Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in January–June 2015/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

NPOV

Nishidani, that's the pity, but beginning of your "new" article is not NPOV as its "2014" prototype.

You use again the same selective quoting what we are discussed now at your Talk page, bringing as a fact what has been written as "Locals said ..." even in Maan News - your source only. Unfortunately, you repeat the same Agitprop's trick of Maan (for some reason considered as RS by you :) - affirmative header which isn't approved by content.

Moreover: why do you add to the "violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" such administrative actions what you call as "property damage, house demolition" of illegal buildings? --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If you believe Ma'an News Agency is not RS, ask the appropriate board. The fact that a EU sponsored regional newspaper is Palestinian is no reason for thinking it less objective that the Times of Israel, or Ynet, both of which are far more prone to use inflammatory adjectives and biased nouns in their (under)reportage, but which I accept as RS, because they are.

I did not create the 2014 article. Someone else did and that person acted on a consensus decision on the Silent Intifada page. I merely made it more comprehensive by following the indications in the title given to that new page. So your argument I am on an NPOV violation spree has no merits. There are dozens of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel etc pages with no mention of the 'other' party's violence. These pages at least subscribe to NPOV: all violence by all parties reported in RS will be noted, and where possible sourced to sources on both sides. It is no argument, again, to say a page is not NPOV, when it is a stub. If you believe that, take it to AfD, and see what the consensus of outside editors is.

Property damage was added to the 2014 article insistently, when it referred even to a broken windscreen in a settler's car, despite a general agreement not to use it on that page. I saw no one from an Israeli POV removing it. They let it stand, against the agreement, and it was reinserted, with no one backing me, after I removed it, and one edit on Palestinian property damage. Destroying someone's home is a form of violence, destroying someone's crops and livelihood is a form of violence, and there is no reason to believe such incidents cannot be registered, as every Hamas missile hitting a farm or shed or building is duly registered on the pages I mentioned. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that "EU sponsored" Maan as well as other anti-Israeli NGOs doesn't make it RS. What is only interesting in this example, is your silent about above mentioned trick, has been used in your edit.

I do not write about "Someone else" edits, I do write about yours ones here in "2015" article as well as in "2014" one.

Your own opinion about Israeli actions against illegal building does not give any base for their including into the article with "violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" title. So I erase them.

Any way, I do not accept and even not understand your next attempt to equate terrorist attacks on "settler's cars", regular autobuses, etc. with legal Israeli actions. If nobody was killed in such attack means only that its goal hasn't been reached and does not alter its violent nature. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

'Your own opinion about Israeli actions against illegal' building'. I.e. you espouse the Israeli official POV, contrary to international law, that Palestinians building on their own land, in territory over which Israel is the occupying power according to international law, are engaged in 'illegality' when they build without an Israeli military permit. This is one POV (Israel's) but it is not a 'fact' of law. All Israeli building over the Green Line is illegal, in the POV of International Law. So, given that your wording reveals you come to these articles with a government POV, please desist from repeating that I am some anomalous POV pusher here.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You have an opinion, nothing more. Ask colleagues. The fact that you have the primitive idea that any forum, newspaper or media outlet that documents what happens to Palestinians is ipso facto therefore 'anti-Israel' means it is pointless discussing these issues with you. You do not understand WP:NPOV which is the balancing of all perspectives according to sources, not the establishment of one POV from one POV source base, to the detriment of the other party. Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani: "The fact that you have the primitive idea"; "You do not understand WP:NPOV" - here; "I think you are well-meaning but this is silly" (other Talk)...

Mr Nishidani, whom have you yourself imagined as ? Guru in class of fisking? Hero of "Cult of personality" comics? :)

"Give someone an inch and he'll take an ell"...

Perhaps I was too polite to you, giving a reason to think you are entitled to teach somebody else.

So let's call by name, what is at stake in this topic:

Someone N. was caught once again red-handed on selective quoting, and then hasn't written a word about this subject.

In response to my argument that inclusion of "Property damage" incidents into the article doesn't correspond to its "List of violent incidents" title he wrote above that "Property damage was added to the 2014 article insistently...", adding, as usual for him, a lot of extraneous considerations ...

So I have to realize that instead of a clear answer about his actions Mr. N will write only something as dull Pal.Agitprop propaganda.

