Talk:Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Israel (Rated C-class)
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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated C-class)
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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


untitled[edit]

This Wikipedia article, in its current state, is nothing more than propaganda.

It ignores the facts surrounding the case of the abduction, that the boy was involved in an incident where the police were called to his house two days earlier, and that his father told police that it was Moslems who did it to him and not Jews, and two days later, when he was finally abducted, witnesses said he knew his attackers, which suggests they were Arabs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.185.165 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Your entire comment seems to be nothing more that propaganda. What's your source? FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
This is propoganda!!! The motive is not clear where is your source for that? The israeli police haven't yet finished its investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.34.215 (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Whatever. There is something very odd about all this. Nothing of what we know from non-RS, which is substantial, and ignores the gag order, is getting into English RS, just as with the earlier case where any reader could guess with high probability they were dead within a few days. The car details for example. There's substantial video of the scene, the car, the same car running red lights through to French HIll, and therefore identified, if technology is what is it known to be. It is clear that police are not convinced that the settler kidnap hypothesis is the stronger.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

article title change[edit]

I think it is obvious that, in conformity with other similar articles, the title should be Kidnapping and Murder of Mohammad Abu Khdeir. I can't do that, but anyone capable of it should consider it.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Motive[edit]

It's important to note that, even if the official motive for killing the teenager was a nationalistic one, that the Israeli Police floated by the idea first that it was because he was the victim of an honour killing, or possibly even a homophobic attack.

Attempting to remove that information from the article is attempting to white-wash the history of the investigation and the conduct of Israeli police, in my opinion, so it should remain in the article indefinitely. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Correct. That should not be removed, if only because mainstream sources will probably start mentioning it. Mondoweiss et al, have very detailed accounts of Israeli investigative reportage which is said to have tracked down the source of these rumours to the police themselves. The police behaviour in all this was quite bizarre -utterly different from the earlier case, where immediate certainties prevailed and a massive assault on unrelated people undertaken for two weeks in lieu of good evidence. Here they had the car plate images within hours and took five days to round up the suspects while still maintaining that 'Arab' vendettas or some 'personal matter' (gay) were not to be excluded. We shouldn't of course attribute this to the police until one of the RS state that. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Even the unreliable source you link to does not claim that the IDF or Israeli government claimed or even insinuated it was a honor killing or anything gay related. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what makes my source unreliable? And yes it does. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is analysed quite carefully in various articles I have not mentioned because I don't use Mondoweiss, or Tikun Olam, though there is really no good reason to suggest they are fabricating things. Even Pamela Geller states that 'to her mind' (that's an odd use of the word 'mind') he was undoubtedly gay. But, as any cursory glance will reveal, The Times of Israel article mentions both, and the objection does not stand.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Background[edit]

The Background section is using material which has not been linked to this crime. i.e. Where is the source linking the murderer's motivation to Rabbi Perel's pronouncement, or the Beitar club demo slogans? Why is there no mention of the pro-peace demos which were held simultaneously? The bias here is telling. Chesdovi (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been following the news about this closely so I could easily be wrong, but if there is bias, it may in the sources rather than here i.e. to a first approximation, good news isn't news. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
If the crime is not metioned then this WP:OR as sources should be "directly related to the topic of the article".--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Murder or Kidnapping and Murder?[edit]

Should Murder of Shelly Dadon be "Kidnapping and Murder of Shelly Dadon"? Trying to understand the distinctions here.ShulMaven (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I support moving this to Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. Kidnapping usually means an intention to detain victim for a while for something in return. Nor do I think it is described as such in most sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The Independent, the Guardian, Haaretz, Ma'an News Agency, the New Yorker, Times of Israel, Ynet,The Forward, NBC News, etc.etc. etc., all speak of kidnapping and the police indictment speaks of two things, an abduction and a murder. Change the title and you break the parity with the other article, 2014 Kidnapping and murder of Israeli teens with which it is intimately linked.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The more recent opinions of knowledgeable people regarding the three Israeli teens is that it is more likely that there was no intention of kidnapping per se, only murder. Indeed I support moving both to [[Murder of ..... --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The three Israeli teens were *Thought* to be a kidnapping at first, but then when they discovered their bodies along with other details (car found) - it was determined that they were murdered minutes after they got on the car, and so it was only murder and not kidnap. Even the Hebrew article on wikipedia is "Murder of the three teen" (without "kidnapping").--93.172.136.9 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language sources[edit]

