Talk:Killing of Rouzan al-Najjar: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:06, 12 June 2018

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Women Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The non-free image

I uploaded a fairly bad image (current one). User:PlanespotterA320, in good faith, uploaded a better one from here. I am just a bit worried that it is not permitted. The thing is, it is from a an article with "...Posted by Mike Sivier in Uncategorized ≈ Leave a comment..." above it. I am not sure the website owns the copyright, and I think I saw the image elsewhere. Also, if they are using the image, and we do not know who owns it, then it might be AP or some news agency that provides images, in which case, not permitted.

So, I'm posting here in hopes that we can find a third, best image. Also, I will post elsewhere to find out if this images is allowed. Hopefully it is.

In the meantime, I have reverted to the fuzzy image, the one where she's wearing rubber gloves. Your feedback here is most welcome.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted here for an opinion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday

Do we have RS confirming her birthday? Scaleshombre (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was added here by @Michaelrooney124: without a source. --Tumbledee (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without an RS, I find the September 11 reference a little jarring. Any objections to my removing it? Scaleshombre (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All sources in English that I read mention her age being 21 when she died. I guess this is why it was 1996/1997 previously in this article. The Arabic wikipedia mentions 1997 as her year of birth but I have no idea whether or if, how that is sourced. --Tumbledee (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any reliable source to support that date. Without a reliable source to support September 11 as the birthdate, I would support its removal, and listing 1996/1997 as the article did previously.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Human shield and throwing gas canister

Najjar's stmt saying she is a human shield and throwing a gas canister has been widely covered, e.g. NYT, and is clearly relevant to her life and circumstances of death, and should be included in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That should be covered in the article. Scaleshombre (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should also been included that the IDF's video is being widely lambasted as being misleadingly edited.Rafe87 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not widely - some have criticized the cutting of the interview, others have not. They released a short clip. There hasn't been any real criticism of the gas canister throwing bit.Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" Not widely - some have criticized the cutting of the interview, others have not." LOL, c'mon. And there has been criticism of the gas canister video as well. Rafe87 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent: The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has been widely criticised for releasing a video in which footage of killed Palestinian medic Razan al-Najjar has been edited in order to portray her as “not an angel”. Widely. nableezy - 23:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It will make no sense to blow out of proportion the relevancy of a deliberately edited video that's out of context with a misleading translation to begin with. The only revelancy of that video as reported by major news outlets that care to shed light on the issue is that it is a misleading video. If it is relevant enough it can be added to the Public diplomacy of Israel entry. Kokaemo (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The publication and context of the video should at least be mentioned. Regardless of what you think of the video the release of it and commentary on it from several sources is certainly relevant to the article.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to mention the video as long as it is emphasized that it was doctored, is misleading, and was meant as an attack on Razan's character, as several reliable sources have said.Rafe87 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should, of course, mention the majlr Hamas propaganda efforts around the persona of Najjar followwing her death.Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The day Hamas produces a false video of her, and is widely lambasted on the press for that, we can do that as well. Rafe87 (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your very first statement in this section is literally pushing Israeli propaganda, now an unsourced claim about Hamas propaganda. Source please. nableezy - 21:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I erred perhaps in saying Hamas without a source. The widespread publicity campaign has been hard to miss - e.g. [1][2].Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are those sources evidence of a "publicity campaign"? Mondoweiss describes how Israeli victims tend to receive more coverage in Western media than Palestinians (true). The second mentions how the hashtag "Angel of mercy" trended on Twitter in support of her and protecting nurses. And is a "publicity campaign" for a slaughtered nurse a particularly bad thing? The attempts to pass the Israeli video as legitimate in this article over the past few days is much more damaging to the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit claims to be "match[ing] source", however the source explicitly says that the IDF has been widely criticized. It does not say it was by "critics of Israel". @Icewhiz:, can you explain why you removed "widely" and why you attribute to "critics of Israel" what the source does not? nableezy - 16:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept (a highly partisan source with reliability issues - lookup Juan Thompson), does not say widely, it does say The smear campaign outraged Palestinian and Israeli observers who oppose Israel’s ongoing occupation and lying. - so in short criticized by anti-occupation oobservers or activists - which the Intercept then goes in to quote (various +972 figures, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IDF spokesmen arer highly partisan sources (defending a war against partisans) with, to put it politely, reliability issues. We quote them.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IDF is a side to the events in question and stmts are widely covered - and we use them attributed. The Intercept is not as widely quoted, and in this case we are using them without attribution, in our voice.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Ok, I see the sourcing was confusing in the sentence. This Independent article does however support widely and does not attribute that material to unnamed "critics of Israel". Ill return the material with the correct sourcing. nableezy - 20:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent in the next sentence clarifies the weasly widely to fiercely criticised by Palestinians and rights activists as an ... - which we should do as well if we use them as a source.Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the same thing as saying "critics of Israel" or negating that the criticism was "wide". And that is certainly not the next sentence. nableezy - 20:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that use of "widely criticized" has been repeated by numerous outlets of various nationalities and persuasions is proof solid of just how wide 'widely' is in this case. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Here I did a major edit on the citations of the article by adding the name of authors of each article (since we used a brief quote from one such attribution is a must) and removed ciations of duplicate republications of a popular article from the New York Times that was published on various websites (including the Middle East Eye). It's weird to have seprate citations that link to the same article of which all but one are just verbatim of the same article.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse?

