Jump to content

Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


POV

[edit]

Nishidani: Giedon Levy's (or Amira Hass in simmlar contexts) quotes are not things to be taken seriously here in Wikipedia. Critisizm of a person for his actions to a man (or woman) holding a knife one meter from him, after some 200 people were stabbed in the last seven months is Giedon Levy's casual ultra-biased provocative statements to get atention from some guys in Sweden cause people in Israel hate him. His quotes may look nice in some pro-Palestinian-socialist blogs or a random Carlos Latuff (#Not_Anti_Semitic) picture portreyed in a shitty Mondoweiss article. Giedon Levy is a joke endorsed by people who just don't understand, as even the most left-wing people who read Haaretz think he is a joke and sould shut up already with his pathetic atempts to be provocative. Using jokes here as legitimate interpretation is POV.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this is a list article. It lists things we don't need to comment on every single one. Especially when it would be overkill to comment on every one, especially one that even the most anti-Israel person can see the cause for the shooting. You don't expect people to bend over backwards and let themselves be stabbed just because the person is a woman. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much time but I think these comments above are enough for a topic ban for Bolter21. Clearly way too emotionally involved/connected to the topic area, his comments are extremely and needlessly offensive. Sepsis II (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's another tool to get rid of pro-Israeli editors I guess. I guess you are not that familiar with Haaretz then if you think his comments offensive. Regardless, we don't use opinion pieces so why is it suddenly allowed here? Opinion pieces are not RS. If we are suddenly allowed to use opinions please let me know. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of Levy in this case is a violation of WP:RS, as per the rulings above, you can be blocked for putting it in, especially after it was removed. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Sepsis. Bolter is relatively new, but a very promising editor. He's let go with his feelings, as any of us have at the beginning, and occasionally later. It's true you can get such outbursts on a charge sheet (WP:BLP), but we don't do that unless the attitude is persistent. He hates Levy and Hass, and the feeling is widespread in Israel. Had he checked he would have seen that both have passed RS challenges here numerous times. Their approach, or values, are more or less those I and most of my generation grew up with, so what they say seems fairly straightforward and uncontroversial. In the Israeli/Palestinian context, extreme language is normal, you have Abbas fantasying rabbis poisoning wells, ministers mulling genocide for Gaza, or Bennett proposing to kidnap Palestinians in the occupied territories so they can exchange them for the corpses of 2 Israeli soldiers in Gaza etc. So, to someone like myself, what the Levys, Hasses, Sternhells, Ashermans, Shulmans, Vardis,(followed by a list of hundreds) say is quite normal thinking. In Israel it is, in context, extreme because it is normal, and 'normal' is abnormal when everyone to your right and left is screaming. I needn't have added the fact that Rabbi Mark's bereaved daughter told those yelling for vengeance at her dad's funeral to shut up. I needn't have added Levy. I added both because they are normal, decent, sane comments on topic in a toxic world.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this article should just have X happened, not X happened and Y says Z. We reported that the soldier shot a girl, that is what the list is for. Levy's comments are his own opinions and not needed in a list article. Same as comments about funerals, etc. If there were separate articles about the events, then Levy's comments might have a spot there, but not in a list. As it is now, both are very large entries, not suitable for a list. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A touch of humour is bad eh? I always like to say, when a person lacks the sense of humour, he is far beyond repair. I thought that my request to you, not to comment to me again, was supposed to make you try and be nicer in the future, I was wrong. Now seriously, if there is someone too emotionally involved/connected to the topic area, he is probably Gideon Levy. Not only that opinions have no place in this article (and I never thought about the idea of explaining the Israeli cause via opinions of pro-Israeli people), Giedon Levy is maybe the last person that needs to be seen in this list, when his comments are usually depicted as a Propaganda tool by Hamas and being critisized by pretty much everyone in the political specturm of Israel and not only by angry right wing supporters. Someone whose opinions are so controversial should not have a stage in a list of violent incidents. Commentary is not needed in this article, regardless of wether it was Giedon Levy, Amira Hass, Barukh Marzel, Hanin Zoabi or Orit Struk.