On the "background" section, I have tried to include reports from Le Monde and the New York Times that point out the racist incitement (from official sources no less) that preceded Khdeir's murder. Both sources point out the fact that Netanyahu's Twitter page asked for "vengeance". In the inclusion of this material, I've been opposed by user User:Anomalocaris, on the grounds that the Le Monde article is in a foreign language and that including it here is "laughable". I pointed out to him that foreign language sources are allowed on Wikipedia, only that certain privisions have to be made - a translation of the relevant quote, for example. He has maintained his objection to Le Monde's inclusion. (His objection to the NYT's inclusion, I do not understand.) Would someone else like to weigh in? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I thank Peleio Aquiles for the many contributions to this article, but this user seems to have a problem with the use–mention distinction in this instance. There is a difference between using a word and mentioning a word. There is a difference between using the word "vengeance" and asking for veangance. Neither Le Monde nor The New York Times state that Netanyahu's Twitter page asked for "vengeance".
The Twitter feed of the Prime Minister of Israel did use the word "vengance", as a rhetorical allusion to A. Z. Foreman's English translation of Hayim Nahman Bialik's 1903 epic poem In the City of Slaughter, which Bialik wrote after interviewing survivors of the Kishinev pogroms. This poem does not "ask for" vengeance—quite the contrary, the poem says "cursed be he that shall say: avenge this!" The initial presumption over the Prime Minister's Twitter usage should therefore be that he was suggesting that a call for vengeance is not only unwelcome but actually cursed. Nothing in the Twitter feed overcomes this presumption and leads to the conclusion that the Prime Minister called for vengeance.
As the Prime Minister's Twitter feed is in English, including the word "vengeance", and as the use of the word "vengeance" on this Twitter feed has been discussed in various English-language media, I stand by my edit summary of 16:49, 11 July 2014‎, where I included "ludicrous to use French source on use of English". (I said "ludicrous" not "laughable".) At the time I was reverting an edit that stated point-blank "the Twitter account of the Israeli premier asked for vengeance." Moreover, the Le Monde piece does not even support this assertion.
The piece in The New York Times explicitly contradicts the theory that Prime Minister Netanyahu asked for or called for vengeance: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also demanded the swift prosecution of those responsible for the 'reprehensible murder' of the Palestinian teenager and called on all sides to resist the temptation to take the law into their own hands." This article said that a third party observed that the Twitter feed used the word "vengeance"—this is not in dispute—but the use–mention distinction applies. If there is a story here at all, it is that the third party was trying to create a "vengeance" hullabaloo out of whole cloth, not that the Prime Minister of Israel called for or asked for vengeance. But in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, as in any other, it is not particularly noteworthy that a third party took a word out of context and attempted to create a hullabaloo over it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The objection to Le Monde is immonde, to make a bad pun. It is a highly reputable international source, and, since French readers abound, and use of it can be immediately checked by editors like Pluto2012 or myself, or others. I suggest you put the disputed section about Netanyahu's putative use of 'vengeance' here, so we can look at it. I tried some days back, and because of an old version of Explorer, couldn't see it. The NYTs cannot be kept out, and even a blog there if the journalist is notable, is acceptable.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Assuming arguendo that the Le Monde article is a good source to use for this purpose, it doesn't support the assertion "the Twitter account of the Israeli premier asked for vengeance." Nor does the piece in The New York Times.—Anomalocaris (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
If you provide the link to the source in French, I will translate this and check the meaning. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You can find the Le Monde article linked in the old revision of this page, as edited by Peleio Aquiles at 12:14, 11 July 2014. From there, you can find the controversial Twitter texts. You will discover that all of my reasons above are borne out. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Undue edits by User:Precision123[edit]

