Talk:2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sweden (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Mess[edit]

The article needs to be rewritten, I suggest to write first an introduction, followed by the israeli reaction and allegations of antisemetism, then the swedish government reaction --Osm agha (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs massive cleanup. The "Harvesting Allegations Confirmed" section should really be moved much higher, maybe even right after the introduction and before the reaction sections. ThePhantomCopyEditor (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Papers which promote blood libel[edit]

The "newspapers from Iran and Syria are not RS. Those quotes you provided are worse then the Swedish newspaper.Unfortunately this is another example of the blood libel that are spread in certain "free" coutries.

I have to get rid of this garbage. If you object we will go to the outside opinion for feedback--Rm125 (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You cannot simply eliminate sources based on your opinion that they are not reliable sources. Tiamuttalk 11:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mistake. I didn't chech the sourse. The sourse is fine- nojustification to erase- take my words back, still checking --Rm125 (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything is OK but Al Aharam must go - this is not RS. It is funny given the fact that RSes spread the same garbage. There is important difference though. You have to present the garbage anyway to put it on the table, otherwise even more conspiracy theories will be invented. However Al Aharam link gives the appearance as a respectable paper which is not true. What do you think, Tiamut? --Rm125 (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using Al-Ahram as a source. The material I added to the article is attributed to Khalid Amayreh's reporting in Al-Ahram. Have a little faith in th intelligence of our readership. They can make their own conclusions about what they want to believe after being presented with a wide array of views. We don't arbitrarily remove views simply because we think they are unreliable. Tiamuttalk 12:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I noticed this quote in the article:

"During an interview with Al-Jazeera in 2002, late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat accused Israel of murdering Palestinian children and harvesting their organs for transplant operations. "They murder our kids and use their organs as spare parts. Why is the whole world silent? Israel takes advantage of this silence to escalate its oppression and terror against our people," said an angry Arafat"

What do you personally think about this quote? --Rm125 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think Arafat said this (that is, the source is correct)? If so, do you think publishing Arafat's comment in this article is acceptable/unacceptable? Ulner (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me I personally believe he says that ( of course my personal opinion doesn;t count here) however the quote is almoust identical to the article we are talking about. This is the same type of occusation no more and no less.Your question is if it acceptible or unecceptable. Depends on intentions.If it is to promote the blood libel it is one thing but if you put it against another opinion-this is completely different. Intention. This is what is important. --Rm125 (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange, because Israel has admited it (in december 2009). If this was the same as the blood libel, then is the blood libel true???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.249.145 (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

I'd like to put this article up for AfD. It seems to be a huge article focused on a small recent event. If and when the allegations are substantiated and the story is shown to have impact on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, we can then create an article about it. Otherwise it seems to be just a case of WP:RECENT. Can I hear a few preliminary voices before sending this to AfD? Joe407 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It was a small controversy, lasted a short while, and subsided, in the absence of any substantiating evidence. okedem (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Also agree. // Liftarn (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I think a nomination should wait. The investigation on Borsiin Bonniers condemnation are to be ready by mid-october and after that, parliamentary hearings are going to be held. The freedom of speech-side of the controversy is not to big either as it seems right now, but if she is forced to leave her post, I think it will be. Steinberger (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I also think nomination at this time is premature. Its only been a month since the allegations were made. This is still a developing story. Tiamuttalk 14:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying but shouldn't it work in reverse? We only create an article once it has proven it's notability. Maybe the article should be shelved / userfied for a few months and then if the topic has proven notable, added to the encyclopedia? Joe407 (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
) I can see what you are saying too, but does the article actually fail WP:N at this time? While it could be argued that this falls under WP:ONEEVENT, many subsequent developments and ongoing developments related to the story make that argument a weak one. If all ongoing developments lead nowhere, the argument for AfD might be stronger. If they lead somewhere, well then the article is halfway written and in place, ready for improvement. Of course, you are free to nominate at any time. Tiamuttalk 20:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:ONEEVENT is specific to BLPs and says that any biographies of people involved in only one event should be covered in the page on the event, which indirectly says that a single event can be notable and merit an article. nableezy - 20:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The kernel of the allegation, Israel's harvesting of the organs of dead Palestinians and other without permission, appears to have been substantiated per FN 7-9. So the article is relevant to how some Palestinians view Israel, etc.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE[edit]

The lede included some opinions and theories promoted by some unnotable freelance journalist Jonathon Cook. Per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE its being removed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That information is not only provided by Jonathan Cook. It is also mentioned by other journalists. I will amass more sources, add them to the main body, and restore the text in question. It is certainly relevant and notable that accusations that the IDF has been harvesting organs from Palestinians date back more than two decades. Tiamuttalk 13:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone mainstream or more propagandists?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Now Jonathan Cook has been proved right on this one, maybe it's time to re-visit the Israeli nerve gas attacks of which he was just one of a number of western reporters. 81.152.36.143 (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs udpates[edit]

This article should probably be updated based on some of the more recent reports, particularly the section on Aftonbladet's response. I've just added some of this to the lead, but the rest of the article seems pretty dated. That may be because this is a "tempest in a tea cup" that will tend to lose attention, but the recent claims are clearly relevant. Here is Aftonbladet's update, which is reported on by Haaretz here. Here is a direct report from Haaretz on the jailing of the two Haifa men, and here is a little summary with Hiss. The piece from Jonathan Cook is here. Here is something in The Forward. I don't think I'll have time to update the rest of the article, but perhaps these will help anyone looking to do so. Mackan79 (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that Israel has admitted that it did have a practice of human organ harvesting from dead bodies of Palestinians and others without permission, it seems the aritcle should be now be re-written. The title should be changed to something like "Human Organ Harvesting in Israel" and the intro paragraph etc should reflect that topic. The Aftonbladet article and the controversy around it should then be just one important section of the article about human organ harvesting in Israel. Any thoughts? Any takers on getting started? --NYCJosh (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked at how much there is in new sourcing, but some work is certainly needed. The greater the amount of material on the recent acknowledgments, and the less they refer to the Aftonbladet story, the more I'd tend to agree with a complete rewrite. I am guessing it is too early to make a big change, since the story has been out there for months and we're talking about reevaluating based on one or two days of reporting. Mackan79 (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
This article by Alison Weir from If Americans Knew, published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, gives an extensive overview of the Israeli organ harvesting network worldwide. It may prove useful in any rewriting of the article as well. Weir wrote earlier when the Aftonbladet scandal first broke and much of what she wrote then is only being reported (in part) by the mainstream media now. Tiamuttalk 21:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking through some of these reports. One aspect of the coverage I find interesting is how the different newspapers are dealing with the AP report, and the idea that Aftonbladet claimed Israel was killing Palestinians for their organs. For example, the New York Times states this to have been Aftonbladet's claim ("The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic, who released it because of a huge controversy last summer over an allegation by a Swedish newspaper that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs. Israel hotly denied the charge."),[1] while Al Jazeera is more legalistic ("In August the Aftonbladet newspaper ran an article alleging that the Israeli army had stolen body organs from Palestinian men after killing them.").[2] I heard a radio report today on NPR that was more like the New York Times. In looking at the article, Al Jazeera is clearly more accurate. From the translation here:

But Palestinians also harbor strong suspicions against Israel for seizing young men and having them serve as the country’s organ reserve – a very serious accusation, with enough question marks to motivate the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to start an investigation about possible war crimes.

