israel into this article, and more importantly into the infobox? Israel routinely conducts military operations in those areas, there is no evidence that any particular engagement or death happened as a result of this incident, besides for them happening at around the same time. Not even the sources make this claim. No one would have considered including the victims of the 2001 anthrax attacks with the victims of 9/11 just because the media lumped them together.

I've already brought the London Bombings and the Madrid bombing as further proof (see above).

I can provide numerous other instances of this happening in just Afghanistan and Iraq, for example:

In the Mahmudiyah_killings, the numerous coalition soldiers killed in the triangle of death in concurrent operations are not included as victims, neither are the deaths of two of the culprits killed in revenge attacks.

The Azizabad_airstrike doesn't include as victims the Afghan or American soldiers killed in concurrent operations, or civilians killed in the riots then next day.

Coalition soldiers killed during the operation of the Maywand District murders are not included as victims.

The Kandahar massacre does not include as victims those killed and injured two days later by the Taliban in a reprisal attack.

The Haditha killings, Sangin airstrikes, Deh Balah, Granai, Wech Baghtu, Azizabad etc. don't include as victims anyone besides those killed in the actual attacks, despite numerous other attacks, murders, and reprisals happening at the same time, and being mentioned in news stories covering those events.

This article concerns one event i.e. the kidnappings and murders. Those happened on June 12. It has already been show by myself and others that on no other occasion is an attempt made to stuff information involving completely different people involved in completely different events in an encyclopedic article about the event. Such information is not usually even mentioned in the article (except occasionally in passing), much less highlighted in the infobox.

Being that no one has contradicted this on a factual level, I cannot imagine that this is being motivated by anything else than a desire to downplay and distract from the event that the article is (supposed) to be about, namely the kidnapping and murder of the three teenagers. Wikieditorpro (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

These comments are totally unfocused, as I mentioned above, and motivated by a highly dubious suspicion that opposing editors are out to 'get Israel' (one of the tritest and most emotionally charged arguments that are repeatedly used in the I/P area) whereas they are striving, mostly, for WP:NPOV parity.

This is getting emotional and rhetorical on matters that required cool-headed collegial editing.

• Someone deleted Epeefleche’s additions to the infobox of parallels to this case. On hearing and examining the issue, it was found that his suggestions were correct and we got them back.

• Epeefleche made the suggestion that the image of the boys should be in the infobox. He found some opposition, or critical reservations on the image as it stood. [We https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers#Infobox_image collegially ironed this out].

• In the victims’ section of the infobox, I for one desisted from any temptation to augment the Palestinian deaths by adding those (2) arguably caused by IDF house raids, in which two Palestinians died of heart attacks.

• I supported Brewcrewer, against his own judgement that the consensus was for exclusion, to include the Israeli names in the infobox.
• Huldra suggested the title was inappropriate: I backed Epeefleche’s judgement that it was appropriate.

Now, the image of the boys is in the box; their names are too, and what is the drift? A third step is to remove the Palestinians’ names. I.e. before it was unbalanced in not having an image of the primary victims, or their names, with a POV imbalance towards Palestinian casualities. We obtained, through careful negotiation, a balance, and so? And so, several editors are now pressing to eliminate any mention of Palestinian casualties, indeed for splitting the article so that it will focus exclusively on 3 Israeli victims, to the exclusion of the wider context all sources mention, something that the relevant RS do not do.

(Give an inch and you loose a yard).

This article per WP:NPOV must hew strictly to sources, and the whole tragic story has two sides, which must be duly represented. Rigidly pressuring, point after point, to get one's own side's unilateral perspective showcased at the expense of the other victims in the incident is POV pushing. One 'side' has compromised. There is almost no sign, except for Epeefleche, that the other 'side' is willing to compromise collegially.

Attempts to spin this one one or the other by informational tilting or exclusion of one party is unacceptable, and, as mentioned earlier, the precedents for naming or listing death statistics for both sides is normative.

• Kidnapping and murder of Nachshon Wachsman
• ::This is on our 'see also section' and includes casualities on all sides, giving the denier to those who think there is something anomalous in our infox's inclusion of similar balanced and comprehensive tallies for both sides. See also
• Ma'alot sequester and killings
• Kiryat Shmona sequester and killings
• Muncih kidnapping and killing
• Entebbe kidnapping and killing Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Each of those cases you brought lists only those killed who were directly related to the main event itself. Other people involved in other police or military operations no matter how closely related are never mentioned.

Like the dozen examples I brought previously (and the five that you brought), this is not an article about a war. It is an article concerning a single operation. The only actors are those involved in this event itself. I brought a dozen examples proving that other people killed in proximity to the event itself, as retribution, retaliation, or even in concurrent military operation are never included.

If you believe that the kidnapping and murders of Israelis here is different then please explain why Wikipedia should treat articles about Israelis being killed different than articles about the London bombings, the Madrid bombings, Mahmudiyah, Azizabad, Mayawand, Kandahar, and every other time such events are mentioned in Wikipedia. There are literally hundreds of such examples throughout Wikipedia.

