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)

Discussion[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)

Essay-like edits and undue weight[edit]

Some editors have made several edits that seriously compromise the integrity of this article. The article is beginning to read like a history of any and every anti-Arab remark that is far removed from the subject of this article (the murder). These editors seem more focused on painting a picture of alleged acts of discrimination or incitement against Arabs, rather than on explaining the murder, the victim, and the perpetrators. Some major problems include:

  • The "Background" section is written poorly. It describes—at length—a number of incidents that had little to nothing to do with the murder. Apart from perhaps a few cases at best, there is no indication that the murderers participated in or were influenced by any of these events. Many of the sources used (and the sources are poor) make no connection between the incident they report and Abu Khdeir.
  • Undue weight: The section includes a lengthy description of this nonsense:

Rabbi Noam Perel, head of Bnei Akiva, the world's largest religious-Zionist youth organization, urged on his Facebook page that the IDF be transformed into an army of avengers, which "will not stop at 300 Philistine foreskins". He also wrote: The travesty will be atoned for with the enemy's blood, not with our tears. A whole nation and thousands of years of history demands revenge. The government of Israel is convened for a meeting of vengeance that is not a mourning sitting."

The cited article never mentions Abu Khdeir once, not that this rabbi (or 300 Philistine foreskins) have anything to do with this anyway.

  • The article gives undue weight to some opinions in blogs and other websites that were hardly if ever reported in mainstream reliable sources.
    • The Background sections lists attacks on Palestinians that have no apparent connection to the murder, citing unreliable news sources [1][2] that do not mention Abu Khdeir once.
    • Other sections also cite unreliable sources to report news in several instances, among them, biased/POV blogs like Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss. Other times, it uses personal Twitter accounts as sources.[3][4] To cite the the "Allegations of media bias" section, Twitter accounts are also used.[5][6]
  • The "Investigation of the crime" section goes to great lengths to describe allegations and suggest fringe theories of a coverup by Israelis, arguing that Israelis attempted to cover up the fact that the murder was carried out by Jewish extremists.
    • It relies primarily on blogs and opinion pieces, and not reliable news sources. According to RS, Israeli police sources told the media as early as July 2 (the same date of the killing) that they were convinced the perpetrators were Jewish extremists.[7][8]
    • Although rumors that the boy was killed for his sexual orientation had occurred early on, reliable sources make but a passing reference to it. Yet this article blows the significance of such rumors way out of proportion, using opinion pieces and blogs. See NPOV/UNDUE WEIGHT. To go from this passing reference of an outdated rumor to then basing a full paragraph around 5 opinion pieces, including 2 self-published blogs making an exceptional claim about the Israeli police, is extremely undue.
  • POV: The article includes a description of a right-wing rally, mentioning who the participants supposedly were and what one of them said ("The marches counted with the presence of prominent right-wing figures such as former MK Michael Ben-Ari, and Jewish Agency officials. Referring to "the enemy", Ben-Ari called on Israelis to "[m]ake Ramadan into a month of darkness for them!"). This description is made using unreliable sources and blogs that do not themselves mention Abu Khdeir.
    • Meanwhile, the editor removed more general, accurate statements from RS: "Israeli calls for vengeance for the teens after the funerals on Tuesday have been met with widespread condemnation from the political leadership...."[9] (Note: This may have more to do with the reaction of the killings of the 3 Israeli teens than it does here.)
  • Inconsistency: The editor includes lengthy descriptions of rallies, Facebook groups (who created it, the creator's age, how many "likes" it received), social media and selected tweets, and random quotations in the Background section. They all try to paint a picture about incitement in Israel rather than the background of the murder, and they all have little to nothing to do with the murder itself. The few reliable sources that describe the underlying tension in the region at the time—which should be included—make no mention of these incidents and additionally mention facts the article had failed to include:
    • "Tzipi Livni, the minister of justice, said that the killers of the Palestinian teenager, Muhammad Hussein Abu Khdeir, 16, must be brought to justice, and told reporters that she was also considering legal action against Israeli soldiers who had submitted images of themselves or their weapons to the Facebook group The People of Israel Demand Revenge." <-- This is the main subject of the NY Times article.
    • "After the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers last month, Israelis were outraged by messages posted on social media by Palestinians celebrating the abduction of “three Shalits,” a reference to Sgt. Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who was held captive for five years by Hamas militants in Gaza and who was released in 2011 in exchange for more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners." One editor continually removed any brief mention of this, despite going to great lengths to describe the social media phenomenon on the other side, and accusing any editor including this of "demonizing the Palestinians."
    • "Late Wednesday, the Israeli-Iranian blogger Meir Javedanfar reported that he was relieved to see hundreds of his compatriots at a rally against racism in Jerusalem organized by Israel’s Interreligious Coordinating Council." Trotting out details of rallies not connected to the event—even quoting participants of the rally who are unrelated to this murder—but not a reference to the reactions like these? If you describe the situation on the ground then describe the whole situation on the ground.
  • Long and unimportant quotations from the family and other sources are ubiquitous in this article. This article can and should include many statements and quotations from the family, but not when they are of trivial value. This article takes the number of quotations to an unprecedented level. WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
    • The article says: "They are said to be preparing to enter an insanity plea." The editor includes: "Abu Khdeir's father said on the subject, 'From the very first day of the investigation I said that they will either say that the killers are crazy, or they will set them free.'" What Abu Khdeir's father is claiming to have said now—after the fact—might have been newsworthy at one point but is not particularly encyclopedic.
    • Other quotations are no longer current. The article says: "After the arrest of the six suspects, Abu Khdeir's mother, Suha, manifested pessimism that they would be duly punished, saying, "I don't have any peace in my heart, even if they captured who they say killed my son. They're only going to ask them questions and then release them. What's the point?"[1] The sentence can end at "duly punished." The perpetrators are now facing a judge; it is clear this fear did not materialize. While I support inclusion of quotations, there are already multiple quotes and this one is outdated and can go.

