Talk:Killing of Yehuda Shoham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

First section

• Adscription by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [1] is unexpected and fascinating - can you expand on this? Is the death of an infant being commandeered for propaganda? If so, is there need for readjustment?
• The Independent appears to say "will increase the anger", ie hypothetical guesswork/stirring, while you're attributing "angered" to the same - might need to be more faithful to your sources
• The same ref also makes reference to the incident occurring in "occupied territories", I don't know much about this but it might be good to link to the relevant discussions
• You seem to be stressing the ?nationalities? of victim and perpetrator? Is this worthwhile/helpful?
• I'd of thought this would fall under WP:CRIME but you're putting it in the category terrorism, which per the link suggests a "religious, political or, ideological goal" - is it possible to expand on why your "terrorists", my petty thugs, felt compelled to act like this?

Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

PS...

• Sorry to ask a stupid question, but if the assailants are unknown and the car did not stop, how is their affiliation imputed?
• The category "children in war"- which war is this?

Thanks again, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I don't see it being propaganda. The ministry doesn't even write "Palestinians" on that post (although at the time, it may have been obvious, but who knows).
  • Independent didn't seem to be hypothetizing. It said "It will," as in a fact. Not "It will likely." And it gives quotes as well which demonstrate anger.
  • Disputed, and doesn't have relevance to the death of a child.
  • That's information that goes in all articles.
  • I put it under terrorism because it took place in the Second Intifada, and was not just a mere crime, but rather these acts were done for political and ideaological goals, and sometimes religious as well. He wasn't killed by troops either, in which case I wouldn't have put it under terrorism.
  • Sorry, I wasn't involved in the attack, and I don't know why they felt compelled to kill an innocent 5 month old baby.
  • The identities - as in the names - are unknown. The affiliation is known. It's all referenced.
  • Second Intifada.

--Activism1234 15:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• So the Ministry avoids supposition but the commercial outfits that like to whip up the proverbial do the labelling? I guess where I'm from the equivalent would be troublesome oiks dropping stones off a road bridge onto the passing traffic; if the gutter press label the perpetrators as "black" then it helps drive the narrative of racism; if "youths", problems of education and engagement, etc, etc; all depends on what you're trying to achieve with the factoids you select, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Reliable referenced sources are used throughout the article. I mentioned before that it may have been obvious that an Israeli 5 month old baby being killed by stones wasn't from another Israeli. Shoham is listed on the ministry's website specifically under "Victims of Terror." The ministry has a long list of such victims on their website, and he is one of them. You're making incorrect assumptions and trying to use it to disqualify an article that uses other reliable referenced sources and media outlets. Either way, there are other reliable referenced sources in the article that discuss his murder, with or without the ministry's info. --Activism1234 16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Last question... per picture here, should this be entitled murder or manslaughter? Looks more like a pebble than a "large rock"? Grossly irresponsible and unfortunate for sure, but can anything more be safely concluded? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks to me like a large rock. But people have different perceptions. That's why Wikipedia's policy is to report what the references say.
  • Can you clarify what would be the difference between "murder" and "manslaughter?" Just a bit confused on that point. Thanks.

--Activism1234 21:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • I guess the crux of the matter is intent to kill; sounds from the same like an unlucky bounce off the back seat and there happened to be a baby in the way; was this malicious harassment and intimidation that went tragically wrong or was it intentional infanticide? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I think that's more related to a legal ruling/term than it is to articles here. A murder is generally defined as killing someone else, which is what happened here. I don't see any article having the title "The manslaughter of..." It just sounds awkward. (Indeed, I can't find any such Wikipedia articles either in the search box to use as precedents) Also, I take it that people who gather to throw stones at passing vehicles have malicious intent, whether to injure or kill, especially when it's understood that this happened in 2001, a time period in which suicide bombings and other forms of attacks, including stonings, were too frequent occurences. --Activism1234 23:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Jeusalem Post says "Palestinians hiding at the roadside hurled rocks which smashed through the front passenger window". It was on purpose Crystalfile (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed "unknown wording" as it clearly says who is responsible for the attack--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This article should be deleted for very simple reasons. Though tragic, it doesn't fit wiki criteria for notability being one event. The logic here is that 126 Israeli children killed by Palestinians since the outbreak of the Al Aqsa Intifada will have a commemorative page detailing the circumstances of each and every death as that is available on Israeli government websites. Fine, then wikipedia will be loaded with 1,476 pages detailing that number of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in the same period. Numerically, it would be to the Palestinians advantage to encourage the creation of such pages, since they have 10 times the infant casualities. But this kind of game is not encyclopedic, and articles like this, unless the incident becomes one that goes to court, assumes a high profile, and is commented on widely, serve no other purpose than to create emotive leverage in some political use of this encyclopedia. Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Um no? Would you say that about the article Khalil al-Mughrabi? This incident received widespread coverage, not every incident does. Many of the kids that were killed died in bombings as opposed to single murder attacks, and their fatalities and names are listed on that bombing page, so no, Wikipedia won't be loaded with hundreds of pages. The same is true for the Palestinians. What about al-Dura too? It'd be silly to call to delete that. The incident, like this one, received enough notability, not like 1,476 others... --Activism1234 15:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would eliminate Khalil al-Mughrabi, which I didn't know existed, and all such pages, excepting where, as with Muhammad al-Durrah and Iman Darweesh Al Hams (speaking just of Palestinian child killings), the event aroused an international reaction, entered into political or national discourse beyond its immediate timeframe, and led to investigations and court proceedings which were covered by the mainstream press. In my view articles like this and anything corresponding to it on the other side are hijacking wikipedia for partisan political effect. And by the way, MTL's edit reflected one source at least which said the rock thrown pinged off the back seat and smashed the child's skull. That was in the source, and therefore cannot be taken as WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Which source was this? I've just searched every reference in the article. The only words that have "ping" in them are "stopping," "hoping," and one more that I forgot but isn't the word "ping." The other referenced sources, however, write what is stated. --Activism1234 17:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you surely not deliberately acting dumb? The source said 'rebound'. It's writerly practice not to repeat a source verbatim, but to paraphrase, which in this case means 'rebound' was substituted by the synonym 'ping'.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Title of article

I think that this article ought to be called "The Killing of Yehuda Shoham" as I haven't seen a source which states that the killing was murder. Was anyone tried for this killing? I would move it myself but that messes up the AFD process. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the suspects weren't arrested, either because they couldn't find them or the daily turmoil and suicide bombings at the time didn't create such a chance (as well as the fact Israeli operations into Area A came later). Personally, I'd say to wait until the "deletion" page is finished, so there isn't any confusion regarding redirects, unless you want to hold a vote now and change it afterwards. --Activism1234 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Typically, we do not name articles "Killing of..." or "Murder of...". Instead, we use "Death of...". For example, John Lennon was murdered by Mark David Chapman, but the article is titled Death of John Lennon, not "Murder of John Lennon".