That user is making a slew of odd edits; their only objective seems to be to produce a negative image of Palestinian society and a positive one of Israeli society, and this in an entry about radical Israelis who murdered a Palestinian child -- an entry where an exposure of Israeli racism, wherever found, has to be made. His editing history is here.

  • He is removing from the lead of the article any mention of family resentment towards the government, pointing out only government "condemnations" of the murder, thereby giving a sanitized account of government behavior, and de facto deciding that the expected government condemnation weigh more than family reactions.
  • He is including information from Times of Israel about supposed Palestinian social media support for the kidnapping of the three settlers (something I'm not sure belongs in this entry) while removing details on incitement by religious figures on the Israeli side, as well as violent racism and calls for "revenge" on Israeli social media, and the popularity of such calls. The Facebook page called "The Israeli People Demand Revenge" gathered 35,000 'likes' in a matter of hours -- Precision123 is removing that information, and wants only to point out that the page was "quickly removed" (Which is untrue -- it was removed only after Khdeir's murder was made public). All this does is sanitize Israeli society's image -- giving attention to condemnation and suppression of violent racism in its midst, but glossing over the support it has found. This article is about a Palestinian child killed by Israelis -- Israeli hatred is far more relevant as a background to this story than Palestinian hatred. Israeli hatred explains this story; Palestinian hatred does not (it might explain others). There's no reason to remove material on the former while inserting stuff on the latter. That is agenda-driven editing.
  • He's also misrepresenting the complaints Abu Khdeir's dad had on his interrogation by Israeli police. According to The Telegraph, the dad complained that police didn't even raise the possibility of a settler kidnaping; he had to do it, and when he did it, the police tried to challenge him, asking why he thought this might be so; the original phrasing in the entry reflects that story well. User:Precision123, however, has been trying to alter the phrasing to say that the father simply "was already convinced he was kidnapped by Israelis", which is not what the source says and plays down the police's attempts to gloss over the settler kidnapping possibility.

Precision123's justification for his edits does not convey their effects very well, either; he's said, for example, that he's just "merging sentences, cleaning up sources and adding events", or removing what he vaguely calls "trivial/unencylopedic detail" but that is not what is happening here: he's inserting material of dubious quality and relevance; and he's removing key content, encyclopedic and well sourced. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Your characterization of my edits is ridiculous and it shows. How is mentioning "a thousand Philistine foreskins" encyclopedic? It's not. Readers do not understand it and the sentence does fine without it. Assume good faith and talk in a civil matter. Now, to your points:
  • I summarized government AND public reactions. Then explained it further in the lead. There was nothing to summarize with the family's reaction, not to the murder, but to a statement made by one of the government officials. I placed it right after that fact.
  • Your edits devote way too much coverage of allegations of Israeli incitement, calls for revenge, etc., all of which is far removed from the real subject here, the murder. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Yes, I left in the stuff about the Facebook group and yes I took out the nonsense about how many "likes" it received. I added relevant facts that had nothing to do with sanitizing Israel's image, Japan's image, or anything. I summarized and included what was encyclopedic.
  • I did not "misrepresent the complaints of Abu Khdeir's dad." You did. (1) This quote was made before the killers were even caught. (2) It never says the police "challenged him." You wrote that. It said they asked why he had thought that. So yes, I took what was accurate and objective, that he was already convinced.

Your edits are LONG and overly inclusive of details that have little to do with his death. You seem to be on the inclusive side, yet you reject relevant facts that pertain to the incidents you include. --Precision123 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)