Some of the editors may misunderstand the purpose of the article, as it is not an article on allegations of incitement in Israel. The editors are overly inclusive with rogue incidents on that issue, even when unrelated to the murder, and fringe theories, yet they are also overly exclusive with the complete facts that pertain to those incidents. --Precision123 (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's precious that Precision123 thinks s/he can lecture other editors about the purpose of this article. S/he, it should be reminded, has a record of deleting key information from this article, especially details concerning the social context it took place - of widespread incitement and racism against Palestinians - and inserting, instead, information that is irrelevant to the entry. (And I'm not the only editor that has taken issue with his/her judgment.) One example: S/he has tried to remove any mention of incitement to violence coming from prominent religious Zionist authorities following the murder of the Israeli teens, and insert instead information that is completely unrelated to Khdeir's murder about Palestinian extremism - for example, supposed Palestinian social media support for the kidnapping of the Israeli teens -, even though the former (Israeli incitement) is important background to Khdeir's case, whereas the latter, anti-Israelism in Palestinian social media, is not. I know that I'm opening myself to accusations of not assuming bad faith, and to that I point to the fact that Precision123 is defending his/her editing record right here. S/he is opposing mention of Israeli incitement, saying we don't know how relevant they were to motivating Khdeir's murderers, whereas defending the inclusion of its Palestinian extremism, even though the murderers, being Israeli and targeting a Palestinian, could've only acted on Israeli incitement and encouragement, not Palestinian one. It is worth noting that even media sympathetic to Israel has made a point to mention of Israeli incitement as background for Khdeir's murder - even Khdeir's family has mentioned the link. Considering s/he's shown such bad judgment on what information is due to be inserted in this article, it's really hilarious that s/he thinks s/he can teach us about how this entry should be constructed. This article is about an instance of Israeli extremism - it is this social fact that should be given attention, I advise Precision123 to suppress any impulse to try to divert attention from this phenomenon to its Palestinian counterpart out of sympathy for the Jewish state. Whether s/he is conscious or not, his/her edits have thus far only served only that one purpose - to sanitize the side of the many Israeli parties and instead portray Palestinians badly, and this in an article that is about an infanticide perpetrated by Israeli Jews against a Palestinian kid.
It should be noticed that nowhere in the article it is said that "Israelis are racist". The fact that Precision123 says that this is so only shows where s/he is coming from - a position of bias against, and discomfort around, certain facts. It is not this the purpose of this entry to present his/her preferred side in a perfect light - to laud the work of the Israeli police (Precision123 misrepresented the Khdeir family's tensions with Israeli police before) or to sing the praises for the Israeli government's suppression of vigilantism on social media, to say how non-racist Israelis are. The purpose is to shed report on a order and to describe both its background and aftermath, and in this, this entry has not done anything differently from the sources used, all of which have considered both the Israeli teens' murder and Israeli incitement as factors worth mentioning.