Note: discussion about (not) legality of both sides' actions in Judea and Samaria may be continued at other relevant Talk pages, but not here --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You didn't catch me out 'red-handed' with selective quotation. That is sheer fantasy. If you think an editor has not given the full context, you simply add what you consider missing from his source. Don't huff and puff about agitprop. Facts are not agitprop, and this page is and will continue to be, a list of facts, regarding injuries to either party. Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did. See diff above as well as other your such your attempts. Any editor has to make NPOV edits. Isn't it? --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Next "Locals said" is omitted (10.01, Maan) :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

About Maan what Nishidani regards as RS: "As a result, local youths sometimes respond by targeting vehicles belonging to settlers on the area's main roads". :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As my citations now show, it is a legitimate POV to regard demolition of civilian properties and damage to livelihoods as both acts of violence and forms of illegality under international law. Israel is legally, even in Israeli law, an occupying military power, and is bound by international conventions. All Israeli activities in those occupied territories which violate the Conventions and articles of war are forms of violence. On the other hand, Israeli courts have tried to devise a legal system that justifies these, in rulings that are perceived as valid in Israel, but not in the broader field of international law. You have an Israelocentric, POV (Judea and Samaria is unwiki Likud language)? Fine. I am very attentive to the Palestinian and International Legality POVs, fine. NPOV consists in putting forth both sides of any issue, event, or question, and I will continue to do so.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nishidani: "As my citations now show..." your "cituations" seems as next trick and wp:OR/wp:SYNTH). See next subtopic. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of those buildings are being demolished b/c of construction rules and not as part of the conflict. There are Israeli buildings demolished and fines given to Israelis as well. My brother is an architect who works around there a lot and have to solve issue for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtul (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

not in sources & OR/SYNTH

Nishidani's variant of head section & "citations"

This is a list of individual incidents and statistical breakdowns of incidents of violence, including property damage and expropriation, taking place between Israel and Palestinians in 2015 as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, but exclusive of particular events that fall within the parameters of any full outbreak of war hostilities.

• "Violence by Israeli settlers", "Settler violence against Palestinians"

- not about Israeli authorities. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead reads:

This is a list of individual incidents and statistical breakdowns of incidents of violence, including property damage and expropriation, taking place between Israel and Palestinians in 2015 as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict,

Settlers are Israelis, and the quotation from OCHA lists settler damage to property as a form of violence.

Violence by Israeli settlers . . . includes physical assaults, harassment, takeover of and damage to private property, obstructed access to grazing and agricultural land, and attacks on livestock and agricultural land, among others.

Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Once more: "Violence by Israeli settlers" - it's "not about Israeli authorities". --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• "The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism"

- not about the subject. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

'The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as follows: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives

The lead sets the terms of definition. One widely used definition includes property damage as terroristic, and as the citation by Brian Frederking underneath shows, one of the points of view is that property damage is a form of state terrorism. Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's you, who is trying to connect the definitions of State Terrorism & House demolition to this article, bringing to it only those sources which may approve your own POV. I'd recommend you to learn these articles & and their sources. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• "while one side interprets Israeli policies in the occupied territories as state terrorism, the other side considers Israel to be acting in self-defense"

- so? Only one of possible opinions. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole citation underwrites what the lead says: definitions say that terrorism is an intentional act of violence against persons and/or property, and it is intended to intimidate a population or influence government policy'. This is the POV of both Palestinians and the International Community and International law, i.e., that willful property destruction is not permitted to Israel as an occupying power. Saying 'so? Only one of possible opinions' is not an argument, but an expression of dissatisfaction. You are welcome to add other sources to complete the point.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See above: "It's you, who is trying to connect the definitions of State Terrorism & House demolition to this article, bringing to it only those sources which may approve your own POV..." --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The destruction of a home is a barbaric act, and taking such a course of action, no matter what the excuse, is an act of terror that comes under the category of a war crime. . It would be hard to overstate the symbolic value of a house to an individual for whom the culture of wandering and of becoming rooted to the land is so deeply ingrained in tradition, for an individual whose national mythos is based on the tragedy of being uprooted from a stolen homeland.'