Umm what? Killing of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr.; Killing of David Wilkie; Killing of Ghazala Khan; Murder of Stephen Lawrence; Murder of Laci Peterson; Murder of James Byrd, Jr....

"Death of..." is fine with me. It's just "Murder" that I have a problem with since it wasn't adjudicated. We can move it later if there's still consensus here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your precedents, thanks for showing them to me, I'm obliged to agree with that as well. Although Lincoln is written as Assassination of Abraham Lincoln as opposed to the death of Abraham Lincoln. Is there something specifically for assassinations? Most articles I see that start with "The murder of" are books or plays, so I'd support changing this article to death as well. --Activism1234 16:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that we have a specific rule, but "Death of.." seems to be the naming convention used for most articles. Death of Michael Jackson is another example. But it appears for assasinations, we use "Assassination of..". Assassination of John F. Kennedy and Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy are two other examples. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! --Activism1234 17:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• While there are a few exceptions that probably shouldn't be exceptions, "Death of" is the common naming standard and I believe this article (and Khalil al-Mughrabi's article) should follow it. There shouldn't be a "The" in there anyways, seriously, someone didn't know what they were doing. Silverseren^C 05:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No, there are many , many "Killing of..." and "murder of... articles (I didn't list them all), and no common naming standard specifying "Death of..". There are even "Murder of..." articles when a trial was held and the accused were acquitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So what if there are? They're wrong too.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The only appropriate ones other than Death of are Murder of when there was someone actually convicted for the death. Other than that, it is non-neutral to use anything other than Death of. Silverseren^C 22:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

For conveniance, I'll list everyone's vote here. If someone changes their mind, feel free to change that here as well.

• Support - Activism1234
• Support - Shrike
• Support - Alf.laylah.wa.laylah
• Support - A Quest for Knowledge
• Support - Silver seren
• Oppose - 71.204.165.25

I think this is enough to go by when the AfD closes, unless a significant number of editors jump in and oppose. --Activism1234 01:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.shilo.org.il doesn't seem like a reliable source to me

It seems like a blog. I'm going to try to source the three items sourced from there to real sources and remove any for which it's not possible to do that. Comments?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There are degrees of reliability. http://www.shilo.org.il/shoham/yehudaShoham.htm appears to be a site setup by the family. It may be usable, in certain limited situtation, per WP:SPS. However, as the article currently stands, this source is not being used for any claim that isn't also supported by other sources. IOW, it can probably be safely removed. OTOH, if this is indeed, the 'official' site created by the family, it might be a good idea to include an external link to the site at the bottom of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Now it's not; one actual substantive statement was previously sourced to it which I wasn't able to confirm in more reliable sources. You're right about it now, though. I can't tell if it's set up by the family or not. It's part of a settler forum website. I'll leave the external link decision to others, although I'm not opposed to it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with A Quest For Knowledge. It should not be used as a source, technically (actually I think the details there more interesting than in mainstream papers but rules are rules.) It can be used exclusively as an external link on the bottom of the page but not for text.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sharon at the funeral

AP reports at the time do not mention Sharon speaking at the funeral. The funeral procession started outside Sharon's office and he spoke to them there before they left for the funeral. See e.g. <:ref name=hobart>"Settlers blame Sharon for baby's death". Hobart Mercury. 13 June 2001.</ref> I've changed the wording in the article to reflect this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Newsbank article you linked to doesn't work. AP may not mention it, but it still could've happened. The statement though is properly referenced. --Activism1234 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll add that the refence may have considered all of that as part of the funeral, including the start of the procession (as is often the case). --Activism1234 15:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the correct url: http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_action=doc&p_topdoc=1&p_docnum=1&p_sort=YMD_date:D&p_product=AWNB&p_text_direct-0=document_id=%28%200FDC728F9943E7A7%20%29&p_docid=0FDC728F9943E7A7&p_theme=aggdocs&p_queryname=0FDC728F9943E7A7&f_openurl=yes&p_nbid=K50J4CDDMTM0NDc4Njk5OS42NjkxNzQ6MToxMzoxOTIuMTYwLjIxNi4w&&p_multi=AHMB — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, don't mind if it's written as outside his office rather than at the funeral. --Activism1234 16:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sharon asked for prayers...

Neither Ariel Sharon nor Yehuda Shoham are mentioned in the source that this sentence is cited to. Hence i'm removing it to here for discussion.

Sharon also asked for prayers for the infant, and condemned the Palestinian Authority for inciting violence.<:ref>Frantz, Douglas (12 June, 2001). "Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations Break Off After 4 Hours". NYT. Retrieved August 10, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref>

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

False. You probably just overlooked it.

The toll of deaths and injuries from the months of violence rose again today, marked by another anguished funeral. The ceremony was for a 5-month-old Israeli, Yehuda Haim Shoham, who died this morning at a hospital here. He was injured last week by Palestinian stone throwers when his parents' car was stoned as they returned from Jerusalem to the Jewish settlement of Shilo in the West Bank.

On Sunday, Mr. Sharon prayed at the infant's bedside. Tonight, as several hundred mourners gathered outside his office at the start of the funeral procession, Mr. Sharon asked for prayers for the infant and criticized the Palestinian Authority for inciting violence.

