Talk:Nizar Rayan/Archive 1

Archive 1

sourcing

This page requires external references from news agencies. I have notified the page creatorAstral highway (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added source but we need to find some biographical information.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Political leader?

This article [1] describes him as a political leader. Brian Pearson (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Although that one headline calls him a political leader, there doesn't seem be any evidence that he was any sort of politician. Hamas was the political leaders in Gaza at the time he was killed, and the fact that he wasn't even part of the political system then, shows that he was not a politician.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: The updated headline changed, and "political" was removed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is much improved and expanded. I think the "political leader" part probably originated from an Arabic paper, which softened it a bit. Brian Pearson (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

He is also generally not referred to as a military commander. He is generally referred to as one of the top Hamas leaders, and as liaison between Hamas's political and military wings. So I made those changes.Haberstr (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

killed his children

Did he really kill his children? I take away that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.21.10 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the Jerusalem Post, a reliable source, he sent his son a suicide mission. That seems to satisfy "killing his children". He also presumably indoctrinated his young teen son with the importance of killing one's self and killing others that are of not Muslim faith. In addition, it has been reported that before bombing the building, the Israelis warned his family members to leave the building. If they did not leave the building after being warned, it can be assumed that he forced them to stay. Either to ensure that they won't bomb the building or to raise the body count to gain international sympathy or just because he thought they should all die as martyrs. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this category. Assuming anything is not a good idea and since he didn't directly kill his children, we should leave it out.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

One doesn't have to "directly kill his child" to be considered in Category:Parents who killed their children. If a parent tells his young child to jump off a roof the parent would be included in the cat.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Under this logic, could a parent who tells their child to join the military also be included? Also, the death of his family members is totally irrelevant to the allegation of killing his children, as no one can prove why the family stayed until the IDF bombed the house. Basically, it cannot be assumed that he forced his family to do anything.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an obvious difference between going on a military mission in which the goal is to ultimately survive and a suicide mission in which the goal is to ultimately die. I am not really arguing for the cat's inclusion based on the fact that his family did not leave after being warned. At the end of the day, although there's a strong assumption that they were forced to stay, it's unsupported by a source (and unlikely to be ever supported). My main argument for the cat's inclusion is the fact that he sent one of his 17 children on a suicide mission. I'm not saying that every single time a father sends his son on a suicide mission it should automatically be considered filicide. It really depends on the circumstances. Most of the suicide bombers are pre-adults that were obviously indoctrinated in fanaticism. It's analogous to a parent telling a kid, who has not formed his own mental capacity, to jump off the roof. In addition, some of the suicide bombers were sent on missions with the threat "kill or you'll be killed anyway." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

update: I reinserted the cat after finding a reliable source, the New York Daily News, that states that he purposefully stayed in the building with his children after being warned of the impending bombing. See [2]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, it still doesn't stand up. How about we create a category for Category:People killed along with their children or Category:Families killed by the Israel Defense Forces? It is a POV claim that stretches what the category really is for.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support this article's inclusion into both of those cats. To explain by way of analogy, suppose two houses are burning on both sides of a father's house. The father's kids are inside, yet he tells them that they cannot leave. Surely, the father is murdering his children.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not the same. The article says he refused to leave his house, but does not indicate why his family did not leave. Assuming that he forced his family to stay under certain death is accurate, as his family could also have wanted to stay. Without knowing what they wanted, we cannot include the category.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But the article says that he sacrificed his children, not that the children decided to sacrifice themselves. This can only mean one thing, he made then stay. Even if not for the source saying that it was he that did the sacrificing, it is clear from the circumstances. Sources differ about the exact amount, but he had in between 12 and 17 children. Some of them were obviously toddlers that could not decide on their own that they would like to be martyrs. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have another source which states that he "sacrificed" his children? I wonder if that source is entirely reliable.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the New York Daily News WP article, it's the fifth-most circulated newspaper in the US. I wouldn't rely on one newspaper either if the assertion was not so strongly supported by the facts. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also a tabloid which sensationalizes the news. Citing this as the lone source for the assertion is like citing the National Enquirer or any other tabloid.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The Daily News is far from the National Enquirer.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas macmillan. The viewpoint of one source should not be given such prominence. Note that other sources indicate that reports that he was warned were not confirmed by the Israeli military when asked. I am going through the articles one by one and will place the relevant text for each newspaper in footnotes so that it will be clear what each is saying. We should represent all the different viewpoints on the issue and not pick one we like and just go with it. Tiamut^talk 15:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, would you mind cutting and pasting the direct quote from the article you link to above that says what you are saying? I can't find it anywhere in the article, nor in any of the others currently cited. Accordingly, I've removed the statement about "sacrifice" from the article. Tiamut^talk 15:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's in the first paragraph of the Daily News linked above. "[A] top Hamas terror leader sacrificed himself - and at least four of his children - in a vain attempt to protect a weapons cache beneath his home."

"Killing" or "sacrificing" his children is kind of melodramatic and unencyclopedic, even if it's stated by a source. It suffices to say that he kept them with him even under the threat of being bombed. Obviously, though, if he was going to make himself and his family sitting ducks, the Israeli military was only too happy to oblige his apparent desire for martyrdom. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're statement is a bit ambiguous. It gives the impression that you're claiming the Israelis wanted to kill his children. Surely that's not what you meant. Admittedly, "sacrificing" is not encyclopedic, but "killing" is. Alternatively, we can just directly quote the Daily News statement. In any case, it's important that this information is inserted in the encyclopedia. Not many bios here at WP include the fact that the subject placed his little children under a bomb to advance a religious/nationalistic cause. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To repeat myself, the IDF killed he and his family with a bomb, so they are culpable for the deaths much more than he is. Secondly, if you can find a few reliable sources which claim what the Daily News does, then we can talk, but it isn't acceptable to make such a contentious claim based on the claim of a tabloid style newspaper.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your stance? That he was never warned by the IDF? Multiple reliable sources and a Hamas spokesperson say that he was warned to evacuate but chose not to. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Rayan or Rayyan

Although this is no big deal, I think the latter is better since it is likely to be closer to the original Arabic. Double letters do occur in Arabic and are pronounced separately. It is also the spelling used by BBC. PatGallacher (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NACWP:NC, we have to use the name that is most recognized and used in the english-speaking word. Rayan gets more then double the ghits then Rayyan. Admittedly the BBC uses Rayyan, but the vast majority of english language reliable sources use the more anglicized term, Rayan. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, what on earth has this to do with non-administrative closure? PatGallacher (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just fixed the link. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabic name

What about adding the Arabic name? [3] نزار ريان

Sure, go ahead. I can't do it, I know zilch Arabic.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how, either. I just figured out his Arab name from the Arab paper, using Google to translate. I might be able to look at some other sites to see how it's inserted, but not for a few days. Brian Pearson (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I reformatted the thread so that to capture the attention of someone knows Arabic. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"...he's a Palestinian for Christ's sake"?

I thought he was Muslim. When did he convert? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to. Obviously, he was both. Superm401 - Talk 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to this rather offensive edit summary: [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the intended link. I'm not either sure what was so upsetting, especially since, imo, it was correct. His ethnicity was "Arab", not "Palestinian". The latter is a county of origin, not an ethnicity. I'm therefore correcting the infobox to it's original state. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He self-identified as a Palestinian. I think it's odd that peopple would prefer to omit that part of his identity when he was clearly an ardent Palestinian nationalist. It's directly relevant to his involvement in this conflict. I support ThomasMacMillam's edit removing "ethnicity"="Arab" and replacing it with "citizenship"="Palestinian" as an acceptable compromise that should take care of any objections claiming Palestinian is not an ethnicity, which it is, but that's a whole other debate best avoided here for now. Tiamut^talk 01:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment:if Palestinian is an ethnicity then what are the people of Jordan? I agree that Citizenship=Palestinian is appropriate, but why try to insist that its an ethnicity when its clearly not, and there is no need to. It hurts, rather than helps the Palestinian's argument. Fuzbaby (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You seems to be mistaking ethnicity as a synonym for race. Its not. Tiamut^talk 20:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

information regarding other people that were killed

This article is a biography of Nizar Rayan and should include all information regarding his life story. People that were killed at the same time as him or on the same day as him are of no relevance to his life story. In addition, its insertion into this article might violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV (see also WP:COATRACK). The proper home for information regarding other deaths are at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Thus, I am removing the sentence which discusses other deaths that are not in anyway connected to his life story.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You actually removed the fact that the Israeli bomb killed his two wives and many of his children? It's plainly a major part of how the story of how his life ended, and a major part of the 'personal' side of his story.Haberstr (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a major part of his life story and the article of course states that he was killed along with most of his family. But it's irrelevant to his bio that other non-relatives were killed within the same vicinity. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Prefacing sentences with its source

This article would look silly if each sentence is prefaced with its source. It lacks prose and is not a MOS that is used at WP. Admittedly, a preface is required for certain occasions, where a POV news source like Al-Jazeera or Arutz Sheva is making a claim unsupported by other sources. But if it's a mainstream source like the International Herald Tribune or CNN a preface is not needed. We are writing an encyclopedia article, not a legal brief.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

multiple reliable sources and the Hamas spokesperson state that Rayan was warned

and nobody claims otherwise. The only point of contradiction is exactly how was warned. According to some sources he was warned via text message, according to others he was called an half an hour before, and according to others he was warned with a warning missile. Therefore, we don't need full sentences about the sources for each claim and we surely don't need full sentences regarding the sources of the sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

When was he warned, and what was the content of the warning? How often are the warnings false warnings? How often have false warnings gotten people killed? In any case, the entire 'warning issue' belongs elsewhere. This piece is supposed to be about Rayyan, not how excellent and moral Israel is in how it kills Hamas's leadership.Haberstr (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is about him so if he was warned before the bombing, the article should say so.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Reuters ref supports fact that he sent his son on a suicide mission

Page 3 of the article [5] states that "The bearded Rayyan, who mentored suicide bombers and sent one of his sons on a "martyrdom" mission". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

killed two settlers or two israelis

None of the sources support the claim that he killed two settlers. Although the murder took place in a settlement he could have killed two random Israelis who happened to be there at the time. It is unlikely that he verified the political views of the people he murdered before murdering them. The sentence already says that the murder took place in a settlement. That suffices. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Questionable statement

This is quite questionable According to the New York Daily News, Rayan "sacrificed his children – in a vain attempt to protect a weapons cache beneath his home." He put nearby civilians at risk as well.