The connection is the sources as a POV.which as such mmust be represented in the text.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Whom are you bold now? Is it from too? As I see Frederking did write the following :

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has greatly complicated this dispute. While those on one side interpret Palestinian acts of violence (particularly those suicide bombers that kill Israeli civilians) as clear acts of terrorism, those on the other side interpret Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation as a legitimate act of national struggle. Conversely, while one side interprets Israeli policies in the occupied territories as state terrorism, the other side considers Israel to be acting in self-defense

--Igorp_lj (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Look. It's hard enough dealing with people who don't understand Wikipedia, without negotiating with people who write garbled English.'Whom are you bold now?' is meaningless. Secondly, what you quote is what is in the citation. I challenge any person of average intelligence to understand the point you are trying to make.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Look. It's hard enough dealing with people who don't understand" (@Nishidani) even irony inside "" :)

Ignoring your next personal attacks: "what you quote is what is in the citation" (@Nishidani) - absolutely true, and this quote does indicate that 'not in source' regarding to is correct, in contrast to your "point you are trying to make" (@Nishidani).

I think that even "average intelligence" isn't needed "to understand" (@Nishidani) that this quote is Benvenisti's one cited in another source, and what for some reason placed by you here. Or you again "confuse the tracks"? --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the tags because they are self-evidently false descriptions, since the sources contain precisely the quotations attributed to them. I will remove the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH tags unless you can, arguably in a separate section, show where I have engaged in original research and synthesis. I have simply cited various sources for the definitional language regarding violent acts to show that violence does not exclude the willful destruction of property and livelihoods. The sources say this. I didn't make it up.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll restore the 'not in source' tags because I did show that the these sources do apply either to individual settlers only, or to different POV regarding the State Terrorism & House demolition, but not to administrative actions of the State of Israel performed in accordance with its relevant regulations. I'd remind that just such 2 actions you've included into article ('5 January' incidents from your edit) as violent ones. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You have shown nothing, zero, zilch. You cannot tag with 'not in source' a source which contains that quotation. Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"zilch" (@Nishidani)? IMHO, this is about your "arguments" :) And about your "bold": it's not an argument too. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Expressing its Grave concern"

- so? Pls remind was it before or after Goldstone report and his retraction of it? (:) --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

'the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses, the confiscation and destruction of property' are defined as grave violations of international law.'

There is no reasons why violations of law should not be considered as a form of violence to the occupied population.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You haven't answered to my question about "Goldstone report and his retraction of it? (:)". The rest - see above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is the article POV tagged? There seem to only have been a problem with some few parts but not any more (no tags given in the other places now). So then there is no need keep the tag. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Understanding wikipedia's elementary rules

Igorp. You are required to explain why you placed a tag here on four separate sources. Any independent eye can immediately confirm that what is quoted is in the linked source. Since this is such an elementary form of abuse, I won't reply to the screed above until this is clarified to my satisfaction. If you cannot show that those links do not contain the material quoted from them, and refuse to budge, I will report you.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See aleady existing explanation in "not in sources & OR/SYNTH" subtopic above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please reply to my request. You cannot tag as 'not in source' a quotation that is in that source.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See above and let's continue there --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Next look

Nishidani, if I understand well, during my absence you took back your claims that sources relate to Israeli authorities' actions. However, you continue to insist on their {{OR}} inclusion, basing on mainly new one-sided sources. It also remains to understand why have you removed the Ashtul's sources.
So I am going to return to the article the OR template what you've removed for unknown reasons, and to deal with information on cases of Arab violence, removed either by you or by Zero. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Continued:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_2015#POV Tag

--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

POV Tag

See also: Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 § NPOV

I had added the POV tag months ago. I wasn't aware that it had been removed, so I re-added it. This article is so absurdly stacked it indicates a clear WP:POV and WP:Ownership as you've defined the very grounds of what should be deemed notable. The fact that the second paragraph of the lead is dedicated to housing demolitions is absurd well poisoning that has little to do with the topic of the page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an opinion. Back it up by facts. What have I missed. This was, against my view, once about incidents of violence. It was changed to 'Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict' by Greyshark. A Timeline registers events, and the events registered are those in notable mainstream sources, 3 Israeli and I Palestinian, namely Haaretz, The Times of Israel, Ynet and Ma'an News Agency. Housing demolitions are noted in allfour as regular events illustrative of the conflict. I don't own this. Here, as in life generally, I follow Rabbi Shmaya's advice: "Love work. Hate authority. Don't get chummy with the powers that be." (Avoth 1:10). A lot of editors are lazy, but that's not my fault.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Also consider the some people don't have the inordinate amount of time to edit that you do. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of my time is spent reading on topics I never edit, or gardening or looking after people, believe it or not. I dislike wasting too much time on this enterprise.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"namely Haaretz (9 mentions), The Times of Israel (19), Ynet (17) and Ma'an News Agency (134).