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Nish, I have already used Amira Hass as a source. My problem is not with their works (Amira Hass does a fine job in being one of the most reliable Palestinian jounralists), my problem is their opinions.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Joking about shooting Palestinian girls and hating journalists who don't repeat the government's POV may be fine in Israel, but this isn't Israel. We can't just present one opinion, the official Israeli one that the girl tried to stab the soldier, we should present other one's too, that the girl tried to get herself shot. Eitherway, I will bring this horrible behavior matter to AE later.Sepsis II (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now you assume I am a Likud supporter. Which is funny. But you don't even worth the explaination. Oh and you should tell them I learned holocuast Jokes from my grandmother, I should tell you some one day, they are hillarious.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also like to joke about cancer, gays, rape victims, dead babies and AIDS.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sepsis, don't get angry at people who get angry, and only take AE measures as a very last resort, which is absolutely not the case here.
B. I wasn't responding to your joke, but the first comment. Aa to opinions: the IDF usually gives its version of events, and we report those. They are 'versions'. B'tselem's versions are also given, usually totally different from the IDFs, and we use them. Bystanders' reports are mentioned, and we use them. We have Netanyahu et al., making comments on specific incidents, and we use them (you do at the page you mainly edit:Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present). Amira Hass and Levy have throughout these articles been cited because they actually interview Palestinians to get their perspective. No one objected. As soon as Levy makes what happened to be exactly the same impression I had watching the video, you rush to censor it. I could make the same joke about dozens of Israeli shootings of people, one with a pencil, the other with a razor blade, about the quality of courage of such troops. I didn't. Levy's reading is one possible way of looking at the video. If you contrast it with the videos you have of real wild dangerous terrorists hacking at innocent Israelis (like the one you linked to) the contrast is extreme. A thug on a motorbike drove revving it straight at me, my wife, a friend and his wife over on a road in Siena 20 years ago, and they scattered, and fell. I stood my ground, and he had to veer. He jumped off his bike and strode towards me raging like a maniac. I took off my coat, and ran at him. He jumped on his motorbike and pissed of. I'm not brave, I just read the situation well. His power was in his leather jacket and the bike, one of that type that is tough in a crowd, but wilts if you call their bluff when they are on their own and many bystanders are watching. Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't 'mind' the joke. It's in bad taste in one sense, but black humour in the other, and I enjoy Carl Latuff and Monty Python on the crucifixion. But it throws no light on the edit issue. Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then go make your gay jokes over at Pulse nightclub shooting, for non-Israelis it'll be equally appropriate to what you've said here. Sepsis II (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that you are adding opinions and I am cencoring them. I think that stabbings by Palestinians are causing future Israeli soldier responses much more harsh and thus earlier attacks by Palestinians may have been one of the reasons why this woman is dead and I have opinion sources who say it but it won't have a place in this list. I don't like Hanin Zoabi, but I"ve added her opinion about the Israeli blockade of Yatta after the June 2016 Tel Aviv Shooting, becuase it was relevent in that article, but Gideon, or whoever you might bring, is not relevent to this list. Putting opinions in front of ignorent people usually cause them to believe to them immidiately. People actually thought Alor Azaria feared there was a bomb on a man with seven bullets in his upper body, because they were told. My reaction to your addition was loud because I honestly can't stand a word coming from Gideon's mouth, but I would revert it even if it was said by the mother of that woman or Barack Obama, or Shaul Arieli whom I generally agree with on most subjects concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And Spesis II, I like hyperboles, although I understand jokes go too far sometimes, just like your joke of me supporting the Likud.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would never accuse an editor of being a Likud supporter. Sepsis II (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, loosen up a bit, Sepsis. I once had a Lesbian girlfriend, who made an exception whenever my travels brought me her way. She took me to a homosexual party in LA, a cast of about 60, and it quickly emerged that I was the only 'straight' in the house. I was the only one not sniffing cocaine, and some even thought I might be an undercover agent (well, I sniffed two lines to calm their fears). Cracks about straight people flowed, so I quoted back two limericks my father told us:
