Jump to content

Talk:Khalil al-Wazir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKhalil al-Wazir has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 4, 2008Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 16, 2018, and April 16, 2019.


Personal Life

[edit]

The article Mentions that Khalil Alwazir's eldest son Jihad was killed in a car accident in Beirut, the source if this infromation is wrong. Jihad Alwazir is alive, he lives in Ramallah and he was appointed by president Mahmoud Abbas on December 31st 2007 as governor of the Palestinian Monetary Authority (Alhayat newspaper, dec. 31st 2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalwazir (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. I made the change. Thanks! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination

[edit]

I do not understand why the Maariv 1997 report is given such prominence. Barak´s involvement was known, (or rather, more formally; "alleged",) long before that. In fact already in 1988, see e.g. in Time magazine: Middle East Assignment: Murder. That article is much, much more detailed than the Maariv "revelation" 11 years later. Regards, Huldra (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


does anyone ever just give you an easy answer.... i just need to know important main things about him. I have a final tomorrow and i dont have time to read this entire thing... plus i started and its too complicated!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.191.247 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sayeret Matkal commando who shot Khalil al-Wazir was codenamed "Sword." The Sayeret Matkal commandos also used a "silent" explosive to blow open the door of Khalil al-Wazir's Tunis villa. "Gideon's Spies."L.J. Tibbs (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Other sources

[edit]

