Talk:2002 Hebron ambush

A terrorist act?

I find it absurd to label this incident as a “prominent terrorist attack against Israeli targets”. I have no problem in defining the Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing, where 21 civilians were killed, as a terrorist attack. But in this attack only Israeli soldiers and security personnel were killed or wounded. Does that mean that Wikipedia considers every Palestinian violent act as a terrorist attack? Even if it is directed at, what Palestinians consider, soldiers of the army of occupation?Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Although the Palestinian militancy organizations' propaganda has constantly stated that any violent acts directed by their armed militants (commonly reffered to by them as "freedom fighters") towards Israeli soldiers or Israeli settlers (including innocent children and babies) is legitimate, in practice, as of yet, the Palestinian militants do not belong to an official military body of a country. Therefore any assault carried out by Palestinian paramilitary forces against forces belonging to a military body of a country (Such as IDF military forces), and especially a well planned fatal ambush against trapped targets, is considered to be an "act of terror" and not a legitimate "battle" between two armies. In any case I suggest we wait and see what the other users think about this matter. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You cannot seriously suggest that your definition of terrorism could ever be applied universally. That "any assault" committed by militants "not belong to an official military body of a country" on "forces belonging to a military body of a country" - and "especially a well planned fatal ambush against trapped targets" - should be described in Wikipedia as an "act of terror". And that your "Perpetrator/Victim" dichotomy should be applied on casualties from such assaults. I cannot image you trying to impose this definitions on - to take an extreme example - the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Waffen-SS soldiers described as "victims" of ambushes by Jewish terrorist "perpetrators".

That leaves us with the strong impression that you consider the Israel-Palestine conflict as some kind of special case. Which of course is a legitime personal point of view but I fail to see why Wikipedia should reflect this.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not sure about the legal status of the Kiryat Arba Emergency Response Team. But since it is an armed unit fighting in civilian clothes in an occupied territory I doubt that its status in international law differs much from that of the Palestinian fighters from Islamic Jihad that also took part in the battle. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Since TheCuriousGnome does not seem to have succeeded in rewriting the history of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as an act of terrorism, using his own definition of terrorism, I have changed the structure of the article from that of a terrorist act to that of a battle. I don't like the the terms "victims" vs. "perpetrators". But since I myself used the term "perpetrator" in my original version of the article I will not try to "cleanse" it.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Victims and perpetrators?

TheCuriousGnome is again reintroducing the non-neutral terms "Victims" (for Israeli soldiers killed in battle) and "Perpetrators" (for Palestinian militants killed in the same battle).

Why? This was not a terrorist act and not a massacre, it was a battle between combatants, where – quite unusual for the Israel-Palestine conflict – no civilian casualties were claimed, not even as collateral damage. I think this is a clear violation of the Neutral Point of View and should be removed. Please compare with the Battle of Jenin where the dead Israeli soldiers are not called "perpetrators" or Palestinian militants called "victims". And this for very good reasons. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that TheCuriousGnome has made similar changes in 2006 Hamas cross-border raid, which was another purely military conflict with no civilian casualties, that cannot be described as a terrorist act. I think that Wikipedia should take NPOV more seriouly than this. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See my comment in the above section. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, if an incident can be described accurately without using inflammatory words, then there is a very strong (but rebuttable) presumption that no such words should be used.

Please remember this: Deciding not to use the phrase "terrorist attack", does NOT mean it wasn't a terrorist attack. It simply means that it was possible to describe the incident accurately without using those words. Jsolinsky (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