From deep in the crypt at St. Giles
Came a roar that resounded for miles.
Said the rector, "Good gracious,
Has Father Ignatius
Forgotten the bishop has piles!?"
That got a laugh so I added:
Said a noble old sheikh of Algiers
To his harem one night,'My dears
You may think it odd of me,
For I do prefer sodomy
But tonight I'll be fucking.' Loud cheers.
No one was offended, even if they said you can't get away with that in 'straight society' in America.
Things are bad enough, without us complying with political correctness and losing all purchase on the real world, through humour, even black humour.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where I'm from we don't take too kindly to racists, the opposite reaction may occur where other editors originate but that doesn't mean we need to tolerate their hatred. Sepsis II (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As to 'stabbings by Palestinians are causing future Israeli soldier responses much more harsh', I have the opposite idea: a small number of Palestinians teenagers mostly are stabbing because 50 years of being pushed prodded humiliated and robbed at gunpoint by an army of occupation is beyond intolerable. That's no justification, it's cause and effect. But what you or I think is irrelevant. Levy, as Sepsis said, gave an informed, and not illogical, interpretation of a video of the incident. He is a qualified journalistic voice, more qualified than politicians, who are habitual and professional liars, or the IDF news handouts, which manage regularly to be comical in their ineptness at covering up state murders.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be nice to exclude both of our opinions, including opinions of others? The spesific one I talked about (which I found) was a comment to an attack from November, where a millitary commender said it is getting hard preventing mistakes by soldiers as in one hand they are told to suspect anyone becuase the attackers are almost always not only looking like civilians, but actually civilians, but on the other hand, it is hard to have them follow shooting instructions when they fear for their life as the daily reports including videos reach them. It was a critisizm of the media for helping terrorism by spreading it to as many people as they can, which according to that commendor, hurting the training of the soldiers to be cool in their environment. What I said was that some of my opinions have comentator saying them. Just becuase your idea is represented by Gideon Levy, doesn't mean it should be in the article, especially when this one represents a very clear POV statement. I have two concerns, the first is what we are telling are readers (in this case we are giving them one of the opinions expressed by a controversial man) and the second one is the existance of this article as a tool (hence, a list) and not a political analysis of the situation. We are talking incidents here, not the opinions on them and I prefer to trust our readers as inteligent enough to judge by themselves insteed of feeding them with opinions.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of our work are politically motiveted, for example me emphasasing that settlers reported about vandalism against Palestinians to the army, while you adding that a Palestinian doctor helped an Israeli victim of a shooting attack, but those are not opinions, those are facts.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of our 'facts' come from IDF reports, which are only trusted by the Israeli public and the American government. Numerous third parties find most of their accounts poppycock and raw lying. So, the news sources we give supply that, and news sources that provide other versions are required for balance. For the IDF it was a terror attacks, for me, Levy and many others, it was an invitation to get killed by a suicidal girl, in neither case have we 'facts' we have interpretations of a video that lends itself to either interpretation, or even both.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we have WP:TERRORIST.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani should be banned for his extreme anti-Semitism, which is displayed in the vile comments he made about the Jewish people on this discussion page and his open support for far-left traitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.78.141.187 (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV as edit summary