I'm sorry, so the opinion of one author , Chomsky , is enough to state what "most Israelis" thought, but the opinion of another author , a non-Israeli can't be used to state that other sources think so as well? How does that work? Bad Dryer (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here's Dr. Gus Martin published by SAGE calling him a terrorist. As if there was ever a question. It would be more precise to say that Palestinians think he was a hero but others think he was a terrorist. This is not limited to Israelis, obviously, and wording it to make it seem like it is is what's weaselly in this sentence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. It should be "Palestinians view him as X, others view him as Y'. I will make the change later today. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It is absolutely biased, undue and loaded to imply that an author's reference to Wazir as a terrorist justifies the inclusion of "... and others think he's a terrorist". Nice Guy, I didn't know you were a spokesmen for world opinion (with the exception of the Palestinians). I could provide you with more authors that call Wazir a terrorist, but without it being made clear which group of people or which country has those views, the vague assertion that "others" consider him a terrorist does not fly. I agree that using just one source to say that most Israelis view him as a terrorist and most Palestinians view him as a martyr is also not ideal. However, the solution to that is either finding more sources to that effect or getting rid of the entire sentence. You can't just slap "others" onto the sentence because a few authors call him a terrorist. The reason that the focus of the sentence is on Israelis and Palestinians is obvious: the latter was his enemy and the former his people so the opinions of both groups about him are relevant. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple sources call him a terrorist, it is perfectly permissible to say "other sources describe him as a terrorist". If you think otherwise, please cite the relevant Wikipedia policy.
As you think about this, compare to Carlos the Jackal - "Ramírez Sánchez is commonly described as one of the most notorious political terrorists of his era.[7][8][9] " Bad Dryer (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brad, none of what you're trying to do here will fly and this reasoning does not help your argument. The point I was trying to make is that we don't just say the very vague and broad "others" consider al-Wazir a terrorist in addition to most Israelis. We have to attribute such opinions to their holders i.e. Gus Martin or whoever. And obviously Mr Martin's attributed opinion wouldn't belong in the lead of the article (or anywhere in the article for that matter because it would be undue weight). If you have a source that says the U.S. or whatever country also considered al-Wazir to be a terrorist, that's a different story. If anything, what is present right now (that Palestinians consider him a martyr and Israelis consider him a terrorist) based on the content in Chomsky's article probably isn't clearly supported enough by Chomsky's article and should be removed or replaced by a source that more clearly describes the opinions of Palestinians and Israelis. I should also mention that I added that sentence in the first place, a long time ago. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's not going to fly is you asserting that my edits are not going to fly, without providing a policy-based explanation for why you are reverting them. I gave you the Carlos example for a reason - that article said he was widely described as a terrorist, supported by 3 sources that describe him as such. That's as exactly what we are doing here, and is quiet appropriate.Bad Dryer (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the word terrorist has to be attributed by in line citation. This is wikipedia policy. The text should really say according to Noam Chomsky most Israelis considered him a terrorist.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, if the Chomsky article actually said that. But it doesn't. Bad Dryer (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't common sense that using the vague and unlimited word "others" because an author described Wazir as such, please see WP:Weasel and WP:Terrorist. We don't use unclear words like "others" or "some" to make assertions, especially with regard to describing someone as a "terrorist", especially someone like a senior military leader of the PLO, an organization which most governments did not regard as a terrorist group even before Oslo. Attribution is required for these type of politically charged words. I don't care what has been done in the Carlos page because two wrongs don't make a right and this page is about al-Wazir, not Carlos. Moreover, avoid audacious edits like your most recent where you restored the unattributed and vague weasel word by saying "per talk" as if there has been a consensus here because it amounts to disruptive editing. And as I said above, the Chomsky bit should be removed until it could be properly sourced. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is disruptive is you edit warring to remove materiel that is sourced, without consensus on the talk page and over the objections of multiple editors. We of course use "others" all over the encyclopedia: "They have been described by others as post-rock" Rothko (band); " has been described by others as a vanity press." - Edwin Mellen Press; " has been described by others as "a hawkish Washington" group" Institute for the Study of War - these are just the first three that come up in a search for the exact phrase "described by others". variant of this phrase will yield countless more. What is your policy based objection to using "others", when supported by multiple sources? WP:Weasel clearly says " views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions". Bad Dryer (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but we do not use a weasel word that has no defined boundaries like "others" when calling someone a politically-charged word like "terrorist". That is Wikipedia policy. I gave you the links to WP:Terrorist which is a pretty quick read: Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
I gave you the link to WP:Weasel: Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated ... Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. Some weasel word are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view.
And what multiple editors? You and Nice Guy? There are two other editors here who disagree with you. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are being quite selective in your usgae of policy. Let me bold the relevant part for you:
  • WP:TERRORIST: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject".
  • WP:Weasel:"Some weasel word are not automatically weasel words,...views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions"
Could you also esxplain why you are not objecting to the Weaselly usage of "Palestinians viewed him as a martyr"? Bad Dryer (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot the "in which case use in-text attribution" and that if such weasel words are to be used in the lead, which is a summary of the article, then the "article body or the rest of the paragraph [needs tp] supply [sic] attribution". And I do object to the weasely usage of "Palestinians viewed him as martyr" and said twice above that the whole sentence should be removed until we get proper sourcing and more explicit support. Also, for the record, the two sources you pointed to above don't explicitly call al-Wazir a terrorist but say he was Arafat's right hand man and the head of Fatah's or the PLO's terrorist operations. See, Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you said you objected to the Palestinian description, but have not removed it. Why? I will add the in-text direct attribution to the Encyclopedia of Terrorism, as well as to several other sources shortly. Bad Dryer (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed it. By the way the line also included that Israelis considered him a terrorist so it's not like I was editing in a biased way. And you will be reverted and maybe even reported for ignoring the talk and unilaterally pushing your POV in an obvious way. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the sage encyclopedia of terrorism calls Wazir the head of the PLO's terrorist operations. This is the POV of SAGE and must be attributed to SAGE or the author of the entry and it describes the PLO as a terrorist organization which is an obvious POV and I hope you could see that. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will you also be reverted and maybe even reported for ignoring the talk and unilaterally pushing your POV in an obvious way? I don't respond well to threats, and make sure to keep your hands clean (they are not, currently) if you are considering a report - per WP:BOOMERANG. Bad Dryer (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here for over 8 years and have been an administrator for most of that time so I have bit of familiarity with policy when it comes to NPOV. I'm telling you because I know, not because I'm making it up, that it is Wikipedia policy to attribute such highly-charged opinions to their holders and only if the cited source explicitly says so per WP:Original research. In other words calling al-Wazir the head of the PLO's terrorist operations is different than calling him a high-profile terrorist. And then of course, we have to consider WP:UNDUE; does the opinion of the SAGE encyclopedia have enough weight to be given priority in the lead? These are in addition to WP:Terrorist and WP:Weasel that I noted above and which you selectively and incorrectly interpreted. There are numerous policies that support the basic concept that I've been arguing and I know that you are relatively new here, but that's just how it is. Wikipedia's not a place to push POVs. Your argument that I'm pushing a POV has absolutely no merit. I had no problem removing the line about Palestinians considering him a martyr and Israelis considering him a terrorist because the sources did not adequately support it so your charge that I'm editing in a biased way simply doesn't hold. I've never reported anyone (at least I can't remember) for this kind of POV pushing and I'd rather not start now, but it is becoming clearer that you don't want to grasp simple and long-time Wikipedia guidelines. If you would like to report me, go ahead, you will fail I promise. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to have no WP:UNDUE problem with Chomksy's opinion, from his personal website, being in the lead (in fact, you put it there), yet question the use of an academic source like SAGE encyclopedia. That is...interesting. It took quite a bit of prodding to get you to remove that from the article. Like I said, administrator or not, you should weigh your own actions here VERY carefully (e.g reverting twice, removing sourced material w/o consensus, before even starting to participate in the discussion on the Talk page) before reporting. I am well aware of the clannish behavior of admins, bit I've also seem enough of them being sanctioned. take care. Bad Dryer (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It is your incorrect assumption that you eventually pushed me to remove the neutral—if not properly sourced—line, which as I've said for the hundredth time also included that "most Israelis considered him a terrorist" and not just a one-sided statement of how Palestinians view him. I also added the line a several years ago and I immediately agreed with the complaint that was raised here that the line was not adequately backed by the source and should be removed/replaced. And even if, as you falsely claim, that I did not want to remove it, I removed it anyway didn't I so what's your argument here? Nothing worth the salt. And for the record, with the exception of the DYK process, I rarely ever interact with other admins, not that I have a problem with any, so your assertion that "admins are clannish" doesn't apply. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may be an exception, but you'd be very hard pressed to seriously claim that there is no clannish behavior among admins. Anyway, you finally did the right thing and removed your statement (which was neither well sourced nor neutral), and whether it was my prodding that prompted it or something else is not really the point. Thank you for doing that. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Compare edit summary here with this claim that removing sourced material w/o consensus here is sanction worthy. As far as the content, Al Ameer is absolutely right. There is a source that flat out says most Israelis held that view, if you want to challenge the reliability of that go right ahead. But using a single other source to say unnamed others consider him a terrorist is both a NPOV and a WEASEL violation. nableezy - 21:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really ? and which source "flat out says most Israelis held that view"? Be precise. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khalil al-Wazir. 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) 07:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Khalil al-Wazir. 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) 17:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khalil_al-Wazir&oldid=1234710851"