But this is not what Jokkmokks-Goran is asking for us to do. Jokkmokks-Goran is actually asking us drop the phrases "terror attack" and/or "attack" AND reorganize the entire article in such a way that it would be implied that this militant ambush and attack was actually a legitimate battle between two armies (completely false) in which there are no victims or perpetrators (completely false). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and make edits that you think present this in an NPOV way. You've attracted enough attention to this article, that I'm sure any potential issues will be flagged. You and J-G have so many recent edits, that I can't tell exactly which language is proving contentious. Jsolinsky (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I take that back. My bad. Clearly "victims" and "perpetrators" are the words at issue. I think that "perpetrators" is clearly a problem word. Why not attackers? It provides the same information without suggesting a viewpoint. On the other hand, "victims" is a common word to describe individuals killed in an ambush, even in traditional war time situations. Jsolinsky (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is valuable to use the article about the Battle of Jenin as a model for this article. The battle of Jenin is described in neutral terms without dividing casualties into “victims” vs. “perpetrators” or as “attacker”s vs. “defenders” or categorizing the battle as a “terrorist act” or “war crime” (or indeed as a “legitimate battle”, whatever that is). It presents the facts and different interpretations and points of view of the violent clash. The article also discusses at length the validity of the “massacre claim” and “war crime claim”. I’m sure we all can have personal issues with the details but I do respect this general approach. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain that different language MUST be used than in the battle of Jenin. But there are significant differences between the events, which would make the use of different language understandable. Although Israeli forces were ambushed in Jenin, they were actively involved in the forceful suppression of the camp.

I find that my own natural tendency is to write "casualties in the battle of Jenin", but "victim of an ambush during the battle of Jenin", in some cases referring to identical deaths. In other words, the word I choose changes based on the context, and in particular based on whether the incident is being described as a two sided battle or an ambush. I'm not saying this is correct. But I am certainly not the only person to describe ambushes in this manner. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A quick review of other articles about ambushes (in less controversial corners of Wikipedia) shows that, while the word victim is occasionally used, it is much less common than the word casualty. On that basis, I would support such a change. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

External links

I deleted all external links which may have been a mistake, and somebody has restored them. In general I think more information is better than less. I thought they were very misleading. All the five articles were published the same day or the day after the attack, before the true nature of the attack became known. They all adhere to the initial official Israeli line that the attack had targeted civilian settlers returning from prayer. This allegation was subsequently proven false and these basic facts are not – to my knowledge – disputed by anybody anymore. No single civilian/non-combatant settler was harmed in the attack.

I don’t mind adding external links but I think they should add some information, which none of them does. I also welcome additions from Israeli or pro-Israeli sources but I don’t think we should include in this section anything published before the facts became known. I also included two sources in this section that somebody has deleted. I included a report from the settler site “Arutz 7” and one from an Islamic Jihad site, but they were in Hebrew and Arabic. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Classification of victims

I think it is highly misleading to call the members of the Kiryat Arba Response Team “civilian security guards”. In my country a civilian security guard is a middle-aged guy with a bunch of keys and a baton, checking locks and looking out for burglars. Not the well-trained professional anti-terrorist force we are talking about here. They were civilians only in the sense that they were not members of the IDF and were not wearing uniforms. They were certainly not civilians in the sense of “non-combatants”, which is how many, probably most, of the readers of Wikipedia will understand the term. The distinction between military and civilian or combatants and non-combatants should not be blurred. The killed and wounded Response Team members were all taking part in the hostilities. They certainly were no more civilian than the three Palestinian fighters. Yet no one would ever suggest calling the Palestinian victims "civilian students".

Liberal Haaretz called all the Israeli victims (including the Response Team) “armed fighters” who were killed in combat. http://www.haaretz.com/news/analysis-the-attack-in-hebron-was-not-a-massacre-1.28114 Right-wing Maariv likewise called them ”lochamim” (combatants, fighters, soldiers,…). http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART/932/957.html

To prove that I am not unreasonable, however, I have changed the term to “combatants” and “non-combatants”, which is used at least by several Israeli sources. Reasonable compromise?

But I wish someone could clarify the status of the Kiryat Arba Respone Team. Are they subordinate to IDF or are they an independent settler militia? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

TheCuriousGnome's recent changes

user:TheCuriousGnome, please explain why you have included this battle, where no non-combatants were harmed, in the category of "murder". Do you propose to include every violent act in the Second Intifada involving fatalities as murder?

Please also explain why you have tagged the title of the article with "citation needed".

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Distortions by user:Activism1234

You are misrepresenting the facts. The initial Israeli version of the battle as a massacre of civilian worshippers was a distortion of the facts. Nobody today claims that any civilians were killed or indeed were targeted in the attack. Certainly not the Israeli government. Don’t try to resurrect this myth or cast doubts about the events.

Moving Powell’s and Annan’s reaction to a separate section is also disingenuous. Their reactions was not to what actually happened in Hebron but what they thought had happened, by believing the initial official Israeli propaganda spin.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you can still condemn a terrorist attack regardless of who was killed. Nothing in their statements indicate it was only because it was a massacre, and that they discarded this afterwards.