It seems a stretch to call this an allegation from Aftonbladet that it happened. I see now a statement attributed to Nancy Sheppard-Hughes, the professor who released the interview with Hiss, in Aftonbladet's most recent update,[3] which states via Google translate: "Many people who heard about the article understood it, according to Sheppard-Hughes, erroneously as Israeli army killing of Palestinians to access their [organs]. What happened on Kabirinstitutet was bad enough as it was and hit all kinds of people, not just Palestinians, she says."[4] I am not sure anything specifically needs to be changed at the moment, but it suggests this may be something editors here need to navigate. Someone said in an edit summary that Aftonbladet specifically denied making that claim, so I am curious if that comes up as well. Mackan79 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, Mackan, about the different ways in which media are reporting this story. There was a misleading he said/she said quality in the way the controversy was presented by US/Western media after Aftonbladet ran the story, and there is a further misleading quality in the way the Israeli acknowledgment is being presented by those media, as you point out. I am fairly certain that most people in the US who read about the controversy in the wake of the Aftonbladet article, with all the charges of anti-Israelism, "blood libel" etc., will now still have no clue that central claims of that article have been acknowledged by Israel to be true. That too is a reflection on US media.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I see that the culture editor of Aftonbladet addresses the point in an update here. Via Google translate, which I had to touch up:[5]

Perhaps we should also [have] made more clear that the Israeli army [does not] shoot Palestinian in order to steal the [organs], [they take the organs] when [they are] killed for other reasons - reasons that the most moral army always feel that they have. Bostrom claims is no different and probably this is my self-criticism [in] vain; [the] occupying power['s] accomplices [would] still [stick together] and [persist] in their interpretation.

This was noted in the rival paper Sydsvenskan's response:[6]

This [revelation] seems to [make] Aftonbladet and Donald Bostrom [right by] half when [in a] [well noticed] article this summer, he [indicated] that Israel is stealing organs from Palestinians who then [are] kill[ed]. In yesterday's Aftonbladet Culture Director Asa Linderborg [expressed regret] that she [had not] "made even clearer that the Israeli army [does not] shoots Palestinian in order to steal the body," but it was precisely the [evidence chain] Bostrom painted: organ shortage in the U.S. and Israel, organ theft in Israel, killing and cut open the Palestinians in Gaza.

I think this is a pretty accurate translation for anyone else to check if they like, and might suggest material to address the whole confusion about what Aftonbladet said and the reaction to it. Mackan79 (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Broader article[edit]

A broader article including this topic was just started, which I then moved to its creator's userspace here: User:Yamanam/2009_Israel_organ_controversy. I'm not 100% sure what's the best way to go about this, but it seemed that if others were interested in working on such an article they could do so there. I could see such an article coming to include this article as one part, probably more likely than ending up with two separate articles, but I think that may take a little time to see. This is just to let others know of its existence. Mackan79 (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Israel now confirms[edit]

According to this article ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs ) Israel has now confirmed to harvested organs from dead Palestinians, without the consent of their families till 1990s. 84.147.195.146 (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does the item refer to claims in the original article "that Israeli soldiers were deliberatly killing Palestinians for their organs or that Israel were kidnapping Palestinians and harvesting their organs" when this is not covered in the English summary of the original article? Either the summary needs to be edited or this should be clarified to be a misleading piece of diversion by the Israeli officials Andrew Scott Selkirk (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The article did hint that Israel was deliberately killing Palestinians for their organs. It reported Palestinian suspicions that this was the case and commented that there is "enough question marks to motivate the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to start an investigation about possible war crimes".
This is a key element of the controversy. If Aftonbladet had only written about possible organ harvest, the issue would have got far different proportions. Blood libel is a serious thing, and in the context of organ harvesting, one of the ugliest elements of classical antisemitism. By crossing this limit, the newspaper invited a storm of criticism. Israel's confirmation of harvesting organs from dead Palestinians without consent of the families is significant, but it should not marginalize the darker aspects of the article, Aftonbladet's recent moves to cover them up notwithstanding. --Jonund (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not clear the questions were about whether people were being killed just for this purpose. Having followed this issue, I think this distinction about how the individuals were killed is quite new, and a result of the AP story which created the distinction. The prior controversy that I saw was over whether in fact the organs were taken, whether Bostrom should have believed the Palestinian claims, and whether Bostrom should have made the connection to the case in New Jersey. In truth I don't think anyone would have proposed the idea that maybe the organs were taken, but only after these individuals died, before the AP suddenly made that the story. That is one of the problems as well, in that there are plenty of possibilities here that could be discussed in a less loaded context. Many people seem to feel that unless there is hard proof, nothing unethical should even be proposed. It makes it hard to have a discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Organ harvesting in Israel[edit]

Shouldn't a separate article about "Organ harvesting in Israel" be created? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest working up a draft before starting it, and getting others to comment. This can be done in your userspace, as I suggested to another user two sections above. If you just start an article, the problem is that it will almost certainly be nominated for deletion, and then we will have a lot of people deciding what happens who a.) take strong views, and b.) haven't looked into the issue. If nothing else, this can waste a great deal of time. Al Jazeera reported today that the Israeli parliament is hearing testimony on the issue, so this may get bigger to where there should be an article on it. Compiling the sources would be the first step, showing that they extend beyond a recent controversy would probably be the second. Mackan79 (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Support93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

WPMED[edit]

As far as I can tell, a political controversy about a newspaper article is neither a disease nor a treatment. WPMED hereby declines to consider this article as within its scope.

If any WPMED member has a different opinion, please feel free to contact me at WP:MEDA. In the meantime, non-members are reminded that they cannot legitimately demand that any WikiProject support any article. WikiProject tagging is not categorization, and projects have absolute authority over their scope. Please therefore do not re-tag this article as being within the scope of this project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not the one who tagged, requested assistance or whatever. However, the aspect of this case that I think the tagger had on its mind when he added WPMED was the feasibility of using gun-shot victims as organ donors. Or as things has unraveled, what organs can be used for research and donation in a gun-shot victim? That might not be clear as nothing in this article speaks about it. Steinberger (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is lying again (and again).[edit]