[edit]

Bolter, if you think a comment in the source should be excluded, when it is a factual statement, don't dismiss it in your edit summary as a POV. The comment cited from the source is not a POV, which means 'point of view' and which we employ to describe subjective judgments. That settlers are relatively immune (coming also under civil law) to the laws governing stone throwing is known, documented, and filmed (A Tale of Two Teens The Associated Press 20 April 2014). Youtube is full of soldiers standing by as they throw stones. Any Palestinian apprehended has to face military law, which doesn't apply to settlers.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is not POV, but the position of the fact in the articles (both Wikipedia and Ma'an) is directly to push the claim that "Palestinians are punished more for the same crimes Israelis make" which is POV. The statement is literally "POV pushing". And there is an explanation to why Palestinians are punished more than Israelis and I am not willing to discuss it now in this talk thread. All that is needed to be said is that this is a list of violent incidents and if you make a statement completetly out of the context of this spesific incident, where the incident description doesn't even mention that any Palestinian or Israeli were arrested, but just randomly flash the "oh by the way Israel is a biased scum", this is POV pushing. Even if there was a word on an arrest, you are not suppoed to tell someone a fact about law in Israel, when talking about an action that is limited to "someone of group A threw stones on someone from group B", you just don't. If there will be an incident where a settler throws a rock on a Palestinian vehicle, and the source will say that "according to the Shin Bet, for every Jews stone throwing incidet there are 20 more Palestinians", this will be POV pushing, because I am not trying to expand the knowlege of my readers but to simply leave a drop of POV there to automatically make people ignorant to the subject think "oh, so this is nothing". The fact, is strategically placed in the (Ma'an) article to remove any doubt about this incident, that Israel is the absolute evil here and the Palestinians are the absolute victims here. There is an incident of an Israeli man who commits a crime, some people might say "but this is just an Israeli person, this is not the whole population or the government", so to remove any attempt of thinking, Ma'an wants it to be clear, that not only the spesific settler is a criminal, but also Israel is biased in favour of him, to make sure you wouldn't think for a second that this is "only the settlers blame". In a nutshell, this is one of the basic methods of propaganda.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's an emotional outburst, and is overreading about potential consequences in the imagined readership (very few people read this kind of article). I just follow sources and sift them for facts. This is a fact. If a Palestinian home is demolished, and the article states Palestian homes without permitsIf some constituency is offended, or thinks a fact implies it is being blamed, that's their problem. Most of what we read is written to manipulate our sympathies one way or another. I first thought about this 9 years ago when I read that Hebron's Islamic tradition was intolerant and fundamentalist. The sources were excellent. I was trying to rewrite the article, which focused wholly on the Jewish history of Hebron, to show its Arabic side, and the majority of editors there were fiercely protective of the former. I can remember hesitating just a second before adding this 'fact' in, knowing it might play into the POV of the Israeli settler perspective, but I went ahead. I.e. I don't like withholding information even if it may appear to make a cause which I otherwise support, look bad. Crises persist for decades because generally we are taught not to think of the fundamental facts, but to get emotional about what might happen if we admit them (that the whole Palestinian government is run by cronies feathering their own nests), and start spinning, acting defensively, talking around things, and in generally, shifting the goalposts out of the field of reality and into the psychodramas of national mood manipulations. Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No this is not an emotional outburst. The fact is completely out of context and just because a low number of people read the article doesn't mean POV is ok there. I remember adding a sourced comment about an incident where "unknown" people hurled molotovs on the Hebrew University from the direction of Issawiya. Mainstream Israeli media never report anything beyond army reports and when the army says "unknown" they don't know who threw the stones. No one disputes those were Arabs, but the army doesn't simply say what it does not know. So I wrote a sentence that was written in the source, that there were many simmilar incidents in the past where Palestinians hurled rocks and molotov from Issawiya on and near the Hebrew University. This is in my opinion a comment that is not POV, becuase it is in the context. I remember there was a report about the destruction of a house in the South Hebron Hills and there was a comment that said that this spesific village expirianced some 50 demolishions in the past decade. This is completely in context. But to talk about how Israel deal according to law with stone throwers in general, while there is no relation to the spesific incident, this is out of context, becuase if it is in context, you"ll have to write it in simply every incident of stone throwings, and that's POV. I told you this in the past, this is a list of violent incidents, not a list of "Israel is shit" incidents.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If at this point you are reading my edits as part of an 'Israel is shit' drive, I'll revert back to what I wrote.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read your edits as propaganda, I read the listed fact in your sources as propaganda. If the fact was not in the given source and you gave a source of your own, it was with no doubt part of an "Israeli is shit" drive. I am generally talking about not extracting the propaganda piece from the article. As you"ve seen in my previous comments, when I talked about propaganda, I referred to Ma'an, not to you. You are saying that because this is in the source, you added this and I say that this is the part of the source that shouldn't be extracted, especially in the context of this article. I feel ultra-biased because I don't have the simmilar example from an Israeli source but what Ma'an is doing here is exactly what Arutz Sheva is doing and this is why it is blacklisted.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facts aren't propaganda, I cited that fact directly from the Ma'an article, which, after giving the details of the incident, added what is (I could provide dozens of sources for this kind of statement) a factual observation. Ma'an is as neutral or aneutral as Ynet, The Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz.
Were you able to show that Ma'an's mention of this 'fact' was flawed, or biased, you would have a case. Since it is impossible to deny that such a differential treatment exists (sure, Palestinians throw far more stones, hence Palestinians receive more indictments). But as one of dozens of articles I cited (from Haaretz) in support of the factuality of Ma'an's note shows, the difference exists, just as it does in all aspects of law enforcement regarding settlers vs. Palestinians. Finally, this is not about 'Israel' (hence I have been scrupulous in avoiding any mention of incidents of conflict, demolitions etc. in the Negev, regarding Bedouins. That is, for better or worse, an internal Israeli matter). It is about Israel-in-the Palestinian territories, a place most Israelis do not frequent.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the fact isn't propaganda. The position of the fact is propaganda. Ma'an is not lying, but just making a statement to do what I already explained.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I added has precedents.