Secondly, your editing is explicitly biased. My version was very neutral. Consider "International media outlets and world leaders quickly picked up this official Israeli terminology." Or more explicitly, "The true nature of the battle became clear the following day when the identities of the victims were made public." That's more of a personal statement and bias than something for Wikipedia. Or "The only settlers" also hints at bias, as well "The Palestinian fighters only targeted." firstly, referring to them as "fighters" when they're from Islamic Jihad, as opposed to writing say militants, shows your bias. Secondly, it gives the assumption that Islamic Jihad is a legitimate organization that doesn't seek to target civilians, except for the other terrorist attacks that target civilians. It also gives the impression that the IDF soldiers were engaged in combat, and instead were simply walking home.

The version now isn't as biased as it was before, but is still pretty biased. I hope others will see that. --Activism1234 21:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, Powell and UN are already in the article below, we dont need them again. --Activism1234 21:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't differ between facts and points-of-view. You are trying to conceal facts to promote your very extreme point of view that have been disproved.

Facts (as far as I know not disputed by anyone outside Wikipedia)

1) Palestinians ambushed Israeli soldiers and killed a lot of them

2) Israel claimed that civilian Jewish worshipers were killed

3) Many International media and politicians condemned the killing of Jewish civilians

4) Israel admitted that no civilians were hurt

I see no reason why Wikipedia should not reflect these facts.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Jokkmokks, do you understand what WP:NPOV is. It would seem you do not. WP:NPOV means that you can't portray the attack according to your own personal beliefs. It's sad if you really think that calling terminology "misleading" on an encyclopedia conforms with neutrality.

WP:NPOV means that you can't write "Official Israeli spokesmen initially tried to portrait the battle as a massacre of civilian Israeli settlers returning from Sabbath prayers. This version was subsequently disproved." Firstly, that's not even comprehensible English. Secondly, you're writing info based on how you perceive later references, and violating neutrality by saying that they tried to do this and this is what they attempted to portray it as. WP:NPOV would just be reporting the statements that were made, that it was a massacre, and then what followed - certain media outlets changed this wording after initial reports. My version reports all of that - but without attempting to portray any of them as the fact, because that's your view, it may not be mine, and it sure as hell wasn't the Israeli official's. Regardless of whether they were soldiers, they weren't in combat, they were returning home, and the official who said it was a massacre may very well still agree with that statement, and if he doesn't, others will. Since there are conflicting views, we need to report it in a neutral way - again, NOT what you claim to be facts. I'm sure that many people would still agree that it is a massacre - so writing that "they tried to portary it" as something is false, original research by interpreting this from other refs below, and violates WP:NPOV. Stop with the POV. It's your own unreferenced personal biased opinion. You're also removing information from "international reactions" to a different section, contrary to how we format such articles, in what I can only perceive to be another attempt to minimize the event, and portary it as a legitimate battle between soldiers to conform to your POV.

Also, you've gone through the article and deliberately changed many words or added words or sentences for which there are not references, in order to conform with your POV that this was some legitimate battle between legitimate soldiers who marched into battle for a tactic. We don't put this on Wikipedia.

Again, we don't need to conceal anything, as long as it's mentioned in a reliable reference. But we can't write it to conform with your own POV. If an Israeli official said they weren't civilians, we can write that, and attribute it to that official. But that doesn't mean we go throughout the article, and use that statement as the basis for saying it wasn't really a massacre and that such terminology is obviously misleading. Writing that it's "misleading" is your own POV, no matter what other people have said - those can be written, with attributions. This is a fundamental concept of Wikipedia. If you can't grasp this, I'd suggest not editing such contentious articles.

And lastly, when you open a section on the talk page to discuss NPOV, don't just make major changes while this discussion is going on without consensus. Especially when you're going to violate NPOV by deliberately calling the termionology "misleading" or saying that "media outlets picked up on this misleading terminology" or by attributing an op-ed to an entire newspaper. Feel free to think that, doesn't mean we write that on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Activism1234 20:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not the first time that you're violating WP:OR - for example, please show me where in the sources it stated "Official Israeli spokesmen initially tried to portrait the battle as a massacre of civilian Israeli settlers returning from Sabbath prayers"?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, please read the article.

