Talk:Ahmed Jabari

Times of Israel

I would say this source [1] is too biased to be used as an RS in this article. Definitely on the extreme side. Any objections to its removal? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the correct link -- The Times of Israel. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

and on preliminary inspection it does not look any worse than Al-Jazeera or Al Arabiya, that are both used throughout the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

... and the article does not appear to make any controversial claims. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, I must confess that I did not thoroughly study the source, I mostly noticed the title of the article. They are certainly not on par with Al Jazeera English or Al Arabiya though. The Times of Israel sources calls him a "ruthless terrorist." Al Jazeera and Arabiya might have their biases but neither describe Jabari with degrading or praiseworthy adjectives or call him "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" or commander of the "resistance." They're articles simply state the facts and provide some attributable context with the use of minimal bias. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that term is not something we would like to see in a reliable source, but note that it is in the headline only, not in the main part of the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one that (reluctantly) added this source to substantiate Jabari's reported involvement in the Kfar Darom bus attack, which at a glance didn't seem to be too controversial of a claim. The headline is undoubtedly sensationalistic — but otherwise the article's content appears to be of relatively decent quality. I'm open to seeing it replaced if/when someone incorporates an article that chronicles Jabari's past in comparable detail.   — C M B J   07:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I used this source too to cite that it was Islamic Jihad and not Hamas who fired the Fajr-5 in Fajr-5, whoever it was changed without any referencing. I didn't find that claim any controversial either. So I don't know what's with this reluctance. Doesn't seem more biased than al-Jazeera or Haaretz to me. Fernando A. Gimenez (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the claim from the Times of Israel that, "Benjamin Kerstein writes in The Times of Israel, that Baskin's claims are in all likelihood not true, mainly because Israel would not involve someone like Baskin in important peace talks," this is completely unfounded. In his book, Lehakir et Ha-Hamas (Getting to Know Hamas), Israeli journalist Shlomi Eldar describes the entire chain of communications between Olmert and Baskin, claiming that it went through Olmert's daughter Dana, a peace activist. It was later uncovered by Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin and stopped, but Baskin still has the messages on his cell phone (Chapter 8 of the book). Furthermore, Chapter 12 cites a letter to Baskin from Benjamin Netanyahu, which still hangs in Baskin's office. It reads: "Let me thank you again for rising to the occasion and assisting the team negotiating the release of Gilad Shalit. Very few people are aware of all your work or of the role you played in advancing the final deal. I’d like to thank you personally and on behalf of the Government of Israel for all the time and effort you devoted to this important cause. I wish you continued success in all your endeavors." Eldar goes on to explain that the original initiative was stopped by Olmert, but that Baskin was asked again later by Ofer Dekel (Diskin's replacement as Head of the Shin Bet) to reestablish contact with Jaabari. For the record, Shlomi Eldar is a well respected Israeli journalist, who covers Gaza for Channel 10 News. His book was a major bestseller in Israel and has been translated into English (though not yet published--I know, because I was the translator). The journalist from Times of Israel is no one who actually knows the characters (Eldar met Jaabari on two occasions), and his writing is completely biased. It should be removed. Danny (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Jabari spelling incorrect

Anybody with even the slightest knowledge of Arabic names will tell you Jabari is incorrect. The actual name should be Jaabari or Ja'bari taking into account the letter "Ayin" in his name (in Arabic الجعبري). Another descrepacy is the way its presently written puts the stress wrongly on second syllable (ba) as in Je-BAAA-ri, whereas the correct stress is on the first sylable (ja') as JAA'-ba-ri. This specific article actually started with Ahmed al-Ja'abari which was stretching it too far though... Reuters no less gets it right: Jaabari killing is first of many Gaza strikes: Israel official The Daily Telegraph gets it right calling him Jaabari Ahmed Jaabari profile: the Hamas leader known as 'the general'. So does 'Voice of America Israeli Air Strike Kills Ahmed al-Jaabari. Although there are also sources who admttedly use Jabari. This clearly needs checking -- See also how we treated other individuals with the exact same family name Sulaiman Ja'abari and Muhammad Ali Ja'abari werldwayd (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This seems completely uncontroversial. Go ahead and fix it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Go for it. DGtal (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) sorry but there was no consensus whatsoever on this move which occurred 4 mins after the original posting. Further, citing the talk page as eason for the mvoe was deceptive.