I read that she intended to attend nursing school, but hadn't done so yet. She was working as a first-responder. Paramedic might also be the correct term. But she isn't a nurse, which is a professional title — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaunaTime5000 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

The Intercept is a far-left anti-Semitic site that constantly tells lies about Israel. It's chief propagandist is Glenn Greenwald, an anti-Israel activist. The Independent is a left-wing British paper, and the British left is known for its strong anti-Semitism and support for Arab terrorism against Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.165.136 (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, this isn't worth the effort of refuting.Rafe87 (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. nableezy - 04:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

67.149.165.136 (talk · contribs) - I am afraid that your personal views matter little in terms of Wiki's 5-Pillars. All of your comments are unsubstantiated by reliable sources and hence ... worthless. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The Intercept at worst it is a whistle-blower web site ... and what is encyclopaedically wrong with that? At best, in February 2016, The Intercept won a National Magazine Award for columns and commentary by the writer Barrett Brown, and it was a finalist in the public interest category. Attacking the messenger is VERY poor debating style. The Intercept has won accolades and stands as WP:RS unless convincingly shown to be consistently incorrect. Even the NYT shows bias and makes mistakes. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the author, Robert Mackey, he is an ex-NYT analyst specialising in fact-checking (as done to this notorious IDF video edit) and creator of the pioneering NYT column "Open Source". Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, I am editing-in The Intercept analysis of the IDF video. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

misleading and context

@Icewhiz: This edit is simply dumbfounding to me. How exactly are you removing the well sourced material on the fact that the interview was misleadingly cut and presented to just "cut a short segment of a prior interview"? Why are you removing the portion of the quote that the IDF removed? nableezy - 20:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a factual representation of this 10 second clip - analysis of which has mushroomed in our article beyond proportion.Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A factual representation that neglects what reliable sources have said about. That it cuts out material that undercuts what the IDF was saying. You have removed the very portion of the issue that reliable sources find important, that it is manipulated to misleadingly portray al-Najjar as something other than what she was. Regardless, the source very specifically supports what you removed, and I dont see any reason in your response for why you did so. nableezy - 21:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A 'factual' representation of a cherry-picked IDF edit is no 'fact' at all; and 'beyond proportion' is clearly subjective POV. Sorry, Nableezy (talk · contribs) has both logic and protocol on his/her side. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The deliberate doctoring of the video by Israel is an important part of the story and must be presented in detail. Trying to present only the doctored version here is a disgrace. Zero^talk 11:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The video is not alleged to have been "doctored" (which would entail modifying the video or audio in the clip) - it has been, as per the NYT, been described as "tightly edited", which is rather typical for 10 second clips, in that two extremely short video segments are presented in the very short clip.Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious bullshit. "Doctoring" does not require physical change of content, it applies to any editing that distorts the content. Which is what was done this time, with an obvious intention to deceive. Zero^talk 12:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per [3] - doctored: the act of making different in order to deceive, tamper with, falsify, or adulterate. A doctored video requires making changes to the video or audio. Presenting a short clip of a longer video (something that is done routinely by any media outlet) is not doctoring, but editing. Such editing may be done with an intention to deceive, but it is not doctoring. Deceptive editing - omission - is distinctly different from doctoring which requires modifications to the video. The vast majority of media outlets are using "edited" to describe this clip, a very small minority is using the technically inaccurate "doctored".Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS request

Can someone who can write in Arabic send out OTRS requests for a photo for Commons? This article is translated into several language encyclopedias that do not allow fair-use images at all, such as Spanish. The photo in the infobox right now isn't very good for visual identification since its so grainy. Thank you.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff to be restored

this. Since when has a direct interview with the deceased's mother, as reported in Middle East Eye, become unreliable? This is the usual POV-driven nonsense reverting. Nishidani (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 : The video is not alleged to have been "doctored" (which would entail modifying the video or audio in the clip) - it has been, as per the NYT, been described as "tightly edited", which is rather typical for 10 second clips, in that two extremely short video segments are presented in the very short clip.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 12:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 :: Tendentious bullshit. "Doctoring" does not require physical change of content, it applies to any editing that distorts the content. Which is what was done this time, with an obvious intention to deceive. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 12:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
+::: Per [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/doctoring] - ''doctored: the act of making different in order to deceive, tamper with, falsify, or adulterate''. A doctored video requires making changes to the video or audio. Presenting a short clip of a longer video (something that is done routinely by any media outlet) is not doctoring, but editing. Such editing may be done with an intention to deceive, but it is not doctoring. Deceptive editing - omission - is distinctly different from doctoring which requires modifications to the video. The vast majority of media outlets are using "edited" to describe this clip, a very small minority is using the technically inaccurate "doctored".[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 13:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 ==OTRS request==