Gilad Millo, spokesman of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs said:"This sabbath massacre is the second time in a week that innocent civilians have been senselessly murdered either in their beds or on their way to prayers. No political process can take root while these atrocities continue to be carried out by terrorists."

Activism1234, what you call POV are facts. Israeli spokesmen lied about the identity of the Israeli victims to enlist foreign sympathies and cover up an embarrassing military defeat.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes he said that of course, but your conclusion of his words shouldn't appear in the article at all.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying that a person "lied" becuase you don't think it's a massacre is POV and BLP violation. As said, many would surely think it was a massacre. It's your POV that it isn't a massacre. There are conflicting views. For example, you may say that Scandinavia is the most awesome place in the world filled with radiant goodness and tolerance, but that's a POV, not a fact, and simply saying "it's a fact" doesn't make it one. In such a case, we simply say what happened as it went along, without any POV nonsense. --Activism1234 16:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There were no "innocent civilian" victims, as claimed by Israel, only combatants who were killed in battle. These are facts, disputed - as far as I know - by no one. You are trying to create a false impression that there are conflicting views about what happened. You have repeatedly deleted relevant information, including well-sourced material such as the Haaretz article.

I will not agree to a move Powell's and Annan's comments to a separate section for Reactions. These were reactions to Israeli disinformation and not to the actual deed.

I have tried to change the wording to accommodate your views but you delete everything I write, including a correction of a link. You deleted the fact that three high-ranking officers were killed. You falsely claimed that the article from Journalisten was an op-ed. It was not. If you understand Swedish you can make that out from the link itself. "Nyheter" means news.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere is it given that Powell and UN only replied becauase an Israeli official termed it a massacre. Their responses appear to be a reaction to the attack. There isn't any evidence to the contrary, other than your "gut" or your POV.

And yes, it is an opinion by a person - that's why there's a picture of a guy next to it and his email address on the bottom. Perhaps it's an editorial by someoen on their board, but it's still an opinion. I don't recall deleting it and I'm fine with keeping it, but your POV issues that whatever you want to say is true is a major issue. If you think it's a massacre, you feel we should add unsourced OR statements and change the passage to fir that POV, rather than remain neutral. Even if a poll was held and everyone in the world said that it wasn't a massacre, including every Israeli, it wouldn't call for the POV that you put on a Wikipedia article. Because simply put, that's not how Wikipedia is written. --Activism1234 18:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you consult Google Translate which will give you a rough idea about what the article is about. It's a news report written by one of the magazine's reporters, Paul Frigyes. He has no photo byline as you claim. That's a - ever changing - link to other stories. It is not an op-ed.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjournalisten.se%2Fnyheter%2Fdodade-soldater-blev-israeler

The key question is not whether it was a "massacre" or not. Every lost battle may be perceived as a massacre by the losers. The key question is whether non-combatants were targeted or hurt. In this case the answer is no. Israel deceived the world by claiming this. But of course Islamic Jihad has targeted Israeli civilians many times before and after this incidentJokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC).

Once again, even if we assume that these were non-combatants, and even if we assume that calling it a massacre was a deception, that wouldn't mean that we can use POV terminology and weasel words throughout the article, because again, you view it as a deception, others don't. So we simply report it as it is. --Activism1234 19:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to assume anything about "non-combatant" victims. We know. There were none, according to official Israeli information. Denied by no one. Except you. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"By no one" is a bit of an overstatement no? That's the reason we need to be so careful on Wikipedia - such statements simply can't be true, and we need to preserve neutrality. That's also a reason why we do our best not to call a person terrorist in the lead of an article - look at Osama bin Laden for example. I believe he was a terrorist, and I hope you do too. But Wikipedia policies say to avoid such terminology in the lead of such articles - and let's be honest here, many people in the Middle East don't view him as a terrorist. Wikipedia's whole goal is to preserve neutrality, regardless of majority-minority disputes. --Activism1234 20:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the Colin Powell statement on the day after the attack about the "killing of Israeli worshipers" and the Kofi Annan statement on the day of the attack about the killing of "Jewish worshippers on their way to the Sabbath eve prayers" should be integrated into the article text so that they appear in context and in the correct place on the timeline. These statements were clearly made before all of the facts were available and they shouldn't be decontextualized. "contrary to how we format such articles" isn't a legitimate argument because there is no "we" relevant to this kind of decision and there is no "format". We can and should do whatever is best for the readers, and I think in this case, presenting those statements out of context isn't helpful to the readers. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Obvious? Perhaps to you... But perhaps not to me? Perhaps not to my neighbor. We can't write a Wikipedia article based on our "gut" or what seems "obvious" to us. --Activism1234 16:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What specifically is unclear to you ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How do we know that these reactions were only due to the statement it was a massacre, and weren't lasting, permanent reactions? A bomb blows up in Afghanistan and kills U.S. troops, it sometimes does gets condemned, regardless of whether they're civilians or troops, so I don't see how we can conclusively say that their reactions were only because of the statement it was a massacre (and that would also be assuming they heard that as well), and they rejected this afterwards. --Activism1234 17:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I said "These statements were clearly made before all of the facts were available". This is obvious because, apart from their timing, they refer to worshipers, which is information that was consistent with the reported facts at the time, but inconsistent with the reported facts later on. Please address what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote. You will not find the word massacre in there for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