I agree and Brewcrewer, you shouldn't have included this statement per the discussion above.--TM 14:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The conversation above really revolved around Category:Parents who killed their children, which has been removed from the article. We can't really withhold a reliable source's statement because of it's strong viewpoint. As a compromise, instead of stating it as a matter of fact, I prefaced the statement with the source and just cited the source directly. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Golberg not RS

Jeffrey Goldberg is a right-wing columnist and not a reliable news/information source. We need to edit accordingly.Haberstr (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I support your edit wherein you have attributed the information he has provided directly to him. Tiamut^talk 01:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Calling Jeffery Goldberg an unreliable source is an extreme stance, but I have no problem qualifying his statements. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you agree, why did you remove Haberstr's attribution of material in Goldberg's article directly to him in this wholesale revert? [6] What do you agree with exactly? Tiamut^talk 14:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. The version you linked does attribute the statement to Goldberg, by stating "In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of Slate". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The second time it was quoted yes, but in the sentence immediately preceding that one, you removed the attribution to Goldberg's piece that prefaced the quote. To me, what Rayan is alleged by Golberg to have said is a very serious allegation, and one that requires an exceptional source to be stated as though it were an established fact. It was that first lack of attribution that I was referring to. Tiamut^talk 23:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut: I'm not sure what you're referring to. What is the first quote that what is the second quote? As far as I see it is one quote and it all attributed to the Goldberg interview. I actually don't think this "allegation" is that exceptional and requires prefaces attributions. These type of anti-semitic comments are run-of-the-mill comments from Hamas leaders. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Palestinian terrorists

This issue might be better discussed at the category's talkpage, but Category:Hamas members does not necessarily include Palestinian terrorists. Hamas is now the governing entity of Gaza. So although at one point all Hamas members can correctly be a subcat of Palestinian terrorists, now being a Hamas member could just mean that they are part of the government, but they are not necessarily terrorists. I'm actually surprised there actually is a Category:Palestinian terrorists due to Wikipedia's general aversion to these terms, but once it's used it should probably be added to this article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For example, Ahmed Yousef is a Hamas member, but there's nothing to say that he's a Palestinian terrorist. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was also surprised to see that "terrorist" is a phrase used in categories, since it is completely subjective. But alas, they've gone to CFD a number of times, overturned on review and then no consenus, so it is quite controversial. Anyway, so long as Category:Hamas members is a subcategory of Palestinian terrorists, then he should be in Hamas members and not Palestinian terrorists per WP:CAT--TM 21:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but being included in subcategory doesn't necessarily mean that it should not be included in its parent cat as well. Especially when it makes sense to be categorized as both, such as in this case. See Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes proposed by User:Haberstr

User:Haberstr is proposing a number of changes to this article. Let's discuss them piecemeal.

Order in lede

User:Haberstr is proposing to change

He was a top clerical authority in the Islamic organization, and served as liaison between Hamas's political leadership and its military wing. He was killed by an Israeli bomb dropped on his house during the 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict.

to:

He served as liaison between Hamas's political leadership and its military wing and was a top clerical authority in the Islamic organization. He was killed by an Israeli bomb dropped on his house during the 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict.

I think the original version is better because it makes more sense to have his greater claims of notability listed before his lesser claims to notability. He is more notable for being "a top clerical authority" then a "liason". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; he's known worldwide primarily as a Hamas leader; his status within Hamas as a clerical authority (or as 'an influential figure' or however you'd describe it), if he really had such a status (Hamas has no official position called "top clerical authority"), was unofficial. But this is not a big deal, and if you'd like it the other way around, fine.Haberstr (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, after looking at the usual references to him in the various mainstream (Guardian, NYTimes, Independent, AP, Haaretz and so on) obituaries, his status as a liason between the political and military sides of Hamas definitely seems the main focus. some obituaries don't even mention his supposed status as a main clerical authority within Hamas. I really don't see why you put the clerical thing first.Haberstr (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"dropped" or "strike"

In the lede, User:Haberstr is proposing to change "killed by an Israeli missile strike" to "killed by an Israeli bomb dropped on his house". I think the original version is better because it is more concise and more in-line with the nomenclature of the reliable sources describing the incident. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Haberstr (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

'Personal life and background' changes made by User:Haberstr

Here's how I've changed this section as of 2/23/09 ((Stuff within double parentheses added)):

Personal life and background

((PARAGRAPH 1: Note that this intro paragraph includes educational and personal details, and the barebones of his professional/clerical career.))Rayan was born in Jabalia, Gaza Strip on March 6, 1959.[1] He attended universities in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, completing his PhD in Islamic studies at the Omdurman Islamic University in Sudan. [2] [3][4] Rayan then returned to the Gaza Strip and was employed in several mosques as a preacher,[3] including at Imad Aqil Mosque in Jabaliya, where Rayan had returned to live. He would eventually marry four women with whom he had at least eleven children:[5] Aya, Halima, Aicha, Maryam, Zeinab, Assaad, Ossman Bin Zaid, Reem, Abdul Rahman, Abdul Qader, Ghassan, and two more children under 5;[citation needed] all of Rayan's wives and nine of his children died in the Israeli missile attack that killed him.

((PARAGRAPH 2: Coherence: All of this paragraph is about his clerical status and career. Note addition of the word "arguably" because whether Rayan was in fact Hamas' topc clerical authority is speculation.))Rayan became a professor of Islamic law at the Islamic University in the Gaza Strip.[4][6] After an Israeli missile strike killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004, Rayan arguably came to be considered Hamas' top clerical authority.[7][3] He had a 5,000-book library in his basement, and was a leading authority on Hadith (sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad).[3]

((PARAGRAPH 3: Coherence: All of this paragraph is military and suicide bombing stuff about Rayan. Note that speculation that Rayan 'enjoyed' going on patrol with his men is removed.))Rayan regularly went on patrol with Hamas militia after delivering lectures at the Islamic University.[8] Rayan mentored suicide bombers.[8] In 2001, he sent his 22-year-old son on a suicide bombing mission, which killed two Israelis at the former Israeli settlement Elei Sinai in the Gaza Strip.[9][10][11][12][13][14][8] Rayan is alleged to have directed and financed the 2004 Ashdod Port attack, which killed ten people.[15][3][14][16] Hamas ceased deploying suicide bombers against Israel in 2005, but Rayan advocated for their renewal in response to the 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict.[6][8]

((PARAGRAPH 4: Coherence: All of this is the 'Battle of Gaza' and its repercussions.))Rayan was one of the principal architects of the 2007 Battle of Gaza, in which between 116 and 400 Fatah and Hamas militia and civilians were killed and Hamas and Fatah are accused of torturing members of the other party.[17][8][3] According to a Hamas spokesperson, it's possible that the Palestinian National Authority asked Israel to kill Rayan due to his role in the Hamas-Fatah clashes.[3] He added that Rayan was one of the main reasons why many of Mahmoud Abbas's men "did not sleep well at night."[3]

((PARAGRAPH 5: Coherence: All of this paragraph is about Rayan's attitude toward Israel.))Rayan was fundamentally opposed to the state of Israel.[9] He proclaimed, "True Islam would never allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God."[18]

((PARAGRAPH 6: Coherence: All of this paragraph is about Rayan's opinions on Jews. Note attribution of speculation by Goldberg. If he were a news reporter rather than a pro-Israel columnist (I believe he's a former member of the IDF)), the attribution would not be necessary.))According to writer Jeffrey Goldberg, Rayan believed that Jews are a "cursed people" and some were transformed into pigs and apes by Allah,[18] and that Jews must pay for murdering the prophets of Islam and "closing [their] ears to the Messenger of Allah."[18]

Here's how you've repeatedly reverted the section:

Personal life and background

((PARAGRAPH 1: Note that this intro paragraph includes educational and personal details, and details on the clerical jobs he held, and how he liked to go out on patrol with his men, and how big his library is. That makes an incoherent paragraph.))Rayan was born in Jabalia, Gaza Strip on March 6, 1959.[1] He attended universities in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, completing his PhD in Islamic studies at the Omdurman Islamic University in Sudan.[2][3][4] Rayan then returned to the Gaza Strip and was employed in several mosques as a preacher,[3] before becoming a professor of Islamic law at the Islamic University in the Gaza Strip.[4][5] Rayan enjoyed going out on patrol with the militants after delivering lectures.[6] He had a 5,000-book library in his basement, and was a leading authority on Hadith (sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad).[3] He was married to four women with whom he had at least eleven children.[7]

((PARAGRAPH 2: This paragraph is incoherent, mixing a detail about his clerical career with an important detail about his son as a suicide bomber. It is POV to label his mosque as the "Mosque of Martyrs" without clarifying what it's official name is.))An influential preacher at what is known in Jabalia as the "Mosque of martyrs", Rayan mentored suicide bombers.[8][6] In 2001, he sent his own 22-year old son on a suicide mission, which also killed two Israelis at the former Israeli settlement Elei Sinai in the Gaza Strip.[9][10][11][12][13][14][6]

((PARAGRAPH 3: Again, incoherent; a detail about suicide bombing (it is POV not to include why and when he advocated the renewal of suicide bombings, by the way) with something about clerical career within Hamas, then back to suicide attacks.))After Hamas ceased deploying suicide bombers against Israel in 2005, Rayan advocated for their renewal.[5][6] When the Israeli military killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004, Rayan came to be considered Hamas' top clerical authority.[3] Rayan directed and financed the Ashdod Port attack, which killed ten people.[15][3][14][16]

((PARAGRAPH 4: This paragraph is coherent. Note how I've eliminated the POV number of dead in exchange for the range of estimates available. I also eliminated the POV certainty that Hamas was maiming and torturing and added balance, that both sides accuse the other of such actions.))Rayan was one of the principal architects behind the 2007 Battle of Gaza, in which 400 Palestinian Fatah party members were killed and dozens more Palestinians were tortured and maimed.[6][3] According to an Hamas spokesperson, it's possible that the Palestinian National Authority asked Israel to kill Rayan due to his role in the Hamas-Fatah clashes.[3] He added that Rayan was one of the main reasons why many of Mahmoud Abbas's men "did not sleep well at night."[3]

((PARAGRAPH 5: Coherent; I don't think I changed this paragraph.))Rayan was fundamentally opposed to the state of Israel.[9] He proclaimed, "True Islam would never allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God."[17]

((PARAGRAPH 6: Coherent; added source of this opinion, since it is a strong POV source.))Rayan believed that Jews are a "cursed people" and some were transformed into pigs and apes by Allah.[17] He also believed that Jews must pay for murdering prophets of Islam and "closing [their] ears to the Messenger of Allah."[17]

By showing you how sentences needed to be moved around within this section in order to make the first paragraph a true introduction and the other paragaphs coherent, I hope it is obvious that the entire section needed to be changed and small changes would not have made sense. Hope this has been helpful and you'll desist with the incoherence and POV noted above.Haberstr (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

'Israeli attack' changes made by User:Haberstr

Haberstr version:

Israeli attack

[Paragraph 1: Note how this is an introductory paragraph] Rayan was killed in an Israeli Air Force strike on 1 January 2009 during the 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict.[19] A one-ton bomb was dropped on his home killing Rayan, his four wives, and 11 of their children.[20][21][11][12]

[Paragraph 2: Note how this paragraph collects together rall the about security precautions and warnings, what we know and what is contended. The important words are “may have warned” since there is glaringly contradictory RS material on that point.] Unlike other Hamas leaders at risk of being targeted by Israel, Rayan did not go into hiding after the armed conflict with Israel began in late December.[9][14][22][4] Also, the IDF may have warned Rayan, by contacting his cell phone, that an attack was imminent.[2][23][14][8][8] However, an Israeli military spokesperson "could not give details or specify whether Rayyan's family had been warned."[24]

[Paragraph 3: Note how I’ve moved material around so that this paragraph has a unified topic.] According to the Israeli government, Rayan's house served as an arms and ammunition warehouse and as a Hamas communications center at the time of the attack.[3] The Israeli military said that the many secondary explosions were triggered by the weapons stockpile stored within his house.[21][13][8] According to the New York Daily News, Rayan "sacrificed his children - in a vain attempt to protect a weapons cache beneath his home."[8] He put nearby civilians to risk as well.[21]