'They add that this was, in their view, another of dozens of extrajudicial killings of Palestinians, who could otherwise have been detained without lethal measures, in the past 3 months.'July 1 2016

Ma'an added 2 facts. B'telem was used for a fact, and a POV, POV because Israel would certainly challenge the idea that extrajudicial killings happen). There was no objection, perhaps because you think B'tselem more authoritative than Ma'an. It's really late over there, young man. I sometimes worry you aren't getting enough sleep. Of course it's Saturday and, at your age, in the predigital era, I usually drank all night till dawn, and then got up at 8 am. But computer screens do far more damage than drinking, don't they?Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this statement, althouhg I WP:DONTLIKEIT, it is somewhat fine. I wanted to say something, but I had nothing to say, which really implys that this is really just don't like it. And yes, as much as I do have some feelings toward B'tselem, I would say that the absolute majority of their work is legitimate with no doubt, and as they are an information center, I tend to look at their information, and not opinions. And since I finished school and stopped working I find myself awake until 2-4AM, but only to wake up at 12-14PM the next day, so its really not a problem.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arutz Sheva by convention is not used for facts

[edit]

Bolter you are trying to get Arutz Sheva as a source of facsts back into the page. It's been generally agreed, over the decade that we don't use it for that end. No regular editor cites it. You admit above that it is 'blacklisted' saying so is Ma'an. Ma. Only Arutz Sheva faiuls to get consensus. You have at your disposal roughly 8 or 9 Israeli sources, in Hebrew and English that no one objects to, so there is no justification for using that contentious mouthpiece.It's bnoth inept and provocative to cite it, as you did here, when a mainstream Israeli newspaper no one objects to as a source covers precisely the same content.Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the source then. At that moument Arutz Sheva was the only English source. I don't add incidents reported by Arutz Sheva if they are not reported by any other mainstream media like Ynet and Walla! in Hebrew. I just don't like translating reports from Hebrew to English. Walla! is the only source you can find incidents from the past while in Ynet you need to search for them in Google and for Haaretz, you can't really link brief reports. So Walla! is the only way to report small incidents in Hebrew. I saw that Arutz Sheva usually report pretty much the same thing Walla! reports in English and therefore I think it is better to use the English source. I still see Ma'an as as reliable as Arutz Sheva, with its very biased language in its reports, as well as giving a large weight to "local reports" than to actual police reports, making it as reliable as sources like "The Jewish Voice", which reports some 10-15 rock throwing incidents every day, through "local reports".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I never read Arutz Sheva. I only started using it when there are no reports in English. If Arutz Sheva will report something contradictory to an Hebrew source of Ynet or Walla!, I would not write it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Ma'an can be used then I see no reason why Arutz Sheva can't be used. It's funny how you try to put down a source while you use Ma'an as your primary source for most of these events. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Arutz Sheva can't be used, I really don't know why there is a problem using it when it contains no more factual material than the "Nishidani-recognized" Israeli sources in Hebrew. If Walla! says in Hebrew that "an Israeli bus driver was lightly injured from glass shreds in highway 1 between Jerusalem and Ma'ale Adumin when Palestinian hurled rocks and paint bottles at an empty bus", why does it matter when Arutz Sheva reports the same thing?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources in our wiki sense for half of what I learn from websites that I think are informative, but whose reports never get into mainstream newspapers. I do not try to use those sources, which means a lot of stuff is left out. Stiff cheddar. We have a 10 to 1 bias sourcewise in Israel's favour with regard to reportage, so using Arutz Sheva is overegging the systemic bias, even if it reports what the mainstream omits, as do many of my Palestinian sources. I refrain from using those Palestinian activist sources, and I expect a gentlemanly agreement to do the same with Arutz Sheva.Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arutz Sheva does not report anything that doesn't reach mainstream media in our content. While Ynet in English is poor in it's new briefs, Walla! has no English version and Haaretz's news briefs can't be referenced, Arutz Sheva can be used when it reports something already reported in Israeli mainstream media. And I don't know why do you think Palestinians are the only ones who have unreported reality. Right now I was reading about a group of Arabs who, during the current Muslim holiday, made a parade in night at Tiberias, shouting "Palestine" and later vandalizing the hotel, but it wasn't yet reported on any mainstream media and probably won't be. So? I already asked in the past the stop this list because of this reason, but I am only here to counter the news about Palestinians, when there are news from the Israeli side that are not reported.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'State land'