We should only report what sources says.That's all.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Did any of them retracted their statements?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, but that's also assuming that the statements would've been altered if they made it the next day or the next week. --Activism1234 17:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming nothing. I'm just looking at the facts available and proposing that we report what the sources say at the point in the article where what those sources say is best placed in terms of context and the timeline. A reaction is a reaction to something. In this case, the something is clear from the nature of the statements. The statements are reactions to a reported state of affairs at a specific point in time. They are therefore best presented in that context in the article, for example, after International media outlets and world leaders also used this terminology following Millo's statement. CNN used the term on its website as well, and wrote that Palestinian militants had "ambushed a group of Israeli Jews on their way home from prayer services".[9] I think the wording is already okay in the reactions section. It just needs to be moved. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Jokkmokks-Goran. User:Activism1234 is clearly POV pushing. JonFlaune (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your position?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No need. He's been blocked for 2 weeks for bad behavior on contentious articles and, as evident here, Wikihouding me.

Sean, I'm continuing the discussion over here. Firstly, just to clarify - I don't have an issue with the CNN or media outlets part in that section, as it's relevant to that section. I'm fine with that staying there. The issue is with reactions by world leaders. There are Wikipedia articles on attacks by militants and terrorists that are very long. They include sections on aftermath, investigations, etc. They also include a reaction section. The reactions usually come 1-2 days after the attack happened - no one would delay it for a week, it just doesn't make sense. Here too, it came soon after the attack. Yet, on those Wikipedia articles, we don't arrange it by chronological order - yes, we put it before "investigation" or "aftermath" sometimes, but it's always as its own section. Sometimes, the section "attack" is even updated a month later when the perpetrators are caught, and it's reevaled what fully happened. And yet, reactions will always be its own section, and the same should be applied here. We can't assume whether or not it was a reaction to a statement, it was a reaction to the current form of reporting, or whether it was a reaction to the attack as a whole. It could've been any one of these - including the latter. --Activism1234 18:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand and I'm in favor of standardization throughout Wikipedia where possible, but this is a unusual case where we do know that the statements were based on the reported events at a particular moment. We don't need to assume anything. We know from the wording of the statements that they were reactions to an attack on Jewish worshipers/Israeli civilians and we know that that isn't what happened. So, we know that these are reactions to something that didn't happen. They are still worthy of inclusion of course and, in context, the initial misreporting and associated reactions are part of the story, but to present them as if they were reactions to what actually happened presents them out of context and confuses rather than clarifies the sequence of events. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

None of the reactions mention the word massacre - if they said it was a massacre, I would understand your point, but they don't. --Activism1234 19:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that either Powell or Annan would have accused the Palestinians of killing Jewish worshipers had they known that in fact they had not. This is what Haaretz was referring to when they talked about the Foreign Ministry's successful "spin". Activism1234 and Shrike are trying to rescue whatever is left of this spin. But they have not supplied any sources that support their claims.

They have for the same reasons also deleted the following sentences:

"Official Israeli spokesmen initially tried to portray the battle as a massacre of civilian Israeli settlers returning from Sabbath prayers. This version was subsequently disproved."

"The following day the Israeli authorities clarified that only soldiers or security personnel were hurt in the ambush."