As I guess all Ma'aan refs are yours. What about other ones? :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ma'an, being the dubious publication which publishes patently false stories, like this one which said Israel was flooding Gaza with non-existent dams in Southern Israel[1]. Maybe we shouldn't be relying so heavily on a paper with such a dubious record. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The I/P conflict involves two peoples. Per NPOV we seek rounded coverage from both sides. I use 3 mainstream Israeli newspapers, and one mainstream Palestinian paper. The latter figures more prominently in sourcing because the events are rarely covered adequately, if at all, in the Israeli English-language press. Ma'an was established with European government support. All newspapers publish allegations that prove to be false, and mainstream newspapers usually offer retractions or report the other side's version, as did Ma'an on that occasion. Please note that that allegation was never registered on this page: I evaluate from numerous articles what fits the intended coverage of this article, and exclude much that fails rather severe criteria for inclusion. That Ma'an has to be used only shows how poorly Israeli and western mainstream coverage is of the Palestinians. Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ma'an did not offer a retraction to a story that was patently false. Indicative of poor journalistic quality of that publication that should not be so heavily relied on. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please concentrate:'All newspapers publish allegations that prove to be false, and mainstream newspapers usually offer retractions or report the other side's version.' While anyone in the know at the time knew that Judith Miller of the New York Times was writing up fabrications for two years, and mentioned it frequently in print, the NYTs took donkey's ages to fess up. Israeli courts have laid down verdicts that Israeli secret services persistently lied for decades, and were regularly, and still are, quoted in the mainstream press. Scholars have noted that Israeli government on incidents are purposely dishonest, and they are all unwittingly relayed as facts. You have one example of Ma'an relaying a report it later balanced by giving the Israeli version: that does not add up to anything. The 'imbalance' you protest about is in reality: an unarmed people lives among heavily armed occupying population regular stealing property and resources and an army that seems trigger happy even in trivial confrontations. All Israeli statistics show an imbalance over decades of 1:10 in casualties in Israel's favour, so that translates out to far more incidents of harm, injury or death among Palestinians than among Israelis. Israeli papers generally ignore these 'minor incidents' unless there is a Jewish victim. Ma'an reports them, and that simple fact explains the difference.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• "All Israeli statistics show an imbalance over decades of 1:10 in casualties in Israel's favour...", etc.

As usual at Nishidani, his agenda is represented as a fact.

And even here, he (as usual) muddled information from his own source:

• Ranan D. Kuperman has noted that "information regarding casualties and damage are very reliable... However, Israeli government on incidents are purposely dishonest about reporting who initiated the incident.." (omitting by Nishidani)

So what is the real price for such "arguments" ? :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia as Ma'an's retranslator?

Next example (yet with Nishidani's claims :) : "For the nth time. Don't ask if the source doesn't supply an answer to a personal query. Look around and help find a source that answers the question"

A Palestinian was shot and wounded near Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip by Israel Border forces.

Dear sir, as you brought this information, it's you who is responsible for its completeness. Imho, if your source is not able to produce a quality information, there is no place for it in Wiki. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cite the relevant policy. I personally don't report what sources don't state, and no one else does either.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are yet examples what one had to add after next your not-NPOV contribution, when you add to what you call the article (in fact - Maan's propaganda List), only what condemns Israel.

Even Maan you managed to distort. :)

• "A 37 year old Palestinian man was shot in the right leg by in the Abu Safiya area east of Beit Hanoun after Israeli forces opened fire on fishermen and farmers across the Gaza Strip"

So if your suggestion means that somebody has to clean up after all such your fakes, the best way is to erase this propaganda List itself. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Nishidani to Plot Spoiler

You are going around consistently and reverting me, and making a nuisance of yourself by incomprehensible, perhaps provocative reverts, as this here. If this is just gaming, I fully expert the other reverter to back up and see what I do. Instead, if you have a disagreement with the page, on a text that has been stable for months, you should not go around removing text en bloc without a talk page justification.