The name precedent mentioned here on WP is not what the move was to and would thus be more appropriate to move to the one with the apopstrophe.Lihaas (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Relax. Two people here who (perhaps naively) thought it was uncontroversial told him to go ahead with the change. There was nothing "deceptive". Sources seem to support all three variations, and I don't really care which one is used, so decide amongst yourselves. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing "it is widely believed"

Right now the article states: "It is widely believed[by whom?] that Jaabari played the leading role in Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip from the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in June 2007" I'd like to remove "it is widely believed" since this doesn't seem to be a point of dispute. The cited NYTimes article says: "Mr. Jabari led Hamas forces when they took control of Gaza in 2007, ousting the rival Palestinian faction Fatah..." and the cited AFP article on Al-Arabiya's website says: "He is also credited with playing a leading role in the Islamist movement's forcible takeover of Gaza in summer 2007, which saw its militants expelling Fatah forces after a week of bloody fighting." I don't see a need for us to make a wishy-washy statement for something that credible media sources treat as fact.GabrielF (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is widely believed is unnecessary "wishy-washy" editorializing. Ryan Vesey 19:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The media has its biases and is not the the same neutral (Even if it has editorial oversight) perspective that an encyclopaedia is. Agreeto remove "widely believed" but to add a caveat that he was accused/blamed (by isael id imagine)Lihaas (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Death of his son

Why is his son's death mentioned in the lead and not the death section? In order to be mentioned in the lead it should be added to the body. Ryan Vesey 19:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Could we get extra verification that his son died with him? The Al Jazeera and BBC sources said his bodyguard, Mohammed al-Hams (or al-Hums) was killed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As it was placed in the lead it gave the assumption his son was in the vehicle with him when he was targeted and killed. So far no evidence has been provided his son was among killed let alone in the vehicle with him. Duhon (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yea, we'll need need further verification before we add that. I read somewhere that in addition to his bodyguard, two other people were in the vehicle. Didn't say if one of them was his son though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

helped mediate with whom?

The source included in the article [2] specifically says Baskin "helped mediate between Israel and Hamas". Nishidani, who apparently thinks he knows what the RS meant and his opinion on that is stronger than what they actually said, changed it to the ridiculous "helped mediate via Hamas with Jabari". This is not what the source says. It's complete OR. I fixed it and then Lihaas changed it back.

Could someone kindly explain why we should use an interpretation by an editor over the exact 6 words the RS used? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No response here so I but back the wording the source actually uses. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Egypt draft truce proposal

A bit about an Egyptian draft truce proposal was put in the lead. This information comes from one interview with Gershon Baskin. It should not be stated as fact. Also, I don't think it belongs in the lead, so I removed it. Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Clearly not enough basis of reliability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Until we find more sources, I agree. Either way it shouldn't be in the lead. There's some other stuff that doesn't really belong in the lead either, mostly about his early life. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Telegraph claim

Could we get further verification for the statement that Jabari directed several attacks (including suicide bombings) against Israel resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilians? The info comes from the Telegraph but I haven't seen that information in other sources, including Israeli and Palestinian ones. There's no dispute he was the effective head of Hamas's armed wing, but that doesn't mean he necessarily directed the attacks himself. Either we get further verification or we attribute the info to the source i.e. "according to ...". --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source [3]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If he was second in command of a militant organization we can probably safely assume he directed several attacks. What else exactly would a second in command of a militant organization do ? This is not a controversial claim whatsoever (as opposed to say he was reviewing peace proposals) and multiple sources are probably not necessary. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't make those assumptions. We need to rely on what reliable sources say. That being said, the additional source NMMNG provided should suffice for the claim. I'll restore the bit shortly. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Should use the word "execution" instead of "killing"

I believe that the correct term for such elaborated actions performed by States resulting in the death of a person is "Execution". A "kill" is more like to a manslaughter, somthing akin to a side-effect. This case was definetely not like that. Sperxios (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Execution implies physical control of the subject. The term commonly used in the American context is Targeted killing. Hcobb (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"militant" or "freedom fighter"

Hi. What is the rationale of using the term "militant" instead of "freedom fighter"? I mean this is a hot issue. Shouldnt a more neutral term be used? Although i agree militant does not have too much of a negative connotation but isnt it still negative? would "fighter" be a better term instead of "militant"? Thanx for anyone's thoughts.Sohebbasharat (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Militant" is a neutral term, a compromise between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". “WarKosign” 04:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i am not saying to write "freedom fighter", but merely "fighter". Like Palestinian "fighter". Although it might not be very conventional, i agree. "Militant" gives negative connotation. In fact, i think there is no need to write "was a Palestinian militant". It would be fairly clear even if just "was a member and second in command of Hamas" is written. People can deduce whatever they want from "member of Hamas", they can think "freedom fighter" if they like and they can think "terrorist" if they like. In fact, the the first paragraph of the lead is quite one sided, IMO, it is just mentioning particular aspects like for example, when it says "played a role in the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit", it can also be said something on the lines of "Jabari was also Israel's partner in the negotiations for the release of Gilad Shalit; it was he who ensured the captive soldier's welfare and safety, and it was he who saw to Shalit's return home last fall." as was mentioned in Haaretz. Sohebbasharat (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020

69.159.70.54 (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

thats whom you dedicate the website page?????

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)