Anything to help incriminate Israel and get the accusers off the hook. The Wikipedia article is, as usual, lying, by alleging that the Aftonbladet article never claimed that the IDF were killing Palestinians for their organs, but it was the Aftonbladet article that claimed that the Palestinians were disappearing alive, and being returned dead without their organs.
Wikipedia's lie is exposed by the text of the Aftonbladet article itself, which speaks volumes:
"In the summer of 1992, Ehud Olmert, then minister of health, tried to address the issue of organ shortage by launching a big campaign aimed at having the Israeli public register for post mortem organ donation...While the campaign was running, young Palestinian men started to disappear from villages in the West Bank and Gaza. After five days Israeli soldiers would bring them back dead, with their bodies ripped open."
This information is not presented as a Palestinian allegation, but as an established fact by the Aftonbladet. This refutes Wikipedia's repeated assertions.
As the 'Guardian' article mentions,
"However, there was no evidence that Israel had killed Palestinians to take their organs, as the Swedish paper reported. Aftonbladet quoted Palestinians as saying young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israeli forces and their bodies returned to their families with missing organs."
Wikipedia should not peddle in such lies, which only debase and discredit it as a reliable source of information.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That is an interesting quote you bring, which at least I had not looked at in detail. However, the real question is whether this amounts to "reporting that Israel was killing Palestinians to take their organs." Certainly it doesn't; if we are asking whether Israel was taking organs from Palestinians who had already been killed, or killing them in order to take their organs, these types of statements are provocative in either case, but do not distinguish either way. In either case, you would have Palestinians disappearing and returning in exactly the same manner. The accusation that they were murdered just for this purpose remains a separate charge. For that matter Aftonbladet, Bostrom, and Sheppard-Hughes have all denied that Aftonbladet made this claim. I think the answer is that we cannot say that the claim was or was not made, since at a minimum the issue is disputed. Mackan79 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I cannot agree with this statement, at all. Let's not muddy the waters here. There is no ambiguity in the article. Aftonbladet specifically said that "young Palestinian men started to disappear from the West Bank and Gaza" and backed up this statement by quoting Palestinians as saying "young men from villages in the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israeli forces and their bodies returned to their families with missing organs." This is juxtaposed with another statement that the diasappearances occurred during a campaign in Israel for organ donations. These statements cannot be logically interpreted in any other way than to charge the Israelis directly with capturing live healthy young Palestinians for the purpose of taking their organs, and then returning their murdered, plundered bodies. When combined with other information in the article about Jewish and Israeli individuals being arrested abroad on suspicion of illegal organ trafficking (from live organ donors, by the way), the article becomes tantamount to a full-scale blood libel, all designed to support the central thesis as expressed in the title, that "our sons are being plundered of their organs".
What Aftonbladet and Bostrom said afterwards, distancing themselves from the allegations to cover their own behinds, is really irrelevant.
The Guardian, which is not generally known for its warm sympathies toward Israel, wrote a follow-up article which, though accusing Israel of in the past harvesting organs from already dead bodies (mostly Israeli) in the morgue, debunked the main allegations in the Aftonbladet article:
"However, there was no evidence that Israel had killed Palestinians to take their organs, as the Swedish paper reported. Aftonbladet quoted Palestinians as saying young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israeli forces and their bodies returned to their families with missing organs."
Unfortunately, this Wikipedia article gives Aftonbladet exactly the diplomatic cover they need. Sadly, "freedom of speech" and "NPOV" have trumped the facts once again.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I can be more specific, having read the Aftonbladet article once again. It specifically carries the accusation that Israel killed living Palestinians to take their organs.
"I then travelled around interviewing a great number of Palestinian families in the West Bank and Gaza – meeting parents who told of how their sons had been deprived of organs before being killed."
and then
"Discussions ended with Israeli soldiers loading the badly wounded Bilal in a jeep and driving him to the outskirts of the village, where a military helicopter waited. The boy was flown to a destination unknown to his family. Five days later he came back, dead and wrapped in green hospital fabric."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw discussion somewhere, I think it may have been the Freakonomics blog in the New York Times, about whether it is possible to take some of these organs after a person has died. This may even have been with kidneys, although I have no knowledge of the science, but I believe in some cases the standard method for organ transplant requires that the person's heart and/or lungs have not stopped functioning. This still would not mean that they were killed for that purpose, although of course it does raise plenty of related ethical issues. But then the question is whether those issues are different from the ones associated with the story as currently accepted. I am sure that could be debated, but having looked through this, my view remains that we can't attribute the story with this claim. I am going to remove the statement that the claim is attributed "falsely" in any case. Mackan79 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ive read the Aftonbladet article many times and it never suggests that anyone is killed BECAUSE anyone wants to take his organs. This claim was NEVER mentioned in Sweden (were the original article was easy available for everyone) until after Israel admitted to the organ thefts. And as all of us knows, there is no need for extra killings to get fresh young bodies in Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.249.145 (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Importance of israeli admissions of Organ Harvest[edit]

I have moved the following paragraph to second in the lede, from last, in an attempt to balance the article.

In December 2009, Israel admitted there had been organ harvesting of skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from dead bodies of Palestinians, Israeli soldiers and citizens and foreign workers, without permission from relatives, in the 1990s, but that this practice no longer occurred.[1][2][3]

93.96.148.42 (talk)

Today Aftonbladet publisches an article about what would be an ultimate admission of guilt. They have replaced the director of the Coroners office(?), and the new director, Chen Kugel, writes to Donald Boström: "Du kan säga att du bidragit till denna förändring genom att rapportera om situationen”. "You can state that you have contributed to this change by repporting about the situation". The article is here http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article16430325.ab . I am not qualified enough to know where and what to write in the text. (the text is really a mess with repeting same things on more than one place) Maybe someone with better knowledge in english can do it? It would also be good with a engish source.

I also think this wiki-article gives to much importance to what other swedish newspapers are saying, Aftonbladet is the only major newspaper in Sweden that are left leaning, and also the only one that are pro-palestinian. All the others are sionistic (well, Svenska Dagbladet (conservative) are sionistic on the editorial, but balanced in the paper). This makes that they are taking every chance they get to attac Aftonbladet... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Växelhäxan (talkcontribs) 10:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Does this Source support this statement?[edit]

As far as I can see it does not, so I have removed it from the lede, and posted it here.

Boström later said in an event in Israel that he had reconsidered his views on the article, that he had no proof other than allegations of Palestinians, and that he would have written the article differently if done again. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127720.html93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

About press freedom in Sweden[edit]

It's been suggested in edits to the article that the point about press freedom is "trivial." In fact this point has been central to the Swedish response, specifically that it would violate the Swedish Constitution for government officials to criticize an article. We discuss this in the article, but it's seen for instance here where the Swedish Prime Minister states, as we quote him, that "[w]e cannot be asked by anyone to contravene the Swedish constitution, and this is something we will also not do within the European Union." Others disagreed and said that they could perhaps have criticized it to some extent, but we need to be clear that this was a discussion of the Swedish Constitution, not just an appeal to the principle of free press. Mackan79 (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You seriously misunderstood my point. My actual point is supported by the source you bring, and it was this: the idea that the publication of the article was a valid manifestation of freedom of the press is trivial and not central to the article; what is important is that Sweden argued that freedom of the press prohibits the government from criticizing the article. I support including the constitution issue in the presentation of Sweden's argument. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
OK as to your meaning. I am not sure that the distinction is so clear, however. You can see in our section on legal complaints that the validity of the publication is part of the issue in terms of whether there is protection. Regardless, I am mainly concerned that it is clear they did not merely "cite freedom of the press," as it said earlier, which suggests that it is just a matter of abstract principles when in fact it was a constitutional issue. Mackan79 (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nature of the article's claim[edit]

Regarding the initial article's claims, and whether it stated that Palestinians were being killed for the sake of taking their organs, this has been discussed some above. My view remains that while some have attributed this claim to the article, the fact that the author and others contend that it did not claim this means that the point is disputed, and accordingly per WP:NPOV that we can present reliable sources, but we cannot ourselves take a position on the matter. I'm fairly certain I have seen the author, Aftonbladet's culture editor, and Nancy Scheper-Hughes all dispute that the article makes this claim. I don't have all of these in front of me, but the article we cite is this follow up in Aftonbladet, which states: "Många som hörde talas om artikeln uppfattade det, enligt Sheppard-Hughes, felaktigt som att israeliska armén dödade palestinier för att komma åt deras organ. Det som hände på Kabirinstitutet var illa nog som det var och drabbade alla slags människor, inte bara palestinier, säger hon." Via Google Translate, "Many people who heard about the article understood it, according to Sheppard-Hughes, erroneously as Israeli army killing of Palestinians to access their services. What happened on Kabirinstitutet was bad enough as it was and hit all kinds of people, not just Palestinians, she says." I don't recall if I have read her statement independently, but it seems clear enough that when the author and the publication dispute the point then that alone is a reliable statement that certainly we cannot disregard. Mackan79 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the major known stances on what the article said be presented in the second paragraph of the lead, properly attributed, and keeping WP:RS and WP:DUE in mind, which favor reliable third party sources. In the article you're quoting, it doesn't look like Sheppard-Hughes is disputing the content of the original article at all, and is also not disputing the claim itself (that Israel killed Palestinians to take their organs); she's merely saying that Israel also took organs from non-Palestinians. In any case, Sheppard-Hughes is not a notable POV on the question of what the original article said. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
When I dicussed the nature and the most given summurization of the article on the Swedish page, I found this to back up my claims and they might do well here also: In Haaretz and Jerusalem Post they said that article claim IDF killed Palestinians for their organs. In CNN, ABC, Al-Jazeera, NY Times, LA Times and the Economist they said that Israel harvested organs from dead or killed Palestinians. The selection above is, however, screwed, as it selected to prove that everybody did not read the article with the same level of paranoia and that a string of WP:RS read it in another way. Steinberger (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Many of the reports that such a claim were made seem to come from one syndicated AP article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the lead[edit]