• The article is called 'Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict'.
• That is taken to mean, a list of events that illustrate the conflict between Israel and Palestine (for the year 2015).
• House demolitions are regarded as a source of conflict by most sources, certainly by international bodies and the Palestinians themselves.
• Therefore you must show why they are insignificant or irrelevant for the page topic.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Stable because you've wholly WP:OWNED the page for MONTHS. LOL. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I edit the page. No one else does, that does not translate into WP:OWN. The few who have, do so to revert, erase, cancel or tag it, without argument, like yourself, and they are all identifiably pushers for a certain POV. If you haven't got the time to be constructive here, don't whinge.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I know YOUDONTLIKEIT that you no longer get to singularly WP:OWN this page to push your narrow WP:POV. Tough noogies. You're just going to have to learn to edit collaboratively and constructively. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That's another personal attack. Please list specific omissions or additions you object to. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

See topics above (as well as in other articles) about your omitting, selective quoting, etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but your own comments are generally incomprehensible and personal attacks, like those of Plot Spoiler. If you think this page consistently misquotes or selectively quotes sources, indicate where. Nishidani (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No comments to another personal attack from you. There are a lot of such indicated examples in this Talk as well as in others ones. Simply open your eyes. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

To be restored

Thanks for telling me you removed the following entry.

• 11 May
  • Israeli forces conducted overflight exercises on the Gaza Strip, and in an incursion escorted bulldozers into Shuja'iyya, Gaza city under cover of fire. Shots were fired within the vicinity of farmers at Khan Yunis.

The edit summary is not compatible with wiki policy. I.e.’ Great example for ma'an lack of credibility. This type of IDF activity would have draw more attention and official Hamas response.’

This is second-guessing things, assuming that if Hamas doesn’t react, or if the customary incursions of the IDF to bulldoze ground are not mentioned in Israeli mainstream newspaper , a Palestinian RS that mentions it lacks credibility. I report what I read, believing no report, Israeli or Palestinian tells one the 'truth'. They give, if they report anything, versions, and that is how I attempt to draft the page. This is not therefore an example of lack of accuracy of the type I requested.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you for real? You gave the definition of unreliable source!!! "They give, if they report anything, versions,". Is being RS a god-given present which then one carries forever. No, you look at the reports and if you find them unreliable (maybe only on a certain subject) you declare a source unreliable.

I didn't say the land invasion didn't happen because Hamas didn't react but b/c Hamas didn't even write anything about it. Niether did any other credible media source. You can get away with all the other blackwashing on Ma'an saying 'it isn't enough of interest for other reliable media' but this land invasion couldn't possibly not get more attention.

In short, Ma'an publishes any 'version' w/o checking the facts. Without filtering. I don't see how this isn't equivalent to WP:USERGENERATED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.44.241 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Factual accuracy tag

Could editors please direct me to events whose factual accuracy is under challenge. Any dissonance between sources and the paraphrase is quite easy to fix. Unless such evidence of distortion is forthcoming, the tag must be removed.Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Basically everything by Ma'an. For example, the removal of info (you entered) which you didn't dispute recognizing Ma'an (and yourself by introducing it into the article) took a step too far. If Ma'an are stupid enough to publish on a full scale land invasion (which obviously didn't happen) what does that tell you about their fact checking credibility? Ma'an writes about every rumor and in many cases with no factchecking. Writing 'reportedly' about rumors doesn't make them more credible than Aratz 7 which you insist on leaving out.

In your last edit while overtaking another vehicle which I couldn't find in any of the 3 sources. WP:FAKE

or he tried to make a U-turn which is super unlikely to result in two people going to the hospital (If you have driver license I don't need to explain). Another example of Ma'an lack of filtration or just pure whitewashing of terror.

BTW, you write while overtaking another vehicle, and that he tried to make a U-turn in one sentence. I seriously doubt you ever sat behind a wheel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.44.241 (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edit history shows you have a bee in a bonnet about pages I edit, tag them, revert, or make wild accusations. You introduced Ynet, described as a fact what sources from The Guardian to Haaretz call an allegation or suspicion, ignored the mention of the Palestinian versions given on the Ynet article, and now accuse me of WP:FAKE:

'In your last edit while overtaking another vehicle which I couldn't find in any of the 3 sources. WP:FAKE'

The source you introduced reads.

