Talk:Killing of Binyamin Meisner

POV

This article is unduly citing both opinion pieces and Israeli government propaganda, hence the {{POV}} tag. The "analysis" is just name-calling: the perpetrators of this incident are called "terrorists" by blatantly non-neutral sources (including the Israeli armed forces), without explanation, while their target is not a civilian but a soldier of an occupation force on patrol. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

:I don't see where the article calls the perpetrators "terrorists" - it quotes people who describe them as such, and attributes that opinion to them. There's nothing wrong with that, and no violation of NPOV. If you want to bring additional opinions, e.g, from Arab sources praising these actions, go right ahead. Brad Dyer (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to cite praise of this killing, as I'm not interested in either party's rhetoric. I'd also like to point to WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". Opinions of the form "the other side are terrorists" are not facts. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

:::An Op-Ed published in a newspaper or on-line is not a primary source, but a secondary one, per the definition here: WP:PRIMARY : "It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Opinions are not fact, and they are not presented as such in the article . For example, the article stays 'Anti-terrorism activist Stephen Flatow writing in the Algemeiner Journal in 2014 described rocks thrown by Palestinian youth as "terrorist weapons",' - under the heading "commentary". It attributes commentary to a named individual, as is done everywhere in Wikipedia. If you are not going to add additional viewpoints, I am going to remove the tag.Brad Dyer (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The passage does not lead to further understanding of the incident: if anyone doubted that rocks to the head can be lethal, that should be obvious from the rest of the article, and we already see a judge convicting six people so the "attempted murder" stuff is completely superfluous. The IDF's opinion on its propaganda websites is also not very enlightening; we already have its actions, as described by secondary sources. What remains is unnecessary rhetoric. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Quertyus, Article is now sourced to both Palestinian Authority, and Israeli government sources. And to Arab, Israeli, European and American newspapers. Sources you object to have also been discussed during the AFD Since you seem to be the only one perceiving bias. It is time to remove the tag.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nominating this article for deletion

I think it should be deleted because it appears to be nothing more then one of those "single death" posts you see Israelis or pro-Israel people creating on Wikipedia in order to try and perpetually memorialize the individual, at the expense of all the Palestinians killed by Israelis who go nameless and unremembered here.

There is also a considerable issue when it comes to the objectivity of the page in general.

The kyle 3 (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources indicate notability. The rest see in the mentioned above

--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

IDF blogs

The Israel Defense Forces describes on its website, rock throwing as, "a terror act" and as a form of "popular terror", and points out that thrown rocks "threaten lives".

As I said in my edit summary, these do not link to any IDF page on Meisner and secondly, blogs, esp. any army blog fails RS.Nishidani (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"terrorism"

How is this "terrorism"? The "victim" was an armed active-duty israeli soldier on patrol in occupied Palestinian territory. I'm going to argue that all references to "terrorism" should be removed from this page ASAP. 2607:FEA8:A4E0:11EC:B5E8:BFD3:2FCC:6D4 (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)