--Activism1234 15:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies. It was a browser problem on my end.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Happens to all of us. --Activism1234 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

POV defects

Meotti; a reliable source?

• (1) Giulio Meotti (2009), pp.378-9 reprints a short paragraph, as part again of a long list of casualities. It is a copy and paste of bits from the sources above and the Shilo site below, and not written by Meotti (he does this all of the time, as I have mentioned elsewhere, and his book is not RS. It’s published by ReadHowYouWant.com.)

I was just getting ready to question the reliabilty of this source. Perhaps we should post something at the RS noticeboard. It's not actually published by readhowyouwant.com, though. That's a print on demand service that makes large print copies of books. I looked at the indicia this morning here and it turns out the the English translation was published by Encounter Books, which is a little fringey, but not so easily dismissible. I haven't gotten down as deep as the original Italian publisher. From the tone of the book I'm inclined to think that it's not reliable, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Meotti has been published in a number of reliable media outlets, such as The Jerusalem Post and Yedioth Ahronot. He's a famous writer and an expert on certain areas in the conflict. What he wrote in his book didn't contradict anything in the article, and is hardly unreliable. --Activism1234 16:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read Meotti's work for some years in Il Foglio and in the Israeli Press, and he's a militant polemicist, totally careless about objkectivity or balance, with zero credibility and certainly not a famous writer. That book is not written by Meotti. You can test this by going to any incident he reports, copying it, and then searching google. In the cases I checked, his words repeat verbatim articles in the press. I.e. he copies and pastes, usually from the most dramatic and inflamed sites. The title itself, comparing Israel's lethal occupation of Palestine as in fact a Shoah for Israelis, is hysterical.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How you view a person is up to you. It doesn't make him unreliable or incorrect. That's your personal opinion. --Activism1234 17:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your conclusion is unrelated to your premises. Arguments by assertion are a waste of everyone's time.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the original title in Italian is "We will not stop dancing" rather than "a new Shoah", so it's Encounter Books that gave it that hysterical title. FWIW.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The publisher is a very minor one in Torino, Lindau. To illustrate how reliable anything Meotti writes is, I'll cite one of hundreds of statements, and show that in 10 seconds, it proves to be false.

'Nessun israeliano che ha perso i propri cari in un attentato terroristico ha mai cercato o chiesto la vendetta.'

No Israeli who has lost a relative in a terrorist attack has every sought or asked for revenge.

Hebron settlers call on the State to exact revenge for the death of a rabbi

Safed chief rabbi calls on state to exact revenge against Arabs Haaretz

As I said, it is not a book written by Meotti, and anyone can verify this by checking his copy-and-paste technique.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If Activist thinks it reliable, that's easy to do. In these circs, we always see how it is reviewed in the major journals dealing with the Middle East. So please provide us with a list of reviews so we can see how specialists evaluate it.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, this closes it. I knew from reading Meotti that he copies and pastes, and mentioned the fact on another page some time back. Now it appears that his contracts with Ynet and Commentary were terminated a few months ago precisely because he was found out to be a serial plagiariser.

Marc Tracy Italian Journalist Also Plagiarized in U.S. Outlets. Ynet, ‘Commentary’ have severed ties with Giulio Meotti at Tablet, 22 May 2012 snd and Max Blumenthal, Giulio Meotti. Serial plagiarist or common hasbarist?.

This is sufficient to remove his work immediately. Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You really think that a Wikipedia editor who claims to disprove an expert published in places like The Jerusalem Post or Yedioth Ahronot is grounds for classifying him as unreliable? You know better than that. --Activism1234 20:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I never challenged Meotti for what I personally knew, though I informed you that he was a plagiarist from personal knowledge. I then (quite by accident in looking for reviews of his work to see his RS standing) came across two essays demonstrating his plagiarism. I.e. an external confirmation by notable sources (The Tablet) and Blumenthal, that in fact Meotti copies and pastes. His contract, according to Tracy, with Yedioth Ahronot was cancelled after these discoveries. So don't personalize this. I acted only when third party evidence showed my instincts were correct. With that evidence against him, one would be foolhardy to try and get anyone at RSN to approve of him as RS, but you're welcome to try if you wish to retrieve him.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Shilo SPS; reliable sources?

• (2)There are two Shilo SPS sources that are not RS.(a)The Shilo settlers’ homepage, and the (b)The Yehuda Fund webpage. Both are perssonal famiuly documents.

I believe I've taken care of the first problem now. I tried to take care of the Yehuda Fund website by removing self-promoting claims cited to it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Knight Ridder article

• (3) One RS, Knight Ridder is omitted. It has important details on context and consequences the editor has ignored.

I've added information from this source along with an open url in case anyone wants to add more material from it, including quote from baby's father, etc.

Others

• (4) This occurred, as sources say, in the context of George Tenet's attempt to broker a ceasire. The editors have ignored what the sources say on this.

• (5) The sources mention this as one of a series of deaths in the period, including Palestinians. The editors have ignored this.

• (6) The father's claim that the West Bank, land and roads, is owned by the settlers not Palestinians, has been edited out while the scare quotation part has been retained. Egregious POV editing, which requires that the whole of the quote be restored.

• (7)The father complained that the government's response to the incident has been 'weak'. The editors have ignored the political criticism of the Sharon's government (lack of) reaction.

• (8) The father said the baby in his death cot was evidence for what Ariel Sharon's political accomplishments amounted to. The editors ignore this.

• (9) The sources mention settler criticism of the ceasefire being arranged, requesting that as a 'false cease-fire' it must be abandoned. The child's death led to an attempt to disrupt the ceasefire being negotiated. The editors have ignored this.

• (10) The event complicated the negotiations over a ceasefire. The editors ignored this.

• (11) The father said the ceasefire implied 'our blood' (that of settlers) was not important. The editors ignored this.

• (12) The sources say the atrocity will be added to those Israelis are using for taking tough military action against Yasser Arafat. The editors ignore this.