[edit]

That's Israqel's POV,m fine. But when you write that the destruction of an orchard wasn't anything of the kind (enforcement measures were carried out against an individual trespassing state land, after warrants were issued before carrying out such enforcement measures.” - in other words, not a violent incident, just like settlement structures are being razed) because it was trespass on state land, you are identifying the Israeli state's POV with a fact. No country in the world accepts that nonsense. There ios no such entity as Israeli state land in the West bank except in Israel's POV. That qualification is disputed not only by the world, but by the local Palestinian population. Israel can uproot, demolish, destroy, raze, anything it likes because it is the military power, but that does not mean that ipso facto, this is not damage to Palestinian property or livelihoods. In any case, hundreds of entries over 3 years customarily follow that rule. You can put the Israeli POV in, but you cannot uyse it to erase the Palestinian or International POV-.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not exactly the case, in the past I told you that this is a "list of violent incidents in hte I/P conflict" and not an "Israeli is shit incidents". This is not an article about what the international POV, this is an article about violent incidents. One might say, that settlements are part of the conflict, and should Israel (finally) destroy Amona and Netivei Avot, which were built on Palestinian private land, this would constitue, as a violent incident, should you consider such actions against Palestinians, as violent incidents. One might also say, that "Privately owned Palestinian lands" are Palestinian POV, and that the West Bank is lawfully Israeli because the UN said so in 1946 and according to the UN charter no one can cancel the rights of nations, and the UN agreed that the Jews, who are a nation, have a right for the West Bank, and under international law, the occupation of the West Bank, is the implemention of the Balfur Declaration and the LoN mandate, which according to some, still have legal significance. Arugments can go as far as claiming Israel is ruled by the Illuminati, but the point is, we are not here to debate wether Israel's action was legal or not in the eyes of the United Nation, we are here to docuement violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Should we change the name of the article to a version that includes "Israeli violations of human rights"?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that the West Bank is lawfully Israeli because the UN said so in 1946 and according to the UN charter no one can cancel the rights of nations, and the UN agreed that the Jews, who are a nation, have a right for the West Bank, and under international law, the occupation of the West Bank, is the implemention of the Balfur Declaration and the LoN mandate, which according to some, still have legal significance