[Paragraph 4] Rayan was the most senior Hamas member killed since Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi was killed in Israeli airstrikes in 2004.[10] Hamas said that Israel would pay a "heavy price" for his death.[8]

Brewcrewer version:

Israeli attack

[Paragraph 1: Note how this is not an introductory paragraph. What would be the POV motivation for placing this information first?] Rayan was preaching in a local mosque the day before he was killed and declared: "Our only language with the Jew is through the gun".[8] He also appeared on Al-Aqsa TV proclaiming, "God willing, the evil state, the Jewish state will not break the resistance.[9]

[Paragraph 2: Oh, your second paragraph is the introductory paragraph. Poor organization for an encyclopedia article.] Rayan was killed in an Israeli Air Force strike on 1 January 2009 during the 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict.[19] A one-ton bomb was dropped on his home killing Rayan, his four wives, and 11 of their children.[20][21][11][12]

[Paragraph 3: We know Rayan did not go into hiding, we do not know what if any security precautions he took. We can’t assume Rayan “stayed at home” during the entire conflict, and RS don’t do so.] Rayan did not take security precautions despite the fact that Hamas figures were at risk of being assassinated.[22][4] While most of Hamas' leaders went into hiding after the Israeli operation began in December, Rayan chose to stay at home.[9][14]

[Paragraph 4: First sentence jumps to a conclusion despite directly contradictory RS.] The IDF warned Rayan, by contacting his cell phone, that an attack was imminent and urged him to evacuate his family, but he refused to leave,[23][24][14][8] and did not allow his family to leave.[25] According to the New York Daily News, Rayan "sacrificed his children - in a vain attempt to protect a weapons cache beneath his home."[8] He put nearby civilians to risk as well.[21]

[Paragraph 5: Luckily, this article’s title is Nizar Rayan and it is not about the disputed and difficult to confirm targeted killing practices of the Israeli military, so the first sentence can and must be removed.] The Israeli military often contacts Gazans, either by telephone or flier, and warns when attacks are imminent ("Roof knocking").[24][26][27][28] However, an Israeli military spokesperson "could not give details or specify whether Rayyan's family had been warned."[26]

[Paragraph 6: Too many paragraphs; note how I’ve created one “all on that topic” for each major topic and moved things around accordingly.] According to the Israeli government, Rayan's house served as an arms and ammunition warehouse and as a Hamas communications center at the time of the attack.[3] The Israeli military said that the many secondary explosions were triggered by the weapons stockpile stored within his house.[21][13][8]

[Paragraph 7: Nothing changed here] Rayan was the most senior Hamas member killed since Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi was killed in Israeli airstrikes in 2004.[10] Hamas said that Israel would pay a "heavy price" for his death.[8]

Haberstr (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion format

It would be much more conducive for collaboration if instead of making large chunk changes the editors make changes piece by piece. It is easier to figure out what each other are doing. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, please notice that the article is very different from my version prior to your edits. I purposefully made the changes piecemeal so that if you have specific objections to the article, you don't have to revert the whole thing back to your version. You can just point to specific changes that you find problematic. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It would've been conducive to collaboration if you'd made a single comment on the very detailed explanations above of the changes I made. By the way, shouldn't we consider more than 4 references for a mundane fact overkill? That certainly mucks up the look of the article.Haberstr (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What "very detailed explanation" are you referring to (I don't see any) and which specific fact do you think is over-referenced?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the proposed changes were stated and explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nizar_Rayan#.27Personal_life_and_background.27_changes_made_by_User:Haberstr and in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nizar_Rayan#.27Israeli_attack.27_changes_made_by_User:Haberstr. You did not make a single response to any of those explanations/proposals. I assumed, in good faith, that you didn't have a problem with them.Haberstr (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You just copy and pasted two different versions to the talkpage. That's not an explanation, let alone a "detailed explanation".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. Each paragraph that was copy and pasted of Haberstr's version and your own has an introductory sentence in [] that explains why the placement of this information is wrong or right, whether its relevant or not, etc. When you mischaracterize what your fellow editors are doing, it is hard to assume good faith. Tiamut^talk 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this:

Here's how I've changed this section as of 2/23/09 ((Stuff within double parentheses added)):

the "introductory sentence" you're referring to? Surely you're not asserting that the sentence combined with the copy and paste of the two versions explained the problems with the stable version?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can look at the two sections immediately above us and see my fairly extensive comments; your misrepresentation of them as minimal is bound to be unsuccessful. As I've said numerous times in numerous ways, an array of material needed to be moved across paragraphs in order to create 'one topic' paragraphs and overall coherence. That's why piecemeal changes would not have made sense, and had to make extensive changes in nearly all paragraphs.Haberstr (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer's anti-Rayan attack page

*Note the comment below is addressed to Brewcrewer, whose name I have removed from this title, per WP:TALK. Tiamut^talk 03:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Brewcrewer has chosen to restore his name in the heading above and so to avoid confusion, I am striking my previous comment. Please note that Haberstr's comment below is addressed to Brewcrewer. Tiamut^talk 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You've reconstructed your anti- Rayan attack page, removing all the balance I've supplied. You're an ideologue clearly on a mission and I will have to revert. I _will_ add the Reuters info about his suicide bomber mentoring somewhere, however, but I'll have to make it accord with Reuters, not indicating that he was mentoring in the mosque. See how I'm trying to be inclusive? I hope my approach will someday be a model for your approach; until that day, please go to a POV-driven site and stay off wikipedia.Haberstr (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I also added the info from the Guardian that he was ARGUABLY the leading Hamas clerical figure.Haberstr (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacking me in a section header and telling me to "stay off wikipedia" is least conducive to a collaborative effort, which is what we do around here. I urge you to redact the more belligerent elements of your comment/diatribe. If you think the article should treat him more like a martyr, that's fine, but please discuss your opinions in civil manner on this talkpage. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's clear what your agenda is, you did not discuss a single one of the multiple changes you made, and the header is completely accurate.Haberstr (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm kinda hoping you can show make some sort of good-will effort here to reestablish that your an editor that one can collaborative with. I'm not sure which specific edit lacks discussion. Is there a thread on this page that I have ignored? See also WP:BRD, which requires that the "changer" discuss his changes if they're not accepted. The article was clearly stable before you happened across the article and turned it into a battleground. I've went out of my way to discuss things on the talkpage; just peruse the talkpage and see this. Falsely accusing me of not discussing changes on the talkpage is a further violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Again, please cease your attacks. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain of your "I want to create an anti-Nizar Rayan attack page" goals, and your edits make that clear to any Wikipedia editor who visits here with an open mind. It's essentially just you and me here, and I can't be in consensus with your desire to create an attack page. If someone unbiased looks at the page I've created -- and it's clear from this talk page that I attempted to get a response from you on every single change but you didn't give a single comment -- they'll say it looks balanced and encyclopedic in the form I made it, and looks like an attack page in the form you want it to be in.Haberstr (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was the second person to edit this article. It sounds to me like you should request arbitration. What do you think?--TM 20:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need arbitration. All of Haberstr's changes are well-sourced and policy compliant. If Brewcrewer could isolate his problems with the changes and explain them to other editors so that we can work towards compromise formulations, that would be great. Reverting all of Habrstr's changes and insisting he do them one by one is unfair. He is using the same sources Brewcrewer has and his changes are welcome (at least to me). They attribute controversial statements directly to their authors and improve NPOV, which was sorely lacking prior to his intervention. If Brewcrewer or Tundrabuggy can be specific about what is objectionable in what he has done before reverting again, that would help to calm things down. Tiamut^talk 01:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. The article was stable prior to Haberster's mass changes to the article. He has to bring his proposed changes to this talkpage. So far he hasn't. All he's done so far is attack me. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the proposed changes were stated and explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nizar_Rayan#.27Personal_life_and_background.27_changes_made_by_User:Haberstr and in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nizar_Rayan#.27Israeli_attack.27_changes_made_by_User:Haberstr. You did not make a single response to any of those explanations/proposals. I assumed, in good faith, that you didn't have a problem with them. Then you came back and changed every single one of them without explanation. And your changes have made this page into an anti-Rayan attack page. You've explained that you consider Rayan the equivalent in evil to Stalin or Hitler, a viewpoint you have a right to. However, the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to publish solely that perspective, but to be inclusive of a range of worldwide and non-fringe perspectives on this controversial figure and the critical events in his life.Haberstr (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, read BRD again. It does not excuse what you are doing. Please identify which parts of Haberstr's edits, (and my own and those of TM which you have also reverted in your last edit here) are problematic to you. Making wholesale reverts and refusing to discuss your reverts and identify which parts of the edit are problematic is tendentious editing. Please collaborate with your fellow editors. I left this article months ago because you seemed incapable of allowing others to make any changes not to your liking. Please review WP:OWN and note that at least three editors here like Haberstr's version, as they have built upon it. You and Tundrabuggy need to explain what you don't like about it so that we can work to address your concerns. Reverting and insisting that others explain everything they are doing goes against WP:BOLD and is a waste of time for all involved. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 03:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually did state all my issues with his changes in edit summaries. Look at the contrib history. He has done neither. No edit summaries and no talkpage comments besides copy and pasting his version vs. my version and attacking me. Tiamut: I would love to work with you. A breath of fresh air. But let's bring non-minor contentious changes to the talkpage before dong anything drastic to an article that has been stable for months. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In the edit summaries? That's where you conduct your good-faith discussion?

Addendum: a couple of sections above I actually went out of my way to initiate a thread on his proposed changes. The the interactions at those threads were fine. But if I'm not in a benevolent mood, I can't be expected to initiate threads on anther editor's proposed changes. He wants to make changes, let him initiate a thread. How it's done is clearly templated above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Brewcrewer, with all due respect, working with you is not as pleasurable from my end. Almost every edit I made to this article months ago was reverted or rejected by you, and I simply gave up and went away. I don't have time to argue in circles. In this edit, you have tossed out a number of good changes and sourced additions made by Haberstr, TM and myself, without explaining what your problem with these changes is. You need to isolate the problems you have, we cannot read your mind. Please go through the diff I have provided and explain why each change was rejected by you. Without such an explanation, the text in question should be restored. We cannot open an RfC or move to mediation when it is not even clear what the problem you and Tundrabuggy have with the changes that have been made. You two do not own this article, so please work with me, if it is indeed true that this is something you would love to do. Tiamut^talk 13:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Tiamut^talk 13:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have agreed with some of your edits and disagreed with some of your edits just like Haberstr. I find it pleasurable to work with someone who agrees with me on some points and disagrees with me on other points. But that's only me. The link that you present removed material for which I previously gave a basis for removal in edit summaries. I would explain my reasoning on this talk but, despite my begging, the proponent of the contentious text refuses to initiate a discussion at this talk page.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you ignore the fully explained changes almost immediately above this section on this talk page? How can you be credible when anyone can look at this talk page and quickly see all of my changes fully explained? Finally, why do you insist on chaotic, non-chronological rendering of Rayan's life story? The anti-chronological aspect forces wholesale changes, there is no way around that. Alternatively (but an inferior choice, as this is a biographical entry), you could have topic-centered organization here, but there again each of your paragraphs is a jumble of a variety of topics.Haberstr (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have left a note at Haberstr's talk page inviting him to join in this discussion. I would deeply appreciate it however, if you could explain your reasoning on this talk page. Using edit summaries to explain things is not conducive towards discussion, fo which this page is designed. Sorry to be pedantic, but it's important that you make an effort to actually engage in dialogue when your fellow editors ask you to do so. The same goes for Haberstr, who I hope will act upon the note I left him as well. As it is now however, I am here, and I am asking you to explain your latest wholesale revert, piece by piece, so that I can work towards addressing your concerns. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

removal of "mentored suicide bombers"

This edit inexplicably removed the fact that he "mentored suicide bombers" together with its source, Reuters. Please revert. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No it didn't, it moved it to a more logical location in the text.Haberstr (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh you hid it there by the Chris Hedgens quote. But Chris Hedgens never said that, a Reuters writer made that assertion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith ("you hid it" is not good faith). Consider that I placed it in the appropriate chronological order, since that activity began precisely at the same time the Hedges quote is referring to.