• (13) Settlers, according to the sources, were asking Israel to abolish its policy of restraint and strike the Palestinians harder. The editors ignored this.

• (14) The sources like this to (a) the Palestinian sniper killing of Shalhevet Pass in Hebron; (b) a four-month-old Palestinian girl killed by an Israeli tank shell in Gaza; (c) 3 Bedouin women near Gaza hit by tank shells, at the same time, (for which Sharon apologized).(d) * (18) Yehuda's death was preceded by a suicide bombing 11 days earlier in Tel Aviv in which 21 died. (implied reference to Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing) The editors have ignored this.

• (15) The sources on Yehuda mention Palestinian outrage at a possible target assassination of a Palestinian activist which violated the ceasefire

• (16) In the negotiations while the child lay dying, Israel demanded an end to Palestinian violence and arrests by the PLO of dozens of militants while the PLO replied Israel wants a ceasefire yet won't accept the recommendations of the Mitchell report, such as a stop to settlement building the blockade.

• (17) The Palestinians wanted international monitoring of any ceasefire agreement but Israel adamantly refused.

• (18) The stoning took place in Israeli-controlled territory far from anywhere where Palestinian security forces had authority, a source says. This has been ignored by editors. (The point being that the accusation that Yassir Arafat was associated with the stoning or responsible for it by not policing the area is contradicted by a source which asserts that his forces were not deployed in what was an Israeli monitored area).

• (19) The Knight Ridder source says 300 settlers, protected by the IDF, in response to news of Yehuda's injuries, retaliated by running amuck in Assawiya burning 25 dunams of olive groves and firing two school buildings, a day before Tenet arrived. This is a consequence of the episode, and the editors have not noted it.

• (20)The Knight Ridder source adds that settlers demonstrated in Jerusalem and Hebron over the incident and in Hebron attacked Palestinian shopkeepers, leaving 9 wounded. The editors have not noted it, though a day has passed since they were referred to this source.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sharon urged by settlers

The sentence as it stands is:

In response to the attack on the infant, hundreds of settlers rioted in Luban al-Sharkiya and Sharon was urged by far right leaders to retaliate for the recent suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed 20 Israeli civilians.

The source it's taken from says:

The wounding of the infant led to criticism of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon by far-right leaders who are angered that he has not yet taken vengeance for last Friday's bombing in Tel Aviv that killed 20 Israelis. Thousands of demonstrators protested Jerusalem last night against what they call the "restraint policy" of Mr Sharon.

I do not see how it is remotely plausible to draw the conclusion from this that they urged Sharon to do anything. I also do not see how their anger at Sharon's lack of retaliation for the suicide bombing could possibly be construed to be a response to the killing of Shoham, since they were angry before he was killed. I propose that the sentence be reverted to my original version, which was:

In response to the death, hundreds of settlers rioted in Luban al-Sharkiya.

as this is directly supported by the source cited.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why turn three good sentences into one long lousy one?

Why turn this:

There were rock-throwing battles between settlers and Palestinians[14] and settlers also burned Palestinian wheat fields, schools,[15] a greenhouse[16] and other buildings.[15] Seven Palestinians and one Israeli were injured in the disturbance.[17] Also in response, settlers attacked Palestinian shopkeepers in Hebron.[15]

into this:

There were rock-throwing battles between settlers and Palestinians, during which one Israeli and seven Palestinians were injured[14][15], and settlers also burned Palestinian wheat fields, schools, and other buildings, and attacked Palestinian shopkeepers in Hebron.[16]

That is a horrid, run-on sentence. Do we not have time right now for coherent writing? Also, I suppose that the word "greenhouse" has been removed because the url in the source was messed up. This is *not* a reason for removing sourced information. The source said "greenhouse," and a source is a source whether the link works or not. I can't find it to fix it now because of scrambly edit and uninformative edit summary. If you don't like a source citation, at least move it to the talk page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a run on. Commas are properly placed. I'll split it into two sentences for you, just for you. There is no reason to put reference 15, then two words later reference 16, then make a new sentence with a few words and make that reference 15 again. This condenses it so all statements for 1 reference are put side byside.

Also, the link didn't work. As far as I know from that, that means there was no such article. Unless such an article can be provided, it can't just stay in like that, although a possible alternative could be a citation tag. Still, "I can't find it to fix it now" could be a legitimate reason, but could also possibly be saying there is no such citation. If it does exist, then when you find it feel free to put it in. --Activism1234 20:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You are flat out wrong about there needing to be a link for a source to stay in. From WP:RS: " Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." If the only reason you took it out was because the link was broken, you should put it back along with the information that was sourced to it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How do I even know that such an archived copy exists? If it does, go ahead and put it in with the correct link, I'm not stopping you from that. I just don't know whether that info is made up or not. That's all.

And if you think I'm wasting my time because I'm a jokester, then that's really sad... I have so many other things to do, I probalby shouldn't even be online right now. --Activism1234 21:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

All the citation information was in there. The url is not required. If the url is broken, take it out and leave the citation. It is *not* necessary to have urls for citations. If you don't believe that the source is real go to a library and look it up like everyone else.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I checked another reference, and it mentions greenhouses as well, so I think it'd be best to leave that as it is, with mentioning greenhouses there, rather than include a reference that may not exist (how did you find it? You have that article sitting in your house? Not meant to provoke you, just wondering, because you included a URL which would make it seem as though it's online, but the URL doesn't work) and just says the same. --Activism1234 21:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I found it on a computer. It's not so easy to get the urls to work today for some reason. They're still not required. I have a huge library right down the street. I often look stuff up there and then I don't have a url. It's irrelevant to whether the source is reliable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Corpse in front

Is it necessary to include that the corpse was carried in front? Wikipedia readers aren't so dumb as to think that a funeral isn't going to involve a corpse. While obviously not your intent, it sounds as though purposefully mentioning it is because of some weird, non-existent ritual in which a corpse is carried and unclothed for everyone to see (funerals for victims of terrorism in Israel usually involve them being put in a casket, like any funeral, with a sheet over the casket). Seems like that's how it would work in any funeral, and don't see the need to include it. --Activism1234 21:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned in about 6 different articles. Reliable sources consider it important. Because so many of them mention it I don't feel that mentioning it is undue weight. It is not so usual in the US to have protest marches in conjunction with funerals where the corpse is carried along. I assume that that's why so many of the newspaper articles mention it, most in their headlines. If the funeral is notable, and I believe that it is, the fact that the corpse was carried with the procession is as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There's even one that says that the protesters confronted Sharon with Yehuda's body.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not actually saying they took his body out of the casket (forbidden in Judaism) and brought it up to Sharon... If what it's saying is true, it's probably just meaning that they confronted him, and they had the casket with them. Not enough info to tell either way.

