Talk:2000 Ramallah lynching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2017[edit]

Dear sirs, The following paragraph is factually incorrect, the source questionable (a book written from purely a Palestinian narrative). I checked exhaustively, including your own Wiki pages on the subject: in the whole of 1999, there were a total of only 8 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces. In 2000, most of them in October of that year, there were 13 killed (and 4 Israelis). So it is inconceivable that over 100 were killed in the months claimed in just Ramalleh, when we have Jenin and Nablus and Bethlehem and so many other territories. This is not only a wildly exaggerrated claim, but wholly dishonest... designed to try and justify the ripping apart of these two reservists.

Incorrect quote pasted here:

Tensions were running high: over 100 Palestinians, nearly two dozen of them minors, had been killed in the preceding two weeks in violent protests with Israelis forces in Ramallah, 86.147.20.36 (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Source? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That's true, I couldn't find any source to confirm the numbers. Suggest to remove.Ashkaf (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Details below:
+1=1. On "Land day" 2000 there was one woman claimed but never confirmed to have been killed when a group of Arabs infiltrated an Israeli military base and attacked the soldiers there with live fire from guns they held.
From April 3-12 there were several demonstrations by Arab and opposing Jewish students at Israeli universities. No one was killed.
During the Israeli Independence Day there were major demonstrations held in Arab residential areas in Israel. No one was killed or wounded.
In July the Camp David accords failed.
At a memorial session for the late Syrian president Hafez El-Assad, Arab Member of Knesset (Israeli parliament) Azmi Bishara called for an armed fight against Israel and openly supported the Hizbullah.
September 27th: During the clashes on the temple mount no one was killed. 25 Arab demonstrators and 28 Israeli policemen were wounded, most of them Arabs too.
The October clashes (The second Intifadah):
+7=8 September 29th: Violent demonstrations ensued, and it was reported that cars were being stopped and checked for their Jewish inhabitants, who were then attacked. The Israeli police opened fire and killed 7 Arabs. Five of them were members of the Palastinian Police (in effect the Palestinian armed forces) and one was a young boy.
+1=9 September 30th: In the Gaza strip, there were demonstrations held near the Netzarim junction. Muhammad A-Dura was seen shot and killed. The shooting and killing of the boy have been generally accepted as true and caused fury in the Arab population, leading to demonstrations throughout the country. It should be noted that the Israeli military claimed at first that the shooting could not have been from the Israeli side, and later it was shown that the images were taken during a staged attack for the Palestinian media, leading to claims by Israeli sources that the killing was faked.
+3=12 October 1st: Violent demonstrations, mainly on the main road in Wadi Arah, one of the roads connecting the coastal plain and northern Israel. Cars of civilian Jews were attacked. 3 Arabs were killed by the Israeli police: 2 in Um El Fahm and 1 in Gat. All three were Israeli citizens.
+5=17 October 2nd: During continued clashes, the police opened fire and killed 5 Arabs of Israeli citizenship in 4 different locations. (Two at Teradion junction, the rest in Um El Fahm, Nazareth and near Lotem junction).
+1=18 October 3rd: Ehud Barak met with the "Arab Follow-up Committee" and the violence receded to a degree, but 1 Arab of Israeli citizenship was killed at Kafer Kanna.
October 6th: Although Arab Rage day was declared, the demonstrations receded.
October 7th: In a Hizbullah attack from Lebanon, two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped. Following that demonstrations were renewed and one Jewish Israeli was killed by the demonstrators stoning his car.
+2=20 October 8th: Demonstrations throughout Israel. Police killed 2 Arab citizens of Israel in Nazareth.
October 10th: End of clashes and demonstrations. No casualties.
Any more? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


OK. According to Palestinian sources and B'tselem, there are more. Most of them children and teenagers. I'm not sure if they have been authenticated. Please see: List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and its source here. In some cases it is stated that the people were killed during armed clashes between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Only in some cases the list confirms that these civilians were killed by Israeli gunfire. But I am counting it as listed:
+3=23 September 30th, 3 teenagers were killed in the Palestinian Authority. Two near Ramallah and one near Ayosh Junction.
+4=27 October 1st, according to Palestinian sources a child and a teenager were killed during a targeted helicopter attack by the Israeli Air Force in Nablus, in the PA, and two teenagers were shot and killed during clashes with the Military, at Netzarim junction in the south and Ayosh junction near Ramallah, both in the PA.
+2=29 October 2nd, 2 teenagers shot and killed in the PA. One in Nablus and one in Tulkarem.
+1=30 October 4, child killed at Netzarim Junction (I'm beginning to get suspicious...)
+1=31 October 6, Teenager shot and killed in East Jerusalem
+2=33 October 7, Teenager shot and killed in Gaza. (This is the day of the Hizbulla Kidnapping attack and the Israeli withdrawal under fire from Nablus) Man killed by settlers at Bidya in the PA.
+1=34 October 10, Child shot and killed in Rafah by Israeli border police
+1=35 October 11, Tulkarem bystander killed in Al Fawar camp near Hebron.
פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
In any case they are not "clashes in Ramallah" and not in two weeks. So that saying is obviously false. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Accidentally"[edit]

Huldra: Firstly, if you object that one word ("accidentally"), you can edit it out instead of undoing the entire revision. Second, all of the sources that I know of from that time have either stated that much or assumed that much; none objected. Third, the text states that they were "rookies, unfamiliar with the road system" for a reason, and you seem to take no issue with that. Fourth, and in fitting with all of the above: plain, simple and common sense suggests no unarmed, middle aged reservist with no combat experience would drive a civilian vehicle into hostile territory intentionally.

Eagerly awaiting your comment. François Robere (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

On these things we know nothing of the actual facts leading up to the slaughter, since they come from a few army sources. We know an immense amount about the impact and the use of the incident in media battles. Someone who can might download Zohar Kampf, 'Blood on their hands:the story of a photograph in the Israeli national discourse,' Semiotica 162,1-4 (2006) pp.263-285 which is a seminal study of the spin that followed and would be important for this article. 'Accidentally' is, however sourced, how th e IDF construed what happened to the press. We have, obviously, absolutely no way of knowing why the two reservists took that turn (only they could confirm it was an accident). The sources trouble me because they talk of soldiers called up as reserves 'rookies'. That is a contradiction in terms: you cannot do 3 years of military service, as both the soldiers had done, and then be called a 'rookie' (some one in his first year of service'. Jeezus. Why don't people pay attention to language any more: reports are full of such crappy slipshod spinning written by boilerplate hacks, and we should be neutral. You can only use 'accidentally' with attribution.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any concrete argument against accepting those sources, or not? You can't pick and choose sources just because they suit you, especially when they make reasonable claims that have not been clearly refuted.
Regarding "rookies": As far as I can see it's implied in one source, the text of which I do not have, so I cannot say whether the source actually makes use of that term. I can very well see how a mistranslation coupled with their actual service records (eg. no experience in the WB) would result in the term "rookie" being used in that case. François Robere (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
In writing articles on conflicts the primary policy is WP:NPOV, which, notoriously, is what most editors never consider. They google to get 'stuff' for their cause, as I believe you did here. One sure way to get WP:NPOV, esp, when the sources are contaminated by ethnic biases and national spin, is to pare down the narrative to the absolute bones, and give the ascertained facts. That is why adverbs and adjectives, even when they are in sources, are dropped. One is not subservient to source language: one winnows the rhetoric and gets to the straight, known narrative. Here we know they were to go to a mustering point. They drove past their own military checkpoinrt (that itself is very odd_ if they did not know the roads, why did they not ask the checkpoint men on duty?) and ended up, in a civilian car, in Ramallah, where a crowd massacred them as a vendetta for 2 incidents that had occurred earlier, of Israeli violence, mistaking them for infiltrated agents. That's what we know.Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear, WP:NPOV wasn't designed to prevent my edit (which made explicit what the article already implied), but rather yours. What's odd about them driving past the checkpoint? Why do you believe they did not ask for directions? What's strange in them driving a civilian car? And who exactly gave the story of the Palestinian mob, including references to vendetta and and mistaken identities? And why do you accept parts of some narrative ("they were to go to a mustering point") but not others ("accidentally")? All that is hardly "the absolute bones" of the story, as much as a narrative you gathered yourself. François Robere (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Jeezus. Reread my remarks closely. I am not suggesting anything above as an edit, except the known facts. Those facts can lend themselves to lots of speculation because we have no solid analysis (that I know of, from a detailed follow up report and investigation). Facts alone are what we need, and 'accidentally' is speculative, just as I gave other examples of natural speculation that could be attached to the event, burt which are not required.Nishidani (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
You started that list of speculations with "[a careful reader] gets to the straight, known narrative. Here we know they..." and ended it with "That's what we know." Your words. François Robere (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani So you just reverted my edit with a partially incomprehensible explanation ("Accidentally with attribution, but not in lead"?); removing stuff that weren't even part of my edit ("rookies removed as apatent nonsense" - and that's still under discussion, isn't it?); and referring to this talk page which you no longer seem to check ("See talk"). Care to explain? Also: would both you and Huldra care to avoid reverting a change set if you only object one change? François Robere (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Reread the thread above. Remember, you broke 1R, persist in reverting, and you have no consensus. The explanations of what you are doing wrong are given already. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. Most sources (if not all of them) say these guys entered Ramallah accidentally. It is stated as fact often. An editor's personal view that nobody could know if it's true or not is irrelevant. That's what the sources use, that's what the article should say.
  2. In Israel, new immigrants are often drafted directly into the reserves. Thus reservists that are rookies. This is what the sources say that they are, so again, an editor not liking this sourced information is not a good enough reason to remove it.
  3. I like how certain people who complain often about tag teaming seem to think it's ok for them to do here, pointing out 1RR. Funny.
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
If your humour is tickled by 2 experienced editors observing an 1R infraction, and exercising restraint not to report the fact and get the editor sanctioned, fine. (a) no one has shown 'accidentally' is in most sources (on the first day reports it isn't) (b) no one has explained that the two soldiers were 'new immigrants' drafted into the reserve as soon as they got off the plane with one promoted immediately to Ist sergeant status. I'd appreciate some enlightenment about this peculiar intuition. Nishidani (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I gave my opinion of lawfare and how you practice it above. Regarding a) I asked you for a single contradictory source, and you're yet to supply one; regarding b) I asked you if you had their service records, and you do not. If you had asked instead of conjectured, you would have gotten an explanation, but instead you're constantly reversing my edits (in bulk!) based on nothing but your own guesswork. François Robere (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't want to get there just yet, but indeed Nishidani seems to have no idea a) how Wikipedia should work; b) the subject matter. I've challenged him on both, and got only a handful of snarky comments and "logical" conjectures (you can see my talk page for more). Regarding the latter: a) Indeed, immigrants above a certain age will be drafted in Israel directly to the reserves; b) one of the two victims was an adult migrant; c) both held enlisted ranks, one of which a rank that can be considered a "rookie" rank (Corporal - רב"ט); d) the road system in the WB is a mess, and it is entirely possible to arrive at hostile territory even with state-of-the-art navigation aids.[1] François Robere (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy I've incorporated several revisions into one. The main thing I'd like you to take a look at is the reference to police taking part in the acts; as far as I can see in the existing sources, we only have the contradictory official versions on that (IL MFA vs PA), so I've cast that as "disputed" in the lead. Other than that the current version seems to me much better than the previous ones. François Robere (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
First you broke 1R, and I noted and ignored it. Now you are writing personal attacks. Please desist, and try and focus on the editing issue. I am extremely busy and have plenty of material to underwrite my remarks, only my time is limited for these nonsense articles, where even a comma can cause upsets. I'll do so in good time, on the principle: when there's a problem, look into it before shooting off one's mouth. Someone can start by telling me how someone fresh off the airplane can be drafted into a reserve immediately as a Ist class sergeant. Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
This is rapidly getting silly. I might disagree with NMMGG's choices, but he modified a text respecting some adjustments which are elementary grammatical corrections. You won't even compromise on that, and have restored the inept grammar I corrected. One doesn't get one's way on everything,, down to the point of writing incompetently.