(talkcontribs) 05:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This entry is several times smaller than its (let's call it this way) sister-entry - the one about the kidnapping and murder of the Israeli teens. It is not in any way 'overly inclusive' - that is, unless you have an unstated bias against the information itself. I fear, in fact, that the opposite is true. And it is very richly sourced with many links to top-notch, varied references. If an editor has a problem with any part of this article, be precise - don't write it off with tags that question its information in its entirety.Peleio Aquiles (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Avoid personal attacks and focus on content.
No one here tried to "portray Palestinians badly." The only thing you could possibly be referring to is the brief inclusion of Palestinians on social media expressing support for the murders of the 3 Israeli teens—a fact eventually put in by another editor. Such nonsense.
No one here is "sanitizing" anything; the only concern here is content and context. For example, you add extreme trivial details about a Facebook group (the creator, the creator's age, how many likes it had , its posts). But adding the fact that, in response to this, "At the recommendation of Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, the Israeli police launched a probe into call for incitement on social media," is somehow sanitizing? No. It's just called giving all the relevant facts.
I am not "removing any mention of incitement from prominent" anything. I either removed or, in most cases actually, simply shortened incidents that had nothing to do with this murder and I don't care who might have said it. It had nothing to do with who this "prominent Zionist leader" was, but rather was related to the fact that his statement (and going on about 300 Philistine foreskins) has nothing to do with this article—and the citation says nothing about Abu Khdeir in the first place! And if you insist on including such nonsense as somehow relevant, it makes no sense why you would remove the fact that "Israeli calls for vengeance for the teens after the funerals on Tuesday have been met with widespread condemnation from the political leadership....,"[10] far more relevant and succinct.
Last, I was actually very precise. Perhaps you could ask a pointed question if something seemed vague. What remains unaddressed are the majority of comments above, including several counts of (1) content cited to sources that themselves never mention Abu Khdeir, (2) use of unreliable sources (Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss are POV blogs unbefitting of an encyclopedia, not "top-notch, varied references") to state facts, and (3) undue weight to incidents that never made news in RS. --Precision123 (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Continuation: I advise editors don't try to suppress use of references by misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. Opinion and blog sources are fine in any and all Wikipedia articles - all that is required is that the source be notable and that the opinion not be misrepresented as fact. Both demands are met in this entry. The only blogs and opinion articles referenced are either syndicated in websites deemed reliable (for example, the Jewish Daily Forward and Haaretz) or the work of authors notable enough to deserve Wikipedia entries. Some of the sources make reference to social phenomena that Precision123 insists are irrelevant - for example, rumors in the Israeli social media that Khdeir was murdered by his family for being gay. S/he insists on downplaying the rumors because supposedly they did not play a part in the investigation, which, s/he says, zeroed in on the Jewish terrorism possibility early on, despite the facts that: 1) it was Israeli police itself who first raised the honor killing "possibility"; 2) according to the Khdeir family, Israeli police showed enthusiasm for the criminal/honor killing narrative, and even tried to downplay the Jewish terror hypothesis during Abu Khdeir's interrogation (and may I remind Precision123: the statements and feelings of the Khdeir family matter to this entry); 3) the supposed "irrelevance" of this rumor is just his/her subjective opinion; many authors, writing for established papers, suggested the rumors were widespread, and embraced by Israeli mainstream media. Here it is seen what was denounced just above - whereas Precision123 is adamant that anti-Israelism in Palestinian social media receive recognition in this entry, s/he is equally insistent that Israeli social media phenomena be downplayed or go unmentioned altogether.
"The only thing you could possibly be referring to is the brief inclusion of Palestinians on social media expressing support for the murders of the 3 Israeli teens—a fact eventually put in by another editor... For example, you add extreme trivial details about a Facebook group (the creator, the creator's age, how many likes it had , its posts)." -> Here we find an instance of what was denounced just above: Whereas supposed events on Palestinian social media are deemed important enough to deserve mention, Israeli social media phenomena are mysteriously not - they are trivial. This is, however, an entry about an extreme instance of Israeli, not Palestinian, racism - I advise all editors have that in mind before making a contribution. Israeli extremism is the subject. It was this - Israeli, not Palestinian, extremism - that inspired the murderers. Even though one instance of Palestinian extremism - the murder of the Israeli teens - is closely related to this subject, all instances of it - for example, irrelevant information about Palestinian social media - are not. And by the way, what the bit about Palestinian social media said wasn't that Palestinians supported the murder - it's that they supported the kidnapping. Keep track of what your sources say - don't let your dislike of Palestinians cloud your recognition of what happened and what did not. Remember that Khdeir, for whom Israelis are supposed to show compassion and regret, was one of those Palestinians. And yes, you were the only editor that insisted on the inclusion of that bit.
"... you add extreme trivial details about a Facebook group (the creator, the creator's age, how many likes it had , its posts)." -> Those particular bits of information, which take less than a line, were found in the entry before I even made my first edit. I was not the one who inserted them, but it's true that I re-added them each time after the many attempts you made to removing them. Some of the info - a page creator's age - may be of superfluous import, but others - how many likes it got is important information - are not: they are symptomatic of the social climate in Israel following the Israeli teens' funeral. Several publications - Le Monde, New York Times etc. - have made use of events in Israeli social media to gauge popular feeling surrounding those events, and this entry does nothing but reflect that fact. Much of which Precision123 pretends to take issue with - that much of the "Background" section is about events supposedly unrelated with Khdeir's murder - has been included here not because of an editor's choices but because that is what many reliable sources have done: they have put Khdeir's background in a context of incitement in Israel, especially around the Jerusalem area. And that is what Wikipedia is supposed to do - to mirror what reliable sources say; to gather information around a fact from reliable sources and combine them into a single, coherent whole. What you are doing here - trying to argue that certain bits of information don't belong here despite being found in reliable sources - is nothing but imposing subjective criteria to shape the entry. This is bound to attract disagreement, not least because we already have objective criteria to make decisions upon this subject - there's no need to rely on an individual editor's subjective judgments. Every single of the items above have as reference reliable sources, which deemed them important enough to deserve mention as context for Khdeir's murder. They belong here, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
"I either removed or, in most cases actually, simply shortened incidents that had nothing to do with this murder..." -> There it is again - the stubborn argument about what belongs in this entry, about what is related to the murder, and what does not, based entirely on subjective tastes -based entirely on what reflects well on Israel or not. Considering the fact Precision123 has tried to insert information about Palestinian social media, it'd be interesting to hear from him/her an explanation about why mentions of Israeli social media do not. Is s/he not yet aware this entry is about an extreme case of Israeli racism? Why does s/he think mentions of Palestinian racism belong on here but those not of Israeli racism do not? "Israeli racism has nothing to do with an Israeli racist murder, but Palestinian racism does; Palestinians on social media celebrating a kidnapping have a lot to do with an Israeli Jewish racist murder, but Israelis on social media calling for revenge attacks and big shot Zionists inciting for bloodshed do not." Does that make sense?
It's far from clear to me that Electronic Intifada is not a reliable source. Considering that it is used as a source by many outlets, including those that are used as reliable source here, it comes across as pretension to ban its use from Wikipedia. This is, by the way, how Electronic Intifada's entry on Wikipedia say of its media reception:

Hannah Brown of The Jerusalem Post calls EI "one of the most elaborate" sites of those that give a "Palestinian perspective of the news", going on to describe EI as "very professional, user-friendly and well written"...

Political journalist and editor of the generally left-wing magazine CounterPunch Alexander Cockburn stated "there are a number of excellent news outlets for those who want unjaundiced reporting.... The Electronic Intifada...is trusted...

NRC Handelsblad, a Dutch major mainstream newspaper, recommended The Electronic Intifada to its readers in 2006 at the height of the war on Lebanon. NRC wrote, "The Electronic Intifada (EI), a news site in English, reports from a Palestinian perspective, but as impartial as possible. EI is often faster than the established media."[9]

It seems good enough a source to me, and I'm not acquainted with any Wikipedia ruling determining otherwise. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Please calm down and enough with the personal attacks ("your personal dislike of Palestinians") and other BS. Nothing is being "downplayed" for being related to any particular subject (allegations of Israeli incitement, what reflects well on any one country, or otherwise). Rather, the problem is that undue weight is given to incidents that are unrelated to the murder or are not even reported in reliable sources.
  • You seem to misunderstand why certain facts were proposed to be included. This was so you could keep many of your additions as I thought it might be easier for you to accept—not to make a political point. Basically, if you're going to go so deeply into the reactions on the ground of the first 3 murders (giving weight to rogue incidents, unimportant statements, and social-media messages), then paint the whole picture of the situation on the ground. That was why I broke down the NY Times source above, which describes the situation on the ground, showing how certain facts were ignored here and others pushed. On the other hand, if we choose not to be so inclusive of unrelated incidents, then it would not be necessary to include additional facts (e.g., Palestinian reactions to the same incidents, government reactions) to provide the complete story stated in the citations.
  • Nothing is based on "subjective judgment," but rather on objective fact. Was the incident reported in a reliable source? Does the reliable source even mention this murder? That's a good starting point.
  • Please stop suggesting that I said whole issues are irrelevant. Indeed some are, but in many cases the problem is undue weight. As I stated with the sexual orientation rumors, it is fine to include something brief about that (it was briefly reported in a RS). But it was never a significant issue in any reliable source. It was reported in passing by The Times of Israel and similarly briefly by some others. Most, like the NY Times, did not even report it. To go from this passing reference of an outdated rumor to then basing a full paragraph around 5 opinion pieces, including 2 self-published blogs making an exceptional claim about the Israeli police, is extremely undue.
  • Yes, some newspapers have described the climate, and it's good to consult them, but as I already stated with the NY Times, cherry-picking from the source to paint a one-sided image of that climate is not acceptable.
  • Last, and most unfortunately, your characterization of what you think makes a source reliable makes this very complicated if not futile. Using support like that to claim that EI is a reliable source is almost hard to believe. I suggest you review WP:RS or contact the RS noticeboard. --Precision123 (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Tweeter as a source[edit]