And I see what you mean, but then maybe it can be rewritten as "with Yehuda's body in front of them" rather than corpse? Doesn't sound as awkward, I think. --Activism1234 21:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me, I'll make the edit.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, I appreciate it. --Activism1234 22:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curioity Activism

Why was my restoration of your expunging the words 'where a Palestinian child, Mohammed al-Dura, had been shot dead,' an example of breaking the 1R rule?

• a. I edited it in.
• b. you removed it.
• c. I restored it (1 revert).

I'll get Nableezy to explain this to me because I'm stupid. I haven't checked the flow of edits, but that is how I remembered it when making my one revert. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm stupid too and await an explanation. This seems to me like one revert as well. Perhaps we can all be enlightened about it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, Activism, your removal of that material seems misguided, because the source it's cited from explicitly connects it with the atmosphere prevailing at the time. I hope you will consider replacing it pending discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nishidanim, look at all the other edits you made BEFORE that, which changed what editors wrote a lot. It all counts as 1 edit, and included a lot of reverts to editors. It wasn't all just adding info. It's 1RR because you already made 1 revert beforehand, and then I made an edit, and you reverted again. Seems pretty clear cut to me. --Activism1234 21:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Where was it not just adding information? It was reworking sentences, too, but I don't see any reverts. Can you be much, much more specific?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:1RR lists a revert as undoing any other editor's work - whether in whole or in part. --Activism1234 21:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to put my other comment back in? This one here. Also, then, were each of those fixes I made to deduplicate references also reverts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I was talking to Nishidani, not you. And no. --Activism1234 21:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Alf, if you want some examples, it would include renaming article sections such as "Funeral and reactions" rather than leaving it as two seperate sections like most other articles (or "Aftermath of Yehuda's wounding" as opposed to just "Aftermath" like most other articles, indicates more the intent to change it into an article about everything that happened that week rather than the death of this person which 10 other editors supported keeping) (not something I'd ask for a self-revert about, but I'm just giving examples), major changes to how this passage is worded, this edit which changes passage and puts settlers at the funeral at the forefront (as though it's a crime? the previous wording seemed fine) and also makes absolutely no sense... Again, not something so major or big, but still seemed like afterwards his edit was 1RR, just simply just reverting an edit I made rather than discuss it. Hope it's more specific. --Activism1234 22:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian who died on same day

(Moved here from User Talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah)

I am all in favor of context, but how in the world is the death of this guy from a rubber bullet related? a lot of people presumably died on that day in that hospital even.)

as did an 18-year-old Palestinian security agent whose skull had been fractured by a rubber-coated Israeli bullet earlier on the same day Yehuda was wounded. Mid-East ceasefire talks break up, BBC News, 11 Monday, 2001.

The source mentions the coincidence with yehuda Shohan. Both were shot or hurt on the same day. Both received severe brain damage, both died the same day. Since you find nothing wrong with the other contemporary incidents throughout this arc of time I have added (including 3 Bedouin women, etc) I fail to see why this extraordinary coincidence remarked on in one of our sources, should be excluded. On the day YS was brained by a Palestinian stone, a Palestinian policeman was shot in the head by an Israeli marksman. That the former received massive media focus in Israel, and the other was ignored except for one source is typical, but no reason why, given the striking coincidence, one should showcase (already showcased) YS's tragedy, and elide that of someone on the other side. I call it adhering to what sources say, and securing WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that the source mentions it; I don't see that the source connects it as part of the context. I don't know what I think about the other contemporary things yet. There's only so much time. I agree in principle with what you're doing with the article, but I don't see how this incident should be a part of it from what the source says about it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

One has to have a concrete policy in mind if something in a source, that is edited from that source, is removed. The source connects it to the events contemporaneous with her death. If you take out this, you are giving a rationale for taking out everything and reverting to the article as it was before I edited it, for consistency's sake. You are making an exception of this edit, and that is not procedurally logical.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it seems to me to violate WP:SYNTH. The source mentions that the event happened on the same day. The source doesn't say that they were connected, even in some context. The three Bedouin women are actually connected in a context by the source. I think I will move this discussion to the talk page of the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, please look at the title again. I also haven't seen the part about the 3 Bedouin women yet, and can decide when I look at it. The article isn't about what happened on a specific day in a specific year, nor about security officers (perhaps they did something that got them shot? Like those Hamas "policemen"?). It's connecting two incidents together, when they aren't connected. It's not about Day X Year Y. It's about a specific person's death. I'm sure someone in China died on the same day as Yehuda, but we're not putting that in... There isn't a connection. Just because a reference mentions something in the same article doesn't actually mean that it goes into the article. --Activism1234 21:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(1) The original title of anything does not dictate autonomously policy. So you'd better think up some other objection. The specific person's death occurred in a context, deeply political, mentions by virtually all sources save those which treat the event as a personal tragedy, or a memorial event, as you alone designed it.

The passage wrongluy removed or removed on false premises was:-

(2)

'as did an 18-year-old Palestinian security agent whose skull had been fractured by a rubber-coated Israeli bullet earlier on the same day Yehuda was wounded.( Mid-East ceasefire talks break up, BBC News, 11 Monday, 2001.)