. Palestinian policemen did not prevent, and in some cases actually took part in the lynching.

NMMGG. The lead summarizes, and this can't go there obviously because the body of the text documents that a mob broke in, overwhelmed the police some of whom were injured, and some indeed then joined in. (We have the testimony of the commander himself that when the storming of the PA station began, the men were removed to what was thought to be a safe room (not that I think he should be believed: but it is one version by an eyewitness). How you can be a 'rookie' draftee when you have been an adult citizen of Israel for a decade, is still obscure.Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a great summary. Did the police prevent the lynching? Obviously they didn't. Why they didn't may be disputed, but that's for the body of the article. Did some join the lynch? They did indeed. What's wrong with this summary other than it the fact it makes it slightly more difficult to justify the unjustifiable?
There's nothing "obscure" about how someone can be a rookie draftee as an adult. Your being ignorant of a subject doesn't make it obscure. Read up on Shlav Bet. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Several book sources state the police withdrew the two to a safe room, that the corps was overwhelmed, and then, rather than shoot their own, they gave up and the massacre occurred. That's the Palestinian version, no more reliable or unreliable than the Israeli official version, since misrepresentation is a common vice shared by both parties. So it ain't a great summary. Not even in the classic wild West did a sheriff and a few deputies prevail against a mob. Whatever, it is WP:OR and has to go. Only one source says a rookie. And, try to stop the silly attack mode. Several comments and edits above (one of my own included) showed unfamiliarity with the available sources. And they must prevail against some second-guessing based on an ostensible intimacy with the nature of Israeli reserve unit practices.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding grammar: I've already given you an answer on my talk page. Regarding WP:NOR: Why? François Robere (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Philology is a science, and what you wrote and keep reverting to, ain't grammastical. Now can we get back to the use of the word 'rookie' to explain why Yossi Avrahami, for one, at 37-8 years of age, had managed to avoid the compulsory 3 years of military service?Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! It "ain't grammastical" - it must stay! François Robere (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll be reverting back to the text as NMMGG edited it, save for the addition to the lead, which must be removed because it contradicts both the text leads are supposed to summarize and because it ignores a good part of some evidence, some of which I provide below:

'Palestinian police took the two reservists into a nearby station and, for a time, kept the mob at bay. But some of the vigilantes entered through a second-floor window.

David Pratt, Intifada: Palestine and Israel - The Long Day of Rage, Casemate/Flashpoint, 2007 p.103

Colonel Kamal al-Sheikh, Ramalah’s Chief of Police, took over. After a phone call alerted him. He found one in his undershirt he called for backup but the unit could not make it through the crowd. He took them to a safe room offered one of them a cigarette. His cheeks were bleeding. They were both hurt, but fully conscious. I reassured them, saying that I would do whatever I could to save them. They were every frightened.

Daniel Dor, Intifada Hits the Headlines: How the Israeli Press Misreported the Outbreak of the Second Palestinian Uprising, Indiana University Press, 2004 pp.123ff

'Amira Hass reports that about 13 Palestinian policemen were wounded while trying to stop the lynch, and a similar claim appears in Ma’ariv’s report. None of the newspapers thought these testimonies worthy of highlighting. P124-125 ‘the Ramallah station police wear black uniforms, while the policemen seen participating in the Lynch wore combat fatigues. This fact, mentioned only by Amira Hass, . .indicates that the policemen who participated in the Lynch may have come to the station with the funeral crowd.... Gideon Levi interviewed the Ramallah station commander, Colonial Kamel A- Sheikh. The interview was published, quite appropriately, on Haaretz’s front page. . .According to A-Sheikh, there were twenty-one policemen at the station when the mob broke in,some of them administrators and cooks. Most policemen were scattered throughout the city because of the demonstrators’ funerals that were taking place at the time. He said that the few policemen at the station were unable to stop the raging crowd, and he claimed that when the mob tried to break into the station, he moved the Israeli soldiers to the safest room in the building and even offered one of them a cigarette before the mob broke into the room.'

Now, instead of edit warring can serious proposals be made on the talk page so we can make some adjustments strictly according to the known RS textual evidence? Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You're the one who's edit warring, and if you think waiting a couple of hours puts you outside the 1RR restriction, we will be testing that at AE if you don't self revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
No one is under an obligation to sit up all night and watch articles. My last edit was at 21:41, 8 August 2017‎ on Ngarrindjeri. By the time you warned me (and after watching me so asttentively for several years, you should know we are in different time zones) I was reading Kawabata's Mizuumi nicely tucked in bed. Thanks for the consideration.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Just from a cursory search, at least three PA policemen confessed to taking part in the lynching: [2][3]. There's little material about it in English, but I can translate if needed. François Robere (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the later revision is superior to the earlier one on this diff? François Robere (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. You and NMMGG are selectively citing a couple of sources instead of doing what should be obligatory when acconts are so conflicted. When sources disagree what one must do is find an appropriate form of parsing which adequately covers both bases. There are dozens of things that need correction here because editgors are looking at one or two sources to write the primary narrative, which means that the edits have to be tweaked to correct bias. One cannot just stack in one account's assertions, and then put in the other's, and then put in another source. Note that while 'accidentally', the Israeli claim requiring attribution, is introduced without attribution, despite objections, and the PA statement that 13 policemen were injured is introduced with attribution, as a claim. So the text is being spun to privilege one version. You need to download in one file the 20-25 sources, winnow them for quality, and work out the sequence of claims about facts, and, once this is clear, add them in sequentially so that all versions are given due weight. This is what I do.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It is quite clear, from non-biased sources, that the soldiers entered Ramallah accidentally - there was absolutely no reason for them to be there (in the garb they were wearing). It is also quite clear they were apprehended by PA forces (whether this was due and in accordance with agreements - is a separate matter), and that they were killed while in PA custody, specifically in (and around if we take into account being thrown out of a window) a PA police station. Regarding the degree of complicity of various individuals/groups in the lynching - well - that raises both POV issues and attempts to avoid justice (both legal and extralegal - the Israeli response was such that there was a very strong interest for anyone who could be potentially seen to be involved, to diminish their role).Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Read all the sources, at least 20, before making confident assertions. My point of view is that no none knows with precision much about many claimed details. One important Israeli source states they were not killed while in PA custody; the same source states that the Israeli government seized on the atrocity, one of several at the time, to showcase its argument about 'Palestinians'. There are no such things in events like this of 'non-biased sources' and anyone who edits with that belief should stay clear of the area. Bias is everywhere in sources, but worse still, even sources with the same bias can't agree on any details. So less, editing, and more study of the full evidence in RS is what is needed. One could start with the eyes gouged out and disemboweled and being thrown out the window. One mutilated man was thrown out, the other was dragged out the door. And the second certainly was not 'disembowelled': he was still alive when the gang of thugs complicit in this had the body wrested from them, and it was consigned by the PA police to a nearby settlement where he died before the helicopter could land and give him emergency aid. None of this is in the article because people are not reading up on the topic, or if they have, they ignore adding these versions of the dozen accounts.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
First thing's first: I used "inadvertently" and "disputed" to convey just that, and you reverted my edit. Why?
Second, you're delving too deep into details that are both needless and, frankly, disgusting. Be my guest removing anything you find inadequately sourced - I'm not going to google "Ramallah lynching disembowelment" just to disprove you, and as it was it was such a revolting event that we could turn some stomachs if we stuck just to what we know with absolute certainly.
Third, you seem so committed to NPOV you're missing not only the forest, but the actual trees: "important Israeli source states they were not killed while in PA custody" - who, what, and why should I care? We know they were taken by PA police, there's footage of one of their dead bodies being thrown out of the window - what else do you need?
Fourth, you object to two details that were actually present in the article long before I even saw it; why did you revert my edits? You could've pin-point edited according to your objections, rather than reverting the whole revision. François Robere (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's separate out two issues. "Accidentally" part and "Palestinian police took part in the lynching part". I have created two sections below