You're right, I should assume more good faith, but please understand it's hard to when you initiate a thread with the sole intention of attacking me, including placing my name in the section header and when you tell me to "get off Wikipedia". But let's not attribute quotes to Hedges (I'm not even bothering to check if he used that quote or not. I'm assuming good faith :-), when it is stated by a Reuters writer. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You changed every one of my changes without any discussion at all. I was upset and yesterday and today I and others have taken your name off but you've insisted on restoring it. You're insisting former New York Times reporter Hedges is an unreliable source? Hedges is the person who was told, he says, by Rayan that Rayan began advocating suicide bombing in the wake of the Goldstein massacre. Reuters, I don't think states that.Haberstr (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, the changes I've made were explained in edit summaries, something you didn't even bother doing. If you would like to make drastic changes to a stable article, per wp:brd, you have to make a case for the changes at talkpage.

Per WP:TALK, you can't remove your comments after they have been responded to. It makes the responder look like a fool. You wouldn't want to do that to me? Would you?

I never said that Hedges in an unreliable source. See Strawman argument. Please don't do that.

You attributed "mentoring suicide bombers" to Hedgens. He says no such thing. It is from Reuters.

It is also misleading to use the Hedgens article to support the claim that Rayan began advocating for suicide bombings after the Goldstein shooting. The article only claims that Hamas began advocating for suicide attacks after the Goldstein shooting. For all we know, Rayan began advocating for the attacks at a later time or he began advocating for the attacks the day he came out of his mother's womb. Indeed, at the time of his death, he was not on the same page with Hamas in regard to suicide attacks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are telling everyone who reads this that you didn't discuss any of your changes before you made them. I fully discussed all the changes I made in the sections two or three sections above this one.Haberstr (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is what Hedges wrote: "Hamas, he [Rayan] constantly reminded me, began to target Israeli civilians in 1994 only after Palestinian worshipers were gunned down in a Hebron mosque by a Jewish settler, Baruch Goldstein." And from this you don't 'get' that Rayan, as a leading member of Hamas, didn't begin sanctioning the targetting of civilians from that time? Unbelievable.Haberstr (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Using a source that says Hamas began advocating for suicide attacks after the Goldstein shooting for the proposition that Rayan began advocating for suicide attacks at that time is pure and unadulterated original research. Besides, Rayan and Hamas were not always on the same page in regards to suicide attacks. As this article exemplifies, Rayan was against the Hamas decision to cease suicide attacks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. Its common sense. The first ever suicide bombing carried out by Palestinians took place in Afula in April 1994. [7] There were no suicide bombings in this conflict before that. Tiamut^talk 21:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, I think you misunderstand the bone of contention. The issue is not the truthfulness of Hamas' claims to have begun suicide bombing after the Goldstein shooting. The issue is whether Hamas advocating suicide bombing in response to Goldstein means that Rayan also began advocating for suicide bombings after Goldstein. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we use the wording provided by the source? According to Chris Hedges, Rayan constantly reminded him that Hamas "began to target Israeli civilians in 1994 only after Palestinian worshipers were gunned down in a Hebron mosque by a Jewish settler, Baruch Goldstein." Also, assuming that Rayan advocated for suicide bombings before the first one was carried out in April 1994, is WP:OR. Tiamut^talk 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut: You are absolutely right, we should use the wording or Chris Hedges. But Chris Hedges makes no mention about when Rayan began advocating for suicide attacks. You are also right that it would be OR to claim that Rayan advocated for suicide attacks prior to 1994. Hence the article should be silent about when Rayan began advocating for suicide bombings, pending a source. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Solved via this edit. I know, I'm a genius. See how nice it is to move on? No, don't thank me. ;) Tiamut^talk 22:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut: With respect, although it is an improvement, it is still problematic. To begin with, as this is tangentially related to Rayan, it should be removed. How Rayan described something is not something that belongs in his bio. This information is something that is best included in the Hamas article. It also gives the impression that Rayan began advocating in 1994, which is not supported by the source. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry Brewcrewer, but how is Rayan's repeated reminders to Chris Hedges that Hamas only started conducting suicide bombings in 1994, not relevant to an article on Rayan again? Using such a narrow definition of relevancy, one could argue a discussion of suicide bombings are not relevant to this article. After all, Rayan was not carrying one out when he was killed in his home. Please try to expand your mind and heart. My edit is faithful to the source and is relevant to this article. If you have a suggestion on how to rephrase though, I'm open to hearing it. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That at one time he reminded someone of something is not essential to his biography especially since it can mislead editors to think that this was his viewpoint. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be appropriate to add the thing about him having sent his own kid off to be a suicide bomber. It is mentioned in at least two of the sources, so is notable. It is also an unusual fact, thank heavens! I think we should put the word "mentored" in quotes since it is actually a word used in the source and very specific in meaning. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are 'adding' something that is already in the text.Haberstr (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead

Would like to add some more flesh to the lead. As it stands now it says:

Sheikh Nizar Rayan (Arabic: نزار ريان‎, also transliterated Rayyan) (March 6, 1959 – January 1, 2009) was a top Hamas leader and a professor of Islamic law. He served as liaison between Hamas's political leadership and its military wing, and was considered a top clerical authority within the Islamic organization. He was killed in his house by an Israeli missile strike during the 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict.

I think it highly notable his advocacy of suicide bombings against Israel. It fills out the picture of the man, and also makes some sense out of why he was targeted by Israel. It belongs in the lead. To read this one would almost think he was an intellectual and a "dove", maybe a Mahatma Ghandi clone. Misleading, maybe? Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the lead does need some fleshing out. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a relatively short biography, so doesn't need a long lead. If you do add the suicide bombing, then include when he began, ended, and renewed that advocacy. I also think we could add what his Islamic law expertise is, and where he was a professor. We could also add that he was a main military leader, probably the main leader, in the Hamas-Fatah conflict.Haberstr (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made some changes of my own to the intro here. I agree with Haberstr that mentioning the suicide bombings would take more than one sentence and may overwhelm the lead. I would note that until a couple of days ago, there was no mention of his being a professor in the lead. I agree that it would be useful to mention where he taught as well. Tiamut^talk 20:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's unclear if being a professor is what he was notable for. Surely where he taught is not important enough of a detail to warrant inclusion into the WP:LEAD. The more notable aspects of his life, his advocacy for killing Israeli civilians, is not included in the lead. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't know when he began advocating for suicide bombings. As he was born in 1959 and suicide bombings only started happening in 1994, the first 34 years of his life had nothing to do with suicide bombings. He may be notable to Israelis for having been an advocate of suicide bombings. To Palestinians, he was notable for being a cleric and professor of Sharia law. By all means, propose a sentence on suicide bombings for the lead though. We can flesh it out here if you like before you post it. Tiamut^talk 22:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't know when he began advocating and supporting the murder of Israeli civilians, but it probably is his claim to fame in the international community. There is no requirement in WP:LEAD that the the info therein be equally spread out over the years of his life. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your perspective is quite limited, POV, and not at all [[WP:WP:WORLDVIEW, and I would think more people who know his name think of him as a 'leader of Palestinian nationalist cause' than as 'an advocate of suicide bombing'. Regardless, I think outside POV he is best known as a very important leader of Hamas. After that things get contentious. This expansion of the lead may not be very productive.Haberstr (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. While Arabs might see him as a freedom fighter, that is not the worldwide view. As you mentioned, he is probably best known as a Hamas leader. But this is not something that we have disagree over. We can just peruse the reliable sources covering him and see how they describe him and they emphasize. I would agree with your point that expansion of the lead be put off for another time. Preferably when the main part of the article calms down. But I would like to point out that someone recently added to the lead that he was a professor. This is surely not his main claims for notability and should be way behind in the lead pecking order.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the vast majority of people in the world (the worldwide view?) have no idea who the guy was. In the Arab world, however, he may have been much better known, and therefore that's why I conclude that he was probably best known, in terms of numbers of people who knew his name, as a Palestinian freedom fighter or whatever. Anyway, I've included all the things various of us find important or remarkable in the lead, and I hope it's now satisfactory. And his advocacy of suicide bombing in combination with his son being a suicide bomber is remarkable, in my opinion.Haberstr (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does this entry's editor/owner oppose chronological order?

This is a biography. I've tried repeatedly simply to make this biography chronological in order. But the editor who claims ownership of this entry insists on chaotic order, with the exception that anything that reflects poorly on Rayan is put at the beginning of sections.Haberstr (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I've also fully explained what I was doing, that one of the primary motives for my changes was to establish some chronological sanity, in the talk sections above. I received no response to these explanations from the Nizar Rayan wikipedia entry owning editor.

Please be specific. Which part of the article do you think is out of chronological order? Thanks,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal life and background

Rayan was born in Jabalia, Gaza Strip on March 6, 1959.[1] He attended universities in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, completing his PhD in Islamic studies at the Omdurman Islamic University in Sudan.[2][3][4] Rayan then returned to the Gaza Strip and was employed in several mosques as a preacher,[3] including the Jabalia's Imad Aqil Mosque (known as the "Mosque of martyrs."[5][6][7]) He was [beginning in 1994 and ending in 2004/5]a committed advocate of suicide bombing attacks against Israel and "mentored" suicide bombers, even sending [in 2001]one of his own children on a suicide mission that killed two Israelis. [5][8][9] At the time of his death[in 2009], he had four wives and twelve children.[3][10] Rayan's four wives, and their ages at the time of their deaths, were Hiam 'Abdul Rahman Rayan, 46; Iman Khalil Rayan, 46; Nawal Isma'il Rayan, 40; and Sherine Sa'id Rayan, 25. The 11 Rayan children, and their ages when they died, were As'ad, 2; Usama Ibn Zaid, 3; 'Aisha, 3; Reem, 4; Miriam, 5; Halima, 5; 'Abdul Rahman, 6; Abdul Qader, 12; Aaya, 12; Zainab, 15; and Ghassan, 16.[11]

Rayan became a professor of Islamic law at the Islamic University in the Gaza Strip[late 90s?].[4][12] After an Israeli missile strike killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004, Rayan came to be considered Hamas' top clerical authority.[13][3] He had [at the time of his death, 2009] a 5,000-book library in his basement, and was a leading authority on Hadith (sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad).[3] Rayan regularly went on patrol with Hamas militants after delivering lectures at the Islamic University.[9]