I am concerned that recent changes to the lead have been problematic. One in particular has the third paragraph now as follows:

The Israeli government and several US congresspersons[1][2] said the article resembled blood libels against Jews and asked the Swedish government to denounce it. Stockholm refused, citing freedom of the press, and the Swedish Newspaper Publishers' Association as well as Reporters Without Borders supported its position. Swedish ambassador to Israel Elisabet Borsiin called the article "shocking and appalling", but the Swedish government distanced itself from her remarks.[3] The Palestinian Authority announced it would establish an inquiry commission to investigate the article's claims.[4][5]

As an initial issue, I do not see how the first sentence here is appropriate. Having followed the dispute, the changes seems generally to be highlighting the very most controversial things that people have said, as if this has been the general response on the issue. Certainly there have been some comparisons to blood libels, and there was some very strong criticism of the Israeli response. Most of the sources did not respond primarily by asserting that the article was a blood libel, however, and even most sources that criticized the article did not call it a blood libel. To write this as if it was the predominant response thus does not accurately reflect the general commentary on the issue. Even as a factual matter, I do not see where several congresspersons said that it was a blood libel. I edited this to state that the Israeli government and several congresspersons "condemned" the article, which I believe is the more accurate statement. The edit was undone, so I have raised it here. Mackan79 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, such a heated statement throws off the rest of the paragraph. If the Swedish government agreed that the article was a blood libel, it likely would not have refused to condemn the article, since clearly that would constitute hate speech. To present the response as claiming that the article was a blood libel necessitates a direct response to this point, of which there were many, but we do not include there. I am going to change it back again, also because the text is new, and hope that there can be further discussion of continuing issues. Mackan79 (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The widespread criticism of the article is a separate issue (one which does not appear at all in the lead but should). The third paragraph of the lead deals with the diplomatic ruckus that the article led to. The blood libel comparison is central to the ruckus, since the Israeli government doesn't ask the Swedish government to condemn every article they think is crappy, only this one, obviously because the perceived blood libel overtones were deemed very serious. The comparison was made by Netanyahu and other Israeli ministers who addressed the article, perhaps every minister who did so. If Sweden rejected the comparison, that can go in. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
If several of them said this, I don't believe it was the first thing they said, or the first thing that was said by other sources covering this. The statement from Ben Cardin and Alcee Hastings doesn't refer to this, although it called the article "incendiary," focusing on the claim that Israel "harvested" organs. Certainly the Israeli government doesn't react this way often, but I don't think either you need to say it was considered a blood libel in order to explain the response. I am open to a clarification of why they initially condemned the article, just as long as it is clearly based in reliable sources and we can give a rounded picture ("The Israeli government and several US congresspersons[1][2] condemned the article as baseless and incendiary, and asked the Swedish government to denounce it.") I think the concerns were more specific than what the article resembled, though, and I'm skeptical that this can be done effectively by starting with the comparison to a blood libel. Mackan79 (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your skepticism regarding the comparison. I'm OK with your suggested sentence, but I suggest working in somehow that the concern over the article's incendiary nature was stated to stem partly from the history of antisemitism and blood libels, as this was a central element of that concern. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Is is really noteworthy what a couple of Congressmen said? I don't believe governments normally consider them very important, since there are so many of them that some are bound to have oppinions. I believe 97% made no comment on this matter.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Did the article say that Israel killed Palestinians for their organs?[edit]

Associated Press, United Press International, CNN, ABC News, BBC News, The Guardian and others say it did. If there is a significant minority of reliable secondary saying it didn't, we can say the matter is disputed. In the meantime, not a single one has been presented. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The matter is disputed, at the very least by Bodström and Aftonbladet. Steinberger (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
They are not secondary reliable sources on this matter. Not only that, but no source has been presented even showing that they dispute this. I read Bostrom's Navier interview, and he does not dispute it. Bring sources, and we'll talk, but right now you're just edit-warring in your original research. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow. What do you mean by "they"? And what do you mean by "he does not dispute it"? Steinberger (talk)
You hadn't presented a source showing that Bostrom or Aftonbladet denied that the original article claimed that Israel killed Palestinians for their organs. In the Navier interview, which you cited, Bostrom does not make that denial. But never mind, I found a source myself where Bostrom does make that denial, and changed the lead to include his position. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Boström say he never wrote that, and that it is not in the article. Is that not a denial? Nevertheless and one other thing. You took away what I wrote about "Israeli discource": have you noticed that the AP, UPI, CNN, ABC articles you have used are written by correspondents in Jerusalem (or the "Middle East")? (BBC don't tell where, but Mark Weiss of Irish Times is based in Jerusalem if one believes Google.) It would be more credible if you found a article by a Stockholm correspondent saying the same thing as they do in Israel. Steinberger (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, Bostrom indeed made the denial, but only in the source I brought, not in the source you brought. Your idea regarding "Israeli discourse", and the attempt to support it with an analysis of where various reporters are based, are pure original research, and also happen not to be convincing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not original research to attribute the articles to it authors or to say where the correspondent resides. That would infact be quite appropriate. Steinberger (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Several of the sources say that the article made this claim, in most cases by using the AP story. Al Jazeera uses the same story, but without that specific claim.[7] So, I think there is evidence of a difference in the reporting on this point. We could explain the difference, although it would mostly be original research. I don't think there is any significant discussion of the point in reliable sources, besides the newspaper's and Scheper-Hughes' denial that it made the claim. One Swedish source said that despite the denial this was just the "evidence chain" that Bostrom painted up, which I believe I quoted above. Otherwise it's just a point for us to be aware of in reporting, I think. We could note that following the December story, several news outlets reported that Aftonbladet had initially claimed that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to take their organs, although Bostrom, Aftonbladet, and Scheper-Hughes denied that the article made this claim. Mackan79 (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I take it we do not have a link to the original article? Stellarkid (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It's linked in the article, although it's in Swedish. A translation is here. I believe a fair summary is that the article does not make the claim, but some here say that the article implies that they were killed for that purpose, and some newspapers have glossed the point with language stating that it did (I have only seen one Swedish source that focuses on the point, though others have been more specific in stating that the article implied it). Besides that is the fact (as far as I am aware) that this point was only raised after the December revelations with Dr. Hiss, but I think that is also necessary context, since the point basically has to do with whether those revelations showed the article to be correct. Mackan79 (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the first sentence contains a dangling modifier. Stellarkid (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, it is is titled a controversy, but the other side of this controversy isn't heard of til para 3 "The Israeli government and several US congresspersons condemned the article as baseless and incendiary, while noting the history of antisemitism and blood libels against Jews, and asked the Swedish government to denounce it." Since it is the disputation that makes this the Aftonbladet Israel "controversy," the Israeli side's view should be in the first paragraph along with the original story. The article is not a story about killing and plundering, it is an article about a "controversy" over a story about killing and plundering. Israel's side of it should be right up front. I hope I am making myself clear here. I really think an AfD is warranted here. If any further evidence comes up it could be revived. Stellarkid (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe the order is so that a reader gets some idea what was stated before they read that it was condemned. We briefly explain what the article is about, and then explain the response. If we put the response first I think the reader may be a bit confused. I may not be sure exactly what you would propose, though, if you would like to suggest something specific. As far as deletion, there has been quite a bit of coverage, so for that reason I think it's unlikely. Reading your comment again, though, I don't believe it is just the response that is the controversy; the controversy does include the events at the Abu Kabir Forsensic Institute. Mackan79 (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if editors wish to highlight the most controversial aspects of the article in order to explain the Israeli response, they should keep in mind that Aftonbladet also claimed vindication with the later stories. In that regard, I think it would be hard to deny that the article is primarily focused on the fact that Palestinians disappeared and they were returned without their organs. It isn't for us to gloss the basic claims and focus only on those points where the sentiment remains that the article went too far. If the article went too far, that's just one part of the story. Mackan79 (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will think on it further. Stellarkid (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the statement that the article did make this claim that Israel had been killing Palestinians for the purpose of stealing their organs, which I hadn't seen was added. The fact is that even Sydsvkenskan, the rival Swedish paper that sharply criticized the article, does not say that the article made this claim, but rather argues that the article implied it. My Swedish is well out of practice, but I believe the translation I provided above via Google Translate is accurate:

This [revelation] seems to [make] Aftonbladet and Donald Bostrom [right by] half when [in a] [well noticed] article this summer, he [indicated] that Israel is stealing organs from Palestinians who then [are] kill[ed]. In yesterday's Aftonbladet Culture Director Asa Linderborg [expressed regret] that she [had not] "made even clearer that the Israeli army [does not] shoots Palestinian in order to steal the body," but it was precisely the [evidence chain] Bostrom painted: organ shortage in the U.S. and Israel, organ theft in Israel, killing and cut open the Palestinians in Gaza.

See Google's version here (the fact that "Hiss," as in Dr. Yehuda Hiss, in Swedish means "elevator" may be especially confusing). The point is that, other than Bostrom, Aftonbladet, and Scheper-Hughes, all of whom deny that the article made the claim, this is the only source I'm aware of that actually looks at the issue. The others (all based on one AP story, as far as I am aware) summarize the story in a way that attributes this claim to the story, but only in passing and without any discussion. This does give us material to discuss the issue, I think, but certainly not to state categorically that the article made the claim despite Bostrom's denial. Mackan79 (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I brought nine high-quality, independent, reliable sources clearly stating that the Bostrom article claimed Israel killed Palestinians for their organs: AP, UPI, BBC, CNN, ABC, The Guardian, The Irish Times, Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post. I see you brought a tenth, the New York Times, above. Your perception that they are all based on one AP story and/or all date from after the Hiss interview revelation is incorrect: the UPI, BBC,CNN and Irish Times sources were published in the weeks following the original article, and way before the Hiss interview. I'm not sure I see how the perception would be relevant even if it were correct, but in any case, it isn't.
On the other hand, not one independent reliable source has been presented saying that the Bostrom article did not claim Israel killed Palestinians for their organs. Bostrom, Linderborg and Sheper-Hughes are obviously not independent reliable sources on this matter, either according to the rules or according to common sense. Furthermore, I don't see that Linderborg or Sheper-Hughes denied that Bostrom's article made the claim; it seems rather that that Linderborg believes it was ambiguous and Sheper-Hughes is referring to a different matter, namely, whether Bostrom's article claimed that the phenomenon was limited to Palestinians. The Sydsvkenskan writer seems to be saying that for all practical purposes Bostrom's article did make the claim, and he disputes the notion that the Hiss interview substantiated Bostrom's article in any way (which is the notion that makes the Hiss interview, and the question we're discussing, relevant to the controversy to begin with). This position is very similar to that of the ten reliable sources noted above. In any case, he certainly does not say that Bostrom did not make the claim, and so he cannot be used as a source to show that the position of the ten reliable sources is disputed.
Bottom line, unless and until it is shown that a significant minority of independent reliable sources say that Bostrom's article did not make the claim, we have no choice but to say that it did. Bostrom's (and possibly Linderborg's and Sheper-Hughes') denial of this can be noted. I'm changing the lead back to reflect this. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The author in Sydsvenskan interpreted it in the way AP et al did. However, he is open with that it is a interpretation of the article. Unlike the sources you bring up. Steinberger (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Correction to my previous post: I just looked at they ynet article again, and even Bostrom does not dispute that his article said Israel killed Palestinians for their organs. He says "he did not mean to imply" that. This is a comment on his intent, not on the content of the article as it appeared. This means that at present, nobody (outside of Wikipedia, of course) has been shown to dispute this. Now I wouldn't be surprised to find sources showing that Bostrom or Linderborg did dispute this on other occasions, but until such sources are presented, we can't say that they did. I changed the lead again to accurately reflect what Bostrom said in the ynet article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Jalapenos, I think that's clearly an incorrect understanding of NPOV. You had it stating "That claim was made in the original article,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] though Boström later said that he never meant to imply as much.[13]" This is to say that Bostrom makes a claim, but it is false. You cannot make this kind of a statement under NPOV, or WP:BLP for that matter. We report differing views on matters that are disputed; we do not decide that one is correct because the other somehow does not qualify as relevant in our view (even though we then immediately present it). It's an extremely clear violation of WP:NPOV. Mackan79 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I could give you a bucket loads of blogs and other non-RS that openly disputes that the article said that. You really have to have a certain degree of paranoia to read that out of the article, or to be a genuine antisemite. I don´t deny that it is possible to misunderstand, as you points out Boström does not deny that either. But it is not explicit in the article, in that case you would be able to provide a qoute from the original article, right? So it should not stand "was in the original article", because it is not. It was read in to the original article, but that is a slightly different thing. Steinberger (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Also your interpretation of the attribution to Scheper-Hughes is unfounded; she says that many interpreted it "erroneously as the Israeli army killing Palestinians to access their organs" ("Många som hörde talas om artikeln uppfattade det, enligt Sheppard-Hughes, felaktigt som att israeliska armén dödade palestinier för att komma åt deras organ. Det som hände på Kabirinstitutet var illa nog som det var och drabbade alla slags människor, inte bara palestinier, säger hon.") Lindborg is also clear: "Kanske borde vi även gjort än tydligare att israeliska armén inte skjuter palestinier i syfte att stjäla organ, de tar organ när de dödat av andra skäl – skäl som världens mest moraliska armé alltid anser sig ha." Specifically, "Perhaps we should have made even clearer that the Israeli army does not shoot Palestinians with the intention of stealing organs, they take the organs when they are killed for other reasons -- reasons that the world's most ethical army always sees itself to have." She then says it wouldn't matter how clear they had been. We could request a third party translation if you like, but I think the statements are quite clear in context. Mackan79 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
@Mackan1: the point you raise is moot, since, properly understood, there is no contradiction between what Bostrom says and what the ten reliable sources say. Bostrom says he did not mean to imply x; The 10 say the article says x. Incidentally, I disagree with your interpretation of WP:NPOV. The policy requires us to give primacy to the main POV. Ideally, we would say "AP, UPI etc. say x; Bostrom says y". That is in fact what I did in the body of the article. But in the lead brevity is required, so we should give primacy without spelling out the whole list, but if you really want to spell it out, I could live with that. I'm also surprised that you didn't object to Steinberger's previous version, which had a classic false parity by saying something like "it was reported that x, but Bostrom explained that y".
@Steinberger: I think you're wrong in how you interpret the Bostrom article, but it doesn't matter what either of us think; it matters what the secondary sources think. You're entitled to the opinion that AP, UPI, CNN, BBC etc. are either paranoid or genuinely antisemitic, but according to WP:V it doesn't matter in the slightest if they are.
@Mackan2: if you're going to press this point, then I would like a third party translation. Your quote from the Sheper-Hughes interview is a statement in the voice of the article leading in to a quote by SH in which she disputes a different issue. Either SH does not coherently state a position on the issue we're discussing, or the article mis-states her position. Linderborg is most certainly not saying that the article did not make the claim. What she is saying is that the claim is false. (In my opinion her statement is actually an admission that the article did make the claim, but I'm assuming you will not agree with me, so I won't press the matter.) Needless to say, I'm all for presenting everybody's position in the body of the text, at whatever level of detail needed to ensure there is no reasonable dispute as to the accuracy of the presentation. But this will probably not be possible in the lead, unless we do it with short quotes, as I did with Bostrom. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Your sources can only be used to verify that it have been summarized that way. Not that "it is" in the article. For that it breeches NPOV as Boström disputes it. Steinberger (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope, they should be used to verify what they say, which is that Bostrom's article claimed Israel killed Palestinians for their organs. And Bostrom doesn't dispute it -- you're continuing to misrepresent his remarks. He merely states that he did not intend to make that claim. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
No, its you who misrepresents his remarks. He say he never maid that claim, that it is a lie that he did so. [8] Steinberger (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a new source. I hate to be a nitpicker, but in this source he also does not deny that his article claimed Israel killed Palestinians for their organs. He says it's a lie to state that he wrote that soldiers hunt for [Palestinian] youths to take their organs. Killing someone, whom you've captured, for their organs, is different than capturing them with the original purpose of taking their organs. I don't believe I've seen any source saying that he wrote the second thing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that he didn't refer to the summarization we talk about now? That he instead reefers to a misinterpretation of that summary? I think that is very far fetched. I find it obvious that he do refer to the "killed to harvest" claim. That he meant it that way is also implied by the follow-up questions from Levy. Steinberger (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I seriously don't think he was referring specifically to any group of newspaper articles reporting on his article, but to the controversy in general. I also think that, as people often do in these situations, he was choosing the most extreme available position, whether real or imagined, to attack. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I also believe that he is elaborating some. But I also think it is clear that he refers to the general "killed to harvest" claim and not the controversy in general. Steinberger (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read the various responses mentioned here but if they are as Jalapenos has said (ie 'hunt for' and 'did not mean to imply') then we must take them at their word. All we have is the language they use, not to put to fine a point on it. Not our own interpretations but the words they say, no more, no less. Stellarkid (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
That is correct, but in this case Jalapenos do omit the context. Steinberger (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Haaretz article attributes to Bostrom: "Like for example that they say I wrote that the soldiers hunted for youths so as to take their organs. It's obvious that's a lie." That seems quite clearly a denial that he made the claim we are discussing here. Mackan79 (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed some of the comments above. He's denying that the article claimed soldiers hunted for Palestinians to take their organs. Indeed, I haven't seen anyone claim that the article said that. This is different from the question of whether soldiers killed Palestinians for their organs (whom they may have captured for other reasons in the course of their duty). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
He elaborated some, but that does not obscure what he mean when it is put in context. However, from what you writes above you seem to have missed that Haaretz from the 18th of August summarized the article as "Israeli soldiers are abducting Palestinians in order to steal their organs" (my italics). That excludes your "other reasons in the course of their duty". Similarly in the Jerusalem Post editorial, where they use other words such as "that the IDF murders young Palestinian Arabs to enable the harvesting of their organs for transplanting." (my italics) Also in that example, it is indirectly said that Boström answers the question why they where killed in the article. But he does not. If you read carefully, he does not come close. The "organ shortage" is given in the original article as a reason for his own investigations in 1992 - it is not given as a reason for the Israeli practice, for example. Steinberger (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem all to have missed the crucial point: the article did not claim that anyone was killed for the purpose of harvesting organs, because the article does not claim that any organs were harvested at all. It claimed merely that there are indications that this had happened, and that the matter should be investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.7.82 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Second paragraph in lead[edit]