Accidentally?[edit]

I have not looked at this in detail. Kingsindian   13:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

All sources I trust are pretty clear on them being in there accidentally. There was no reason for them to drive into there dressed as they were - they basically missed a turn in the road and went through a checkpoint they shouldn't have. While many of the other details (who killed, why, how, etc) might be in some POV dispute, this really shouldn't.Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
We go by sources.Name those that use 'accidentally' (hint: we get 'erred' 'took a wrong turn' and several other expressions).
In any case, attribution should be used (I believed it was accidental, but I can't presume it: why specialist drivers had no knowledge of the area they drove in is a mystery, as is their driving through a checkpoint without asking, or having a check made by the guards there who do not wave anybody through, esp. in civilian cars etc).Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Really not a big mystery. They were driving on 443, which is a very major road (routinely used by civilians - one of the two main roads to Jerusalem, and useful for other routes as well - including to Ayosh Junction where they were heading back to). Israeli civilians and soldiers routinely travel in and around the west bank - without any deep knowledge of where they are driving (which is still an issue today - though now they blame "waze" - as you may see here [4] [5] [6]. These two particular reservists were coming back from a one-day pass (vacation). Israeli reservists routinely drive their own vehicles in areas Israel controls when off-duty (so Israel proper, West Bank, Sinai back in the day - but not South Lebanon which was not directly controlled) - both back in 2000 and today. Following the lynching - the IDF put big warning signs before area-A zones (which up until 2000 - Israelis entered rather freely when things "weren't tense" - for instance for cheaper shopping)... Getting through a checkpoint, if you seem to know what you are doing and appear "friendly" (in garb and accent) - is not a problem - particularly if you are in uniform (but also if you aren't). The checkpoints are usually there to catch suspects - and before the lynch the danger of entering area-A was not as clear as it is today. An Israeli with the right accent would get through most checkpoints with a very simple single sentence pleasantry.Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
We go by sources. This is 2000 in a battle zone. Please do not complicate analysis of source work, which has yet to be supplied, by speculations on what the army does. This was the period of the Al- Aqsa inrtifada, and we are compelled to examine what sources say, not what we think must be 'clear'.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
[7], [8], [9], as well as official sources, plain common sense, and just about every Israeli media outlet.
Oh, and stop being a hypocrite. You're perfectly at ease "complicating analysis of source work" when it serves your purpose. François Robere (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani is trying to use semantics to block a legitimate edit here. "Accidentally", "erred", "took a wrong turn" all mean the same thing in this context, that they got there by mistake ("accidentally"). Practically all sources agree on this and there's no good reason it should even need a ref in the lead, it's so well established. The only reason I can think of to keep it out is to give credence to the claim these were undercover agents caught in the act. Is that it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Sneer noted, with the jejune AGF violation in assuming you have detected another editor's motives, which, it runs, aim at the disruption of a 'legitimate edit'. Try and drop it. The 3 expressions bear different nuances: of the 2, 'took the wrong turn', and 'erred' are objective third party statements, as opposed to 'accidentally' which means 'lack of intent', a psychological judgement. This is fairly elementary English. But my point is, relevant RS reports, on such occasions, should be scoured to see which term is most frequent, and then adopt whatever eone passes that test. Methodologically, this occludes the intrusion of subjective editorial bias, because the outcome is mechanical.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It is quite clear this two soldiers had absolutely no intention to enter Ramallah. They weren't dressed the part for undercover agents, and didn't have the training - these were low grade reservists - Norzhich was a shlav-Bet soldier (older immigrants get an extremely shortened mandatory service and are then sent to the reserves). They were called up for guarding buses. These weren't crack soldiers. Regarding your assertion this was a war zone.... No not really. Street conflict was primarily limited to Area-A and immediate areas (in Jenin and Hebron there were periods in Intifada2 that one could have called a warzone - but that was later). Outside of these - there was terror/guerrilla - a few attacks a week at most (some quite deadly - suicide bombings and the like). Driving into Ramallah, for a Jew, back in 2000 and today - is like driving into the wrong neighborhood in Baltimore or Chicago - the consequences depend on the level of gang-wars and general violence (e.g. bad idea if during 2015 Baltimore riots) - and the degree of separation (even today with the separation barrier - once you are past - and there is no problem in getting past as an Israeli citizen) - between area C and B/A - really isn't great.Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
This is becoming disruptive. Kingsindian set out evidence and options and it is all being drowned out by noise. Stop it.
Can we agree to the proposal to see how source usage describe the way they ended up in Ramallah? We need a method here.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Many sources say in various ways that these guys did not intend to end up at the checkpoint where the PA police arrested them. No source contradicts that. I don't care if it says "accidentally" or "inadvertently" and don't see the nuance you insist exists there. So how about you come up with a proposal that includes the word you think most closely fits the sources? Meanwhile, removing the word that indicates they got there by mistake is a gross NPOV violation and you should not do it again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense, NPOV has nothing to do with it, and no editor can claim a right that the text must not be altered re o ne word or more. Focus.Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The simple way to avoid all the nonsense above is to look at a few sources and list what they say. I searched for "Ramallah israel reservists killed 2000 mob" on Google Books:

  • [10] "two Israeli soldiers were arrested by Palestinian police in Ramallah ... Israel said the two Israelis ... were army reservists who lost their way]
  • [11] "two Israeli reservist soldiers who entered Ramallah were arrested by PA police"
  • [12] "Israel stated that ... mistakenly entered Ramallah"
  • [13] "stumbled into Ramallah on way to the base"
  • [14] "two Israeli reservists entered"
  • [15] "two Israeli reservists made a wrong turn and found themselves in Ramallah"

Ok. Can we say the following:

Two Israeli army reservists entered Ramallah, were arrested by the Palestinian Authority police and taken to the police station. Israel stated that the two soldiers had lost their way to their base and mistakenly entered Ramallah.

Leave comments below. Kingsindian   08:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a nice selective use of sources, and I see no reason to limit ourselves to google books. From what I've seen most sources state as fact they entered accidentally, not as an Israeli claim. It also makes a lot more sense than them entering deliberately, unless, again, you want to hint they were undercover. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
That's okay as a lead introduction, followed by.'The station where they were held was taken over by a crowd, and the two soldiers were savagely beaten and stabbed to death. Israel retaliated by launching several helicopter attacks on PA infrastructure, and, in later years sentenced some of those it considered responsible for the slaughter.
I say the intro., because the body of the text ought to have all the details our sources supply.Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at the sources provided below. Very few sources state the wrong turn is an "Israeli claim" and I object to putting that in the lead. The further we get from the event, the less sources say it's a claim. Probably because nothing there is consistent with them being undercover. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't need a source stating that it is an 'Israeli claim' when sources say the IDF/government sources stated. The source of the information is obvious, and when there is a conflict in representation, as here, one states where the info came from. This is elementary practice on Wikipedia, and grounded in policy.Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is the phrase "took the wrong turn" acceptable to everyone? Nishidani indicated here that it is acceptable to them, and other people don't seem to be objecting. I have made the change here in the lead. Feel free to revert if anyone objects. Kingsindian   00:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's too informal to my tastes, especially without a qualifier (such as... "accidentally"). Note one of the sources I translated below states exactly what turn they took, and ideally you'd have a phrase that can be used with that detail as well; "wrongly took the turn to..." isn't good at all. I'm yet to see a single convincing argument for even having this discussion, as that qualifier is not questioned by any sources. François Robere (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I prefer inadvertently - in terms of style. Wrong turn is not precise - they did a bit more than just a wrong turn (e.g. they also went through an Israeli checkpoint) - which I don't think is precise.Icewhiz (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
So we're back to my revision, with the support of three editors, including myself. François Robere (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Voting is discouraged on Wikipedia; in the I/P area, one can predict votes with 90% certainty just by the usernames anyway.

From what I understand, Nishidani's point of view is that one does not need to specify the internal psychological state or intention of the people when they arrived in Ramallah, just the mechanical point that they took a wrong turn and ended up in Ramallah. It is an arguable point, though I fail to see how one can "take a wrong turn" with intention. If they intended to take the turn, wouldn't it be the "right turn"? Anyway, it is rather a minor matter to me, so I just used "take a wrong turn" to avoid arguments. I have discovered that sometimes clarity has to be sacrificed to achieve a solution satisfactory to all people.