In 2001, he sent his 22-year-old son on a suicide bombing mission, which also killed two Israelis at the former Israeli settlement Elei Sinai in the Gaza Strip.[14][15][5][16][17][18][9] Rayan is alleged to have directed and financed the 2004 Ashdod Port attack, which killed ten people.[19][3][18][20] Hamas ceased deploying suicide bombers against Israel in 2005, but Rayan advocated for their renewal.[12][9]

Rayan was one of the principal architects of the 2007 Battle of Gaza, in which 400 Fatah loyalists were killed and dozens more were tortured and maimed.[21][22][9][3] According to a Hamas spokesperson, it's possible that the Palestinian National Authority asked Israel to kill Rayan [in 2007 or 2008] due to his role in the Hamas-Fatah clashes.[3] He added that Rayan was one of the main reasons why many of Mahmoud Abbas's men "did not sleep well at night."[3]

Haberstr (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so what specifically is chronologically deficient? The listing of his children at the time of his death prior to 2001? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's self-evident, though I do appreciate the effort put in by Haberstr to explain it. I also think Haberstr's changes make the text superior to what it was and more in line with WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. As such, I have restored most of his changes, while also making some of my own. Compare our versions [8]. As you can see, I have also copy edited the text, moved citations to the end of sentences per the Manual of Style recommendations and condensed some of the material from Btselem. Please do not make another wholesale revert Brewcrewer (or anyone else for that matter). I would appreciate it if Brewcrewer can specify exactly which changes are offensive and why here on the talk. As I said, I would be happy to open an RfC, if only I understood what Brewcrewer's problems with the changes were. Tiamut^talk 20:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut: But it's not self-evident. What are the chronological deficiencies? Please be specific in regards to changes instead of vague comments. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Brewcrewer, but are you able to read the text above? The dates inserted and bolded by Haberstr indicate how the text as it stood jumped around from place to place. The subject matter is organized in that old version according to the editorial preference of the writer, rather than the chronological series of events or some other equally objective criteria. Do you disagree? How and why? Tiamut^talk 21:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's make it really simple, if you don' mind. Let's go through them one by one. The first date is 1959. That's okay, right?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Okay then, I'll play along. 1959. Check. Tiamut^talk 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The second looks to be from 1994. That's also okay, right? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, before you take me seriously on that, I won't. The issue is not merely that there is chronological caprice in your version, but rather that additional content has been added since that is well sourced and relevant to this article. You don't own this article Brewcrewer. I understand what it's like to feel attached to a piece of writing, but at Wikipedia we don't defend our version as the best version against all newcomers. We try to hear what other people have to say and respect the work they do to add things to an article. We encourage editors to be bold. That is not achieved by tossing out everything you did not write and making everyone discuss what you want to discuss about the merits of your own version. That's achieved by discussing the changes made, whether they are good or bad, and why. So please, for the umpteenth time, please tell me what's wrong with the changes introduced by Haberstr and myself? And if you don't have a response, I expect you won't be reverting again. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But Tiamut, my version was the article's version for a few months before Haberster came along claiming chronological deficiencies. It only makes sense (and is WP policy) that he should explain the problems with the previous version before making mass changes and demanding that I explain the problems with his verion (which I did anyway). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, if you cannot accept people changing your writing, you are not going to get very far here at Wikipedia. Silence is not consent. I left this page after you reverted most my changes and was frankly tired of dialogue without substance. I have since recharged, am back, and was happy to see that other editors had noticed the same problems I had with the text previously, raising those issues again. Haberstr has made some very good additions and has reorganized the article in a logical and readable fashion. I have done a copy edit and changes per MOS, while editing down some of the Btselem text which you seemed to have a problem with (hard to tell, since you don't discuss it outside of edit summaries). In any case, time has moved on. We are not preserving "your version" for time immemorial. We are discussing the merits or demerits of changes introduced by other editors. Please, once again, make explicit your objections to the changes that have made, so that we can move on. Tiamut^talk 21:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about my version or your version. It's about the stable version vs. the proposed version. The onus is on the mass-changer to explain the deficiency of the stable version before going through with mass reversions. There has yet to be any specific explanations of the chronological deficiencies in the stable version. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, there is no stable version anymore. What was once stable, is now in flux with the additions made by Haberstr, Tundrabuggy, TM and myself. You should welcome the new eyes and perspectives on an article you have worked hard on. But you don't own this. And you don't get to decide on your own which version is right and which one is wrong.

For the n-th time, please explain what is wrong with the version which I have posted above that integrates your text with Haberstr's changes, Tundrabuggy's changes, TM's changes and my own. This is an altogether new version which requires your feedback so as to move towards an even newer consensus version. Without this, we cannot move on, we cannot open an RfC (since I don't understand what this dispute is about at all), nor can we go to mediation. In short, we are deadlocked. So please, be substantively responsive. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 21:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Tiamut, it is no longer stable. But for two months it was stable. The onus is on the editor who wants to destabilize the article to explain what was wrong with the previous stable version. Let's please move along with specific problems. The proposer has yet to point out the problems with the previous stable version besides for copy and pasting parts of the stable version onto this talkpage. The proposer has a problem with the chronological order of the stable version but there's nothing here on this talkpage which can be even described as an attempt to explain the stable version's problems. All we have here is a copy and paste of the stable version with the dates therein bolded. The problems with the chronology are not manifest. If anything to the contrary. Please, what is the problem with what was copy and pasted into this thread?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not playing this game Brewcrewer. I've asked you fifty times to explain what your problems are with the changes that have been made (and there are now many, by many editors). If you cannot tell me what is bothering you, I cannot help you. I've made another change in response to your point above about possible OR in the formulation of the material in Hedges' article. I'm moving forward here. If you want to live in the past and discuss what you think was a stable version (coincidentally, your version), you can. But I will take your continued refusal to discuss what is happening now as a non-response. No mediation, no RfC, nothing can be opened to move forward until you let me know what it wrong with what is now on the table. What was, was. It's over. You're lucky it lasted two months since it was POV-ridden and poorly organized. Sorry to be harsh, but it's time to move on. Tiamut^talk 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But Tiamut, why are am I the one playing games when you have yet explain any of the problems with the stable version? Making mass changes and then demanding that others explain the problems with the new version instead of explaining the problems with the stable version is probably the worst method of collaborating with other editors, let alone violative of WP:BRD.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, Haberstr has taken considerable effort to address the problems with your version paragraph by paragraph in mutliple sections above. I'm not going to repeat what he said. If you want an editor review, you can get one somewhere else. This talk page is for discussing the Nizar Rayan article. BRD is an essay, not a policy. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. You have three editors here who liked the changes made by Haberstr. Only one, perhaps two (Tundrabuggy?) do not. It behooves those who do not like the changes to explain why, so that those who do like the changes can work towards a new version that addresses the concerns of those who don't like them, but moves forward, not backwards, as though your version was the writ of Allah. Okay? So please, for the fifty first time, explain what is wrong with the article as it currently stands. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but copy and pasting different versions is not an "effort" and is not considered and is not "addressing the problems". As far as I see here, there isn't much of an consensus either way here. I think Tundrabuggy is more inclined to prefer the stable version and you support Haberster's changes. TM hasn't said much recently content-wise so it's hard to know where he's holding. In any case, if you want to draw the lines (something I would prefer not to do) it's 3-2. Far from any sort of consensus. With respect, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but constantly misrepresenting what others have done, is totally uncivil. You also cannot claim to know what Tundrabuggy thinks, since he has not bothered to join this discussion. TM has however challenged the idea that your version is a "stable" one. In any case, considering you are going wikibreak, this "discussion" is now over. When you do decide to return, please discuss content substantively before deleting the sourced and relevant edits of others. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Stable version?

Brewcrewer, what is this idea of a "stable version? You should not revert helpful edits to wikipedia. See WP:PAPER; Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no such version as a "stable" one. Also read the bottom of the edit page where it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."--TM 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And with this edit, he reverted again, and I believe violated WP:3RR. I'm not going to report him now, but if this continues tomorrow, we should consider taking this issue to WP:AE. Brewcrewer's been notified of the sanctions surrounding Israel-Palestine articles and failing to respond substantively to the concerns expressed by other editors is disruptive (see WP:TE). I won't have it waste all of our time, to be frank. Tiamut^talk 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem, please go to dispute resolution. Throwing the rule book at every edit you disagree with is suspect, so I urge you to seek an admin if Brew isn't cooperating. You all have been pretty hostile to each other anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Wikifan. Thanks for your advice. Do you by any chance have any support for your assertions that "you all have been pretty hostile to each other anyways" (emphasis added)? Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut - But you don't own this. And you don't get to decide on your own which version is right and which one is wrong. So please, be substantively responsive.

Brew - why are am I the one playing games when you have yet explain any of the problems with the stable version? Making mass changes and then demanding that others explain the problems with the new version instead of explaining the problems with the stable version is probably the worst method of collaborating with other editors, let alone violative of Far from productive...Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, Wfan. You are right. I should have been more restrained in my response to being accused of game playing. Thanks for pointing that out. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, it's not an unnatural response. If someone is going to continue to warn editors with the rule book, I'd rather they honor their threat than use the talk page as a platform for attack. I wish Tiamut would seek an admin if she is truly bothered by you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's precisely because I don't want to go to admin that I am warning Brewcrewer that I will. When he takes up a serious discussion which allows for others to understand what his problems are with the new version, we can come to a consensus about how to proceed. If he fails to explain what is wrong with the new version, it's impossible to even identify what the dispute is about.

All I know is that Brewcrewer likes his version and doesn't like the new one. He has not explained why. Conversely, Haberstr has explained why his version is superior. I agreed with his explanation, edited his version, removing some material from Btselem, copyediting, moving references to the end of sentences per WP:MoS, etc. Brewcrewster again reverted the changes, and he refuses to explain why. He communicates vague policy related objections only in edit summaries and then claims (falsely) that others and are not discussing or have not explained what is wrong with his version which he claims was "stable".

Please read disruptive editing WP:DE: "You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors." I have asked multiple times for a detailed explanation of what is wrong with the changes that have been made. I have not gotten it. There is no way to have a discussion without it.

Like I said, I'd prefer not to have to take this to an admin, but if he keeps on this way and the article remains in the sorry state it is in, I will. If you think that's "threatening" or "unfair", you might review WP:AGF. I'm not interested in eliminating people I don't agree with. I am interested improving articles according to our policies. Tiamut^talk 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut: With all respect, besides for like three edits that had to do with content, most of your comments here have been either yelling at me, singing the praises of Haberster, and threats. Can we start with content please? Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting what is happening. I have made a number of content edits directly to the article. I cannot discuss content with you when you refuse to do so. Every post I have made on the talk has been an attempt to understand what your problems with the changes that have been made. If you don't answer simple questions, I repeat them, with growing frustration. Forgive me for being human. Tiamut^talk 13:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Elementary and fundemental

This encyclopedia is built through a collaborative effort of multiple editors. Thus, it is most elementary and fundamental that an editor can't make mass changes to articles and then demand that those that have a problem with his or her edits give detailed explanations for their issues with the changes. Because another editor can just switch back to the previous version with the same demand, and we just end up chasing our tails. This, in essence, is WP:BRD. Thus, editors who wish to make mass changes to an article must do more then just copy and paste their version and the previous version to the talkpage and claim that they have "discussed" the proposed changes at the talkpage. Thank you, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This encylopedia requires editors to act in good faith. It also requires that they be truthful in their interactions with one another. You keep claiming that no one has discussed the proposed changes they have made. That is false. Haberstr (talk · contribs) has gone to considerable trouble to do just that in multiple sections above. Paragraph by paragraph, he explained what was wrong with you version in Talk:Nizar Rayan#'Personal life and background' changes made by User:Haberstr, Talk:Nizar Rayan#'Israeli attack' changes made by User:Haberstr and how the wrongs were corrected in his text. Instead of responding in those sections to the objections he raised point by point, you opened this section Talk:Nizar Rayan#Discussion format which you ended by creating a strawman, selecting one sentence at the top of one section penned by Habrstr to ask if it explains the problems with your version (which you since taken to calling the "the stable version").

