Jump to content

Talk:Yaser Murtaja

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arab-Israeli conflict editing restrictions

[edit]

This article probably falls under the Arab-Israeli/Israeli-Palestinian conflict editing restrictions (30/500 protection = extended-confirmed, plus 1RR). However, the template warning about the active arbitration remedies is not on this talk page yet. --89.173.232.70 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably" is not enough for a fact, anywhere on Wikipedia. Wakari07 (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd interpret "broadly interpreted" on {{ARBPIA}} to say that, yes, probably is indeed sufficient to add the template as the IP requests. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that admins decided. I rest my case. Wakari07 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Oops, actually, the AfD page for the Yaser Murtaja article was protected. Wakari07 (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of boldness I've added the template. --BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by "probably" was that it is almost sure it falls under the restrictions, but the administrators should take the necessary steps in this case. --89.173.232.70 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protect?

[edit]

Per the above, plus the article's history (includes edits by IPs), should this be protected? 2018 Land Day incidents (or whatever title it's using now) is protected. --BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to wait and see if the article survived AFD but just for you, I'll fill out the paperwork. --NeilN talk to me 15:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN lol. Thank you very much! -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

If kept, the article needs to be moved to something like Death of Yaser Murtaja, as per usual for individuals whose notability stems from the unusual circumstances of their death. To be clear, this young man (not yet 30,) might have become a notable cameraman or journalist, but notice had not been taken of him in RS until he was killed while filming a violent political demonstration. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be Killing of Yaser Murtaja or Shooting of Yaser Murtaja, as typical for such articles. That is, if the move is being considered. The current name (Yaser Murtaja) is okay for now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As there are no sources for the notability of the subject pre-existing his death, the article needs be moved to Death of Yaser Murtaja. Of pretty much anyone now dead you can posthumously say, "oh, he once worked in such and such noteworthy project," or "oh, he once met such and such famous people," yet the lack of WP:RS published before the subject's death is final and conclusive proof WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E applies. XavierItzm (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can agree on Shooting of Yaser Murtaja - there is no doubt that he was hit by a bullet as far as I can tell.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there is consensus.XavierItzm (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumplike23: - before reverting the page move - perhaps you should've looked at this section (as well as several comments at the AfD supporting a move).Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said this at the AfD: there are multiple RS after the shooting who specifically referred to his notability as a "noted", "rising star" photographer etc. Not a slam dunk case in either direction IMHO. That said, the best way to address the allegations re his political affiliation (made persuant to his death) is to keep in the biographical material about his career. So while I'm reluctant to fight about the title, I do think maintaining a wide scope for the article that addresses his prior work is crucial. --Carwil (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of coverage prior to 2018 clearly shows this is BLP1E. However, as he is the sole victim and the article (even with all bio details) is not long - there is ample space to cover his bio in the "Shooting of" or "Death of" article - which is typical in these situations.Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Full agreement with Carwil: "maintaining a wide scope for the article that addresses his prior work". Fine. Full agreement with Icewhiz: "ample space to cover his bio in the "Shooting of" or "Death of" article - which is typical in these situations." Fine too! Just like we had consensus before, we continue to have consensus now. XavierItzm (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent move

[edit]
Hello K.e.coffman. At the time I made the move, it was fully consensual, with zero opposing comments here on the TP. There was not one single opposing !vote here on the TP, even though the subject has been up since 8 April. I am afraid the onus is on any latecomers, and of course their input is most appreciated! Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The move has been contested by two editors so it's appropriate to start an RM. I see limited discussion some of which occurred while the article was at AfD. I don't see a consensus for a move w/o further input from the community. I'm personally fine with Yaser Murtaja; Killing of ... would probably be my second choice. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see one objection here on TP: yours. Your objection consists of an argument to start an RM, but you have already stated on 00:00, 2 May 2018 that Shooting of Yaser Murtaja, the move you reverted, is actually a valid option, as had the pre-existing consensus prior to your most valuable input. I think that's merely WP:PETTIFOGging the issue. We'll see if an RM starts at some point. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the other objection: [1]. As I mentioned, the discussion was limited, and I don't see a current consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's no objection. That's disruptive editing by someone who did not even look at the TP as policy requires, got reverted, and still failed to show up on TP, even after Icewhiz specifically called him on it: «before reverting the page move - perhaps you should've looked at this section (as well as several comments at the AfD supporting a move)» on 15:22, 1 May 2018. Sorry you missed it. In summary, here on TP, there is one objection: yours, and it consists of a request for an RM. XavierItzm (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that Coffman seems to have supprted a move above.Icewhiz (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Above, I was mostly objecting to "Death of..." since Murtaja did not die of natural causes. I then added if the move is being considered; I did not support the move. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