In Biased Media section:

Attention was called to the New York Times take on the two events; whereas the article on the Israeli teens' funeral, titled a Trail of Clues Leading to Victims and Heartbreak, was illustrated by a picture of teenagers crying their friends' deaths in a hug, the article on Khdeir, titled Possible Revenge Killing Adds to Tension in Israel, written by Isabel Kershner, was illustrated with the picture of a male protester, presumably Palestinian or Israeli Arab, with his face masked in a keffiyeh, throwing back a gas can.[2] According to Rania Khalek, a frequent contributor to the Electronic Intifada website, a cousin of Khdeir's told her that after Khdeir's murder, the New York Times' correspondent in Jerusalem, Jodi Rudoren, "harassed her family about honor killings [and Khdeir's] unmanly friends".[3]
  1. A single tweet can't be called "Attention was called...". If there is no article about it anywhere else, it represnt a single person's opinion and possibly selective articles for his tweet.
  2. A tweet by Rania Khalek isn't a reliable source either. She is WP:Biased and again, if no other source is provided, it can't be used. Tweeter are WP:USERGENERATED and can only be used for WP:SELFSOURCE.

Ashtul (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Move out of "Breaking News" mode[edit]

I created this section after seeing comments on RSN at WP:RSN#"Locals said..." on Ma'an news - RS or not. Discussion there is ongoing as I write this, but I have suggested that it be closed and you may need to search the archives there to find it. This somewhat reminds me of the Shooting of Michael Brown and the Subic rape case to name just two -- breaking news reports shortly after the event were based on whatever info was available to be reported, with the available information being emotionally highly charged and generally coming from highly opinionated sources, and the story stabilizing months later. I don't want to draw too close of a parallel here between these incidents, but there are similarities in the development of the reporting about them.

From [11], I glean that this incident took place on 1-2 July 2014. The RSN discussion was about details reported in that source, which was a news report dated 4 July 2014. Later in the RSN discussion a second source was added [12], this one dated 17 July 2014. Perhaps this article might benefit from a wider perspective available from a somewhat longer view now that a number of months have passed. I see that more recent sources are still reporting on the incident and on developments growing out of it. Just a couple of sources I've googled up but have not read more than superficially are [13] (22 January 2015) and [14] (being a multipage timeline currently dated 6 March 2015, beginning on 9 July 2014 on the highest numbered page and currently running up to the latest entry dated 25 December 2014). Lots of other sources are available. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite correct in closing that. On several occasions, Ashtul went to the RSN board, and I didn't notice until the discussion, with one contribution, in his favour, was cited as support. Talk pages are obviously the primary venue for such discussions. As to this, the whole article, like hundreds here, is based on breaking news, and there is nothing exceptional in citing Ma'an in that regard.Nishidani (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, a quick search on RSN shows your accusations are baseless. Do us both a favor and focus on the facts before accusing me of such nonsense. Ashtul (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of this and I can't forget the other. No matter.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Luckily you don't need to think, you can search for it. And even this one doesn't stand for what you described as "Ashtul went to the RSN board, and I didn't notice until the discussion, with one contribution, in his favour, was cited as support". Stop lying about me! Ashtul (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead is getting too large[edit]

@Nishidani: Please see that you do not object to the changes I made to the new stuff about the sign you added. I added a longer explanation including a comment by a family member and municipality representative, and moved it above the memorial plate since I believe that it happened earlier (no hard evidence to that).