I am not sure if you are being purposefully obtuse or just extremely careless in your reading. Either way, what I am going to do right after I finish posting this, is to waste more of my precious time, to format the paragraphs in a way that will allow to see what Haberstr wrote more clearly. If you are truly interested in understanding and/or discussing what is wrong with your version (which has long ago ceased being a WP:CONSENSUS or "stable" version), you can by taking up a real discussion there.

What I think might be more beneficial, however, (as I have asked you in every post I have made since coming to this page after seeing Haberstr's request for more eyes on this article at WP:PALESTINE) is if you could simply explain what you find so objectionable about the changes that have been made with the input of many editors on this page and represented in this diff here. In the edit summary you claim that "there are numner of problems with thsi vsion including WP:OR and WP:NPOV". As Haberstr went to the trouble of explaining paragraph by paragraph what was wrong with your version and how he corrected it in his version, I think it's only fair you do the same here. Because I am having trouble understanding why your version is better.

Protecting your version by reverting it back into existence interminably and then claiming it is a "stable version" that has enjoyed consensus for two months is not a convincing argument. Excluding the work of others without explaining how the content goes against Wiki policy is disrespectful. So please explain in detail where the OR and NPOV are in the edits you reverted, paragraph by paragraph. We can then work together to address the concerns and forge a new consensus version that includes the efforts of all interested editors. Until we understand what your problem with the changes made are, we cannot move forward. Tiamut^talk 19:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut: Please stay WP:CIVIL. Please don't repeat claims that have been disproven. Please don't claim that copy and pasting different versions to a talkpage is considered "explaining the problems with the stable version". Please stop yelling at me and sticking up for Habester. Please just stick to content. Please state your specific issues with the article. Please understand that editors can't make mass changes sans edit summaries to a stable article, have their mass changes reverted by multiple editors with edit summaries, and then demand that the reverters make a case for the problems with the new contentious version. Thank you, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm signing off now, so I won't be able to respond to your comments/attacks until later. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, I never yelled at you. Yelling would involved CAPS or bolding of text. I have lost patience with you for being non-responsive to the concerns of your fellow editors. I see now that you have gone on wikibreak without addressing any of issues that have been raised here about the problems with your version and the benefits of the new one. As such, I have restored most of the changes you reverted out. If you decide to come back to editing, I hope you will respect the contributions of others by not edit-warring and stonewalling people who ask you simple and direct questions. If that happens, I am sure we will have no problem writing a great article. Cheers, Tiamut^talk 13:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

a nice picture

if anyone watching this page - there's a nice image of the man. If no one will object in the next couple of days - it will be inserted. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'm not a pic guy. Don't really know the free image rules and don't know how to format pics.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know them either, but the image can be traced from the PALD forum, which is definiely free. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, have a look at WP:UPIMAGE and especially WP:IUP (particularly the 'Adding images' section below)

Before you upload an image, make sure that either:

• You own the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself).
• You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license.
• You can prove that the image is in the public domain.

or

• You believe, and state, a fair use rationale for the specific use of the image that you intend.

Trying to figure out whether it's okay for an image to be uploaded is unfortunately almost always painful but it's mandatory. You need to be able to prove or at least make a convincing case on the description page that the image can be used. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Regarding this image, I'll reupload it from the PALD forum, so no problem here. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Scep: Do you think we should put the pic in the infobox?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The quality of the pic is not so good, but if you think it is appropriate and you know how to do it - make it so. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried, but to no avail.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I really dont know why I help y'all, but here you go (you really should find another pic for the infobox though) Nableezy (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, you are the best. I'll try to place another picture of better quality during the weekend, and then we'll make a swap. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I am, did I mention I am modest too :)? Nableezy (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. There were a lot of things I learned about you this week. It will be such a loss if you won't help me with that article. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is he wearing a suicide belt in this pic?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a flak jacket, but I dont know Nableezy (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Don't you see 2 rifle magazines and a flask? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

→Well, I wasn't exactly fair with you. The one below is neutral - but please take care of its tagging.

Image:Nizar_Rayyan_4.jpg --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

where did you get these pictures? Just asking to try to determine copyright status/fair-use possibilities. Note that if no copyright tag is placed on these images they will be deleted. Nableezy (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, since these images do not have their copyright status determined am making them into links instead of showing them on the page. No non-free images are allowed anywhere outside of article space, and until we can determine what the status is for these images I think it is better to err on the safe side. Regardless, I think we would be able to show fair use of the last one if it was intended to be a picture of an event and not the man specifically, the others will be more difficult. But please do let me know where you found them and will try to help with licensing. Nableezy (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In each one of them I wrote that the source is PALD forum and even provided the link - so you can see them all by yourself and make sure they are from public forum. Please help with their status. Thanks. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Licensing issues

After going through these I do not think any of these can be used without a fair-use rationale. The one image I was able to find its status is Image:Nizar_Rayyan_2_08-05-2009.jpg which is originally an AP picture (source) The forum where these were taken also does not have any information relating to a release of copyright. As such, and as I have been unable to find a truly free image of Rayyan, I have uploaded a file that is not free but meets fair-use and its copyright owner can be properly attributed: Image:Nizar Rayyan AFP.jpg. Nableezy (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

political and religious heritage

'In a Hamas rally on 23 June 2003 Rayyan stated in front of a mass crowed in Gaza:” All of Palestine will be liberated by our Mujaheedin (Muslim fighters) and their guns and not through fruitless political negotiations. Our campaign with the enemy will continue and will not stop at the borders of Gaza strip even after their retreat (from Gaza). Haifa, Beit Shean and Tabaria (Israeli cities within sovereign state of Israel before 1967) are our lands and with God’s will, we will celebrate in (the Israeli city of) Ashkelon”.'

'On 15 June 2007, a few days after the Hamas military coup taking over Gaza, Dr. Nizar Rayyan openly declared that the secular era in Gaza has ended and Islam will triumph over the Infidels.Rayyan promised to turn the headquarters of the National Security Forces (of the Palestinian Authority) in Gaza into a big mosque and to deliver a sermon at the presidential headquarters. In addition, he said: "In a few hours, the secular era in Gaza will end without leaving a trace... Today heresy ends. Today the struggle is between Islam and the infidels, and it will end with the victory of the faith.'

'Sheikh Rayyan was supportive of suicide attacks and preached vigorously in its favor encouraging Palestinians to carry out suicide operations, including an fanatic unprecedented personal example, when he agreed to send his son, Ibrahim Rayyan, age 14, to carry out a suicide operation during which he was killed by the Israeli army, after a successful penetration into an Israeli settlement that killed 2 Israelis in 2001.'

'..the Sheikh thought of the idea to camp out on roofs of houses in Gaza that Israel threatened to bomb from the air, and as such to prevent their bombing. In 2006 it was Dr. Rayyan, who cynically initiated to use the Palestinian civil population as a human shield to protect Hamas’ targets and homes against Israeli air strikes, knowing the sensitivity of the Israeli army in avoiding civilian casualties. Hamas used this fact in their terrorist build up of infrastructure during the recent temporary cease fire.'

all above from ICT report. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but is it reliable? There is a discrepancy re the age of his son that he sent on a suicide mission. According to sources cited in the WP article he was 22. This source says he was 14. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I opened all the sources from the article, no one says what the age of that son really was, all repeat more or less that 'He also sent his son to carry out a suicide attack in the community of Eley Sinai in 2001 in which two Israelis was killed, and was behind the bombing in the Ashdod Port in 2004 which left 10 Israelis dead'. Maybe I overlooked something, but the report comes from ICT, which is notable academic institute and I think should receive more credit and precedence over mass media sources. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times [9] has him at 22. I guess we'll have to mention both. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is of no particular importance, so I don't have problem with mentioning both. Still, I draw your attention - ICT is an academic source, LA Times - mass media. A speculation - the difference between the sources is 8 years; the difference between 2001 and 2009 is 8 years. Could it be LA Times correspondent made a mistake and calculated what the age could have been today? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be making sense. The oldest child killed in the missile strike was 16. It thus makes more sense that in 2001 his son was 14 and not 22.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call ICT an academic source. Besides, it's an Israeli think tank, so I wpould also be inclined to considered it as biased for facts dealing with Israel (similar to an inherent bias in Palestinian source in facts dealing with the Palestinians).VR _talk 22:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ICT is definitely notable academic institute and thin-tank for counter-terrorism - and this is easily provable. Attribution certainly due, but again, their reliability is far better than mass-media sources or propaganda sources like PCHR. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned PCHR because it is usually cited and I am not familiar with any other Palestinian source which is not mass-media. Do you? Now PCHR refers to IDF as IOF, and I hope you know what the 'O' stands for. Even Norman Finkelstein opposed this practice and said it looks like propaganda. You know what? If you will be able to refute any of the info from the ICT - I will be rethinking to include the above additions in the article. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

^^^^I did not know that. I am not questing such activity as these sorts of things have a lengthy history, however could you perhaps provide source? I'm too lazy to google. A little off-topic, but did you know the Palestinian "medical sources" classify "uninvolved" terrorists as civilians? Imagine if US F-16s firebombed Osama Bin Laden's batcave and his death would be considered a "civilian casualty" by virtue of not technically being "hostile" towards the incoming F-16s. What a joke. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

→ Finkelstein, Norman. 'How can we help the Palestinian cause?' Workshop hosted by The Federation of Student Islamic Societies at Birkbeck College, University of London. 2008-01-23
Quote: "It is the IDF, and it's also illegally occupying Gaza, it's illegally invading them. But don't use terminology which is going to make it seem as if you're a propagandist. Use the terminology that everybody else uses. [...] You should insist on [the term "occupation."] But I would not use 'IOF.' It's 'IDF.' We don't have to become propagandists because we could just use the mainstream [term] and still succeed." Is this what you meant? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Arabic sources routinely refer to them as the Israeli Occupation Forces. It is really not that big a deal. Nableezy (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How many arabic sources are considered reliable 3rd party? With the exception of AJ, almost all are state-controlled. Technically AJ is owned and controlled by a despot but apparently that doesn't matter. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets see how many I can think of quickly: Al Sharq al-Awsat, Al-Watan, Al-Ahram, Al-Arabiyya. But I have had a long day, maybe with some rest will think of some more to satisfy you. Nableezy (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Directed" by Saudi despot, common name used by clearly unreliable and state-owned companies, controlled by Egyptian censors, and another Saudi-run company. So, you were saying? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

State-ownership has nothing to do with reliability. These sources are reliable on what they report as news. Sorry if that bothers you, but these are major newspapers and news sources, they are reliable. But this has nothing to do with the article, and as I have said in many a place I cannot stand reading what you write, so have at it in this section, I aint paying attention to this anymore. Nableezy (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, state-ownership has everything to do with it. How would you feel if CNN was owned by the Bush family? Free media means criticism, criticism of their host government and that will never be tolerated. Egyptian media will never report the state-detainment and deportation of homosexuals or killing/torturing of Sudanese refugees. Anyways, none of those sources are reliable in wikipedia's eyes. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not again