Mackan deleted part of this paragraph with the comment "This is not the place for us to pick out what we think is the most controversial thing in the article, even if this were accurate". Since this (Wikipedia) article is not about the Aftonbladet article but about the controversy surrounding the Aftonbladet article, of course we should point out the most controversial parts of it. Why else would we even have the second paragraph be about the article, if not to clarify what the controversy was about? As for the accuracy issue, but this is the removed sentence:

It also featured allegations that Israel deprived living Palestinians of their organs before killing them.

and this is the quote from the article on which I based the sentence:

I then travelled around interviewing a great number of Palestininan families in the West Bank and Gaza – meeting parents who told of how their sons had been deprived of organs before being killed.

What's the problem? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He say a lot in the article and it is wrong to highlight some arbitrary statement. If you find it very important, there is a whole section where the article is to be summarized. It is nothing for the lead. Steinberger (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If you have any suggestions as to what to put in the second paragraph instead of that sentence, or if you believe that it shouldn't exist, then say so. But it's very odd to keep that paragraph very short, as if we were trying to hide something. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree. That is what the article said. The IDF shoots first, takes the organs, and then kills young Palestinian boys. Then they stitch them back up in the preposterous form that we saw in the photograph, wrap them in something, and deliver these boys back home in the middle of the night. The soldiers stick around, laughing and joking while the boy's relatives are made to dig the graves, and bury the child. This is journalism? Pulp fiction is more like it. Stellarkid (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You are focusing on one sentence in the article, but not accurately representing it. The article says in one sentence that the Palestinians claimed organs were taken and then the men killed. The rest of the article is clearly focused solely on the fact that Palestinians were disappearing and then being returned with bizarre wounds on their bodies. One can understand why it would be claimed now that the article went too far, but it is not the only position. As Scheper-Hughes says, there is a serious ethical issue here regardless of how the Palestinians died. So why is it assumed that, clearly, Aftonbladet wanted to make it into something much worse than what actually happened, when what happened is itself a headline? That one sentence may have suggested something which some believe was inappropriate to suggest does not make the whole article about that sentence. I will admit to wondering if it is thought that Bostrom should have ignored what the Palestinians were claiming, or sanitized their claims, even now that the basis for the story is reasonably known. I don't think one can paint all of this in such stark colors. Mackan79 (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The story seems to have been right in essence - but the authorities contested the most contraversial point they could find, before quietly admitting that they had, indeed, killed Palestinians but stolen their organs because they were dead - rather than killing them expressly for that purpose. Will try and find reliable sources for this.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
No I am not focusing or misrepresenting one sentence. There are a number of sentences that are highly troublesome here.