I think both became too detailed to belong in the lead. Do they belong under reactions or in a separate section, and if so - how should it be called ? WarKosign 15:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I do object. You say 'the lead is too large'. I summed up the section on the memorial incident in 126 words. You expanded that to 189 words, and gave undue weight to the Jerusalem Council fine threat. (Jerusalem is full of approved monuments to Israeli victims, but you can't get permission from the council for Palestinian memorials, absurdly, in an area which does not form part of Israel). In any case, going back to memories of précis lessons several decades ago, I added your point, and got all of the relevant detail down to 100 words, reducing the lead as requested. Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Your version is not good. Per WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" and "... significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". The subject of the article is evident from the title. I think that murder itself, its perpetrators and their handling by the authorities (as well as relevant reactions) are of prime importance. Commemoration by the family and by the authorities falls within the scope of this article, but are not of the "must be in the lead" importance.
It is not undue to represent the position of the municipality. It is the entity executing the municipal law in East Jerusalem, whether you believe it should be so or not. Not giving it any representation violates WP:NPOV and is as biased as writing only "Out of consideration to the sensitivity of the situation, Jerusalem Municipality allowed the family to hang a large photo of Mohammed Abu Khdeir on their house in violation of local law for 4 months". Threats of fine are as relevant as forfeiting the fine for 4 months, yet you chose to mention only one of them. We are not looking to condemn or praise anyone, we need to describe what happened regarding the picture.
One more issue is the apparent connection between the Terror Memorial and this picture. The source did not make any kind of connection between the two except reporting both in the same article, yet you put them in the same sentence and out of chronological order. These are two different matters that happened 3-4 months apart. WarKosign 20:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@The Magnificent Clean-keeper: You added "about two months earlier", but I think it's closer to 5.5 months. This source was published on November 2nd (exactly 4 months after the murder), and says that the officials contacted the family "a few days ago", putting the event at the end of October. Terror memorial inclusion/removal issue was published in the last week, so there was at very least 5 months between the incidents. Do you have a reason to believe otherwise ? WarKosign 05:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You ignore the essential point. You complained about lead length and added a third more to my minimal effort. To meet your concerns, I reduced you 190 words to 100, halving your edit, and reducing my original one by 20% while adding the detail you inserted.
The details I omitted, terror victim association opposition, and the Jrusalem municipal bylaw material, were omitted so they can be included in the relevant section., which any of us can create, with the detail you added, expanding it.
It is undue to represent in such detail the position of the municipality as if it were an independent national authority. It is not: it is an instrument of an occupation and represents Jewish/Israeli interests almost exclusively, and consistently blocks Palestinian interests, as all the world knows. There are few difficulties for Jews building vast developments in East Jerusalem: Palestinians are evicted, have their houses demolished or seized every other week. You use sources to call all this 'local law', nicely covering the fact that it is a rather vicious partisan instrument of ethnic repression and advancement. The municipal tax (arnona) must be paid by all Palestinians of East Jerusalem (the law) to keep their residency rights: most of their taxes are used to further Jewish infrastructure, even football stadiums in West Jerusalem, while the infrastructure in their own area is totally neglected, a 1,000 schoolrooms lacking, no rubbish disposal, no road works, except for transit roads to settlements, etc.etc.etc. It is a law of occupation, and one used notoriously to further one party's interest and strangle another's, and you are endeavouring to put it over that it is a local law, all must obey. You're quite welcome to put that detail below.Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Your criticism of Jerusalem municipality, even if supported by sources, belongs in a different article and has nothing to with this one. Of course municipality of Israel's capital is not an independent authority, it is part of Israel*. I agree with your suggestion of putting a short summary in the lead and adding extended details in the body, it is exactly what I suggested above. I think I'll call the section "Commemoration" and have the big sign and the terror memorial subsections in it. There we must represent all the different positions on each matter. In the lead, however, we must be brief so we can't include all the viewpoints, so to remain neutral we can only include bare undisputed facts. Your short version falls short of this goal and uses language that clearly prefers one viewpoint above the other.
*De facto it is. Legality is a different matter and does not change the fact that it's the only municipality administering this area at the moment. WarKosign 14:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
East Jerusalem is not a part of Israel. It has not been annexed, and its citizens are forced via policing, lawyering, fines and arbitrary ethnically-focused laws to follow the dictates of a foreign occupying power. Israel has memorials for its fallen, Palestinians within Israeli jurisdiction are, as yet, not permitted the same. My sentence was 100 words. Here's a shorter version: the full details can go in the relevant section, as you suggest.

When Israel included Khdeir in its Victims of Acts of Terror Memorial at Mount Herzl without consulting his family, they objected, and it was immediately removed. They saw the inclusion as a bid to improve Israel’s image and thought Khdeir's place among fallen Israeli soldiers wrong. Complaints were also made that the suspects' trial was being dragged out, and that they had been constrained under threat of a fine to take down their own photo memorial outside their home for contravening an Israeli bylaw.[1][2]Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a sensitive matter, and I don't think NPOV is damaged by giving due regard to the family's grievance with Israel's handling of the issues.Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Still you are connecting the matter of the large hanging sign (that you for some reason decided to call "photo memorial", is there a source using this term ?) with the Terror Memorial mention. They happened months apart and are not connected by any source afaik.
I do not believe the sign is DUE for the lead, but if it must be mentioned there, how about this:

The family hung a large sign with Khdeir's photo outside their house. After four months representatives of Jerusalem Municipality compelled them to take it down citing local regulation.

