Talk:Khader Adnan

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it does contain a credible assertion of notability and an external link. — PatGallacher (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Islamic Jihad role

I'm not sure how to deal with Adnan's alleged membership with the Islamic Jihad. Most sources I used in the article say he was a leader of some sort, but are not sure if he is involved with PIJ activities. The MSNBC article said he was a spokesman. His wife fiercely denies his membership with the PIJ, but the group's leadership has been very vocal in its support for Adnan. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What abokut attributing any stated PIJ affiliation to the source? thought his being a spokesman was an uncontroversial fact myself - its a non military role and his lawyers argued he is punished for his plitical affiliations, no? I didn't see his wife's denial though. So perhaps attributing all statements to their speakers is best?

And by the way, excellent job on developing the article Al Ameer. I don't have the time for that kind of sustained work. My brain jumps from one topic to the next thesedays, so I'm really impressed with your dedication and commitment. I only added the article to spur others on because I've been following his story for a couple of months now and want others to be are of his enormous sacrifice. Tiamut^talk 19:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is one other thing ... i remember reading somewhere that he was undertaking this strike for all Palestinians who are subject to these middle of the night arrests and arbitary detention without charges. Did you include that reasoning in the article (did I miss it?) Tiamut^talk 19:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I attributed each claim to the respective source(s) in the "Life" section. His wife's denial and contention that he is a part of the Palestinian reconciliation committee could be found here. The article could use some better organization. I started a draft page on the subject about a week ago in my user space, but I saw our old friend PatGallacher created the article a few days ago. I moved my draft here in a rush so that we could post it for DYK. Just nominated it yesterday. And wallah it's refreshing seeing you around here Tiamut even if you're not working at full capacity. I've been keeping up with the hunger strike for about the same time and I'm amazed at the man's commitment. Hopefully he will survive through it all. I'm also impressed by the level of public support in Palestine. I'll find that reasoning you're talking about and add it to the article if no one else does. Pretty sure it's in one of the sources currently being used. Cheers --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy to see you around too. I found an excerpt from the letter he sent via his lawyers in an article at alJazeera[1] who finally decided to give the issue some serious coverage. It says: "The Israeli occupation has gone to extremes against our people, especially prisoners. I have been humiliated, beaten, and harassed by interrogators for no reason, and thus I swore to God I would fight the policy of administrative detention to which I and hundreds of my fellow prisoners fell prey. Here I am in a hospital bed surrounded with prison wardens, handcuffed, and my foot tied to the bed ... The only thing I can do is offer my soul to God, as I believe righteousness and justice will eventually triumph over tyranny and oppression." Should we include the quote in full?  Tiamut^talk 21:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree we do but would not be surprised if someone claimed WP:UNDUE. I'll add it in full and if anyone has a viable concern, we'll reduce it to The Israeli occupation has gone to extremes against our people, especially prisoners. I have been humiliated, beaten, and harassed by interrogators for no reason, and thus I swore to God I would fight the policy of administrative detention to which I and hundreds of my fellow prisoners fell prey. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