[edit]

The lead states that Gaza does not have an airport, but it does, it has Yasser Arafat International Airport, maybe the paper it confused as Israel bombed it and doesn't let it reopen. Could someone change it to "no skyscrapers and only a bombed-out airport". Of 19 (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - it does not have an airport. The Yasser Arafat International Airport is covered in sand, buildings destroyed, the runway bulldozed - you can see coverage of what it looked like in 2018 - here. The Gush Katif Airport (which was operational for a time after YAIA) has had houses built on top of it. I actually do think that the "no skyscrapers" is inaccurate (though it would depend on your definition of skyscraper). There are high-rises (over 10 stories, I think also over 20) in Gaza - e.g. coverage of a bombed one in 2014 - [2].Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas Member

[edit]

Could someone include this [3]--Shrike (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be mentioned in the title. Not just "a Palestinian video journalist and photographer from the Gaza Strip", but "a Hamas video journalist and photographer from the Gaza Strip". Corvus (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable source presented, any neutral editor would know that can't be added without a reliable source. Please delete at once, or is your conflict of interest too strong to edit here? Of 19 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JPost is a reliable source (as is Walla).Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As is wapo [4].Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post's effort at NPOV is as follows. We need to do at least as well as they do at attributing allegations and including contrary statements.
"Israel’s defense minister said Tuesday that a well-known Gaza journalist who was killed by Israeli gunfire over the weekend was a member of Hamas, an allegation denied by the Islamic militant group and the journalist’s family. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman provided no evidence to back up the claim."--Carwil (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier reports did not contain a denial from the family - which we should include. We already attributed our stmt.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag

[edit]

Icewhiz has tagged the article as POV because "serious POV concerns as RS are reporting subject was not or not only a journalist."

IMHO, contentions that Murtaja was not a journalist are overwhelmed by RS evidence presented here. I will ensure that coverage of the Norwegian organization employing him to create a documentary on the protests and off the footage he produced is added.

So, really this is a matter of coverage of the Israeli government claim that he was a member of Hamas. That claim appears in the article and is presented in a NPOV way that Icewhiz seemed okay with yesterday. I can only assume that the POV tag is in response to the edit war over also including it in the lead sentence. At the moment, we don't have the Hamas membership is not a verifiable fact, the Israeli assertion is. It is also a contentious claim about a BLP. It doesn't belong in the lead sentence. --Carwil (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli government claim, by a number of sources, was widely repeated in RS. I will note that it does not seem that the Israeli government disputes him being a journalist - just that they are claiming that this was a cover for other activities. At present - following a recent edit - diff - all claims of an alleged position in the Hamas security apparatus have been redacted citing BLP concerns (I will note that it is not illegal (in Gaza) to be in the Hamas security apparatus in Gaza - to the contrary - this is the government of Gaza - so the cited BLP concern is somewhat unclear). For NPOV, given the wide coverage of this claim, it should be in the lede and body (attributed of course) - as long as it is missing (BLP issues or not) - it is a big POV problem.Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the WP:RS coverage of this claim, and the fact that claims made by elected and appointed officials that draw media attention are routinely included in Wikipedia articles on current events, this material needs to be in the lede and in the text before the article meets our NPOV standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, we also have a statements by Lieberman that "anyone who operates drones over Israeli soldiers needs to understand he's putting himself at risk."[5] and that "I don’t know who he is, a photographer, not a photographer – whoever operates drones above IDF soldiers needs to understand that he is endangering himself."[6] But this is contradicted by IDF reports: "Contrary to an earlier statament by Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Saturday, the Israel Defense Forces said they are not aware of any use of drones by Palestinians during last Friday’s demonstration near the fence along the Gaza border."[7] Are we required to put every widely reported statement about Murtaja in the lead, or just the latest one?--Carwil (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Operating drones during the protests was not contradicted - the IDF was merely unaware of this during the day he was shot (though it is aware of this on previous occasions) - and furthermore Lieberman did not say this was done the day of the protests (it was insinuated, but not said). As for being in the employ of the Hamas security apparatus from 2011 with a rank equivalent to captain (naqib) - this had been made by several different Israeli sources (a nameless source (usually shin bet), someone in the PM's office, and Lieberman - which are the 3 I'm aware of from the sources) - and is repeated by others sources as "Israel said". Considering the Israel is the opposing side to the shooting here - it is DUE to include this. There are also BLP implications regarding Israeli soldiers in not including this on an article on the shooting (which is what this article is - despite being title as a bio).Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it the same editors who wanted this deleted suddenly are interested in contributing when the Israeli Defense Minister makes an unsubstantiated claim that this journalist is affiliated with Hamas? I am all for your participation but please read the sources. The WaPo source that was included notes that these claims are made without any evidence whatsoever; since that has not been contested, what is the value in his statement? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information for a reason: to focus on valuable and encyclopedic content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I still think this should be deleted - and it will eventually be deleted per BLP1E. But as long as it exists it should be NPOV. As for evidence - WaPo said none was presented to the media - this does not mean that Israeli authorities do not have evidence - and being a side to this event (per most, being responsible for the shooting) - the Israeli claim should be presented, not doing so is a NPOV issue.Icewhiz (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it you are re-nominating this article for deletion in the future? Or do you anticipate a dramatic shift in the current AFD? If the content is going to be re-introduced, it is going to look a lot like the way I left it, not the version that forgets to note no evidence has been introduced.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually avoid renomming - will let someone else do so if this closes not according to policy (and in anh event - this is months downstream). If the AfD closes per a headcount - I will probably attempt to move this to "Shooting of..." or something similar. The Israeli claim should go in - at the moment we have Lieberman's off hand remarks about drones at an event and several attempts to refute the Israeli claim (e.g. that USAID vetted him) - without mentioning the more organized release from 10 April claiming he was a salaried security appartus member with the rank of a naqib. If enough sources say "no evidence presented" - then as long as that is the case, then that may be in.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error