And this for the terror memorial mention:

Khdeir's name was included in Victims of Acts of Terror Memorial at Mount Herzl but was soon removed at family's request.

Each of these two is supposed to be short and neutral, not implying who's right and who's wrong - simply telling the facts. The opinions should appear in the more detailed section that I added, feel free to expand it with relevant facts/statements. WarKosign 14:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Still you are connecting the matter of the large hanging sign (that you for some reason decided to call "photo memorial", is there a source using this term ?) with the Terror Memorial mention

remarkable. It's called balancing prose. If Israel includes him in its memorial, then his immediate family's memorialization is elicited as a formal and factual balance. You believe Israel's memorialization is due for the lead, but not the family's memorialization. Can you see that?Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Have you looked at pictures of the sign vs the name at the Terror Memorial ? Check the article on Memorial for example pictures and an explanation of what a memorial is. Can you call this clearly temporary sign a memorial ? As I wrote, I believe the sign does not belong in the lead but I won't argue over that. WarKosign 15:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No one in Rome objected when a large picture of Gilad Shalit was flown from the gates of Rome's Great Synagogue for the entire five years of his captivity. You know how much a mourning lasts psychologically for a normal death? Six months, on average. You know how much a mourning lasts when you're told your kid had petrol pumped into his mouth and died as a human torch? Geez.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You are not replying to the point - can this sign be called a memorial ?
Rome municipality does not manage Jerusalem as far as I know. Either the sign had a permit, did not violate local regulations or there must be some source criticizing the discrimination that you can use somewhere.
Khdeir's family deserves as much consideration as family of any other terror victim in Israel, no less and no more. Do you know about any a family of Israeli terror victims (1,267 since 2000) who were allowed to keep a large sign on their house ? WarKosign 15:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And you are consistently failing to understand that a ruled people governed under military law in your name may not share your (legitimate) POV, and that an effort must be made to understand why on earth they do not share sentiments or an outlook that for an Israeli seem normative.
Khdeir is not 'a terror victim in Israel'. He was a Palestinian victim of settler terrorism in the occupied Palestinian territories. Israel customs and law about what is permissible among themselves in their own country is one thing. Respect for different customs in another country another. In Italy, the landscape, roads, houses, etc., have family memorials, monuments, flowers placed to commemorate a death, and it goes back to Roman times. I know it is difficult for Israelis, as foreigners, to understand this in these areas outside their borders, but Palestinians are subject to Israel under duress, not by choice.Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a memorial outside the family's home. It was apparently built without a permit but was allowed to stay (after the family was harassed about it, seemingly at some policemen's initiative). It matches your description of family memorials in Italy. In Israel such memorials exist, although they are not very common. They are more likely to appear at the place of death, particularly I've seen them often for road accident victims at the accident sites.WarKosign 16:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
(Excuse my interruption of your comment) Thank you indeed for that. This and the other reports from the Hebrew press have been very helpful. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be retelling of the same article, published by the same site (mekomit is +972) and quoting the same author. I'm not sure if +972 can be considered a source, being little more than a blog site. I don't see a reason to doubt it in this case since it doesn't seem to contradict other sources. WarKosign 21:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Jerusalem Law did annex east Jerusalem, at least from Israel's POV, so you can't expect it to treat residents of east Jerusalem as foreign nationals. I do expect it to treat them as any other Israeli citizen/resident, perhaps with some extra consideration. There is definitely room to criticize the municipality's behaviour, but it has to be balanced. WarKosign 16:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it didn't. Or at least, I trust Lustick on this.Ian Lustick,('Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?,' Middle East Policy, Vol.V , No. 1, JANUARY 1997 pp.34-45) against the masses of slipshod journalists, and hacks who let their minds slip into automatic when writing on complex topics.