If people think that the phrase is not to their liking, I suggest simply opening an RfC. Nishidani can put forth their preferred phrase, and others can do so as well, and we can have an RfC with all phrasings explicitly listed. Kingsindian   20:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And as you know, it is often done after all viewpoints have been explained. Again, do tell me if you have a better way of ascertaining consensus other than equal chance and a vote. As for the choice of words - as I said before, "inadvertently" is less opined than "accidentally". François Robere (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, the rule is sources dictate usage, and I provided 15. When there is a conflict like this, personal preferences should yield to evidence of usage. They 'took a turn', choosing one route over another, and this proved to be the wrong road for getting to their assigned destination. If you say 'accidentally' then you exclude a priori elements of the Palestinian version, and underwrite the official Israeli version. I'm not co nfident with information from either side, both have poor reputations for factual precision. If you want the perfect way out it would be 'took the wrong turn for arriving at their base (pity we don't know precisely the name of that base so far), and ended up on the road into Ramallah.'Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Is this specifically really a POV issue? Certainly there are POV issues in this article galore, but wrong turn vs. inadvertently? I went ahead and changed this in the article before I saw your comment, but I really do not think this a matter of POV (leaving wrong turn/inadvertently - would be POV - but one vs. the other?).
We do know where the base is - Ayosh Junction - the Binyamin brigade HQ.Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC) This is just south of Beit El.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
To be precise - the route they took was via Beitunia (if you look at google-maps (the roads however are somewhat different now) - this is 436 going north from 443. What they were supposed to do (ignoring an alternative northern route - assuming they were on 443) was to continue to Hizma, and then go north around the east side of Ramallah (going by Kokhav Ya'akov, and Psagot - or alternatively on 60). They got stuck at some point (not sure where) on the main street of Ramallah (the road through Beitunia turns east into Ramallah).Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
We need sources, and can't make that kind of inference. It would be useful if you could supply a source we can use for both being members of the Binyamin Brigade, and that they were headed to Ayosh Junction? If so, I'd appreciate the ref, and teranslation of the key passages. We have a sourc e for Hizma. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
No inference is needed. Both Icewhiz and myself supplied sources that give their destination and route. You can see below in the translated sources section. François Robere (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
In terms of route - this is a simple map read (though Hizma is mentioned) - there aren't too many options - it's basically go past Ramallah and then north. In terms of base - see this source - [16]. Specifically - On 1 October 2000, the fourth day of the second Intifada, a reserve contingent was called up of jeep drivers for the Binyamin regional brigade ("Hatmar Binyamin"). .... .On 11 October the soldeirs were sent for a one day pass by the vice adjutant without receiving formal instructions on routes back to the brigade in Ayosh Junction. The next day ..... While driving on the 443 road the soldiers made a mistake and instead of continuing to the Hizma checkpoint and bypassing Ramallah, they went into the city going through an IDF checkpoint in Beitunia.Icewhiz (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If the current phrasing is fine, good. If not, I can open an RfC based on a ranked preference list basis. I see the following three choices:

  • "inadvertently entered"
  • "were reported to have inadvertently entered"
  • "took a wrong turn and entered"

(I think "accidentally" has been superseded by "inadvertently", so I am not listing it here. If required, one can add it.) Add any more choices if you like; we can then pare the list down to a minimum and open an RfC. I would not like to waste any more energy on this. Kingsindian   21:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I also prefer inadvertently or accidentally, as I think I've mentioned several times. You can open an RfC if you like, but I will be switching the article back to the version you put there originally, since there's obvious a consensus for that and not for the one there now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll open the RfC in a bit. I agree that while the matter is sorted out, we should keep the version which was in the draft which was agreed upon. Kingsindian   21:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This source, which Icewhiz supplied above, summarizes the event with a lot of detail, and was written 15 years after the fact. We should be using this sort of stuff, not reports from the day of saying patently false stuff like "nobody believed <x>". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
As well as several other sources... Nishidani's objection to relying on IL sources for this over PL ones (that's his most recent explanation) is really out of place in this case. François Robere (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Palestinian sourcing makes sense, in this case, for the actual events of the lynch. Possibly for some of the aftermath (however as the PA didn't try anyone, I believe, prosecuterial coverage is mainly Israeli). however the Palestinian reporters don't have any real access to the Israeli side - e.g. role of soldiers, where they were headed, who they were, etc. The soldiers weren't interrogated by the lynch mob - they were tortured, killed, and mutilated - reporters on the Palestinian side who questioned lynch mob participants really didn't have access to this information (beyond what "the lynch mob believed"). We actually do have RS on the identity, role, and route of the lynched men. We could perhaps state what members of the lynch mob thought the men to be, however in Wiki's voice we should unequivocally state in Wiki's voice the intended route, role, and identity of the men as reported in Israeli (and foriegn reporting based on the Israeli) sources in this particular case.Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I partially disagree. The best reporting we have from the incident itself is the Italian video footage; a close second is eyewitness accounts, wherever they were published (assuming publication accuracy). As for the aftermath, excluding some official statements (Re: PA need to deny police involvement), we can certainly rely on local reporting, but that will have to be considered on a case by case basis due to the politicization of reporting at some media outlets. We can certainly not rely on PL sources for the soldiers' behavior and intent, both for bias (see deniability) and for their lack of any serious counter-intelligence operation that would source that information. I agree with the rest, and as you mentioned earlier we should prefer later sources on earlier ones. François Robere (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The reliability of the sources should be considered on a case by case basis. My point was that later sources are preferred. The fact that in the first few days newspapers said that "according to <x>, <y> happened" doesn't mean we need to forever disclaim <y> with "according to <x>". If later sources state <x> as fact, so should we, even if it "excludes a priori elements of the Palestinian version". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Some in the Palestinian police took part in lynching?[edit]

As far as I can see, the English sources all say that PA version is that the police tried to resist but were overpowered by the mob. They include:

  • The Telegraph: At 10.15, the mob broke into the police station. The Palestinians said 13 policemen were injured in an attempt to hold back the armed intruders. Two soldiers, held on the first floor, were beaten and stabbed to death.
  • BBC - says nothing either way.
  • The Independent - says nothing either way.
  • This book, citing Haaretz and Maariv
  • Why is the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs there? One can't quote primary sources like this. I have removed it. It doesn't support the statement anyway.

None of the sources in the article right now state that Palestinian police took part in the lynching, not even the MFA source. The latter is simply talking about the prevention of filming of the incident.

As for Hebrew sources. I looked at Francois Robere's links which purport to show that (some in) the police took part in the lynching, for instance here. It quotes testimony from two suspects who were Palestinian policemen who admit to have taken part in the lynching. On the bottom it contains a line (translated): Attorney Yossi Arnon, who represents the Palestinian Authority, says that all the witnesses today deny their testimony and claim they were tortured, and the Palestinian policemen tried to prevent the lynching. Since the witnesses repudiate their own testimony, this source cannot be used to state in Wikipedia's voice that "Palestinian police took part in the lynching". If these people were convicted, one can use that fact, with attribution.