I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. That's totally, wildly unfocused.
Please drop the 'Israel-is-shit' language. If you are going to read the way I edit as motivated by that smearing crap, then you are joining a long crowd of mostly banned POV incendiaries.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a article about legality. This is an article about violent incidents. Destroying orchards because the exceed what the current authority regarded as a "state land" is not a violent incident. If it is, the same would be applied to outposts built on private Palestinian land. And no, I am not trying to include settlement structures in the list, I am trying to keep this list a list of violent incidents.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're contradicting yourself because you erased mention of an act viewed by its victims as 'violent' on the specious grounds that in Israeli military law it is not violence, but the application of a law. That is totally self-contradictory. Destroying a local person's livelihood by bulldozing an orchard he has looked after for 12 years is, to everyone but some Israelis, and the Israeli legal wizards, and the IDF, an act of violence (the definition of violence includes in our articles all property damage - you yourself add that constantly. So you can add the Israeli POV, the fantasy that it is 'state land', but you cannot use it as a pretext to wipe out the Palestinian/International view that Israel has no legal entitlement to that land, What you were doing was unbalancing the text to allow only the Israeli perspective to govern what is, and what is not violent.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The residents of Amona are living there for 21 years. This is their home for 21 years. Is it violence to destroy someone's orchard according to the martial law, but no violence when destroying someone's house according to the martial law? Especially when we are talking about private Palestinian land, according to your logic, every structure destroyed by Israel in the West Bank, which is on private Palestinian land, is a violent incident, just like destroying an orchard, built on "state land". The main reason why destruction of settlement structures are not mentioned in the media is becuase the Palestinians don't want the world to know that Israel destroys settlement structures, the army doesn't want the Israelis to know it is destroying settlement structures and the right wing parties in the government don't want to take responsibility for the actions, which are done on their behalf, since they are part of the government. On the other hand, destroying Palestinian orchards benefit the Palestinians in fund raising, so they do mention it in media from time to time.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The residents of Amona like Ofra and several scores of other settlements just walked in under military escort and plunked down houses on land with explicit Palestinian title. Israel is bound by an I nternational convention not to transfer its population into the occupied areas. That is law. The rest is just as Israeli jurists, and the IDF's own legal officers openly admit. Keep breaking what you know to be international law, and eventually it will be modified and retroactively justify all of of your witting violations. The most blatant example is Susya. Even experts who normally give advise to evict endorse their title. They have full legal title. It's been accepted and proven by Israel's foremost authorities. What is the military administration doing? Destroying it, destroying their lives, for two generations.David Reisner, legal advisor to the IDF put it thus:

'What we are seeing now is a revision of international law, ..If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that [is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries, Yotam Feldmanand Uri Blau, 'Consent and advise,' Haaretz 29 January, 2009

He's wrong of course, not thinking a second to realize the implications: i.e., if enough countries undertake genocide it will be permissible eventually in international law. Jeezus. Well, they didn't tell me that in school either. 60 years down the road. . . Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

[edit]