"The driver never tried or intended to run anyone over," said At-tur resident Mufid Abu Ranam. "He tried to overtake a car and his car skidded. And despite that, the police shot him." (Ynet)

I don't expect apologies around here but you should, technically, retract by striking out your wild and uninformed accusation. It won't look good if you are reported.Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, I appologize! putting the two in one sentence still make no sense.

Responde to the initial example, please!

Please reformulate what you call your 'initial example', and I will address it. It is not clear to me what you are referring to.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I refered to the imaginery incursion into Shuja'iyya which could never, ever go without int'l coverage. We are having this discussion in two threads now. Pick one to keep it going! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.44.241 (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler

Re this A report that says a driver was trying to "confirm a kill" by backing up his car after hitting 3 officers is a 'claim', even though it is 'stated'. Everything is 'stated' in sources but editors use 'allege' and 'claim' in these cases, where a statement includes the motives of the person, now dead, not interrogated, and it is ineludibly a claim. (the fact he worked in Israeli security firms, given he was said to have target security officials) is relevant.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC

Nishidani :)

Can you explain why haven't you attributed this "relevant" info omitting other such one in your edit:

Three policeman suffered light injuries when Omran Omar Abu Dheim (41) from Jabel Mukaber allegedly swerved his Land Cruiser into a group of Israeli Border policemen at At-Tur. A third officer on duty shot the man dead. Israeli sources claim he was trying to reverse the car over the policeman to "confirm" the kill. Palestinians on the scene variously claim the driver's car skidded while overtaking another vehicle, and that he tried to make a U-turn, denying that the intent was terroristic. The dead man worked as a security officer for Israeli transport companies. Israeli policed confiscated videos covering the incident from several Palestinian businesses.

vs

According to his brother Shafik, Abu Dheim worked as a security officer for Israeli transport companies. Shafik "also confirmed that the terrorist behind the 2008 deadly attack at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem had been a close relative" (his uncle).

--Igorp_lj (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason, every time I edit a page on Binjamin Netanyahu, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Olmert and so many others, I don't mention that their relatives were terrorists or close relatives of terrorists. There was a second reason, however. To obtain employment as a Palestinian in an Israeli security firm, you need a thorough security check of your background and clearance. The info on his relative was undoubtedly known to his employees. That did not stop him from being employed evidently, and if it was of no concern to the Israeli security firms, I saw no reason why it was relevant here, unless to smear by association. If later investigations prove a connection, and this emerges on the public record, it will be entered. As it is, every Palestinian has a relative who has served time in Israeli prisons. So, the kind of principle you are suggesting is that any mention of a Palestinian requires, if possible, some reference to a relative who has been detained, arrested on charges of violence. Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Instead of demagogy and your own ORs: can you simply answer on the same question : "why haven't you attributed this "relevant" info" and continue to "sell" the brother's version as a fact in your next edit? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Only one example of such "facts":

• "Omran's brother Shafiq Abu Dheim said eyewitnesses told him that "Omran was trying to make a U-turn in the middle of the road, but was impeded by a truck which was unloading vegetables at a produce shop."

:) --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This is absurd. My edit 'attributed'. If you can't see it, you can't construe simple English prose.Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Absurd? Pls, point where is your attribution here:

Three policeman suffered light injuries[268] when Omran Omar Abu Dheim (41) from Jabel Mukaber allegedly swerved his Land Cruiser into a group of Israeli Border policemen at At-Tur. A third officer on duty shot the man dead. Dheim had previously worked for Israeli transport security firms..."