In general, this event is almost 20 years old. One should be looking at scholarly and book sources which synthesize and look at the evidence as a whole, rather than arbitrarily searching for contemporary newspaper sources which might support this or that position. It might be a good idea to list the sources (newspaper and scholarship) which look at the matter below, from which a coherent story can be constructed. Kingsindian   13:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Some PA Police were convicted for their actions: [17] Hatam Faiz Khalil Magari; [18] Raed Sheikh. And there might be a few more (I remembered a few were convicted - these two are from a quick search. Several Palestinians were captured by the Israeli authorities and tried (some of them police), and there might have been targeted killings as well).Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
And these two PA police - [19], [20]. were also captured and I believe convicted. There are 4-5 convictions of PA police (one had his charge reduced after it wasn't proven his actions killed one of the soldiers - the soldier might have been dead when he did what he did - so this led to a reduced charge). I believe there are sources for involvement beyond this, but will have to check that.Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
They were convicted in an Israeli court, so again, attribution. One such man, Haggar? spent 15 years after his conviction in an Israeli jail, and was released on retrial, as the original indictment was based on unreliable or insufficient evidence. He was released and expelled to Gaza. Again, this is all fog, with just an Israeli conviction that is itself problematical. We can only state the various versions. Palestinian police were overwhelmed (after how much time? I do have one bare chronology indicating they were held for at least an hour in custody, until, thanks also to Israeli news reports (no gag order applied), the crowd at the funeral went and attacked the station. We have (a) a distinction between the Ramallah police at the station and another group of MPS who seem to have joined the attackers,(photographs distinguish the two units, and one seems to take part in the attack) (b) sources that say the police resisted, but were overcomed at one point (c) sources that say a number of policemen then joined in the bashing (d) a source that says no, the police evacuated themselves from the station when the killing took place (Israeli scholarly source). So evidentally, one can only describe the various positions. I haven't much time to do more than outline the problem.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
He had his sentence reduced - not annulled - since it wasn't clear, evidence wise, that he hit a live person causing his death or "just" hit a dead corpse mutilating it - even if he had intent, in the Israeli legal system (and other systems as well) - hitting a corpse (even if the perp thought he hit a live person) is a lesser offense.... Clearly there are different police involved (units and people), and different policemen did different things. It is quite clear there was no resolute defense of the police station (the police inside didn't fire at the attackers, for instance). Some police may have tried to prevent. Some police may have abandoned their posts and let the crowd have at it (after maybe trying to prevent), and other police (some 4-5 were actually convicted - by yes - an Israeli court) - took part. This is not contradictory. I will note that there was a strong interest for all Palestinians' involved in the lynching to diminish their personal part in the lynch - as Israel acted vigorously to apprehend and prosecute all involved. Your issues with the Israeli courts aside (I will note - these are proper courts of law) - the vast majority of the convicted were filmed - and it is quite obvious (in this particular case) that they either killed the soldiers or participated in mutilating the bodies 0 as they were filmed doing so or in close proximity to doing so (e.g. holding up bloody hands).Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
An Israeli court judgement is an Israeli court judgement, and means little in itself, particularly in these cases. One just registers it. Please don't say everything (to you) is 'quite clear') when the sources themselves are not clear. Try to pare down comments to a miniomum, focused on sources.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
All of the convictions seem to be in military court. There is a section on the convictions further down, where these can be included with proper attribution. Kingsindian   15:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
"An Israeli court judgement is an Israeli court judgement, and means little in itself" - excuse me? François Robere (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Is Ramallah in Area A, or no?Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what Area Ramallah is in. How about "some PA Policemen were convinced in Israeli courts based on filmed evidence". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
A military court is clearly distinguished from an Israeli court. They have different rules, and jurisdictions. The Oslo Accords placed Ramallah in Area A, and law enforcement issues in Area A were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the PA. This is irrelevant to the edits, but it does clarify why military court is the proper term.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant and completely off-topic. François Robere (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Mostly in military court - maybe some not. Since a war crime was committed against Israeli citizens (or soldiers in this case), Israel had no problem asserting its jurisdiction against the captured war criminals, who were not tried by the PA (which in any even became somewhat defunct in this regard during and post intifada2). Israeli military courts are a court of law, and in this particular case mave of the policemen who were convicted of taking part (either in hitting the live soldiers or the continuing beating after death - time of death was a legal question in regards to Nurzhitz as the degree of mutilation was such that it was not legally clear when he exactly died in the ordeal) - were filmed doing so. All the court really had to do was to match file footage to the accused's photo - with some legal wrangling over whether this was murder / corpse mutilation / assault per each perp. The participation of the police who were tried and convicted really isn't in doubt. There were additional participants who were not tried as there weren't filmed and there wan't additional evidence regarding their participation (the lynch crowd was obviously larger than the approx. 20 convicted - as can be seen in the films - but not everyone could be identified or proven to have taken part (e.g. someone filmed standing close but not next to the soldiers)).Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Icewhiz,one of the most efficient ways to block any rational resolution of an edit proposal, is to opinionize at length and indulge in speculation. It is not unknown for people to consistently do this in order to blindside an argument. At times I used to write too much. I don't now, and I would advise you to drop the forumizing. Speak specifically to the issues, succinctly. You are wasting everyone's time so far.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Was that an attempt a humor or just a complete lack of self-reflection? Serious question. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Icewhiz: You keep repeating that the people were filmed doing the killing. Do you have any evidence for this, or are you talking off the top of your head? For instance the first source you gave says: Magari was convicted on the basis of witness testimony from one of the participants. If these people were indeed filmed, why was a confession or testimony from other people necessary -- confessions which they repudiated later, alleging torture? As Amnesty International notes here, Israel obtains convictions in 95-99% of the cases in military court. The Red Cross calls the military courts "the judicial arm of the occupation" here.

The whole discussion is beside the point. What is important is how it should be phrased. As I said, all that is necessary is to note their conviction in an Israeli military court. We can, of course, not write that they were guilty of whatever in Wikipedia's voice. Kingsindian   08:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Many of the participants were filmed (e.g. sample here (Channel2 News - which is RS) - [21]). Some were convicted based on additional eye-witnesses or confessions detailing their action when they were out of view of the camera. The military court system in the West Bank is the justice system as the administration is military (trials in Israel proper, occur when crimes occur is areas annexed by Israel or if Israeli law is relevant for a different reason. We most definitely can say in wiki's voice X is Y if convicted by a court, as we do regularly for other military courts.Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No we cant, we can say an Israeli military court found x. We cant say x is true because an Israeli (or Iranian or whatever) court, military or otherwise, found x. nableezy - 12:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Which other military court are you talking about? As for the video, I cannot understand it since it's in Hebrew. This section is about the role of the PA police. Specifically, which PA policeman is shown in the video as participating in the lynching? Kingsindian   13:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary and vote[edit]

Now that we've had this pointless, time-consuming discussion, I suggest reverting to basically the latest revision on which I signed off (with a couple of {{cn}} templates added by Nishidani): it addresses both of the above concerns as well as the one below, is much more readable, and all of the later changes (including those suggested by Kingsindian earlier today) can be easily added back to it. Note that I'm not going to re-incorporate any of the changes I've made thus far into any later revision - I've already done it once after my original edit was reversed (see here and here), and Nishidani reversed it too. If anyone thinks that the current revision is superior to the earlier one (diff), let it be so; otherwise I suggest reverting, and working from there. François Robere (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

(a)Premature. One does vote before the evidence is in. No one has supplied any evidence. I will for just one word, 'take the wrong turn' a perfectly neutral descriptor, in texts which do not use 'accidentally'.
(b) A large amount of information, from several perspectives, is lacking from the text's description of the event, and one cannot use 'accidentally, inadvertently' which are judgements that prejudice a sequence of events we have no way of reconstructing accurately. I.e. they represent one POV and ignore the RS evidence
I could go on, but the point is that (a) 'took a wrong turn' is neutral, (b) widely used in texts that do not say 'accidentally', and (c) if you say 'accidentally' you privilege the Israeli official POV, and discount the Palestinian POV widely reported at the time, namely that the car had 3/4 Israeli soldiers, 2 escaped, they were, wrongly or rightly, believed to be Mista'arvim.
It is none of our business to say who is right. It is none of our business to accept one government's version and reject outright (Pallywood etc) the opposing side's narrative. If you write 'accidentally' you endorse the IDF/government narrative as a fact. We will never know the truth, but we are under an NPOV to refrain from trying to spin the story to underwrite as factual one side's POV.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the sources. In here - [22] - is is clearly stated it was a wrong turn. Just that some in the lynch mob didn't believe this was so. "wrong turn" and "accidentally" are really the same thing. Both are OK content wise (is this really the argument at present? Not that they were there by mistake, but how to word this?!). In terms of style, I prefer in English "by mistake" or "took a wrong turn" to "accidentally" - for a navigational error or mistake).Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Please desist from making silly remarks. I did not misrepresent the source, note singular, you cite. Please use textual evidence, don't wave empty policy flags like WP:OR,- mustering evidence to determine usage is not original research: it is what we are supposed to do, policy-wise. And don't make assertions, claims, off the top of your head etc. Stick to evidence analysis. Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, Icewhiz: Nishidani is doing the same thing all over again: blocking an entire edit for using one word (which the latest revision doesn't even employ, but I doubt they even noticed). This shouldn't be indulged, whatever their reasons may be. I've opened another thread not for this hijack, but to see the changeset that I applied finally approved. If you agree to the suggestion with which I started this thread do say so, and further futile discussion (in which I don't intend to take part) could be continued from there. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I support François Robere's version (mentioning the navigational mistake and PA police involvement). If the disagreement here is on English style (accidentally vs. by mistake or wrong turn) - this is really... Besides the point. Style-wise I prefer "by mistake" to "accidentally" in English - but this is really a very minor style issue.Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
This is again, inappropriate. Robere is attempting to preempt an evidence-based discussion, in which so far only one attempt at providing evidence has been made, by calling for a vote, and, canvassing on this page Icewhiz to vote for his proposal to ignore consensus-building by simply supporting him with a vote. Now, can we get back to some method of obtaining an agreement rather than attempting to strongarm things?Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I also support FR's version. I also find the phrase "canvasing on this page" very funny. There has been consensus building. Just not the consensus you want. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The "supports" here are meaningless because this is not an RfC. The version which you are supporting is clearly wrong, because the sentence "Palestinian policemen did not prevent, and in some cases actually took part in the lynching" is supported by precisely zero of the three sources it is citing, as I demonstrated above. The above section which I opened exists precisely for deciding how exactly one is to phrase the involvement (or not) of the PA police. Blindly partisan "support"s are meaningless in this context. Kingsindian   16:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Kingsindian - sourcing can be improved - there are copious sources for this (also in English, though post-2000 coverage (court records and coverage thereof really is mainly Hebrew or israeli sourced). The lynching occured in a police station after they were arrested - so it is quite clear the policemen (armed one must note) - did not prevent the lynching from taking place - at least not in a effective manner. No force, let along deadly force, was used vs. the attackers. Police were there (in a police station) - and it is clear they did not prevent (as it occured). Regarding the participation of some of the members of police - considering the at least 4 convictions of Palestinian police members - this is not really in doubt. Sourcing may be improved if needed - for instance reffing sources for each of the convicted PA police.Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
If you have a better way to verify consensus than a vote, do share.
You don't like that sentence? Change it. There's no reason to block the entire revision over that. It's not a vast revision, but it included all kinds of changes (that particular sentence wasn't even one of them), and all of them have been blocked for over a week now over a couple of localized objections. Why? If you don't like some detail or another, you can always change it. There's no reason to "uglify" multiple paragraphs just because of a single word or a single sentence, just like you wouldn't demolish a house just because of a leaking faucet - you'd fix the faucet. I really don't understand what's so complicated about that. François Robere (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I've been discussing this with you for the better part of a week. You have not answered most of my questions, and have ignored most of my answers. There's no need for further discussion. François Robere (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
We have been discussing this for a week, and only 2 editors have brought upwards of 20 sources to corroborate their judgements. The rest have opined and voted. Wikipedia doesn't work this way, i.e. it respects people who work on sources, not those who get one or two and hammer away at them to get across a preferred view.Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@François Robere: Nobody is "blocking" anything. The page is fully protected for a few days, so neither you nor I nor anyone else can edit. Here is a diff of all of your changes. As far as I can see, you did four things:

  • General copyedit and fixing name.
  • Using "accidentally" in the lead.
  • Adding the role of the Palestinian policemen in the lead.
  • Some elaboration in the body.