Brewcrewer, I see you've gone back to trying to reinstate your version of how the article should look. We have been through this before, no? Tiamut^talk 17:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see you prefer to discuss in the section you created instead below. Fine. Tiamut^talk 17:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest reverts

Hey Tiamut. I thought you resigned a while back. Anyway, welcome back. The article has changed significantly and evolved since the last issue (maybe while you were gone) and we can't just revert based on year old discussion. Please explain your reasons for deleting huge chunks of the article. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My comment on why I reverted is above. Yes, the article has developed significantly. That's why I can't understand why you keep trying to reinstate the version you were trying to reinstate in June 2009. Its still not better than what we have as a result of the collaboration of mutliple editors. Tiamut^talk 17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You have now reverted back to the same version you were trying to reinstate in June 2009 twice. Please do not do it a third time. Its still not superior to the version we have now, which is result of collaboration between multiple editors. Tiamut^talk 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be a bit confused, Tiamut. The article has changed drastically since March when there was some edit warring going on about "preferred versions." [10]. You can't just remove sourced content on a 6 month old "discussion", when the discussion does not apply to the current issue at the article. Everything that you're deleting is sourced. Its borderline vandalism to continue removing sourced content without providing specific rationale.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of vandalism Brewcrewer. The link I provided you shows clearly that you are trying to reinstate your version of the article as it was on June 7th 2009. Since then, other editors have edited your version to remove what they described as biased information (see the article history) among other things. No one reinstated your June 7th version until you did today. While your edit summary indicated you were expanding the lead and adding more info, what you acutally did was revert to the version you authored as it stood on June 7th. Multiple editors did not see fit to restore your version. Why do you? The onus is upon the editor making the changes to explain why they are an improvement if others in fact disagree, no? Tiamut^talk 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit-warring and removal of sourced content without offering any specific rationals look very vandalistic. I'm sorry if you take offense. Since June 7th there has not been any rationales offered at this talk page for the removal of sourced content. If you would like to be the first to offer some rationle, I'd me more then happy to discuss specific issues you have with the article. Can we please commence discussing content? What are your specific problems with the sourced content that you continue to remove?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Brew, if the exact same text was unacceptable 3 months ago according to multiple editors why would it now be acceptable? nableezy - 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy. Nice to see you again. Please be more specific, cuz I'm not sure what you mean by "multiple" or "3 months ago". Do you mean Tiamut and Haberster in March, which was more like 6 months ago?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, he means 3 months ago. I provided you the link Brewcrewer. All you have to do is look at the article history form there on to see what happened. Tiamut^talk 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. In betweeen June 7 and Tiamut's revert, only one editor had issues with the article and s/he wasn't really that verbose as to the specific problems. As a matter of fact, s/he did not raise any specific concerns at the talk page. Its probably hard to be on top of the situation if you're not really editing the article, so please be a little more careful when making proclamations regarding the article history. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And round and round we go .... wheeeee! Brewcrewer, you reinstated what you had tried to put in the article in June 2009. Since June 2009, other editors changed the text. You did not notice (or care), until you came back here today to reinstate exactly the same edits that were rejected then. Time has moved forward. I like the version that developed after June 7th as a result of careful work by Haberstr and Nableezy. You like your version from June 7th. What specifically would you like to see form your version incorporated into this version? Tiamut^talk 18:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop playing these games. Nableezy made some minor edits, all of which were included in the version that you reverted. Would you like to discuss specific problems that caused you to revert en masse?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert en masse. You did. The diff above shows that clearly. Now LoveroftheRussianQueen has also reverted en masse to your June 2009 version. This version reintroduces bias that was corrected by Haberstr (rather painstakingly), in a series of edits he made in later in June. It is very time-consuming to go through things, keeping what is of value and discarding the rest, rather than make full reverts as Brewcrewer and LoveroftheRussianQueen are doing. Could we stop this? And focus on isolating what Haberstr overlooked that was of value in Brewcrewer's version instead? Tiamut^talk 19:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying that you didn't revert en masse doesn't change the fact that you did. Twice. I'll try again, would you like to discuss specific problems that caused you to revert en masse?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, you reverted to your preferred version from three months ago twice. I undid your reverts, asking you to discuss. The distinction is a fine one, but its rather important. Tiamut^talk 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's one very important distinction: You removed content that it impeccably sourced on the grounds that it changed a previous version. That's not a basis for content removal. Would you like to state specific problems you have or would you like to continue with these games?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed content you reinstated in a full revert to a version that has since been changed by multiple editors. Those editors went to great pains to isolate what they saw of value in your additions, retaining some things and discarding others. This is how Wikipedia works. You don't get to come back three months later and turn back time to exactly the same version you tried to introduce three months ago, as though nothing happened. Isolate what you want to see included that is not included and discuss. That's it, that's all. Tiamut^talk 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but that's just flat-out false. As clearly shown by the contrib history, there was one editor, Haberster, who made mass changes to the article without any sort of discussion on the talkpage. The other editors made minor changes, all of which were incorporated into the version that you unilaterally reverted. For the umpteenth time, please stop with these games and state the specific problems you have with the article that caused you to mass-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

6 months, 3 months, who cares. The point is why are trying to go back to the exact same article as existed 3 months or 6 months ago over the objections of other editors? When you apparently did not have much of a problem over the last 3 or 6 months about how the article progressed? nableezy - 19:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in these games, Nableezy. Tiamut is reverting based on "other editors" objections, which in this case is only Habester who did care to make his/her problems with the article at the talkpage. In any case, you can't remove content because another editor doens't like it. You must provide policy-based reasons for removing sourced content. The specific problems with the article remain a mystery. Would you like to start with specifics?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But there are a ton of changes that you mass reverted to, making the diff almost unusable. I'll work on specific issues, but the first one, and this remains an issue in both versions of the article, is a reliance on this source which is not a reliable source. nableezy - 19:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're not interested in playing games, then you will stop trying to turn back time. The article has progressed since your version of three months ago. Isolate what you want to see in the article that is not currently there and stop restoring your version from three months ago in full. It's that simple. You have to do some extra work too, not just ask others to. Tiamut^talk 19:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not turning back time, you are. Today you reverted the article because you preferred an old version. Would you like to discuss why you don't like today's version, but prefer the old version? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And today you reverted to an old version. Would you like to discuss what you dont like about today's version? nableezy - 19:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

....more game playing.........Today I added to the old version. The old version was fine, but I added to the article.

This game is boring me. I would like to commence discussing specifics with article. Would you care to explain what specifically your problem is with the sourced content that you removed?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhh no. You went to an old version, the only change you retained was the image. You didnt add anything to the "old version" you just brought it back. And it is tiring reading your complaints on game playing when it is plainly obvious who is playing. nableezy - 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So let's put in a different way so that we can avoid this wp:wikilawyering and games. Today I added content to an article, but you reverted my addition. You have yet to explain why despite my repeated begging for an explanation. Care to explain what the specific problem was with the content that you mass deleted?

You want to avoid wikilawyering? really? Then stop. Today you performed a mass reversion and then started throwing a fit when that mass reversion was reverted. Stop trying to make this only about reverts that came after your revert. You "added content" through a revert. So please stop wikilawyering and justify your revert, not just demanding that people have the same conversation as was had in months past just to placate your demand that your revert be allowed to stand. nableezy - 20:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The games are becoming more and more transparent. You want me to justify adding sourced content?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I want you to justify the mass reversion you have been performing. I want you to justify how material that was removed months as non-complaint with WP:NPOV seems to be a staple of your revert. I want you to justify why it is you keep saying we are reverting while completely ignoring that your very first edit today was a revert, not just adding sourced information. nableezy - 20:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The version that Brewcrewer prefers appears to be well sourced. Why are you removing well sourced material? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if read the rest of the talk page you can see why. nableezy - 19:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

LoveroftherussianQueen, there is hardly any sourced material being removed. Look at the diff closely. Almost all of the information added has been retained. The difference is that Brewcrewer's version gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to narratives of suicide bombings (which are mentioned whever possible throughout the article and at the top of sections it has very little to do with). Other NPOV problems include failing to attribute serious accusations to their speakers. If Nizar Rayan was alive, Brewcrewer's version would be a massive BLP violation. As it is, it amounts to a sad attack on a dead man who can't speak to defend himself. Tiamut^talk 19:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rayan is not alive, so there's no BLP issue here. I disagree with your claim that "there is hardly any sourced material being removed. " Looking at the diff form the top, you are removing from the lead the sentence that reads "is alleged to have directed the Ashdod Port attack, which killed ten civilians. " - that statement is supported in the article by 4 high quality reliable sources - so it's not clear why you are removing it. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a BLP issue. The statement was a hypothetical.

The material on the Ashdod Port attack is still in the main body of the article. (In other words, no sourced material was removed, like I said.) Its just not in the lead. That's to avoid WP:UNDUE highlighting of what is, after all, an unproven allegation. (He was never charged or tried for that crime). Its actually a good example of the kind of problems Brewcrewer's version contains. Tiamut^talk 20:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: BLP - Let's not obfuscate the issues by introducing irrelvant hypotheticals, ok?

The lead should summarize the article- if the statement is in the article, and well sourced, and is highly relevant to the topic, it is not undue weight to include it. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

By that logic any sourced statement in the article belongs in the lead. That is not true so your conclusion is likewise false. nableezy - 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You may not find orchestrating suicide bombings to be notable, but the RS do. Almost every single article, if not every single article, that profiles Rayyan mentions prominently that he is alleged to have orchestrated the suicide bombings. Notability is decided by the RS. If they find a topic notable, its notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I do find his advocacy of suicide bombings to be notable. Note that our current version of the article states clearly: Rayan was a strong advocate between 1994 and 2004 or 2005 of suicide attacks on Israel, and his son died on one such mission. Its not hidden at all, but we don't unduly emphasize one attack he was alleged to have orchestrated (one he was not charged or tried for to boot). Makes sense, no? Tiamut^talk 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Truth is, you're probably right. It's not that notable that he orchestrated suicide bombings and it shouldn't be placed in the lede. I'm happy to see we've began discussing your specific concerns you have with the latest version so that we can make a collaborative effort to perfect the article. It's great to reach a consensus. I'm gonna go ahead and remove that part from the lede. If you have any more issues with the article, please raise them here. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, are you smoking something? (And if so, please share.) This edit is another revert (that makes three in less than a few hours. One more and you've violated WP:3RR). The consensus above is that the Ashdod Port bombing should not be mentioned in the lead. Its not mentioned in the version that was up until you reverted to restore your version from three months. Why do keep doing this? Do you enjoy playing games? Like wasting people's time? I don't understand. Tiamut^talk 20:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

issues

brew: Nizar Rayan (Arabic: نزار ريان, also transliterated Rayyan) (March 6, 1959 – January 1, 2009) was a top Hamas leader who served as a liaison between the Palestinian organization's political leadership and its military wing. Also a professor of Islamic law, he came to be considered a top clerical authority within Hamas after the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004. Rayan was a strong advocate of suicide attacks on Israel. His sent his son on a suicide mission in which two Israeli civilians were killed. Rayan and most of his family were killed in an Israeli airstrike during the 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. The Israeli military warned Rayan about the pending attack, but Rayan chose to stay in the house with his wives and children.