Or do you agree that the names of every coalition soldier for example killed in Afghanistan or Iraq in proximity to the murders I mentioned above should be added to the list of deaths? If not what is the difference? Wikieditorpro (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Spot on analogies, Wikieditorpro. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not a cheer squad session, Brewcrewer. The analogy flops because they do not take note of the specific objection I raised, I/P usage. When Epeefleche introduced the 'See also' links, he read them beforehand and found nothing wrong in the inclusion of Palestinian casualties on the Kidnapping and murder of Nachshon Wachsman article. You are willing to include 'see also' examples on this page whose example contradicts the very point you are trying to make. Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the See also's, I'm talking about the infobox. In Kidnapping and murder of Nachshon Wachsman the infobox includes the dead militants because they were killed at the same time as Wachsman in the actual rescue attempt.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not about "including Palestinians" or not as you try to frame it. There's a reason why Epeefleche agreed on that article and doesn't agree here. That difference is obvious and has been explained by Brewcrewer and myself numerous times. Neither you nor anyone else has contradicted that explanation.

I've given a dozen analogies, and you have provided absolutely no response or precedence from other articles because there are none. I've clearly explained how your examples prove my point. Unless you can answer the simple questions that I posed above, it is clear that your opinion can be attributed only to an attempt to bias an article that is not politically expedient to your cause. Wikieditorpro (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This sounds unresolvable, you guys are still arguing about it over a week later. I considered putting up a vote, but I find that votes on contentious issues are rarely satisfactory, with accusations of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, circle-jerking, unrepresentative samples, majority not being the same as consensus, etc. Instead, I would like to propose a compromise. Let there be two entries: Kidnapping victims, and Casualties. The Kidnapping victims section will be just the names and ages of the three initial kidnap victims. The casualties will include a summary for each side. It gives a little to each sides, takes a little from each side of this argument. For those who prefer that the article focus on the kidnapping (as titled) and not aftermath "ancillary" events, the infobox is giving full weight to the Israeli kids' status by having a separate section and full victim naming. For those who argue that leaving out the Palestinian casualties presents only a partial picture, and creates NPOV issues, the casualties entry will balance that out, by making it clear that there were deaths on both sides. The article itself helps further restore that balance, and we could perhaps have the infobox link to the appropriate sections. It is not perfect, and each of the two sides can claim that the compromise doesn't work, but that's true of all compromises. I believe this will give reasonable balance to both, and is not wildly skewed either way. There are some minor technical issues, but let's resolve to use this consensus, and then solve any technical issues (style, infobox limitations, what have you). Dovid (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel National News

Fatah's Facebook page posted a cartoon mocking the kidnapped teens, depicting them as rats dangling from a fishhook. The rats were marked with black yarmulkes and Stars of David, stereotypical attributes of Jews.(Sick: Fatah Posts Cartoon Mocking Kidnapped Teens as 'Rats', Israel National News 15 June 2014

I've no reason to doubt this, but Arutz Sheva has a bad repute, and has been rejected as RS on several occasions. +972 magazine, I have mentioned, has some useful background but I have refrained from citing it, even though it is more accurate than AS. Can someone try to source the content to a reliable Israeli (or other) news source? Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Edited and removed that portion of the article here because someone else already wrote of a cartoon showing "Israeli mice on hooks" and also because Arutz Sheva is fundamentally worthless as a news organization as you've already said.

70.27.163.58 (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The broad statement that A7 is "fundamentally worthless" has no place here. It is probably, umm, down to the journalistic standards of Xinhua, which despite its journalistic shortcomings continues to be used as RS. Certainly, A7 is not a blog, another comparison that it hardly apt. However, I would say that +972 is more than a blog, it has many attributes of an opinion magazine, which in the pantheon of RS is below the level of a news source and above the level of random web pages. Exactly where, I think, depends on the nature of the blog, especially as it becomes harder to differentiate high quality, team-edited blogs from opinion-oriented webzines. Dovid (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It is fundamentalistically worthless, then. As the settlers' official organ, it can't be cited for anything, as here, related to facts. It can be cited, if necessary, for some settler's viewpoint at the outmost. But Israel has many highly informative papers, and such tabloid crap is unacceptable. Xinhua's articles I've crossed checked only several times, and found the odd nuggets there reflected in RS I had overlooked. +972 is highly intelligent, -it reports what many non-translated sources say, and will give you an insight into a range of views you never see properly if ever mentioned in Arutz Sheva. But I abstain from using it, and likewise, we should keep Arutz sheva out of wiki for any statement presented as a fact.Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying that because it is written and published by the indigenous population of the West Bank, it is worthless. Doesn't that seem a bit racist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.96.59.99 (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether racist or ot, it isn't a reasoned argument. I expected better from Nishidani. 14:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dotty Rimbaud

this edit on the AIF/Gaza rocket exchanges is not pertinent to the article. Much of the low brushfire war there went on during the past weeks, but has been avoided as not strictly relevant to this West Bank kidnapping story (it is, but sources that do not directly connect the two are required for that).Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Settlers

The lead needs to mention the important fact that the three were settlers. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not true. Read the article instead of making assumptions. Only Gilad was living in a settlement (which is already explained here). The other two were from Nof Ayalon and El'ad.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)