"Several settler members of the Kiryat Arba Emergency Response Team, who took an active part in the hostillities, were killed or wounded."

Shrike complained that this claim was unsourced. But in fact we have TWO sources claiming just that. And Chicago Tribune was very specific:

"Army Col. Noam Tibon said… [that] no settlers, as they walked from evening prayer, were injured by grenade or gunfire. Army spokesman Yoni Schoenfeld later confirmed that none of the wounded or killed were settlers walking from the Tomb of the Patriarchs near the settlement of Kiryat Arba."

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between deleting a sentence and rephrasing it to fit WP:NPOV. I'm not interested in what Haaretz says, Haaretz isn't a supreme overlord omnipotent being, and Haaretz doesn't dicate how NPOV works. I'm more than happy to include what Haaretz wrote in the article - in an NPOV manner, not in a POV manner that takes it as a fact. Also, please don't make contentious edits when we're discussing exactly whether the article should have those edits without consensus... We're discussing this topic - and yet after 24 hours expire, you simply go and revert what we're discussing... See WP:GAMING. Lastly, please don't delete an entire section called "Reactions" with referenced info. Thanks.

Also, you removed the category of terrorist attacks - it's very rare to dub any event on Wikipedia a "terrorist attack," but those same articles still have the category includes, as part of the general formatting of Wikipedia. The same thing applies here, regardless of whether it's a terrorist attack. --Activism1234 20:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You are not seriously discussing anything. You know very well that I didn't remove any sourced information. I only moved it back where it belonged. You have not added ANY sourced information to this article, that I could remove. Only POV pushing and distortions.

And please forgive me for not understanding why an incident that cannot be described as a terrorist act by any standard must be tagged as such in Wikipedia "regardless of whether it's a terrorist attack".

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's how it is on many Wikipedia articles. You don't view it as one, that's great, but Wikipedia doesn't revolve around the views of individual editors who will turn an article to fit a POV and original research. --Activism1234 21:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Activism, regarding "None of the reactions mention the word massacre - if they said it was a massacre, I would understand your point, but they don't." I'm not sure I follow but I assume it is related to the subsection title being "Massacre allegation". That can be resolved by changing the title to something that doesn't include the word massacre. If a subsection title made up by Wikipedia is used as part of a decision that results in information being presented out of context then there is something wrong with the title and/or the decision procedure. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok what do you propose changing it to? I can't think of any title that would incorporate all that info under one heading - that's why I said before, I'm fine with keeping the title, but simply moving some info to another section, and if necessary, creating a new one. If you have one title that can incorporate all of it, then I'm open to it. --Activism1234 17:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps split it up something like below

==Aftermath==

===Inital reports and reactions===

===Subsequent reports and reactions===

===Israeli response===

Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not bad, but seems to me like most articles separate aftermath from reactions. --Activism1234 18:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That usually makes sense because everyone is reacting to the same thing. In this case an official initally misreported the facts. Reactions and reports followed based on those, a correction was issued, and more media reports/corrections/reactions/analysis followed based on the new facts. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll change it like this for the time being, while still leaving this open to comments by others. Thanks though, it's helpful. --Activism1234 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

OK I split it into those sections. Two things though:

• I removed a sentence explaining who the Israeli victims were. I think all of that is very clear in the lead and "the attack." It seemed redundant, and the type of thing thrown on by an editor when it's already discussed before to just reiterate a point. It's also clear in the next section, "subsequent reports and reactions."
• The section "subsequent reports and reactions" begins with "The following day the Israeli authorities clarified that only soldiers or security personnel were hurt in the ambush." I think that makes sense and is agreed upon. However, the date for the international reactions by Powell is 16 November. For the UN, it's 15 November. The attack itself occured on 15 November. Thus, it's possible to argue that Powell knew the subsequent reports, which were released on 16 November, and still issued that reaction. It's possible to argue that this is not the case for the UN. However, it seems odd to separate the reactions based on this, especially when it's so unclear and each of us is interpreting it in our own way, and these interpretations can't necessarily be backed up by reliable refs. So I honestly feel it's better to leave a separate reactions section with that.
• If there's still an issue, I'm willing to discuss that, and any other issues that emerged in this edit. --Activism1234 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it very strange to assume that Powell would have condemned the "shocking and reprehensible attack on Jewish worshipers" and "that these worshipers and Israeli security personnel who came to their rescue were gunned down on the way back from Sabbath prayers" if he had known that not a single worshiper was ever hurt on the way back from the Sabbath prayers. If you can find a source to claiming that, please add it. Anyway both these statements must be connected to the Haaretz spin story. I have not found any source giving the full details of the battle dated before Nov. 17.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"I find it very strange" - I don't though. So now what? We go with what you say?? You'd need refs to back yourself up - otherwise, that's too broad an assumption. Putting it in a "Reactions" section doesn't tie it to any particular day or time period, just puts it on its own. --Activism1234 22:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Destruction of building plan