other: Nizar Rayan (Arabic: نزار ريان, also transliterated Rayyan) (March 6, 1959 – January 1, 2009) was a top Hamas leader who served as a liaison between the Palestinian organization's political leadership and its military wing. Also a professor of Islamic law, he came to be considered a top clerical authority within Hamas after the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004. Rayan was a strong advocate between 1994 and 2004 or 2005 of suicide attacks on Israel, and his son died on one such mission. Rayan and most of his family were killed in an Israeli airstrike during the Gaza War.

problems: overemphasis on suicide bombings in the lead

brew: According to the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Rayan initiated the scheme of placing civilians on the rooftops of Hamas targets knowing that the Israeli army will avoid killing civilians.

problems: single unreliable source

brew: Rayan strongly advocated suicide bombing attacks against Israel. In 2001, he sent his son Ibrahim (either 14 or 22 years old) on a suicide bombing mission in which he died and killed two Israeli civilians at the former Israeli settlement Elei Sinai in the Gaza Strip. Rayan is alleged to have directed the 2004 Ashdod Port attack which killed ten people. He also ruled that under Islamic law, women may become suicide bombers. Hamas ceased its suicide attacks against Israel in 2005, but Rayan advocated for their renewal.

others: Rayan and Hamas began to strongly advocate for suicide bombing attacks to be carried out against Israel in 1994. According to Chris Hedges who interviewed him, Rayan constantly recalled that Hamas, "began to target Israeli civilians in 1994 only after Palestinian worshipers were gunned down in a Hebron mosque by a Jewish settler, Baruch Goldstein." In 2001, with Rayan's backing his 22-year-old son went on a suicide bombing mission in which he died and killed two Israelis at the former Israeli settlement Elei Sinai in the Gaza Strip. Rayan is alleged to have directed the 2004 Ashdod Port attack which killed ten people. Hamas ceased its suicide attacks against Israel in 2005, but Rayan advocated for their renewal after the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict began.

problems: The 14 yr old is based on an unreliable source with a reliable source contradicting it. If you really want to keep the wording of the source "he sent his son" fine. But you also remove his reasons for advocating suicide attacks.

brew: Rayan was a bitter rival of the Palestinian Authority. He was one of the principal architects of the 2007 Battle of Gaza, in which 400 Fatah loyalists were killed and dozens more were tortured and maimed. He later boasted that the battle "cleansed" the Gaza Strip of "traitors" and "CIA agents." According to a Hamas spokesperson, it's possible the Fatah-dominated Palestinian National Authority asked Israel to kill Rayan due to his role in the Hamas-Fatah clashes. He added that Rayan was one of the main reasons why many of Mahmoud Abbas's men "did not sleep well at night."

others: Rayan was one of the principal architects of the 2007 Battle of Gaza, in which Fatah security forces were routed and between 116 and 400 Fatah and Hamas fighters and civilians lost their lives. Both Hamas and Fatah were accused of atrocities, including torture, during that conflict. According to The Jerusalem Post, Rayan, "boasted that the Strip had been 'cleansed' of 'traitors' and 'CIA agents' - a reference to Abbas and his former security chiefs." According to a Hamas spokesperson, it's possible the Fatah-dominated Palestinian National Authority asked Israel to kill Rayan due to his role in the Hamas-Fatah clashes. He added that Rayan was one of the main reasons why many of Mahmoud Abbas's men "did not sleep well at night."

problems: again, an over-reliance on an unreliable source. And that he wasnt a rival of the PA, he was a rival with Fatah, bit of a difference. Dont have a problem with removing "according to JPost". But keep the "reference to Abbas and his former security chiefs"

brew: He proclaimed "true Islam ..."

others: he said (dont think we need the "at one time said")

problems: whatever, but why "proclaimed" overly dramatic

brew: include names of wives in personal life. Others include in strike section. Personally I think it goes better there as the only reason we know their names is because they were killed, but whatever.

Israeli attack section: Whats the point of the al-Aqsa TV quote? Also, why are you starting the section on the Israeli attack with something other than the Israeli attack. The current revision flow better with almost identical information. There really is no substantive difference in the content of that section so I do not understand why you keep reverting to it. Could you please explain why you are doing so?
nableezy - 05:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the basis for your claim that the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, an academic think-tank, is a non-reliable source? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure you can call a collection of retired army officer, here retired Col Jonathan Fighel, "academics". But there is also this which is a bit inconclusive, and certain think tanks are reliable sources, like the Brookings Institute or the Council on Foreign Relations. This one however does not have the reputation or profile of those and it is not often quoted by other reliable sources, though it on occasion is. But to answer your question, I see no basis for saying it meets WP:RS. Do you? nableezy - 19:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between being a retired officer and an academic, if that's the profession one chooses post retirement. There's certainly nothing unusual about it in a country with mandatory, near-universal conscription, and even less so when the think-tank's area of academic expertise is counter-terrorism. The ICT's founder and current board member is Dr. Ganor, the Associate Dean of the Lauder School of Government, who is currently a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution @ Stanford University, and teaches graduate counter terrorism courses at Stanford and UC Berkeley. You would be hard pressed to describe him as anything other than an academic. Another founder & board member is Prof. Uriel Reichman, who is the president of the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), and formerly the dean of the Faculty of Law at Tel Aviv University. Again, these are impeccable credentials as an academic, and the list goes on. Contrary to your claim, a simple Google search will show the ICT is frequently quoted by reliable sources (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22International+Institute+for+Counter-Terrorism%22&cf=all), with about 10 in the German media for this week alone, as well as by scholarly sources(http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22International+Institute+for+Counter-Terrorism%22&hl=en&btnG=Search). Your argument, in short, lacks any real substance. Take this to the RSN board, if you must. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry, I didnt see you mention any qualifications at all for Col Jonathan Fighel. Your argument, in short, was without substance in trying to demonstrate that this piece is reliable, and the fact that a basic fact of the age of the son as reported by this piece is directly contradicted by an established reliable gives greater doubt to the accuracy or reliability of this source. nableezy - 02:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is the ICT, not the individual researcher. We don't question the qualifications of an HRW activist such as Stork to comment on issues of international law (he has none) - we are satisfied that HRW is a reliable source. Same here. But just in case you are wondering, Fighel a Sr. researcher in an academic think-tank who is also is a member of the International Academic Counter Terrorism Community (ICTAC); A media commentator on security counter-terrorism who has has lectured in a number of universities around the world, including the US, India, Singapore and Germany. Again, take this to WP:RSN , as this is a prima facie acceptable reliable source. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And if you arent too busy, would you care to even attempt to argue why brew's version is better? Or is that asking too much? nableezy - 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

His version includes relevant material which is well sourced, so the onus is on you to explain why you are removing it. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What is being removed? The age which is contradicted by a reliable source? Name specific sentences that are better sourced. Explain why we should be reverting to a version that was improved upon in the last 3 months? Please do. nableezy - 03:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Read above. "According to the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Rayan initiated the scheme of placing civilians on the rooftops of Hamas targets knowing that the Israeli army will avoid killing civilians." - you are removing this based on a false claim that the source is not reliable . You are also listing at least 2 paragraphs where you are deleting information (e.g- the age, that he was an opponent of Fatah) because of the same false claim. That the version was "improved" in the last 3 months is disputed. Brewcrewer does't seem to think recent changes improved it, and I tend to agree. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The ICT has no qualifications for saying that Rayan initiated the "scheme" and if it were true you should be able to find another source. The age is contradicted by an established RS, if you wish to take this to WP:RS/N go ahead. And you think 1 sentence is a reason to blanket revert to 3 months ago? Interesting. nableezy - 15:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The ICT is a reliable source, and we can include that statement, attributing it to them. There is no need to look for other sources. when we have 2 different claims (e.g. about the age) by 2 reliable sources, we include both. Please don't remove well sourced material agaianLoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. When I show you multiple reliable sources that directly contradict a basic fact you just brush it off and say they are both reliable. No, when something as simple as this is shown to be false we dont just say include them both. Look below for multiple sources showing the ITC to have included factually incorrect statements. They are not a reliable source, you have not shown they have a reputation for fact checking (if they did they would have provided a correction for the age) or that they are highly regarded in their field. But you still havent explained why 1 sentence and one plainly false statement being removed are reasons to revert to 3 months ago. I have a great deal of anticipation in seeing what you can come up with. nableezy - 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

btw, that is what brew told me long time ago: "You may be making sense. The oldest child killed in the missile strike was 16. It thus makes more sense that in 2001 his son was 14 and not 22". The gap between 14 and 22 is 8 years, and so is the gap between 2001 and 2009. think about it. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont see how that make sense. They werent the same child. Multiple reliable sources say 22. nableezy - 15:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh

Part of the recent edit war includes the addition of the honorific "Sheikh" in the first sentence of the article. The manual of style says "Styles and honorifics related to clergy ... should not be included in the text inline". LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing it. Do note, however, that honorifics can be used if there is a consensus for their use or the person is most well know by their title. Tiamut^talk 18:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Love of the Russian Queen, I see you have now reverted to Brewcrewer's June 2009 version too. Would you care to join the discussion above instead of joining the edit war? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did. Please post a respsonse that addresses the question. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have. Please explain why you feel his version should be retained. You did revert to restore it, no? So you must have a reason why. Care to share? Tiamut^talk 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that the material you are removing is well-sourced and relevant, and you seem to be reverting solely because some historical version was closer to what you want. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed this false claim of yours above. We can continue the discussion there. Tiamut^talk 20:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional info on the attack

from the IMFA report (emphasis mine, SfA): "Ri’an was a senior Hamas operative, but he was not the target of the attack, although the IDF legitimately could have treated him as a military target due to his central role in planning and executing terrorist attacks. Instead, the operational goal of the strike was to destroy Hamas’ central compound in the Jabaliya refugee camp. The compound included several buildings that served as storage sites for large quantity of sophisticated weapons. The IDF limited the planned attack to the weapons storage site and did not seek to injure or harm Ri’an or, of course, any members of his family. The IDF also fired two separate rounds of preliminary warning shots with light weapons, 13 minutes and 9 minutes before the strike, providing sufficient time for residents to evacuate. The residents evidently understood these early warnings, as a group of them did leave the building, a fact confirmed by IDF surveillance before proceeding with the strike. The IDF observed this group evacuation and drew the reasonable conclusion that the buildings (including Ri’an’s house) were empty. Only then did the IDF launch the strike. Following the strike, secondary explosions were visible. This confirmed that Hamas used the buildings for weapons storage, and therefore it was a legitimate military objective according to the Law of Armed Conflict. Only later was it discovered that, Ri’an and his family chose to remain in the building after others had evacuated, leading to their death. The deaths of the Ri’an family members were tragic. Even so, it must be underscored that the IDF took appropriate steps to tailor its military strike to a proper military objective (the weapons storage site) under the cover of a civilian residence, and to extricate civilians from possible harm. To that end, the forces complied with international norms by giving effective advance warnings to at-risk civilians. That some civilians heeded these warnings, while the Ri’an family apparently did not, does not render the IDF’s action unlawful." Of course, for the article it would be abridged to one-two sentences and attributed, just thought it would be a proper response to B'Tselem statement. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)