This passage was removed on the basis of WP:SYNTH, the policy adduced by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah,

That policy reads:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

I am not saying, by the way, A and B, therefore C, to boot. There is no synthesis and no conclusion so the policy is completely errant and irrelevant, or misunderstood by Alf the nightman. The source says:-

'A five-month-old baby (Yehuda Shoham) died on Monday from the head injuries he suffered when his parents' car was stoned by Palestinians in the West Bank last week. At the funeral service for the baby, settlers heckled Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, frustrated that he was not taking tougher action against the Palestinians.The shouted "vengeance" and "coward" as Mr Sharon stepped up to a podium to address the crowd of hundreds. And an 18-year-old Palestinian security agent wounded on the same day as the baby (Yehuda Shoan)also died on Monday. His skull had been fractured by a rubber-coated Israeli bullet.

The objection is spurious therefore. There is no WP:SYNTH of multiple sources at all. The one BBC article ‘published the same argument (the other death) in relation to the topic of the article', directly connecting the two, Shohan’s wounding and death and the Palestinian security agent's wounding and death.

I'll reintroduce this, unless a valid policy-based objection can be found.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Yes. WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. We're not writing an article on everything that happened in a certain day or week. It's about 1 person's death specifically, and unrelated deaths unrelated to the incident have no bearing in the article. There isn't any consensus to put it back in, and you can't just decide for yourself to do that. To reinsert deleted material, you need consensus and to be able to prove it's legitimate. --Activism1234 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't assert something about policy. Show it's relevance. I've quoted the relevant policy text. Show me where I have synthesized and drawn an inapposite conclusion. Otherwise you do not have a policy objection, but a personal objection. You created the page, you cannot assert any private right to what relevant sources on the article's subject may or may not be introduced. Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Alf hasn't created the page. --Activism1234 15:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree its WP:UNDUE usually the source talk about a certain period a day for example.Many events happen in one day it doesn't meant all of them are connected.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Another policy would be WP:RELEVANCE. --Activism1234 15:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, relevance is simply whether a fact (in an article) is useful to the reader and is in the right article. If a fact is not relevant to the topic of the article, it should not be mentioned in that article...Mentioning things that are irrelevant to an article's topic can give them Undue Weight.

It's not relevant, as there isn't a connection between that event and the death that this article is about. --Activism1234 15:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, two editors agree with me that User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's edit-summary citing WP:SYNTH was not relevant. Which means its removal was based on a reading of policy none of you can justify, and therefore improper. Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong. This is not WP:SYNTH. I dont' especially think that it should be in there, but I don't have a policy based reason to exclude it, so I will put it back in. I'm sorry for the fuss.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Alf. That is the proper thing, and a sign of responsible editing.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What about WP:RELEVANCE and WP:UNDUE?? --Activism1234 15:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani's single source chose to mention it in exactly the context and with exactly the weight of the sentence he put in. That seems to me to settle both of your objections.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is currently 1 editor who supports including it, 1 who doesn't think it should be in there but won't object to putting it in, and 2 editors that are objecting to it alltogether. --Activism1234 15:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please remove it until consensus is reached? As I said before, WP:RELEVANCE. Will we mention also the man in China who was wounded on the same day and also died? Of course not. It's unrelated to the article, and seems to have been put there for POV. Thanks. --Activism1234 15:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

It looks like you wish to remove it because it will disturb a POV.

Look, it's not a matter of numbers. You all agree that this was a slip-up. It is perfectly proper for an editor, indeed it is proof of the commitment of the editor to the standards of fair encyclopedic collaboration, to restore what he or she deleted when the deletion is shown (and you all concur) to have been based on an incorrect reading of policy. What does not look good, is to admit that, and then come up with several other policy objections (just flagging them) to justify the retention of the original delete. That definitely looks like using policy to keep something out one will object to on any ground one can find.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I can't control what another editor said about the policy, only what I wrote. My first comment here yesterday was about it being irrelevant and undue, and I feel that this is the best reason to remove it. I haven't changed that position since. Not to "disturb a POV." That's nonsense. Removed content needs consensus, and quite frankly, there is no relevance or connection between the officer and this 5 month old infant, other than the fact they were wounded on the same day. So were a lot of other people. That's not what the article is about, if you look at the title. --Activism1234 15:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It was essential that I replace it because it was cited to a reliable source. If an editor could remove sourced material and then everyone would be forced to wait until there was consensus to replace it even if the editor admitted that it was a mistake to remove it, we'd be in big trouble on contentious articles like these. Also, my statement that I don't especially think it should be in there was in no way a statement that I think it should not be in there. A good faith editor wants it in, policy is on the editor's side, I think it must stay unless there is a genuine consensus for removing it, which there is not at this point.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

But there isn't a connection between the two, and this article is about only one of them, not the other. It's irrelevant, even if a source mentions it. If a source wrote, "X was injured today in place B. In addition, Y was injured in place A, and Z went for a walk," it wouldn't belong in an article about X. --Activism1234 15:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RELEVANCE is a user essay, not a Wikipedia policy. WP:SYNTH requires multiple sources being combined to make a statement that none of them make on their own. If a reliable source sees fit to mention the man in China who was wounded on the same day in the context of the subject of this article, then yes you should also mention that on this page. WP:DUE means giving material the weight that sources give it, and that is fairly clearly not "no weight at all". Reliable sources make the connection here, and on Wikipedia that is what dictates article content. The same is true for the repeated removal of al-Durrah from this article. Finally, WP:CONSENSUS is not a numbers game. Activism+Shrike !> Nishidani. Please dont confuse the talk page, and the process of discussion on it, with a vote in which whatever "side" gets a higher number of partisans to turn out "wins". Cite policy for why material should or should not be in the article. When there is a disagreement you can seek outside views by going to the relevant noticeboard. Just saying 2 people against, 1 for, I win is not one of the steps listed in WP:DR. nableezy - 15:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course you show up, despite never editing this page and also mentioning before you didn't have intention of getting involved on the article. There isn't any connection at all between an article about a person's death and the fact that coincidentally someone else died that day as well. --Activism1234 15:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ive never edited this page? Really? Shocking, I could have swore that I made a few edits to the article. Wait a second, this is the internet, there must be some sort of record on who has edited the page, right? Oh golly, I found it! And my oh my, it shows that I actually have edited the article! Imagine that! I said I had no intention in getting involved in the AfD, please do not lie about what I have said. Thank you for your cooperation. Also, you can choose to respond to the substance of my comments or you can choose not to. But if you choose not to respond to my policy based arguments, then I will have to assume it is because you are unable to, and will disregard any hand-waving that does not cite policy. nableezy - 16:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Looked at the source again. The source DOES NOT make a connection between the two. The source sums up various events of that day, and that was one of a few events they mentioned. Not proper to be placed in the article here, as it's not connected or relevant. --Activism1234 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, all the article says is that person was wounded on the same day as Yehuda (again, no connection or relevance). IT doesn't say he died that day, or was attached to a respirator for a week, or anything to warrant its inclusion there. See source distortion. --Activism1234 15:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It does actually say he died on the same day: "And an 18-year-old Palestinian security agent wounded on the same day as the baby also died on Monday."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Right got that, but doesn't mention a thing about being in that hospital or being attached to a respirator. It also mentions a car bombing on an Islamic Jihad person. Should we include that in the article as part of Yehuda's death?? Of course not. The BBC didn't attempt to draw any connection or say one was relevant to the other. It's the BBC - they were writing on the side other events that also happened. Not saying that there actually was some connection or relevance between each other. --Activism1234 16:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