This have very weak connection to the battle.The plan was ratified before.Yes the article mention it but it doesn't mean we should include it.I have removed it per WP:UNDUE.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You have deleted relevant and well-sourced material. Please revert your change yourself.

The plan to destroy the 22 historical buildings was not "ratified before" as you claim. None of the sources you removed claimed this. The original plan from the tourism authorities talked about "preserve and rehabilitate the ancient buildings" (which was never "ratified" or carried out) while the other by military order from IDF (after the ambush) called the destruction of the buildings "for military needs."

What the sources actually say:

“Twenty-two buildings of architectural and historical value will be demolished in the old town of Hebron "for military needs," under Decree Number 61/02/T to Expropriate Property issued by the Israel Defense Forces on November 29 of this year. [That is after the ambush]”

“The plan for the promenade - intended for use by Jewish settlers only - was prepared for the Israel Government Tourism Corporation by architect Yigal Levy. Originally, the plan consisted of two parts: an open promenade in an area that was not built up and an "alley promenade," which was supposed to have traversed the southern edge of the old town, among the ancient buildings and within the historic fabric. The plan included a recommendation to preserve and rehabilitate the ancient buildings. According to Levy, at one stage he even cooperated with an Egyptian architect in planning the preservation and reconstruction work at the Tomb of the Patriarchs. After the fierce battle that took place there on November 15, between Israel Defense Forces soldiers and Palestinians (in which four soldiers, five Border Police, three Jewish settlers and the two terrorists were killed), dealing with the plan was transferred to the hands of the IDF.”

The second case:

“The IDF yesterday demolished 22 Palestinian buildings in the Hebron area. The official reason given was "standard enforcement of building rules," but the operation is likely part of the IDF's ongoing retaliation campaign in the city.”

Both cases where clearly linked to the ambush, at least according to Haaretz. If you have other material relevent to this please add that. And stop removing relevant well-sourced material.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"likely part of the IDF's ongoing retaliation campaign in the city" - In other words, we can't say for sure, and this is pretty much speculation on Haaretz part. Remember, Haaretz isn't omnipotent. --Activism1234 22:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, it'd be plain wrong to assume that IDF operations in Hebron were only because of this ambush. There were many other incidents involving the city. Even if it was definitely instead of likely, it wouldn't be clear it has any connection to this ambush. --Activism1234 22:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems more connected to a different case, as Haaretz writes:

Four other buildings and sheds were demolished in lot 26 near Givat Harsina, where Kach activist Netanel Ozeri was killed three weeks ago, also by Hamas.

It's not clear this is relevant to the ambush. --Activism1234 22:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you read further you notice that 18 of the 22 destroyed buildings were in Jabal Jawhar neighborhood where Worshipers Way passes through. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's very possible. However, correlation does NOT imply causation. Just because buildings were demolished there does NOT mean it was because of this specific attack. Furthermore, simple math would reveal that if 22 buildings were destroyed, and 18 were in that area, then that leaves 4 buildings in another area. If it was in response to the attack, it seems more likely, although not necessarily definitely, that all buildings destroyed would be in that area. --Activism1234 23:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to establish any mono-causal unidirectional relationship between the two events to conclude that they are related. I imagine that it will normally be very difficult to establish such a link between most historical events. If you are concerned that the headline "Israeli response" presuppose such a link I'm open to merging this section with "Subsequent related events". Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: the content in this edit from B'Tselem, 3 Haaretz articles and The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