Nobody is objecting your copyedits. How to phrase the second and the third points is being discussed in the preceding two sections; feel free to participate there. If you would rather not participate, that is also ok. The slight elaboration from the Ami Pedahzur source looks fine. Kingsindian   18:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all, there's no "accidentally" in the lead of that revision. Second, as you can see further up this page, and on my talk page, and on WP:AE, I wasn't referring to the admin protection, with which I take no issue; I was referring to Nishidani (and at some point Huldra) continuously reverting my edits - blocking my edits - ever since this change, which I made a week ago. The change wasn't a change of meaning, as it merely reflected what the article was already implying (the exact phrase used was "mistakenly passed an Israeli checkpoint"), and yet Nishidani used that and a whole bunch of other excuses as a reason to block that, and every other edit I've done since. The final revision as you've seen it tries to accommodate both my changes and the various concerns that were raised here during the past week (Nishidani's included), but even that was reverted. So it's been a weekful of bulk reversions, and reversions followed by additions of new material, and reversions that themselves add new material, the result being that even "general copyedit and fixing name" was impossible to achieve (it's not in the most recent revision. Why?). See the problem? That's why I'm suggesting to revert to the better edit and continue from there, instead of working on a revision which I've already fixed twice (and by "fixed" I mean "manually incorporated the changes"). It's such a simple thing, and a week later it still can't be done. François Robere (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You're looking at what you added, and ignoring what you removed. Re-examine it that light.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@François Robere: Apologies for the "accidentally" part, I see that you had changed it to "inadvertently". About the rest: I suggest that we let bygones be bygones, and the focus on the way forward. I have created a draft here. It starts with your version and removes the sentences dealing with the two disputed parts: the "inadvertently" in the lead, and the role of the PA police. Those things can be discussed here, and once we reach a consensus on the phrasing, can be added afterwards. Is this acceptable as a starting point? Kingsindian   20:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a good start. On strictly grammatical grounds, 'who were taken into custody by Palestinian Authority policemen' should be 'who had been taken into custody'. Unless you introduce the 'had' the implication is ineludible that the mutilation etc occurred while they were in PA police custody, my original objection.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
And the order of 'killed and mutilated' should be reversed to 'mutilated and killed'. They were bashed and stabbed to a pulp, but still probably alive when Nurwhiz was dropped from the window, and Avrahami pushed out the door. The former was necklaced in Manara square, while Avrahami was still alive when delivered into Israeli hands. Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
So you essentially incorporated my changes except for that one sentence. I appreciate that. Mind it still says "accidentally" (I used "inadvertently" in later revisions as it's less opinionated about the soldiers' intent), so Nishidani is bound to disagree. However, I still prefer placing "were taken into custody" before "after [...] entering Ramallah" for readability reasons. François Robere (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I object to restoring any version that does not indicate in the lead that they did not intend to arrive at the checkpoint at which they were arrested. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I object to any version that does not give both sides of the story, per NPOV, one of which casts doubts on that assumed intention. Objecting to a lead that takes into account both POVs is anomalous. And the simple way out is not to raise that issue at all in the lead. Nishidani (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I just want to keep the disputed parts to the version before the kerfuffle, so other changes to the article are not held up. Here is the lead before all this kerfuffle. I notice that it does say "accidentally". If it is decided that one should indeed write "accidentally" in the lead or remove it or rephrase it or whatever, we can do it later. Therefore, I have modified my draft accordingly. There's no hurry: this page barely has a hundred or so views per day. This is just a starting point, not the end. Kingsindian   06:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Note - per my understanding - they were not arrested at a checkpoint. A Palestinian mob began throwing rocks at them when they were driving through Ramallah. They then got stuck or boxed in traffic, the mob continued to attack, and then Palestinian police arrested them at gunpoint - pointing guns to their heads and disarming them - they were then led to the police station - where the main lynching took place. [23] [24] [ https://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/242363] [25] [26]. They passed through an Israeli checkpoint on the way into town - but they were not stopped there.Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
That's one story told. On the other hand, Mark Matthews, Ann Lolondo, 'Murder took Israeli wife’s frantic phone call,' Baltimore Sun 14 October 2000, other sources say they were arrested at a Palestinian checkpoint and driven into Ramallah. Some sources say they were in military gear, others in civvies. Some say they were alone, others affirm there were 4 men. Some say they were armed, others state they were not. Some say they went down the road from the Israeli checkpoint to the Palestinian checkpoint, others say they went by backroads. We'll just have to give all versions, since there is no account that has been verified to have been the historically 'real' one. No one knows.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The "4 men" accounts are all Palestinian confused eyewitness accounts from the same day - and aren't really repeated seriously later. They were armed (2 guns, 1 pistol), to my understanding, in that they did have guns in the car. They did not use the guns - and they were disarmed by PA police when they were arrested. In the police station - where the lynch took place - they were not armed. My understanding is that were in non-dress uniforms - definitely had the uniform pants on. The shirt - not sure. You can dig through the video evidence if this is really important.Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from saying all Palestinian accounts are confused eyewitness accounts,-that only flags the impression you don't want the other POV in and in itself doesn't make sense since all Israeli accounts I have examined equally disagree over many details. Many sources, Israeli and others, say the sequence of events is not clear, so one has no options but, without ethnic partisanship for one side's accounts or the others, to give the competing versions. This is fundamental policy (WP:NPOV) and cannot be ignored.
By the way Yael Greenpeter should be transcribed Yael Gruenpeter. Unlike you, I do not have 'an understanding' of what occurred - to have an 'understanding' of this kind means, given the source conflict, to embrace a version that satisfies one, and is close to cherry-picking WP:OR. The translations are very helpful, but the first two are not illuminating whereas the article by Yael Gruenpeter deserves a complete translation, if anyone would be courteous to do so.
A second point: we are going to have a mass of some 20-30 sources to summarize. To avoid bickering by various editors adding a bit from one, or a bit from another, I am willing to roll up my sleeves and synthesize the material, giving all versions' details as they come to hand, along the model I did below. That saves the rest of you time, all of us edit-conflicts, and, since it would be on this workpage, enable all to review it closely to see if the utterly unreliable Nishidani has falsified or left out, or distorted the information we have. It's boring, time-consuming, and complex. If you don't trust me to produce a workable draft, then anyone else is welcome to try. I.e. summarize the events from where I left off, to 10.00-10.30 am, per all reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
In this particular instance - eyewitness accounts of the lynch mob and people around the lynch mob - who were Palestinian - are confused. I am not saying this because they were Palestinian - but rather because lynch mobs tend to be chaotic events - and the small time/area a particular attendee witnesses in the midst of a big jumble tends to be confusing. I think we should prefer secondary coverage as has emerged 2-15 years later - which in this particular case tends to be Israeli - as the Israelis did the prosecuting. I would strongly discount same day/week accounts.Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but this shows unfamiliarity with one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia editing. No one gets to determine which source, particularly which national/ethnic source, is to be trusted. The sources are saying the IDF, the Israeli press, the government gave conflicting versions, and in the military court evidence as well, conflicting evidence was given. In the latter cases judges decide, but in the former case, no one has decided what is the correct version: Israeli and foreign reporters were on the ground, interviewed numerous witnesses, and duly gave the substance of what they, variously, heard, and this has to be included. No one can say we can use Israeli reports while asserting Palestinian reports are to be ignored. That is as plain as day. Even sources dedicated to the event like the Israeli academic Zohar Kampf's study 6 years later, screws up on details. History is not written by military judges in a tribunal.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
In Wikipedia - we tend to favor later secondary coverage over PRIMARY eyewitness based reporting from the same day or week (or rehashes of such). Using news reports from the same day/week - really shouldn't be done for sourcing details 17 years later in an event that was widely covered later. Do you see any later, reputable, coverage that states there more than 2 in the car?Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with everything Icewhiz said about sources above, and have seen Nishidani make the exact same argument when it suited him. Now suddenly eyewitness accounts not repeated by sources in later versions are super important? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Another AGF violation. I don't make edits which 'suit me' (sneering at bona fides) I strive to make edits that 'suit' the complexity of the sources. Please focus on this, not the editor. I know you dislike me, but you don't have to rephrase this contempt in every other comment.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Focus. While I can only speculate on what you 'strive' to do, I have first hand knowledge about talk page arguments you've made in the past and their consistency with the argument you're making now. Applying the rules consistantly, even on talk pages, is an NPOV issue. As to your 'bona fides' and whether I dislike you, since you brought it up - this edit you made to this article, and this response on this talk page, pretty much encapsulate both. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll have no truk with this persistent attempt to get me to waste time by personalizing things. Meditate on this:

Time does not heal on Truk! Past events stack up, placing an ever-increasing burden on the Trukese and weighing heavily on the present. They are, in fact, treated as though they had just occurred.' Edward T. Hall,The Silent Language, 1959 p.26.