BBC mentions it one directly below the other, just like the security agent is right below Yehuda. But it'd be silly to include it.

And an 18-year-old Palestinian security agent wounded on the same day as the baby also died on Monday. His skull had been fractured by a rubber-coated Israeli bullet.

A suspected car bomb also critically injured a 25-year-old Islamic Jihad activist. The group quickly blamed Israel for the attack, claiming that it was an attempt to assassinate one of its members, but the Israeli army said it had no knowledge of the incident. --Activism1234 16:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, there is a huge amount neither I nor anyone else includes from that week because it is not mentioned in sources specifically touching on Yehuda Shoham. Anyone who edits the I/P pages should have bookmarked The Killing Fields, because it gives you a multiple reliably sourced detailed day by day, theme by theme, list of what happened at any particular point, day, of the Intifada. If you look up the period there, you will find that sources on Yehuda Shohan do not mention most of what was going on. Fine. To try and use such sources to manipulate the article would be WP:OR. Historians must do that, we don't. But at the same time, we are obliged, if his name is connected to some of that context, to describe that context. You object to this, but to object to it, logically leads, to a non-notable article about one child's death. The details added make it notable in context, and you cannot get round that by picking and choosing what context you prefer. Sources determine that. Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nowiki formatting for wikilinks inside quotes

Can you consider undoing this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_murder_of_Yehuda_Shoham&diff=next&oldid=507382519

This style of wikilinking inside quotes is explicitly recommended for use inside quotes by MOS:QUOTE. It is misleading to wikilink inside quotes without some indication that the speaker who is being quoted did not in fact speak a wikilink while speaking.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Got the MOS part, but otherwise it just creates a bracket around the words that should not belong. I'd be fine removing the wikilink alltogether. --Activism1234 15:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether your intention is to include the brackets around the words in the quote... If you could just clarify that for me, that'd be great. --Activism1234 15:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the bracket around the words *does* belong. That is my intention; to create the brackets. The brackets show that something is being inserted inside a quotation that was not said by the speaker being quoted. This is standard usage, not just on wikipedia, but in the entire English speaking world. The wikilinks belong in there, and they belong in there in brackets, which is what the MOS says to do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the words Tel Aviv and Netanya, which is what he said, but had a bracket around them and nowiki markup. I don't remember the word does, but I'll look in the history for that. --Activism1234 15:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the brackets in the meantime, is this what you meant? Otherwise, feel free to do it on your own and I won't consider it as 1RR or anything. --Activism1234 15:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The one in the second quote is messed up, I'll try to fix it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The removal of al-Dura

This again looks very odd, and POV tilted.

‘On Wednesday 6, the eve of Tenet's scheduled visit, the IDF announced it would award medals to the commanders and troops serving at Netzarim Junction, ‘where the child, Mohammed al-Dura had been shot dead.The news was seen as a blow to the restoration of trust.

The words ‘where the child, Mohammed al-Dura had been shot dead..’ were removed by User:Activism first on two odd grounds.

• (a) 'Dura is not related to the incident, WP:UNDUE, also neglects that his death is disputed and French investigation... Not important.'

Wrong, and muddle-headed. That his death is disputed (you mean surely dispute exists as to which side caused it) is an irrelevant objection. WP:Undue, cannot apply to a snippet anytime, anywhere.

• (b)on the basis of WP:Undue, WP:POINT; WP;NPOV )

Though done courteously on my behalf because I inadvertently broke 1R in restoring what Activism originally expunged, this doesn't alter my objection to its removal.

The source, which handles the Shoham death in the context of Tenet’s truce brokering and the numerous incidents that disturbed his peace mission, the Palestinian security officials, and Ariel Sharon’s presence at negotiations says:

• In a further blow to the restoration of trust, Palestinians reacted angrily yesterday to a decision by the Israeli army to award medals to commanders and troops who served at Nezarim Junction in the Gaza Strip at the beginning of the uprising. It was there that 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura was shot dead in the lap of his badly wounded father during an incident that was broadcast all over the world.