[edit]

As for this: "Zionist Union Minister of the Israeli Knesset Zouheir Bahloul" He is a member of the Knesset, not a "Minister". [1] The Zionist Union is in the Opposition. Shilonian (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk_eng.asp?mk_individual_id_t=913
Done. Might be UNDUE to have him in at all - but I fixed this to member of knesset.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easily sourced

[edit]

Icewhiz, if you had an issue with the New Yorker, why remove sourcing entirely? Just tell me. There is an over abundance of sources saying Murtaja was killed by Israeli gunfire. Please self-revert so I may add this source--unless, of course, there is now an issue with The Guardian.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note it is unattributed in the Guardian piece, which was your apparent issue with the New Yorker.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian piece is an oped per my reading. While it is easily sourced that Israeli snipers were shooting, and that the subject was killed by gunfire, the vast majority of neutral sources do not say that the subject was killed by Israeli fire, unattributed. While going from A+B to A-->B is very likely inference (over 90% surely), it is not a definite one. We need to be careful with what we say in our voice.Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, you are kidding? It is in The Guardian's "News" section and the writer expresses no opinion center to the piece! How about this one, or this one, or this one, or this one? All op-eds suddenly too?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources say according to Gaza Health Ministry even Al-Jazeera propaganda source--Shrike (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be careful with article titles - they are attentiin grabbers that do not go through the same vetting (particularly so in Haaretz when they translate most of these). Reuters attributes to Gaza ministry of health at the end of the paragraph. Telegraph says reportedly - so not per itself. Haaretz does not contain this in its body.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason these sources are cagey, as should we be, is that it is actually very difficult to verify 100% who killed who in a conflict zone, even when it is very likely.Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here are a few more secondary sources that will apparently have issues: NPR, Washington Post, and Palestine Chronicle. But please make me wait the 24 hours; I wouldn't expect anything different.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources presented thus far (some of which actually made the case for attribution stronger), WaPo and NPR are actually usable (they do seem to be based on the same underlying wire, however). However given many sources are attributing, the conservative call would be to attribute ourselves.This being a touchy topic area, as well as BLP cconcerns.Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language sources on Murtaja…

[edit]

FYI:

--Carwil (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 May 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 16:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaser Murtaja → Shooting of Yaser Murtaja – WP:BLP1E not notable prior to being shot - per policy in such cases we name the article per the event, and not per the 1E individual. Previous discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaser Murtaja and Yaser Murtaja#Title Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom.Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—There seems to be a borderline case under the GNG, since multiple RS describe him in terms that signify notability (1. Murtaja "was a rising star in Gaza’s media scene where he was a co-founder of the Ain Media, a collective of a dozen local media professionals, which has worked with Al Jazeera, BBC Arabic and Vice in the past." (Screen Daily); ; 2. "He was a respected cameraman for documentaries - most notably, Al Jazeera's 'Gaza: Surviving Shujayea'." [10]; 3. "Murtaja, a 30-year-old photographer well known for his drone footage" [11].). This lengthy profile (inserted: published May 2016) of his work on Bisan / Surviving Shujayea pushes me over the edge to seeing his pre-2018 creative work as notable per GNG. BLP1E doesn't apply because Murtaja is not a "low-profile individual" whose privacy is at issue. However, BIO1E should provide guidance: "Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage." Well, this is not all Murtaja is associated with in the source coverage; he's associated with Ain Media, Surviving Shujayea, Ai Weiwei, Hamas, being beaten by Hamas, USAID, etc. etc.--Carwil (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet searching has produced no RS SIGCOV of him or his career that predates his death, (except a couple of credits as a cameraman.) You cannot INHERIT notability by working on an Ai Weiwei project, Ai Weiwei employs teams of hundreds on minor projects, thousands of people, here: [12], for example, is a single Weiwei installation put together by a team of 1,600 people.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See previous section of this talk page. Two of the three citations seem like SIGCOV (profiles rather than passing references).--Carwil (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I would prefer Death of Yaser Murtaja unless evidence emerges that he was targeted (...) E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: as a journalist, Murtaja was a public figure before his death. This also avoids disputed on whether the name should be "Death of ..."; "Killing of ...", or "Shooting of...". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A photographer - not a journalist - mainly employed as a media stringer by various outlets, and owned/ran a very small company (with a couple of other photographers). There is no coverage of this individual prior to 2018 - he was not a public figure prior to his death (your name appearing in a movie credit as one of several assistant cameraman does not make one a public figure). There are hundreds (and maybe more) of such photographers in the Gaza strip (with the main employment being covering the conflict - producing photographs for various foreign outlets - most of the photographers are not associated with any particular news org - but as Murtaja - shoot whatever footage they can and then sell it to whomever buys and/or shifting stringer affiliation) - these photographers are neither public figures nor notable for the most part.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He sought out and appeared on media covering his work; see sources listed above. Meets first two definitions of high-profile individual under WP:BLP1E. To clarify (now that I've watched it), Murtaja was not a "stringer" on Bisan / Surviving Shujayea, he was a lead cameraman and the co-founder of the company that produced the whole documentary. At the time of his death, he was doing documentary production, not just filming for someone else's documentary, see this statement from the organization funding his work.--Carwil (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose he was and is notable as a journalist, the sources characterize him as notable. He is not just notable for his death but for his life and career. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pr jumplike23: he was notable as a journalist, not only for his death, Huldra (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As there are no sources for the notability of the subject pre-existing his death, the article needs be moved to Shooting of Yaser Murtaja. Of pretty much anyone now dead you can posthumously say, "oh, he once worked in such and such noteworthy project," or "oh, he once met such and such famous people," yet the lack of WP:RS published before the subject's death is final and conclusive proof WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E applies. It has been alleged that two sources mention him prior to his death, but come on, no self-respecting deletionist editor would have allowed an article on the subject prior to his posthumous "fame", as it would have been alleged that lack of INDEPTH coverage proved he was not worthy of a page. XavierItzm (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

[edit]

I split out the extended discussion with this edit; some material was duplicated, with no change to copy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • Yes because certainly the journalist with the universally understood "PRESS" on his flak jacket is a contributor to the "mob". Whether he was purposefully targeted by the Israeli sniper or if it is attributed to gross negligence on their part is irrelevant. Murtaja was shot, hence "shooting" is accurate. Like I said before, editors seem to have no problem calling Arabs and Islamists "terrorists" and "perpetrators" before any actual convictions or even when it is revealed ideological/political motives were non-existent, but it is somehow taboo to use "shooting" for this scenario even with secondary sources supporting it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ever fired a rifle, Slick? Ever fired one in during a riot where Molotov cocktails are being thrown and tear gas canisters are exploding?— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)
E.M.Gregory I'm not interested in one of your debates. Israeli forces bragged that they knew their targets and where every bullet landed. Either they did know or they are grossly incompetent; regardless, a journalist was shot (hence "Shooting"). If I ever had to fire at rioters angered by years of rights violations, restrictions, and the whole works, I would probably fire at the rioters, not the ones documenting them with a "PRESS" vest. That's just me. But what do I know, right; I'm just a "pop music" expert.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yaser_Murtaja&oldid=1209271057"