While the campaign was running, young Palestinian men started to disappear from villages in the West Bank and Gaza. After five days Israeli soldiers would bring them back dead, with their bodies ripped open. --{Here is one accusation}

The person they were assigned to put out of action was Bilal Achmed Ghanan, one of the stone-throwing Palestinian youngsters who made life difficult for the Israeli soldiers.-- {They are just "youngsters" who merely throw stones, and soldiers are assigned to kill them}

Together with other stone-throwing boys he hid in the Nablus mountains, with no roof over his head. Getting caught meant torture and death for these boys – they had to stay in the mountains at all costs.-- {just a youngster, a boy with no roof no home, to be killed by Israeli soldiers (like the dogs they are) (that is the implication)}

On May 13 Bilal made an exception, when for some reason, he walked unprotected past the carpentry workshop. Not even Talal, his older brother, knows why he took this risk. Maybe the boys were out of food and needed to restock. --{the boys were hungry, and had no home, just because they threw stones at the Israelis}

Everything went according to plan for the Israeli special force. The soldiers stubbed their cigarettes, put away their cans of Coca-Cola, and calmly aimed through the broken window. When Bilal was close enough they needed only to pull the triggers. The first shot hit him in the chest. According to villagers who witnessed the incident he was subsequently shot with one bullet in each leg. Two soldiers then ran down from the carpentry workshop and shot Bilal once in the stomach. {The killing plan went well for the Israelis. They were not out of food or without a roof or home. They had cans of Coke and plenty of cigarettes. The Israelis shot the boy in cold blood, in the chest and in the stomach, as well as the legs. It is not clear why they would shoot in such vital organs if they were planning to use the organs but that's another question for another time}

Together with the sharp noises from the shovels we could hear laughter from the soldiers who, as they waited to go home, exchanged some jokes. As Bilal was put in the grave his chest was uncovered. Suddenly it became clear to the few people present just what kind of abuse the boy had been exposed to. Bilal was not by far the first young Palestinian to be buried with a slit from his abdomen up to his chin. {The soldiers laugh and joke as the villagers bury the dead youngster. For them it is nothing. This is "far from the first." There are many questions that are unanswered here, not the least of which is why the military would return these boys at all. No sources are given in this article or for the accusations made in this story. Inferences are drawn and stories are told. I think to call this pulp fiction is to do a kindness to the story.} What is wrong with this analysis? That is how I read it. Stellarkid (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your 'analysis' is that it is totaly POV. Many bodies have not been returned. The Israeli Gov't has confirmed that organs were stolen, and bodies returned as described above. If you read the wikipedia article, and the cited sources you would be less ill-informed. Palestinians are human beings. Journalistic expression is not always neutral. You are obviously blinded by your bias.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem with Stellarkid story is that he does not keep the different stories and rumors Boström tells of apart (he combines at least two for his "analysis"). One have to be very stringent in keeping unrelated things apart. As an example (Stellarkid is innocent of) I have read that Boström "linked" Operation Big Rig to IDF and Palestinans. His mentioning of Operation Big Rig is really used as a background, to support his notion that investigations must be launched. Such types of distortions is really a breach of WP:BLP. Steinberger (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
How do I not keep the different stories apart? This is the story of Bilal, the one that Boström claims to have been around for. This is one story here. And I agree that he mentions other "stories" (hearsay as well as unrelated, unverified and unanalyzed stories) to push his inference that the Israelis are killing in order to steal organs. To listen to this story, it is clear the author would have us believe the soldiers are evil people that would make even the Nazis look good. That is why this story is rubbish and clearly not journalism and why so many condemned it! The only justification for such rubbish is "free speech" and free speech is justification for saying virtually anything, no matter how evil or inciteful or even false. That is the whole concept behind the "blood libel" and why this is a good example of it. Stellarkid (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You previously wrote that "the IDF shoots first, takes the organs, and then kills young Palestinian boys." The latter part of that quote is not in the Bilal story. Steinberger (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The story says this: "On an assignment from a broadcasting network I then travelled around interviewing a great number of Palestinian families in the West Bank and Gaza – meeting parents who told of how their sons had been deprived of organs before being killed. One example that I encountered on this eerie trip was the young stone-thrower Bilal Achmed Ghanan." He clearly says they took his organs and then killed him. No? Stellarkid (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
No. It is clearly an general example of organ theft, but it is not entirely clear that it is an example of kill-after-harvest allegations. Steinberger (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The more I read it the clearer it seems to me. Bilal was cited as one example of sons being "deprived of organs before being killed." Further he goes on to say that he was "not by far the first".... Stellarkid (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I read it as a more specific example of what that paragraph is about, eg. what he encountered on his trip around the West Bank. Steinberger (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
lol! Stellarkid (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to misunderstand what "example" hints at in the Swedish original but neither Aftonbladet nor Tlaxcala gives that sentence justice in their translations so... laugh on. The original article states "Ett av de exempel jag träffade på under denna kusliga resa var den unge stenkastaren Bilal Achmed Ghanan." Both Tlaxcala and Aftonbladet translate that into "One example that I encountered on this eerie trip was the young stone-thrower Bilal Achmed Ghanan." But that is not entirely correct. Google translate does a somewhat better work with beginning of the sentence when it produce "One of the examples I came across during this spooky trip was the young stone author Bilal Ahmed Ghanian." Personally, I would translate the sentence to "One of the examples I encountered during this eerie journey was the young stown-thrower Bilal Ahmed Ghanian." The translators at Tlaxcala and Aftonbladet might have been confused by the fact that "exempel" is not inflicted in Swedish, but is in English. To fit the singular form "example", maybe they omitted "of the" to correct the English grammar. Nevertheless, as it should be "examples" in plural the sentence is only related to what is said before, not "one example of" what is said right before. And the following story could in fact be something quite different, albeit related to organ theft. Steinberger (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation request[edit]

I'll post on the Swedish Wikiproject a request to translate the following paragraphs.

Thanks, Mackan. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It took that a while to have the last two excerpts translated, so I did it myself. I know that Jalapenos thinks that I am biased in favor for Aftonbladet, but I reckon that it is easier to persuade some third party to critically review my translation then to have them making it from scratch. So I hereby encourage every Swedish-speaking user who sees this to read and correct my translations (the latter two from Aftonbladet) so that they are as correct as possible and that they don't make what they say any greater then it is. Steinberger (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sydsvenskan[edit]

Original: "Intervjun med Hiss gjordes för nio år sedan men idag bekräftar israelisk militär att organstölder förekommit där hornhinnor, hjärtklaffar, hud och ben tagits från döda israeler (civila såväl som militärer), palestinier och gästarbetare.

Detta verkar ge Aftonbladet och Donald Boström rätt till hälften när han i en uppmärksammad artikel i somras menade att Israel stjäl organ från palestinier som man sedan dödar. I gårdagens Aftonbladet beklagar kulturchefen Åsa Linderborg att hon inte ”gjort än tydligare att israeliska armén inte skjuter palestinier i syfte att stjäla organ”, men det var ju just den indiciekedjan Boström målade upp: organbrist i USA och Israel, organstöld i Israel, dödade och uppsprättade palestinier i Gaza."[9]

Translation: The interview with Hiss was done nine years ago, but today Israeli military confirms that organ theft have occurred where corneas, heart valves, skin and bone have been taken from dead Israelis (both civilian and military), Palestinians and guest workers.

This seem to give Aftonbladet and Donald Boström half right when he in a noticed article this summer implied that Israel steals organs from Palestianians that are later killed. In yesterday's Aftonbladet the head of culture Åsa Linderborg regrets that she has not "made it clearer that the Israeli army not shoots Palestinians with the intent to harvest organs", but that was the chain of indices Boström painted: organ shortage in USA and Israel, organ theft in Israel, killed and opened Palestinians in Gaza.

Discussion:

I would add a 'does' in, "made it clearer that the Israeli army does not shoots Palestinians with the intent to harvest organs", but not reall sure if there is any difference. --Stefan talk 14:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Lindborg 1[edit]

Original: "Israeliska myndigheter förnekade kraftfullt anklagelserna och israeliska befattningshavare kallade artikeln för 'antisemitisk'.