The source makes the connection. Netzarim junction, as the link itself shows has three associations, two Israeli and one Palestinian

• For Israelis it (a) recalls the Netzarim settlement (and its famous travails) and (b) Netzarim Junction bicycle bombing
• For Palestinians it evokes Mohammad al-Dura

Since the source on Yehuda Shoham mentions al-Dura, the medals for those who presided over the junction where he was shot, and this as an impact on the truce negotations which were troubled by events like Yehuda's death, it cannot be deleted per WP:NPOV, because its removal expunges the significance attached to Netzarim junction by Palestinians, which we mention, and which the source mentions. The retained 'restoration of trust' is meaningless without that clausal qualification in the source. Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what newspapers do. They include more information for other people, in case they're not entirely familiar with it. Wikipedia uses links for that. If we're going to add something, it needs to be relevant to it. Should we also add, "But many say that the incident was a hoax?" No. That'd belong properly in the article about Dura. Leaving it out too would be incomplete info and violate WP:NPOV. It's great that they're mentioning a specific incident there, but that's what they mentioned - it doesn't mean that we need to choose that incident to include. Just saying "the reference says it" isn't an excuse. --Activism1234 16:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That isnt how this works. Editors are not entitled to determine an arbitrary criteria on what is relevant and what is not. The sources do that. If a source says that al-Durrah's death is relevant to this death, then this article should include that. nableezy - 16:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. The source doesn't though.

You are seriously arguing that the newspaper included that statement because they want to "include more information for other people" only? This is why we have policies. Actually it doesn't matter why the newspaper includes the statement (although I think that Nishidani's interpretation is correct). It's in there, so it's available to put in the article. In this case I think that the connection is clear and relevant to this article, which must be about the death of the boy *in the context* of the events of the time if it's going to belong in WP at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we include the fact it was probably a hoax as well, to maintain neutrality rather than push a POV that Israelis thirst for children's blood? --Activism1234 16:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hoax? Look, don't let your POV intrude. I honestly do not know what the truth of that affair re al-Dura is. I think, historically, until things like the communications records (withheld) of the IDF unit on the day are published, we cannot know for certain. But that has nothing to do with what, as editors, we are required to do here, not elide things in sources because we privately believe them to be hoaxes.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

giggle. Probably a hoax now? We go with what the sources say, not what somebody wished they said. The source does not say that "in a hoax perpetrated by Pallywoodians and their gullible European anti-semitic enablers, a Palllywoodian faked his own death at the location that Sharon announced the awards to the most brave and honorable defenders of the only democracy in the Middle East". nableezy - 16:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Never claimed here the source said that. This is absurd. Are you ok?? Is that how you really think?? --Activism1234 19:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Im fine. Thanks for asking. But I did not say that you "claimed" the source said such a thing. Back to the point. You now apparently feel that such context should be included (see here). A reliable source makes explicit mention of al-Durrah, and indeed without including al-Durrah the article the line on The news was seen as a blow to the restoration of trust. makes no sense. So, with a policy based rationale, please explain why al-Durrah should not be mentioned on this page. nableezy - 20:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the text mentioning Muhammad al-Dura should be removed. His death is not related to Yehuda Shoham's, nor was it related to the commanders receiving medals. Furthermore, the text implies that the IDF was responsible for the al-Dura incident, which is strongly disputed. --68.7.246.99 (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this here. Maybe you could address some of the specific arguments already made for the inclusion, such as the fact that a reliable source ties the death of al-Dura in with the medal ceremony as part of a discussion of the subject of this article? I also don't see how the sentence implies that anyone's responsible for the death of al-Dura. It's in the passive voice. It imputes no responsibility. I don't mind discussing this with you, but if you're just going to make arguments by assertion that were already dealt with and not take into account the discussion that's already taken place, it feels like a waste of time.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not important whether it's mentioned in an RS... As stated before, many other incidents were mentioned in that RS, all of which are completely unrelated to this article... They were mentioned to brief readers on what had happened. It's not important here. If the RS said that Col. Lt X was wearing a green shirt while responding to interviewers, it'd be irrelevant to put in here. --Activism1234 15:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you respond directly to Nishidani's explanation at the top of this section? You haven't done so anywhere in the course of this conversation. The source quoted makes it clear that the death of al-Dura at the same location where the medals were awarded was part of the context of the reaction to the death of Shoham.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani has been topic-banned for 1 month, and currently can't edit this article (unless Nishidani wants to be sanctioned, which I presume to be not true...). --Activism1234 15:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh. So?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So Nishidani probably won't be interested in editing this article for another month (including the talk page)... --Activism1234 16:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, "Nishidani's explanation" != "Nishidani". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the reference says specifically further - another incident. Not this. It also says that incident, and then says "Oh, and by the way, al-Dura was shot here." If it had said, "Oh, and by the way, I saw some guy eating ice cream here yesterday," no one would care. One does not have to do with the other. Palestinians were upset over something that occured here. And interestingly, another event also occured here. --Activism1234 19:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is talking about the fact that Tenet was due to meet with Israelis two days after Shoham was killed. There were massive riots the day after Shoham's death, which was the day before Tenet's visit. Tenet's mission, which was a moderately important historical event, was complicated by rioting settlers angry about Shoham's death. Palestinians were angry about the riots and the medals being given the same day as the riots to soldiers from the place where al-Dura was killed. These are all intimately involved with the death of Shoham as described in the source. The fact is that Shoham's death complicated Tenet's diplomatic mission and that can't be explained adequately, at least in the opinion of the reporter, without mentioning al-Dura's death. It's misrepresentation to say that the source's use of "further" means "oh and by the way." It's clear from the surrounding context that it does not: "In a further blow to the restoration of trust..." That clearly means that the reporter's saying it is related.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There isn't any indication from the ref that Palestinians were angry because of the location where the medals were distributed, and not simply because medals were distributed at the junction. --Activism1234 20:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Then I suppose it's a good thing that the article doesn't make that claim.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree that I'm right and that we've established consensus for removing it :) --Activism1234 20:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

in the stomach

says one source. Another source says in the leg. I gave the alternative source, because I found it, and somehow it has been erased, leaving a hanging comma.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have ended up below; no surprise given the furious editing. I placed it where I thought it was meant to be. Please check my work, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I should have checked myself, but was busy offwiki. It may seem trivial, but to give the version of a serious wound, life threatening, without the other account, which looks less grievous, once again would have only tilted the narrative ever so subtly towards the Palestinian side. I don't usually check through backedits by anyone, find it pretty exhausting, but look at the page as it stands, and the last edit. I miss alot but I know where my competence lies, and it ain't in that area. Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It didn't seem trivial to me. Anyway, an easy fix, and I'm happy to do it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)