'There has never been an official act that has declared expanded East Jerusalem as having been annexed by the State of Israel. Though politicians have referred to it as part of the territory over which Israel is sovereign, there has in fact never been an official declaration of Israel's sovereignty over this area. As far as official statements go, the still authoritative proclamation was the government of Israel's reply to the U.N. secretary-general in July 1967, which explicitly denied that Israeli actions in expanded East Jerusalem constituted annexation. In this connection, it is also important to note that the law which extended Israeli administration and jurisdiction to the Golan Heights in 1981 used exactly the same language as that contained in the ordinance used to make the same extension of Israeli law to enlarged East Jerusalem. When Prime Minister Begin defended the Golan Heights bill against criticism in the Israeli parliament that it constituted "annexation" and for that reason was a dangerous affront to the world community, the prime minister responded in a manner more or less identical to the languageused by Eban in his official response to the U.N. resolution condemning Israeli measures in East Jerusalem in 1967: You," Begin said from the Knesset podium, "use the word annexation, but I am not using it"' (p.44)

On that prestigious authority, it is not even Israel's POV, as you affirm. The Palestinians are mostly treated as foreigners with residency permits. If they reside outside that squeezed area for over 7 years, you have all your residency rights revoked, and your property up for seizure, which does not apply to any American Jewish resident say, who has an apartment there. If you cannot prove your 'center of life' is there, you can be expelled.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Positions on Jerusalem clearly says "Although at the time Israel informed the UN that its actions had not constituted annexation but rather administrative and municipal integration, later rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court indicated that the eastern sector had become part of Israel". Israel behaves as if it is annexed so per the duck test it is. You can question the legality but can hardly dispute the reality of it. WarKosign 21:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source (b) the rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court does not legislate, the Knesset does, and the Knesset has never passed a law of annexation. There are very good political reasons for not doing this, if you wish to read further on the topic.Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Subsection re memorialization[edit]

  • The Khdeir family made their request earlier in the day after discovering the addition of the name from media outlets. Israel Radio reported on Tuesday morning that the name of Khdeir, the Palestinian teenager from East Jerusalem who was kidnapped and murdered by Jewish settlers last summer, was added to the Victims of Acts of Terror Memorial at Mount Herzl.
  • Hussein Abu Khdeir, Mohammed's father, told Ynet that "this is a great initiative meant to honor my son, but I'm more interested with something else entirely: For the court to do justice with those who burned my son alive, and sentence them to the appropriate punishment." Elior Levy, 'Mohammed Abu Khdeir removed from terror victims' memorial after family's request,' 21 April 2015.
  • The harassment of Abu Khdeir family started two months after the murder of their child, when representatives of the police arrived at their home and ordered them to dismantle the small monument they placed on the fence surrounding their house. Otherwise, they said, the Municipality of Jerusalem would get the job done.

“We told them that if they destroyed it we would build a new one, a bigger one,” the child’s uncle said. The monument still stands. But what had caught the eyes of Israeli authorities is the photo of the child that the family hung on the wall of their house. “They probably think it is an incitement”, a relative said and then told me that on the 24th of October at 10am, Kamal Fares, head of Neve Yaakov police station, called the Mukhtar of Shuafat and the family’s lawyer, and then called again at 6pm to notify them that the photo of the child is illegal and that they must take it down immediately, or else they would receive a fine of two thousand Shekels a day (a fine that would be imposed on them by the municipality of Jerusalem.) “We took it down, of course we did”, the family says. “What other choice did we have?” Tamar Fleishman, 'Struggle of Abu Khdeir's Family: Pulling Down a Boy's Photo,' Machsom Watch Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The small monument on the fence should be added to the article. What's the source for that ? It's also clear that it's not the same as the large photo. One contradiction is the sum of the fine, 2000 or 3000 NIS. I don't think it's important - either way it's not a sum an average family can afford paying continually. Other than that I don't see contradictions with what I added, only elaborations. WarKosign 15:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The source is Machsom Watch, the article translated from the Hebrew, written by Tamar Fleishman. Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is another monument I found. WarKosign 15:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's excellent. I'll add it.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

La Familia[edit]

This old source says that group members were arrested as suspects, but I can't find sources connecting the group the current suspects - it is possible that other people were arrested later and the original suspects released. Currently there is a section dedicated to the group's response for no apparent reason but no connection is given between the group and the murder.WarKosign 14:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Just took a quick glance at the article itself and it seems that out of those six La Familia members, 3 of them were involved in the murder while 3 were later released. So it looks like well connected tho I didn't dig deeply into it.--TMCk (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It sound very likely to me that they are the same, but saying that the 6 arrested suspect belong to La Familia is WP:SYN, since it combines this statement from two different sources. WarKosign 17:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I get your point now. This source brings a little bit of light as they say: "Three of the six young Jewish extremists arrested in the murder of Muhammad Abu Khdeir in Jerusalem last week have confessed and reenacted the crime, an Israeli official said Monday." (My bolding)
I guess the synth issue can be resolved with a little bit more source diggin' ;) --TMCk (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is another source that might be of more help.--TMCk (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)