Desist from these repeated attempts to derail a discussion by personal cracks, and attempts to bring grudges from the past into edits. It is not only irrelevant, it looks like a tedious attempt to be vexatious, something that in my regard, is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
As usual, all you had to do is not bring it up. I will continue to feel quite free to respond to any topic you bring into the conversation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let me emphasize the point at issue: can we start from the draft I have in my userspace? What I have in the draft is just some copyedits slapped on to the version which was there prior to this kerfuffle. We can deal with the disputed parts later. Just like the "accidentally" part can be argued against, the "arrested at checkpoint" can be argued against. The draft is just the starting point, not the finish point. Kingsindian   15:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to have editors work on your sandbox page? I, for one, would be quite willing to do that, consensually. Or should we proceed by sections, breaking the narrative down to the key moments, here? I've tried to suggests how to do this below, and so far I cannot see any objections. But on the other hand, no one seems to comment, other than Icewhiz's background point, which enabled me to change 'called up that day' to 'get . . ' Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The protection on this page will be lifted soon. I propose that when that happens, we transfer the version in my userspace into this page and then discussion can go on as normal. Kingsindian   17:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I would propose that, given you have had no input, and there is almost no progress here, that @GoldenRing extend the protection for a week, see if there is progress, and if not, another week, maintain the protection, until there is some sign that editors are willing to thrash out an acceptable set of solutions. Removing the protection state with no evidence it has served any purpose, seems pointless. We should be constrained to work, in short, on your copyedited version until some progress is made.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not as pessimistic on the progress. There has been some discussion in the sections here and here. The proposal is to use the version in my draft, and then continue the discussion on the two disputed points in the sections linked above (and open other sections if needed).

Editing the draft while keeping the main article protected does not serve any purpose: people have as much capability of having disagreements/edit wars in my userspace as they have on the main page. I think it's best to work directly on the main article, starting from a base of rough agreement. Kingsindian   18:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree there's no point working in KI's userspace or keeping this article protected unless more edit warring flares up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I of course concur, and can commit to temporarily limit my edits to matters of style and readability if that will help us move along on the factual issues. François Robere (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew-language sources[edit]

New section to contain English-langauge summaries of relevant Israeli/Hebrew-language sources. No need for a full citation, but do include an inline citation for easy reference. Translations can be honed later, if need be. Also, if you found a particularly good source and want help with translation, send me the link.

Note about Haaretz: A paper of record, known as having a leftwards editorial bias, though it regularly gives a platform to politicians and media figures from across the political spectrum. I personally consider it the best Israeli newspaper by far. François Robere (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Chaim Levinson, 'Life imprisonment for a Palestinian who has previously been involved in a lynching in Ramallah,' (Haaretz 09.08.2012): "the Military court of appeals convicted last week Wissam Radi in murder... Radi was acquitted in the lower court after a central piece of evidence was rejected and the military prosecution was [reprimanded for misdeeds]. Radi... was a Ramallah police officer patrolling the city streets. When the rumor about the soldiers arriving at the station was spread... [descriptions of violent acts]... The main question debated in the trial was whether Avrahami was alive when Radi hit him, and whether he intended to cause his death. The central piece of evidence... was a confession given to a [term describing a cell-mate or agent posing as a cell-mate in order to elicit a confession from a suspect]... He testified in court, but judges were unconvinced. Military prosecutors then notified the court of their possession of a tape recording [said conversion], that was previously classified... due to security concerns. The judges were outraged, and asked for explanations on the declassification. In the end they decided not to accept the tape. [Radi was acquitted and the judges expressed concerns with the reasons the tape wasn't declassified earlier, citing equality and due process concerns.] The appeals court struck down the lower court's decision and said classified evidence can be submitted according to case developments. [the various pieces of evidence were deemed reliable and sufficient and Radi was sentenced to a lfie in prison]."
  • Nir Hasson, [27] (Haaretz 25.12.2013): "Testimonies from the Ramallah lynch exposed in court: ...as part of a civil lawsuit filed against the PA... by Norzhich's family... That day they found themselves in the middle of Ramallah after erring on the way to their base in Beit El. They were led by PA police to the city's police building, where they were murdered... Tarek Tabesh, one of the accused, served as a police officer in the Palestinian police... in his testimony he described how he hit one of the soldiers with a club. [description follows] ...Raed Sheik, another officer who confessed to having been involved in the murder, testified... [another description]. Attorney Yossi Arnon, representing the PA, said they all recant their testimonies, claiming to torture. He says PA police tried to stop the lynching."
  • Yael Gruenpeter, 'Lynch in Ramallah,' (Haaretz 29.09.2016): Short piece chronicling media response to the event: "Amos Harel of Haaretz reported they made a 'lethal navigation mistake'. According to the report, they were due to serve as drivers in the IDF brigade HQ near Ramallah, but when they arrived at Giv'at Ze'ev junction... they took a left instead of continuing forwards... Information about what happened next is unclear. It's certain that they were detained at a PL police blockade, and according to a military official 'the PL police could've prevented the tragedy had they signaled them back.' but instead, they arrested them at gunpoint. The IDF then got preliminary information about the incident, and senior officers called PL counterparts... Ramallah gov. Abu Phiras Liftaawi... was asked to head to the Police station immediately... but by then civilians had gathered around the station, who have heard rumors about infiltration and arrest of Mistaarvim. With the help of the PL police officers the mob had captured the soldiers and hit them vigorously. [the report then reference the Italian TV footage]. A General Intelligence force [PL domestic intelligence] later managed to get control of the situation. The two soldiers where rescued and handed to a Security Coordination office [IDF branch that handles relationships with PL security authorities] north of the town, one already dead and one in critical condition. The injured soldier died before being evacuated by helicopter to Israel... The PA refrained from condemning the act, but 'Haaretz' reported that PL officials expressed 'embarrassment' from the incident in private conversations. Between 2001-2012 more than 20 Palestinians who took part in the act were arrested. Most were convicted and sentenced for long jail times."

Spelling[edit]

Cursory glance at google gives me the following: "Vadim Norzhich" 2180 results, "Vadim Nurzhits" 711 results and "Vadim Nurzhitz" 1180 results. Conclusion: name of first victim should be changed to Vadim Norzhich. The two instances of "(sometimes spelled as Name)" in the intro should be made into footnotes. Alternative transliterations of victim names are not interesting enough to the reader of the article. ImTheIP (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree about putting the alternative names into footnotes, and don't care which spelling is used in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I've already done that, but some other editors reverted the change. My choice of spelling was according to IL MFA press accounts. François Robere (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I would roll with the MFA for this very particular issue unless the original Russian has an accepted English transliteration (my Russian isn't good enough for this). This is a case of transliteration from a transliteration (Russian->Hebrew->English) of a name of an individual without an established English name.Icewhiz (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It could be a direct transliteration from Russian (Israeli Population and Immigration Authority holds multilingual records, and at least some of those were given by the registrants themselves), and while it doesn't guarantee a trans. correctness, it does provide a standard form. François Robere (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the kind of detailed reconstruction that sources supply and that the article fails to provide.[edit]

The incident

Two drivers in the IDF reserve, Sergeant-Major Yossi Avrahami (38)[1] of Petah Tikva, a toy salesman,[2] and Corporal Vadim Nurzhitz (33)[3][4] of Or Akiva,[5] a truckdriver who had made aliyah from Irkutsk 10 years earlier,[6] returned to duty that day. Nurzhitz set out at 7 a.m. in his Ford Escort, picked up Avrahami and phoned his father at 9 a.m., stating that he had been ordered to turn up at an army base near the Israeli settlement of Beit El.[6]

  1. ^ Yonah Jeremy Bob, 'Prisoner convicted of 2nd Intifada murder suddenly released following new evidence,' Jerusalem Post 2009 March 2017.
  2. ^ 'Families mourn lynch mob victims,' The Guardian 13 October 2000.
  3. ^ '15 years for a lynching in Ramallah,' Arutz Esrim 12 10 2015
  4. ^ David Pratt, Intifada, Casemate Publishers 2009 p.102 reverses these designations, making Avrahami the corporal and Nurzhitz the sergeant, as does the official Israel government site.: First Sgt. Vadim Norzhich,  ;Corporal Yossi Avrahami.
  5. ^ Judy Lash Balint, Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times, Gefen Publishing House, 2001 pp.80-82.
  6. ^ a b Sharon Waxman, 'On Both Sides, Toll Is Personal,' Washington Post 14 October, 2000

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talkcontribs)

