Talk:Moshe Dayan's eulogy for Ro'i Rothberg

Useless sources

Polemic newspaper articles are very unreliable sources of history. To wit: "In April, 1956 Rotberg was patrolling the edge of the border area between the kibbutz and Gaza, then part of Egypt. Because the area was an internationally delineated no-man's-land in which no weapons were permitted, he was unarmed. He was accosted and kidnapped by four armed fedayeen, taken across the border, and tortured." The facts: Gaza was never part of Egypt. There was no no-mans-land on the Gaza-Israel border, only restrictions on military bases. There were no restrictions on civilians being armed, and as the kibbutz main security officer on patrol it is stupid to imagine he wasn't armed. He wasn't kidnapped, and wasn't taken across the border to be tortured, he was shot off his horse, shot again, and his body was dragged across the border. Zero^talk 09:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

The very first sentence does not look so very correct, grammatically speaking. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Reworking

Per AFD, this should be refocused on Dayan's eulogy. We can retain the information on the killing as a "Background" section. What should the new title be? Moshe Dayan's Gaza eulogy? Is there a particular line that seems to have made it into public consciousness? (I'm looking at Category:Speeches for titling inspiration.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• note the AFD was withdrawn by nominator after my expansion of the original article. There was no consensus to remove large sections of material or to move the title. I will try to achieve neutrality here.ShulMaven (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The whole reason the nomination was withdrawn was because every user other than you agreed that the speech was notable, even though the incident itself was not. I'm going to restore it back to the version that focuses on the topic that users agreed was notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Er, 1 editor agreed with you. 2 others did not opine on this topic. I disagreed with you. the the Nom withdrew the AFD. Let's stick to the facts, shall we? and include more of the facts you have deleted in the article.ShulMaven (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus to gut and completely change the article in the AfD (which was very brief because: withdrawn by Nom). What is in fact happening here is that Roscelese, who argued to have article deleted, failed to get her way, and is now hijacking an article about a notable death that led to a notable eulogy and turning it into an article about a eulogy. Effectively AfD by other means.ShulMaven (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of NPOV tag.

The article at this moment is basically a lie. Poor Israelis only wanted to farm the land, and the evil Fedayeen just wanted to kill them No mention that the vast bulk of "infiltrators" were unarmed farmers who sough to reap crops on the land that was recently stolen from them. No mention of the fact that many (thousands in total) of these unarmed infiltrators were shot dead. No mention of the large amount of violence across the border in the other direction. Well, the tag is temporary because the article will be fixed. Zero^talk 08:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I just made an edit unrelated to any POV issues, intended to refocus the article on the eulogy for notability/focus purposes. Did it happen to assuage your concerns, or are there other edits that you feel should be made? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is that the event is written in the context of fedayeen attacks, but it wasn't in that context at all. The fedayeen attacks were almost irrelevant and there is no evidence at all that fedayeen (meaning, the Palestinian intruders sponsored by Egyptian intelligence) had anything to do with it. The correct context was that the kibbutzim along the border were in a constant battle against the Palestinians exiled in Gaza who crossed back across the border to reap the crops and pasture their sheep. Until the article reflects that context, it is misleading. I will make a big edit soon. Zero^talk 01:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Article is well-sourced, neutral. Editors Zero and Roscelese brought no sources to the article or the argument, merely a POV. I will take this POV vandalism to the NPOV discussion board if they persist.ShulMaven (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• I don't see this as a POV issue. And the recent effort to AfD it, I note, was closed as a speedy keep. Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Good to have an additional opinion from an experienced editor. Zero, there are in fact multiple sources. Unless you want to tag tish artiles asking other editors to weigh in, I suggest taht we handle this by adding sources and material, instead of by tagging it and deleting sourced material. I ask that you will now remove the POV tag.ShulMaven (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Removed NPOV tag after working to make article well-sourced and NPOV.ShulMaven (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Title

This article began as Killing of Roi Rotberg an article about an Israeli murdered by fedayeen, who was honored with a large funeral at which a memorable eulogy was delivered. In this form it surived a brief AfD, brief because the article was improved and Nom withdrew it. At that point 2 of the editors who argued strongly for "delete" in the AfD, came to this page, deleted background information about rising tensions that led to a visit by journalist I.F.Stone, deleted infor about the importance of the funeral attended and written up by Leon Uris, deleted info about the memorial built to honor the man who was murdered, and changed the title to Moshe Dayan Eulogy. I have now restored much of the deleted information, rewritten the title to achieve NPOV and to include both the notable death and the notable eulogy. Death and Eulogy of Roi Rotberg. Previous titles redirect.ShulMaven (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this POV-pushing and article ownership and I think you should abide by the observations of the other users at the AfD, who noted that it was the eulogy, not the murder, that was notable. You must not let your emotional investment in the issue of Arabs killing Israelis interfere with your adherence to policy and consensus. Before I bring this issue to a wider forum, I'd like to give you the opportunity to restore the better version of the article from before. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That AfD lasted for 2 days before it was withdrawn and involved 4 editors and the Nom, of which 1 editor agreed with you. I continue to assert that both the death (its causes, context) and its impact (a funeral important enough to draw the Chief of Staff as eulogist) are important and ought not to be obliterated by converting this into an article exclusively about the eulogy. The eulogy is important. Which is why I have included both the eulogy and the death in the current, NPOV title and article. But, if you must, then start appropriate conversations here re: your deletion of much/most of the contents of an article, well-sourced material about the situation of the kibbutz at the time, about the killing, and about the amount of national attention focused on the funeral, even about your deletion of the fact that Leon Uris attended.ShulMaven (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rotberg does not inherit notability from notable people like Uris. If his death were notable, sources would be covering it, instead of focusing almost exclusively on the eulogy, sometimes with a couple of lines about the death for context. [1][2][3][4][5], etc. Appeals to how special and amazing the death was have no place at Wikipedia, because to determine notability, we use reliable sources, not editors' personal interest. Please abide by the decision of every other keep user in the AfD (myself, DGG, Zero0000, who all explicitly supported keeping the article because of the eulogy and not because the death was notable. Remember that you do not own this article and do not exercise veto power over anyone's changes, including removals of content that does not belong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be best to improve the article by adding well-sourced material about the meaning of the eulogy, rather than by deleting material.ShulMaven (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said there, and as was generally agreed, the focus should on the eulogy. But I think the current title "Death and Eulogy of Roi Rotberg" is hopelessly awkward. The simple "Death of Roi Rotberg" would seem better, and in line with our general way of writing titles. It's the contents that needs the focus. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Death of Roi Rotberg certainly simple and clear. I like it.ShulMaven (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)