See also link to Bobby Sands

See also links are always a bone of contention because its more based on editorial discretion than actual sourcing. I suppose once we are going to go down the path of comparing him to other people, we should fairly include links to articles of spokespersons of other terrorist groups, like Ehsanullah Ehsan (Taliban spokesman) for one.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I added Bobby Sands (who I had never heard of until today) because The Guardian mentioned it in relation to Adnan's case which was quite similar. Both Sands and Adnan were members of militant groups who went on hunger strikes while incarcerated to protest for a national cause. I did not see any articles comparing Adnan to other spokesmen of militant groups so I don't really understand your argument. We wouldn't include a list of all the American presidents in the article on Abe Lincoln. However, we could include List of spokespersons of Palestinian Islamic Jihad or something of that nature. That article doesn't exist so you could create it if you feel it necessary. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Then source it to the author from the Guardian - not to Wikipedia. Pilusi3 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Everyone knows we don't make biographies over one event. So assuming this biography meets our notability standards it is more because he is notable as a spokesperson for a terrorist organization than for his recent fasting situation. Therefore it would only make more sense to compare him to other people who share the same general characteristics, namely as spokespersons of terrorist organizations. The "see also" section does not require sourcing and it is really up to editorial discretion. The fact that he is "compared" to another person in one article does not mean that the compared person must be included in the see also section and it surely does not mean that others who are not explicitly "compared" in articles cannot be included.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would actually argue that the hunger strike is way more notable than what sources say was his one-time role as local spokesman for the PIJ which isn't that notable but enough to warrant an article. Again, I wouldn't be against including a "List of spokemen of such and such" or better yet List of members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in addition to Bobby Sands as both are relevant. We don't need to use the Guardian's mention as reasoning for Sands' inclusion but it does serve as an additional support. As for Pilusi's concern, I hope Brewcrewer has made it clear that we don't use sources for See also. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources have made a link between Adnan and Sands, I don't see any reason why we cannot include Sands in the see also section. Tiamut^talk 21:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A little thing called "undue weight", I would wager. I hardly think a British newspaper's reference to a notable UK hunger striker in anyway represents a worldwide view of the issue. It's drawing a very long bow. Maybe if a series of non-UK and non-Irish sources mention Bobby Sands, then we can talk about adding it. The goals and ideology of Sinn Fein and Islamic Jihad are scarcely congruent - indeed, just the opposite. One is a left-wing, secular, socialist and the other is a far right, religious jihadist. Pilusi3 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

you want more sources? I'll start listing them here:

• Khader Adnan: The West Bank's Bobby Sands, Donald MacIntyre, The Independent Tiamut^talk 21:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Khader Adnan: No food without freedom, Matthew Cassel, AlJazeera.

"One of the stories commonly told among Palestinians inside Israeli prisons is of the ten republican prisoners in Northern Ireland who died as a result of their hunger strike in 1981. Most famous among them was 27-year-old Provisional IRA member Bobby Sands, who was elected to the British parliament during his fast, and died after 66 days of refusing to eat. This, and other hunger strikes and organised actions, were believed to have improved prisoners' conditions and made gains for their nationalist cause. Since the rise of a Palestinian nationalist movement in the late 1960s and 1970s to combat Israeli occupation, hunger striking has been a common tactic among Palestinian prisoners that, according to Addameer's Francis, has frequenty succeeded in improving the conditions of their incarceration. Stories such as Sands', Abu Maria said, "made us think that hunger strike is the only way a prisoner can resist"."Tiamut^talk 21:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I want. I think the comparisons are absurd - and shows to what depths extremists will sink to to try and seek legitimacy for the hate-filled genocidal goals - but if that's a reflection of their desired narrative, then I suppose it's Wikipedia's place to mention it. Although "See Also" is still inappropriate, as it implies lending Wikipedia's neutral voice to a certain fringe opinion of analogy. Pilusi3 (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source: Huffington Post. Also, there's honestly no viable argument against including Sands in the See also section (certainly not an absurd comparison, just because they don't share the same ideology is not a reason to not include him, they're both protesting using hunger strikes for nationalist causes) and I'm going to restore it. We have provided at least 4 sources drawing comparisons when we did not have to. The one I just listed explicitly says has drawn comparisons to celebrated Irish hunger striker Bobby Sands. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

baker ?

Um, why would a baker (how he is making his living) be the second mentioned piece of information about the guy after being a spokesman of PIJ? given that the guy has a masters degree in economics ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.43.62.168 (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Article needs organization, your last edit in this regard is an improvement. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