• B'Tselem can be used as an RS with attribution. The content is clearly pertinent. There is no policy based reason for it to be removed.
• The first Haaretz source cited explicitly connects the demolitions, Decree Number 61/02/T, and the attack. Again, the content is reliably sourced and clearly pertinent. There is no policy based reason for it to be removed.
• The second Haaretz source cited also explicitly connects the demolitions with the attack. Again, reliably sourced and clearly pertinent. There is no policy based reason for it to be removed.
• The third Haaretz source doesn't seem to contain anything that explicitly connects it to the attack itself or the military decree that was issued, so I don't think it qualifies for inclusion strictly speaking.
• I don't know anything about the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee so I can't really tell if the article they published matters enough to be included. They don't appear to have been discussed at RSN. A search in google books suggests that they are cited/discussed quite extensively. The advocacy group CAMERA are used extensively as a source in Wikipedia so I assume the same rules will be applied to the ADC. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The destruction of the houses in the third Haaretz source may not be connected to Decree Number 61/02/. But that decree was only an expression of the more general plan of Ariel Sharon: "the opportunity that now presents itself in the wake of the attack... must be exploited to establish new facts on the ground" by creating a "territorial continuity between the settlement of Kiryat Arba and the Jewish section of Hebron". All the destroyed houses were situated in Hebron's border area with Kiryat Arba and most of them in the area where the ambush took place. So I say it is connected. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that it's connected too but there isn't any explicit evidence in the source to support that, so I'm not sure how it should be handled. Everything seems to be connected to everything in the I-P conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Jokks, subsequent related events would also include me eating ice cream the next day. Of course, that's hardly relevant, and good luck finding a connection between the two. As in that case, there isn't any indication other than your own compass and views that there is a connection here. --Activism1234 00:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Source

This source may be useful for some details. I've prepared the citation, just add the ref tags.

• Conal Urquhart (17 November 2002). "Israelis march in to seize suspects". The Guardian.

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This too maybe included see p.16[1]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC) (published version = Pedahzur, A. & Perliger, A.(2006). The Changing Nature of Suicide Attacks - A Social Network Perspective. Social Forces 84(4), 1987-2008. Oxford University Press) Sean.hoyland - talk 07:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I can put this info in later today (a few hours), bit busy now to make a fullscale edit based on refs. --Activism1234 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple more sources, pre-formatted again...just add the ref tags.

• "Militants kill top colonel in Hebron ambush". The Independent. 17 November 2002.
• "Jewish settlers in Hebron claim they have history on their side". The Sydney Morning Herald. 9 December 2002.

Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Israel issues warrants to seize Palestinian property in Hebron, AP, December 2, 2002....via highbeam. Haven't managed to find the original source online.
• Also, it seems that Gush Shalom placed an advert called "Serving the settlers" in Haaretz on 6 December 2002, in which they apparently rather dramatically said "For the first time, the government and the army high command are implementing in cold blood a clear policy of ethnic cleansing. By any standard, this is an international crime." The day before that, they wrote to Attorney General, (copied to Moshe Kaplinsky, who signed decree 61/02/T). I saw the primary source, this document, in the "DOSSIER PALESTINA" part of Ghent University's "Communicatie, Informatie, Educatie" site. I don't know if any secondary sources covered it. It's mentioned somewhat in this Japan Times article. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Name in Arabic

Given how volatile this page is, I thought to ASK, rather than fix, about a minor quibble: The opening paragraph refers three different times to the location as "Wadi an-Nasara". Shouldn't that be "al-Nasara"? I'm no expert on Arabic, but yet... Shmuel A. Kam (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The definite article in Arabic is "AL-" and that is how it is spelled. When the word starts with one of the so-called "sun letters" (roughly half the alphabet) the L is assimilated to the following letter and is never pronounced. Thus an-Nasara, ash-Shams and as-Sadiq etc. The rest of the alphabet (the "moon letters") keeps the L, such as: al-Qamar, al-Wadi and al-Katib. Western translation is however unfortunately not consistent in this regard. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing all links to "terror" or "terrorism"

Again, this is an example of an attack on legitimate military targets. Anyone in IDF uniform in the occupied west bank, and arguably those "settlers" who arm themselves and act as hostiles/belligerents targeting the Palestinian population, are examples of armed combatants and therefore acceptable targets under the laws of war. 2607:FEA8:A4C0:75:A1EC:AF22:9665:3C95 (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)