And incorrect. They were called up on 1st October. They were both released on a 1 day furlough on the 11th of October (which is common in Israeli reserve duty - both 1 day and 3 day furloughs) - and on the 12th of October they returned to HQ together in Nurzhitz's car. See - [28].Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
not incorrect either. You have, as with almost every detail here, source conflict. Even the roles they are given, first-sergeant, sergeant major and corporal, are reversed according to the source you use. The MFA says they were called up for duty 'a few days before', which is not almost 2 weeks earlier. Waxman interviewed the family and friends and one Lev Piltz stated that he met Nurzhitz on the 9th and that on that datea, Nurzhitz was told to put off the date for his call up to active duty but he didn't because, he wanted to go." With such obvious contradictions in secondary material, editors cannot go beyond their remit by picking and choosing preferred terms or descriptions of the 'facts'. They must gloss all of the details, excluding none.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
A few days is not far off from 10. They were both on a 1 day furlough - which is why they were driving together - sourcing for this particular aspect is best in Hebrew and is reported in multiple reports - I chose to cite a very late report (2015 for an anniversary) which I think hashed these out better than at the time reporting.. regarding ranks - Israeli soldiers are regularly promoted posthumously (by approx. 1 rank, but rules on this vary by period, rank tenure, and circumstances of death) - which causes some confusion in sources - since the promotion is 1-2 days after the event (typically in the funeral), and not all reporting picks up on this - but it actually does not really matter - as most Israeli enlisted ranks are pretty meaningless and are mainly an indication of length of service - the actual posting held by the soldier in question is usually more important (to a certain extent this also true for officer ranks in the IDF, but enlisted ranks are really meaningless beyond indicating length of service - the vast majority of non-officer reservists don't bother wearing their rank insignia (and move about in work uniforms with no ranks)).Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Please reread the above. When you have source conflicts, on Wikipedia, you don't guess. You describe all RS versions, particularly if you have a POV conflict. All the rest of the above is second-guessing, which I told you is of no interest here.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No. You generally prefer to take the most reliable sources for the task at hand - which usually requires some subject matter acquaintance (for instance - on IDF posthumous promotions - differing ranks are not really a conflict here and are ROUTINE for most IDF death reporting). Regarding details of the service, where they were travelling to, etc. - these are the sort of details that the Hebrew sources are best for in this case - both because they kept on reporting on this following the event, and because they actually cared about these details - which are NOT POV issues. Regarding the exact events in Ramalleh - before and after the lynch - we have perhaps a POV issue. We also have a problem here in that later reporting (on the investigation and prosecutions) - was mainly in Hebrew or Israeli source.Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by the most reliable sources here. As shown, all sources, Israeli, Palestinian foreign differ in details. The English Hebrew press reports are also in conflict. I'm not interested in details that are not directly in sources relating to this incident (one of the 2 that day was reported to be a sergeant. Many sources we have are written in English by Israeli specialists, or scholars familiar with Hebrew, That's enough. Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Icewhiz, feel free to supply some recent Hebrew sources. We can use those. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, to a point. All things being equal we prefer English language sources, this being the English Wikipedia. If there are comparable in quality English sources we should be using those. Otherwise yeah sure, Hebrew, Arabic, all good. nableezy - 03:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
All it requires is a translation on this page so other readers can examine it, no problem. By the way 'as most Israeli enlisted ranks are pretty meaningless and are mainly an indication of length of service,' means a Sergeant First Class/-Major is not a rookie, a word that might apply to Nurzhitz still, at a stretch after 10 years in Israel, but inappropriate to a 38 year old man like Avrahami. Nishidani (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Nurzhitz was shlav-B - he did a very shortened mandatory service since he made Aliya in his 20s - hence his very low rank (his time in the Russian military was not recognized by the IDF). With 3 year service terms, the cast majority of enlisted Israeli men make "Samal rishon" (sergeant first class) upon their discharge (exceptions would be early discharge or incarceration / gross misbehavior during service - or on the upside (Rav Samal) - some additional keva service). Subsequent rise in rank, by enlisted men, during reserve duty is really just a function of how much reserve duty is done by the soldier (as enlisted ranks are almost strictly (there is a possibility of promotion as a meaningless (because the ranks are) merit act) by time serve) + promotions after death in service. All this being said - in the IDF (unlike other forces) these ranks are for the most part meaningless - lower ranked enlisted soldiers routinely command (NCO) higher ranked ones - and in reserve duty absolutely no one wears these ranks.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
That's all very interesting, but several sources give their ranks, and we do too.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, are their any objections, additions, etc., to this, or is it a fair summation of what we have so far of the beginning of that day?Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, there may be some contradictions with sources Icewhiz supplied? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I examined Icewhiz's point, and changed the text to conform to his source, so that what was written was not longer 'incorrect', introducing it in a footnote. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding ranks - I suggest we go with this source - [29] (also raised above) which matches the Hebrew Wikipedia. I'll note that in addition to posthumous promotions, ranks often get garbled in translation (and actually even just cross-country conversions without translation) - all sorts of issues (e.g. literal transation vs. functional translation (e.g. "Rav Samal" would be "Sergeant first class" literally, but in terms of rank equivelance it is OR-6 or "Staff sergeant")). The article lists Avrahami as "Rav-Samal" and Nurzitz as "Rav Turai" - which according to the table here Israel Defense Forces ranks - is Sergeant first class and corporal.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Addendum: However since the lower Israeli rank of "Samal Rishon" translated literally to "Sergeant first class" as well, I think we should use the literal translation (in same rank table) of chief sergeant.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
And there they go off the rails with readability. François Robere (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 August 2017[edit]

Minor tweak to {{Reflist}} syntax from "Relist|2" to "Reflist|30em" per Template:Reflist#Columns because fixing the number of columns has been deprecated. The em value can be adjusted accordingly to increase/decrease the number of column is desired, but "30em" appears to be quite standard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we needed a template for this. What, oh, what would we have done without a template? You should know the protection expires in about 6 hours - a cheap alarm clock would've served this better.
Regardless, I'll try to push this between reverts. I doubt Nishidani will accept it, as it's 'not grammastical' and not supported by sources. François Robere (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Done now that the full-protection has expired. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

'Coy' editing[edit]

2000 Ramallah lynching‎; Let's not be coy. This was displayed to the crowd through the window. The window frame was after the corpse was hurled through the window.

Icewhiz. You removed +972 magazine recently as not RS. Now you add 4 sources that have even less credibility to uphold an edit that is, even in its own terms, contradictory. Your edit has the two soldiers being disemboweled and having their eyes gouged out inside the Ramallah police station, and yet at least one of your poor sources says this occurred outside the policestation, etc.

When something produced as a fact cannot be found in the vast mainstream reportage on an incident, you require exceptionally good sources to document it. So far no one can find the NYT, Haaretz,Jerrusalem Posdt, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal etc.etc.etc etc., mentioning this detail. The following therefore are unacceptable for asserting a contested or controversial 'fact'.

This concerns a completely different incident in 2016 from the Ramallah lynching (2000) which is only alluded to later in the article with standard ‘cite wikipedia’ reference that runs: 'The crowd stormed the building, then beat, stabbed, disemboweled and gouged the eyes out of the two men.'
Again this reports on a trial of one of those who was convicted of beating one of the two soldiers. It reports a decision made in 2010 and reproduces the usual ‘cite wikipedia’ meme : ‘The soldiers were beaten, stabbed, had their eyes gouged out, and were disemboweled,’ (utterly unreliable for facts)
The link doesn’t show what source is being reported, and is not verifiable as thus linked.
Totally unreliable source, with details nowhere I can see in the mainstream press. Your own (useless) source contradicts the timeline you insist on in your edit, since for Coopersmith the crowd outside disemboweled them, not the mob inside.

'One of the attackers returned to the window to proudly show the jubilant crowd his blood-soaked hands. Moments later, the body of one of the soldiers came flying out of the window, smashing into the ground below, where the mad crowd danced, beat it some more and celebrated before parading the corpse through the streets. Palestinian police handed over the other soldier, badly mutilated, to a nearby Jewish settlement just before he died.' Lisa Beyer, 'Breaking Point,' CNN October 16, 2000

My grounds for removing that passage until strong RS can be found to support it remain. The sources above are way below the minimal RS bar for facts, esp. contested 'facts' and you ought to know that by now. To pretend otherwise is to edit 'coyly'. Nishidani (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The Algemeiner has an editorial board and is a RS. Multiple outlets report mutilation - e.g. - [[30]], CNN you just cited. Most do not go into the gruesome details of what mutilation specifically occurred. Events inside the police station are mainly known from confessions or other testimonials of the people who remained alive and that were inside.Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not insist on the timeline itself - given the inconsistencies on timing of exact elements between sources. The state of the corpses themselves is known. We could expound on the specifics of mutilation (disembowelment and eye gouging) without specifying an exact timeline which isn't all that important either way (though possibly can be sourced).Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
What you did is revert back an assertion with spurious sources, without looking at them. I.e. you cite a source which says one Israeli soldier was disemboweled by the crowd outside, to support a text which states they were both disemboweled inside the police station. That is why you have to be reverted, because if you fail to understand the (a) contradiction in your sources (b) the conflict over the timeline per sources (c) the contradiction in sources between stating both were disemboweled and only one was disemboweled, or (per silence of sources) perhaps neither were disemboweled (as distinct from suffering numerous savage stabbings. There's a difference: a Japanese friend of mine disemboweled himself ritually, and the coroner's report makes the diff clear).
In short, you are not paying attention to the numerous problems here. Then timeline is fundamental, the distinction between the respective ends of both soldiers made in sources, and finally, all of those sources aren't worth a nob of goat shit. They are uncannily repetitive of what some wiki editor, without a source at hand, wrote.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)