At no point does this article reasonably articulate the Israeli position/reaction toward Adnan, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (designated a terrorist group by Israel and many others) or Adnan's hunger strike. Putting up a POV/neutrality tag until these issues are addressed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to slap a POV tag on the article, just add more about the Israeli position. So far we have mentioned Israel's reasoning for the arrest: "threat to regional security" and membership of the PIJ (although to my knowledge Israeli authorities have not stated he was a leader of any kind or that he was involved in attacks/operations). What is missing and could be easily added is that Israel considers the PIJ to be a terrorist group. Since he was placed in administrative detention, no charges have been brought against Adnan so that explains why there isn't much about Israel's position in the article. As far as articulation, like I said twice above, the article needs to be better organized. I'm not aware of any official Israeli reactions to Adnan's arrest, only from Israeli human rights groups (B'tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel) which is already mentioned in the article. I'll add the bit about Israel's official view on the PIJ and will remove the tag after, seeing as this would address concerns regarding NPOV. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I added the bit and removed the tag. However, I forgot to ask why you removed the Abunimah source about the protests in NY, DC and Chicago? Has Abunimah has been declared unreliable by the RS board? After all we're talking about anything controversial, just solidarity protests in the US. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Abunimah can certainly be used as a source for info on solidarity demos. Is there any doubt they took place?Tiamut^talk 21:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any good argument against using Abunimah as a source for the US demos? I need to restore the ref for DYK purposes? --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not an RS but just visual proof that solidarity protests did occur in Chicago and DC Pictures and videos --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Al Ameer, you should restore the source. There is no justification fir its removal. Tiamut^talk 06:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There is justification for its removal. If the information you want to include is not controversial, why use a controversial hyper-partisan source that is minimally reliable as an opinion piece? And I also question the POV use of Carlos Latuff's drawings as another hyper-partisan that has often borrow anti-Semitic imagery in his cartoons. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your objection doesn't make any sense. Per NPOV, its perfectly valid for us to use partisan sources. Ali Abunimah is an expert in the field and his piece was published in a Mainstream newspaper. Are you denying these rallies took place? Please provide a source that would indicate that he lied about it.

There is nothing anti-Semitic about the cartoon on Adnan by Carlos Latuff, so please refrain from throwing around mud in the hope it will stick, and stick to put policies and guidlines please, instead of WP:SOAPing things up. Tiamut^talk 19:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And the one throw-away line that Al Ameer added on "terrorism" did not adequately address the POV issues I related, and therefore was not an adequate reason to remove the tag. For the sake of expediting your DYK, you seem to be ignoring basic Wikipedia processes. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please indicate which information is being omitted that you would like to see included? Israel hasn't said much about Adnan's case, as noted in multiple news reports included here. How can we include more of something that does not exist? Tiamut^talk 19:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

agreed, no "serious POV" illustrated only 1 editor hasd a problem and consensus is strongly against him. the other side is duly represented by RS where possible. we cant make up non-existant cviews to RS if they dont existLihaas (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff cartoons

Using the cartoons of Carlos Latuff, a known hyper-partisan that has adopted anti-Semitic imagery in his cartoons, is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Please remove and find something more appropriate. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing anti-Semitic about the cartoon on Adnan by Carlos Latuff, so please refrain from throwing around mud in the hope it will stick, and stick to put policies and guidlines please, instead of WP:SOAPing things up. Tiamut^talk 19:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

for the nth time comment on content not individuals. this will not hekp you get consensus and is against WP guidelinesLihaas (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What WP:RS source use his illustration in context of this article?Why it should be used at all?--Shrike (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia guidelines prohibiting the use of the Latuff cartoons in the article are WP:BLP and WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Firstly, the Latuff cartoons are illustrations whose source is a controversial caricaturist. Their inclusion might be acceptable under some circumstances in non-BLP articles, but here we need to exercise added discretion. Secondly, reliable sources indicate that Adnan was active on behalf of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a fundamentalist Islamic organization. Islamism generally rejects symbols of secular nationalism such as state flags. Latuff's portrayal of Adnan with the Palestinian flag is his own interpretation and potentially a distortion of Adnan's own ideology. Thirdly, the images are of no encyclopedic pertinence as there is no content in the article that relates to Latuff's drawings.—Biosketch (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing derogatory bout the cartoons, one shows Adnan with a Palestinian flag and one is him alongside Gandhi. So, I'm not seeing how BLP is a concern here. Your OIGINAL conclusion that Adnan's alleged membership in an Islamist organization means he isn't into flags isn't. reason for us not to use th pic. Thirdly, the images show Khader has a following among Palestinian supporters, of whom Carlos Latuff is an example. We also don't have any good photos of Adnan to include here, and these drawings are a pretty good likeness, for those interested in an approximation of what he looks like. I see no reason not to include at least one of them, and can accept that two might be overkill. So which one would you like to include? Tiamut^talk 19:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Latuff's images are used throughout wikipedia by the way (especially for M/E topics) and have also been used for DYK. As long as they're not insulting I don't see why we can't include at least one of them (even if we find a free/fair use picture of him). Since POV pushing seems to be the concern here, I would opt for the image where Adnan is laying on the hospital bed with the Palestinian flag since its more relevant to the subject and neutral (i.e. not making a controversial statement such as the one with Gandhi that suggests the two are alike in some way.) Also, if editors read the article they could see that Adnan is dedicating (for lack of a better word) his hunger strike to the Palestinian people and his cause has become a national one so I don't really see how the "he's an Islamist so doesn't acknowledge national flags" reasoning is even relevant. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the inclusion of cartoons by Latuff. He is a known extreme partisan (even accused of antisemitism),and the cartoons themselves are clearly not NPOV, presenting the subject as a Ghandi-like hero while in actuality he is a leader in an organization that murders civilians. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A Latuff cartoon was added and removed. As long as there is no main image, the Latuff image of him in the hospital bed seems fine. The main story of Adnan is his hunger strike, so the cartoon shows that. But I agree with the above comment that the Gandhi image carries too much politics. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Latuff should be by and large inadmissible given his hyper-partisan position (the most euphemistic description I can give for the nature of his cartoons). His work also, by and large, does not appear to be published in WP:Reliable sources so this may fall under WP:SPS. And we also have no idea if even the hospital bed cartoon does anything to reflect the reality of the situation. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of OpEds to state facts