? --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Listen, if in every other reply to a rational response you fling words like 'demagogery' my way, don't expect an answer. You're quite entitled to waste your own time, not mine. You are quite entitled to add to the article. Anyone can edit it, and making a boring fuss over what I disregard (I could write I suppose a half a paragraph on other incidental details, for many of the events in this list. I don't: the list is brief, and the links send the interested reader to the relevant sources) instead of being constructive is, as usual, vexatious.Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As I see there is no answer to my rational question. So here is my edit, with such attribution. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope. You do not answer my replies to your questions, but insist I attend to yours. It is a common symptom of bad editors in this place. Note I gave you a reason. Note you harped on the same grievance in your reply, while ignoring my argument. Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Pls point to such cases and let's see what are you talking about. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Talking of omissions, why did you delete 'on the day, was driving to the Mount of Olives, where he was employed as a school bus supervisor.'?Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, note only what source said about 'on the day...' --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Disputed and one source tags

A recent edit (diff) added {{disputed}} and {{one source}} tags. Such tags require plausible justification on the talk page. Re "disputed", what fact is disputed? What source disagrees with text in the article? Re "one source", see {{one source}} which includes "Citing only one source is not a violation of any policy". However, the article actually contains the following 270 references using the following:

• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=251auz8OBAwC&pg=PA96
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=3eZK7cm6pjoC&pg=PA72
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=CkLHZCzMEJkC&pg=PA426
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=COnrh2QuUIkC&pg=PA18
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=n3aTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA157
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=NmXBmOGbHL4C&pg=PA136
• 1 × domino.un.org
• 1 × hamodia.com
• 1 × news.walla.co.il
• 1 × www.aljazeera.com
• 1 × www.amnesty.org
• 1 × www.europarl.europa.eu
• 1 × www.icahd.org
• 1 × www.nytimes.com
• 2 × reliefweb.int
• 2 × www.jpost.com
• 2 × www.shabak.gov.il
• 7 × www.btselem.org
• 10 × www.haaretz.com
• 14 × www.ochaopt.org
• 19 × www.timesofisrael.com
• 23 × www.ynetnews.com
• 62 × www.maannews.net
• 115 × www.maannews.com

The above shows that the "one source" tag is not justified. Johnuniq (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The tag reads "This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source". Given maannews.net/.com take over 60% of the entries, it is completely in place. This is especially true when Ma'an comes into question with it's questionable factchecking methods and the fact many of those entries include 'reportedly, allegedly' (next step is maybe) and were disputed by other editors. Please check the two conversations above! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.44.241 (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This is an independent, non-partisan, examination of the tag by an experienced authority on Wikipedia. You have a few edits up. If you doubt his word, then cast about for a similar third party admin, with, like Johnuniq, no horse in this race (I/P) to review the technical issue. Ma'an is used alone when I can find no mainstream Israeli newspaper report, and editors, on each instance are welcome to provide what the JPost, Ynet, Haaretz or The Times of Israel report, if they ever notice these things. If they fail to mention things of vital concern to one party in the conflict, that is not my problem. NPOV requires that both sides be duly covered. Bickering on this is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Let Johnuniq look at this himself and decide. He should just take into account the list should look like this -

• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=251auz8OBAwC&pg=PA96
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=3eZK7cm6pjoC&pg=PA72
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=CkLHZCzMEJkC&pg=PA426
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=COnrh2QuUIkC&pg=PA18
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=n3aTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA157
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=NmXBmOGbHL4C&pg=PA136
• 1 × domino.un.org
• 1 × hamodia.com
• 1 × news.walla.co.il
• 1 × www.aljazeera.com
• 1 × www.amnesty.org
• 1 × www.europarl.europa.eu
• 1 × www.icahd.org
• 1 × www.nytimes.com
• 2 × reliefweb.int
• 2 × www.jpost.com
• 2 × www.shabak.gov.il
• 7 × www.btselem.org
• 10 × www.haaretz.com
• 14 × www.ochaopt.org
• 19 × www.timesofisrael.com
• 23 × www.ynetnews.com
• 177 × maannews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.44.241 (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you disregard the lead which isn't part of the list itself the source list will be -

• 1 × domino.un.org
• 1 × hamodia.com
• 1 × news.walla.co.il
• 1 × www.aljazeera.com
• 1 × www.nytimes.com
• 2 × reliefweb.int
• 2 × www.jpost.com
• 2 × www.shabak.gov.il
• 7 × www.btselem.org
• 9 × www.haaretz.com
• 13 × www.ochaopt.org
• 17 × www.timesofisrael.com
• 23 × www.ynetnews.com
• 176 × maannews

Largely is completely suitable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.44.241 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Maan isnt a single source, each article listed is its own source. nableezy - 21:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)