Många som hörde talas om artikeln uppfattade det, enligt Sheppard-Hughes, felaktigt som att israeliska armén dödade palestinier för att komma åt deras organ. Det som hände på Kabirinstitutet var illa nog som det var och drabbade alla slags människor, inte bara palestinier, säger hon:

– Men symboliken i att ta hud från den befolkning som uppfattas som fienden, och använda huden för den egna militären ... det är något som just på grund av dess symbolik är värt att fundera över, säger Nancy Sheppard-Hughes."[10]

Translation:

"Israeli authorities forcefully denied the accusations and Israeli officials called the article 'anti-semitic'.

Many of those who heard about he article perceived it, according to Sheppard-Huges, falsely as if the Israeli army killed Palestinians to get at their organs. What happened at the [Abu] Kabir institute was bad enough as it was and it affected all kinds of humans, not only Palestinians, she said:

- But the symbolism of taking skin from the population that is perceived as the enemy, and use the skin for it's own military ... that is something that just because of its symbolism of it that is worth tinking about, said Nancy Sheppard-Hughes."

Discussion:

But the symbolism of taking skin from the populationpeople that is perceivedunderstood as the enemy, ansd useing the skin fort the it's own military ... that is just something that just because of its with sympolism of it that is worth tinking about --Stefan talk 14:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Lindborg 2[edit]

Original: "När jag läser artikeln i efterhand kan jag begripa dem som inte förstår hur sommarens organskandal i New Jersey skulle ha att göra med de händelser Boström bevittnade för 17 år sedan på Västbanken och sedan dess försökt engagera världen i. New Jersey med sina israeliska kopplingar var en möjlighet för Boström att aktualisera och uppmärksamma samma brott som engagerat honom ända sedan han första gången skrev om dem i sin bok Inshallah.

För mig var det en självklarhet, men jag begriper om det inte var det för alla. Kanske borde vi även gjort än tydligare att israeliska armén inte skjuter palestinier i syfte att stjäla organ, de tar organ när de dödat av andra skäl – skäl som världens mest moraliska armé alltid anser sig ha. Boström påstår heller inget annat och troligen är denna min själv kritik fåfäng; ockupationsmaktens medlöpare skulle ändå ljugit ihop och tjatat in sin tolkning."[11]

Translation: "Reading the article in retrospect, I can understand those who does not understand how this summers organ scandal in New Jersey would have any connection with the events that Boström witnessed 17 years ago. New Jersey with its Israeli connections was an opportunity for Boström to draw notice to and making the same crimes that have engaged him every since he for the first time wrote about them in his book Inshallah topical.

For me that was self-evident, but I understand if it wasn't for everyone. Maybe we should have made it even clearer that the Israeli army does not shoot Palestinians in order to steal their organs, they take organs when they have killed for other reasons - reasons the worlds most moral army always thinks they have. Neither does Boström claim otherwise and probably this my self-criticism is in vain; the accomplices of the occupation force would lie together and rub in their interpretation anyway. "

Discussion:

"New Jersey would have anything to do with the events that Boström witnessed on the west bank 17 years ago and have tried to engage the world in"
not sure but think anything is wrong, but not sure what to change it to, maybe any connection --Stefan talk 15:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
"For Boström, New Jersey with its Israeli connections was an opportunity for Boström to draw notice.", why make this change, both are correct English I think?? --Stefan talk 15:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
For me that was self-evident for me, but I understand if it not wasn't it for everyone. Maybe we should have made it even clearer that the Israeli army does not shoot Palestinians in order to steal their organs, they take the organs when they have killed for other reasons - reasons the worlds most moral army always thinks they have. Neither does Boström claim otherwise and probably this my self-criticism is in vain; the accomplices of the occupation force would lie together and rub in their interpretation anyway. " Sorry had some wikimarkup issues, underline or bold means my addition strike though my deletion--Stefan talk 15:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I have implemented all your suggestions both texts I am responsible for translating. Some where genuine misses from my part ("for Boström" and "my" for example), other more a matter of style. If you wonder why I moved "for Boström" it was because of "att aktualisera" was so hard to fit in to the same place in the sentence in English ("make topical"), so I moved some words around and didn't notice that I had overdone it. Steinberger (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Do not worry, you did a very good job, I doubt I could have done as well, I just did some nitpicking after you did the hard work :-). For none Swedish spekers, the Swedish text is actually not that good, there are some grammatical inconstancies that is 'translated' into the English, e.g. "Neither does Boström claim otherwise and probably this my self-criticism is in vain" which talks from a third person perspective and then switches to first in the same sentence. The Swedish text does the same thing so I think it should be 'translated' like that, even though it looks like na error in translation, when in fact it is a error in the original writing. --Stefan talk 01:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Useful References for Research[edit]

This article is probably not a reliable source, but it has a good selection of relevant references from reliable sources, for anyone wishing to improve the article. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/aw-organs2.html#notes93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler's massive changes[edit]

Plot Spoiler is removing any mention of Yehuda Hiss from this article despite the obvious, common sense relevance of Hiss to this topic. Anyway, many sources make the connection; it took me 5 seconds to find Forward Magazine explicitly connecting the two here.

Please stop, PlotSpoiler, and establish consensus before gutting this article.Factsontheground (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How it's currently framed is obvious WP:Original research and WP:NPOV, creating an unnatural connection between the two subjects when it isn't even discussed in those articles themselves. There is no consensus needed in this case. If you want to make a connection, you'll have to rework it so that there is in fact a direct connection and not some WP:original research you created for your own purposes. Plot Spoiler (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not original research because the sources repeatedly make that connection themselves. Have you bothered to read the sources, Plot Spoiler?
Al Ahram makes the connection.
Al-Jazeera makes the connection.
Irish Times makes the connection.
Forward Magazine makes the connection.
Your changes are massive and disruptive. Again, please obtain consensus instead of just edit warring. Factsontheground (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
So is this about Hiss or is that about Bostrom's original article? Bostrom did not talk about Hiss in his original article and it had nothing to do about his claims at that point. This is just added information to find a means to corroborate his findings, but this was not part of the actual controversy itself, was it not? Plot Spoiler (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
So are you conceding that the connection is not just original research then, but is in fact supported by many sources? If so, this would confirm that you did not read the sources in this article before making massive changes. In future, can you please read the sources before making assertions as to what they do or do not say? Factsontheground (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
... and as the original article does mention Abu Kabir and Aftonbladet see the Hiss interview as rehabilitating, proving them right all along, it is relevant enough to mention. The controversy also influenced Nancy Sheper-Huges to publish her material. Steinberger (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The alleged claim that Israel killed Palestinians for their organs[edit]

I have removed the following sentence, regarding Hiss's revelations, from the lede, as it is not supported by the body. The body states that the claim that the article claimed that Israel killed Palestinians for their organs is disputed by the authors, and publishers. Hence the sentence is not representative of the article, and inappropriate in the lede, unless it explains who made the claim. "There was nothing in the interview to substantiate the claim that Israel killed Palestinians for their organs.[4][5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Israeli officials labelling the report as anti-semitic[edit]

This was removed: Israeli officials denounced the report at the time, labeling it "anti-Semitic," but did not comment on the specific allegations[14]

Are there specific objections to it? It seems to be WP:V and fairly notable. Unomi (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=171732

The council and the commissioner’s office, “however unwittingly, helped to propagate an anti-Semitic libel by publishing [the EAFORD’s charges] as an official UN document,” wrote UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer.

He called on the UN council and high commissioner to “immediately cease circulating this racist, hateful and inflammatory text to the ambassadors and other delegates of the UNHRC.”

Unomi (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It is the label by Israelis. We should not add anti-semitic category to the article only because of this.sicaspi (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).