The claim that Adnan is a "political" leader is currently sourced to an OpEd by Falk. OpEds are not suitable sources for stating facts in Wikipedia's voice. Either find a reliable, non-editorial news source for this, or out it goes. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

everything in an oped is not opinion. if the source is RS for reasons of editorial oversight its fine, otherwise discuss it at RSN or "in it stays"Lihaas (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it and restored the more ambiguous wording since it is not certain that he is militant in Islamic Jihad and omitting the qualification political, which was in that source, would lead to thatimpression. Tiamut^talk 23:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

see also

This i fell can be included as there were 9 others. Sands is most ntoable for being the MP who died. Further, it supports the solidarity hunger strike that is going on with this too. though a reword would do.Lihaas (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

added, but it should relly be dded to the text itself, using Falk perhaps who notes family of those in the strike in Ireland have sent solidarity messages to Adnan. Sinn Fein has also called or his relese more than once, but I can't in a good sourcfor the details. Tiamut^talk 23:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

AGreed either way, though we can merge Snads link in the page as well.

Also try a search for "sinn fein khaled adnan" should show up some stuff. I got electronic intifada, which could be pov on its OWN but there is also a nytblog and alakhbar. See whats best.Lihaas (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Birth place?

The infobox had Adnan's birth place as "Palestine," but there was no citation for the claim and it's not referenced anywhere in the article. I've removed it for now until someone can find a reliable source indicating where he was born.—Biosketch (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Reuters souce for "senior Islamic Jihad official"

In this edit, I added that he was considered a "senior Islamic Jihad official" according to Reuters. The only on-line source I can find is this Pakistani Daily Times artilce, which for some reason does not attribute it to Reuters. If anyone would like a copy of the offline source please email me.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Undue

Brewcrewer has been doing a good job improving the article, but we have an instance of undue weight here. In the lead it states "The Islamic Jihad is designated a terrorist group by Israel," that's fine and appropriate to include. Then it continues "and is responsible for scores of Israeli civilian deaths by suicide bombings, sometimes utilizing women and children." This is unnecessary POV-pushing, especially in the lead and especially since we also state it is not known if Adnan was involved in any attacks on Israelis. This article is about the individual, not the organization and he has not been charged with anything so when we write stuff like that it insinuates that Adnan possibly has been involved in killing civilians/women and children. We already mention in the body of the article that the PIJ had launched attacks against Israeli civilian and military targets, we don't have to and should not repeat it in the lead. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It may make some sense to tone down that sentence and move some details to the body of the article. Perhaps remove the last past about women and children.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought we already mentioned it in the article. If not, then yes let's move it without the women and children part. Also, what do you think of removing all the citations from the lead? Per MoS. The body is fully referenced and the lead is just a summary of the most important points. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine and fine. Be forewarned that the latter is a frustrating cause because citations and citation-needed tags are always crawling back in to the lede in frequently edited articles like this one. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

On another note, do we really need to attribute Adnan's college education at Birzeit to Addameer? It's not a controversial fact like his role in the PIJ. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it strange that not one secondary source, even a weak one, makes mention of this. What credos does Addameer have that would make it even remotely reliable? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, just found the JPost that said he was an "on and off student at Bir Zeit University."[2] If you want to attribute it to the JPost, that's fine by me.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistake?

See here. Levy says that in 1970 a group of security prisoners went on hunger strike for 65 days. He doesn't specify if they were Palestinian, but if they were, the BBC and CNN reports that this is he longest hunger strike in Palestinian history won't be true until day 66 of his strike. Which I believe is tomorrow. In any case, its probably not worth changing right now, but it would be good to find additional sources on the 1970 strike to add to the article. Tiamut^talk 17:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. And I agree we'll just have to go by what most sources say which is Adnan's strike is the longest. At least until we get more mainstream verification of Levy's assertion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

PIJ

I think the wording used in the article regarding his PIJ membership is unnecessarily vague and overly attributed. Several high quality RS say he's a leader of PIJ. Some say he used to be a spokesperson (but don't say he's no longer a leader). Is there really a reason not to state it as fact? I think this should also appear, as fact, in the first sentence of the lead, rather than being couched with "media reports" only in the 3rd paragraph.

Also, here is what seems to be an official PIJ site saying he's one of their leaders. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

He may no longer be a spokesperson but multiple sources make it clear that he is currently a "leader." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think his affiliation with PIJ is in question, but his holding a leadership role there is. His wife denies it. Many media reported it only equivocally. Being convicted of being spokesman for them in the past does not mean he is currently a leader. most of the news reports calling him a leader without equivocation seem to be either lazy in their fact-checking or are using the term to refer to his current prominence as a result of the hunger strike. I think the paragraph is fine as it is. Perhaps there is no need for "or was" in the first sentence on the affiliation with PIJ since that's not really in question (whethhe is an active member or not is not clear, but affiliation is sufficiently vague to allow for a present tense usage). Remember that this is a BLP. Unconfirmed allegations that are contradicted by some sources should be introduced in proper context and with caution. Tiamut^talk 20:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is far more likely that the news reports couching his leadership positions are lazy with their fact checking than the news sources that are unequivocal, especially since the PIJ says as much on their website. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Any opinion on the PIJ site I posted above? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I Don't think the PIJ is a reliable source for a BLP. Of course the PIJ would be happy to claim his a leader given his popularity among the Palestinian people right now. I remember reading something from his wife a while back saying the leaders of all political factions, PIJ included, were not doing enough to secure his release. I think it would be best to avoid making unequivocal claims. Whoever claims he is leader should have that attributed to him,whoever denies it should too. That's what we do now and I think that's best. Maybe he will confirm it or deny it when he is released. Let's wait and see. Tiamut^talk 06:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The PIJ web site is not a reliable source for who their leaders are? All speculation about what PIJ would be happy to do aside, I believe an official web site of an organization is considered a reliable source for its organizational structure.

Anyway, I'm looking at the sources currently in the article, we have:

• Xinhua News Agency, the Egyptian Bikya Masr, Reuters and Al-Ahram saying unequivocally that he's a PIJ leader.
• CNN saying "known as a West Bank leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad"
• BBC - "widely believed to be a leader of the Palestinian militant group, Islamic Jihad."
• Al-Jazeera - "alleged leader of the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad".

So only Al-Jazeera is casting any doubt on his leadership role. Here are a couple more sources that say he is a PIJ leader, which I found just now [3] [4]. The balance of the sources is clear and there really is no need to weasel word around the issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Release deal

A good source with lots of detail here. Don't have time to add it myself right now, but will later if no one beats me to it. Tiamut^talk 07:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Another source confirming his wife's denials of any current affiliation with PIJ here, though she does confirm he was a spokesman for the group, she says his last affiliation with them was over four years ago.
• Another good article on how the news of his release was received here. Tiamut^talk 08:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)