This list makes heavy use of the Ma'an News Agency; many listed incidents are sourced exclusively to Ma'an. Like other new sources controlled by political parties and authoritarian governments in territories that, like the Palestinian Authority territories, lack a free press, Ma'an can be used to source government statements, and - with extreme caution - on other matters. But it cannot be used as the sole source supporting facts or establish that an incident took place.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it tomorrow. I've used it for 3 years. Your objection is meaningless, unless retaliatory. At 2016 Jerusalem shooting attack Fox News, The Express Tribune (Pakistan), WAFA (The news agency of the PNA!!!!), Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the . Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Indian Express and Gulf News for your 'facts'. So you are contradicting your own practice. Bolter21 doesn't like Ma'an either. But I don't like The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, or Ynet either. I accept them, as anyone who understands WP:NPOV accepts, if grudgingly from the other POV, Ma'an, which is the only non-PNA free news organ representing the Palestinian perspective. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel are RS. i.e. they fact check and are widely respected. Their new articles can be used to source facts. I used an article in The Indian Express that was from the AFP wire. And Gulf News as a stipulated opinion. Just as we can cite Ma'an for opinion and commentary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not, however, source facts exclusively to news sources comparable to Ma'an. Let alone use the as the sole source to claim that notable incidents took place. Also note that Ma'an is not comparable to professional news media in a country where civil rights - not to mention the freedom to publish - are protected by the rule of law. Journalists in the PA controlled territories, sadly, are in a position similar to those in China, Russia, Pakistan... most of the world. There is a great deal of stuff they cannot write, and a great many un- and half-truths they must tell. Their sources can no more afford to speak than they can. Did you, perhaps notice, the many reporters for the most reliable international media in Thailand explained that they could not explain what was going on re: the heir apparent to the throne because in Thailand they arrest you for that. We want better for the Arab world, but until we have it, Ma'an has to be used with caution.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me several examples from the articles used on these pages since 2014 where Ma'an deliberately distorts the known record on incidents, and I might take your argument seriously. Otherwise it is just an abstract objection Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly abstract. The problem is that multiple alleged incidents on this and sister lists are sole sourced to Ma'an. Wikipedia cannot have a list that asserts as fact a long series of incidents that are sole sourced to Ma'an.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a list of incidents. In order to be in such a list, ever individual incident needs to be reliably sourced. All incidents sourced solely to Ma'an need to have at least one RS added - something like The Guardian or Haaretz. If such cannot be found, the assertion cannot stay on Wikipedia since if it happened and was encyclopedic, there would be sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the office of the papacy, with its infallibie ex cathedra statements, is already occupied by another chap, and even sundry obiter dicta have no place on wikipedia. You replied to none of my requests above, so this conversation ends here unless you wish to pursue it at a board, RS/N etc.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maan has been found to be reliable at RS/N. A user who has used among the most garbage sources I have seen in this topic area doesnt like it does not in any way change that. Maan is a reliable source. nableezy - 15:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I have a long file of RS sources that in turn use Ma'an for facts. Anyone can google this up and verify it. If you want to go to RS/N and rerun it, I'll provide a dozen optimal sources testifying that it is independent, critical of the PNA, of Hamas, foreign-funded, and regarded in Israel and the diaspora, by journalists and scholars alike, as an important source for insider information on the Palestinian territories. It beats Al Quds by far in using independent reportage etc. It's a closed case. The evidence is overwhelming. Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope those RS are not Mondoweiss. Anyway I don't oppose Ma'an as unreliable, but I think it should be used with caution. Ma'an is much more millitant than Arutz Sheva. Ma'an News in Arabic is used by many Israeli analysists for the Palestinian agenda, but the version in English talks almost exclusively about Israeli actions and the suffering of Palestinians, which is not what I usually see in Ynet or Arutz Sheva in English. All of the Israeli reliable sources (Ynet, Walla!, Haaretz, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post etc.) base their information on police/army reports and never on "local reports", like Ma'an does. It is one of the criticism against them, as sources like 0404 and HaKolHaYehudi use local reports, and report around 5-10 incidents per day, but are not showcased by mainstream media, because they are not coming from any official source. Back in 2014 I made a blog, showing news from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I tried to be as neutral is I can. One time I was comparing two reports, one from Ma'an and one from Ynet, showcasing a clash in the West Bank. According to Ynet, one soldier and three Palestinians were injured, while according to Ma'an, 10 were injured "According to Israeli spokesperson", while "local reports" say 20 were injured. It was the time I lost faith in Ma'an. Then I entered the Ma'an source in Arabic, and I realised Ma'an is just another propaganda site, like most of the Palestinian newspapers, when they described a stabber as a hero fighting the "Israeli occupation forces". Currently the most reliable Palestinian souce I know is Amira Hess. (Maybe Al-Monitor, but they are mostly talking about the society and not the "important stuff").--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Im mistaken Ma'ans English edition is cited, which is often cited by the NY Times and other such reliable sources. nableezy - 03:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no comparison between Arutz Sheva, which caters to two of the most malinformed constituencies in Israel, and Ma'an is not focused on a political constituency, and has been suspended by Hamas and the PNA. I find reading all of the Israeli reportage on this as tough as you find Ma'an. To an outsider like myself, the language of their reportage, duly copied and pasted abroad, is Orwellian, and I'm not alone in that. They depend on, as you note, army reports. Waal, if you'd lived through the Vietnam war, and every succeeding war since then down to Iraq, and followed up the subsequent analyses of how western communities were deliberately misinformed by the political and military powers and the mainstream press, you should know that newspapers relying on 'embedded' coverage retailing official army reports are useless. The IDF reports are bumf, mainly. Ma'an will often cite 'initial' and 'later' official Israeli reports, and they diverge widely. This is not done generally in the English language Israeli press. No one should every paraphrase an army or policed report weithout attribution and independent on the spot journalistic verification, and this is rare. Lastly, the Israeli English newspapers cover about 5-10% of what happens to Palestinians. As top i njury differe ntials, Israeli reports clump everything as a wound or injury, even if it is shock, or a bandaid-level graze of a fragment of glass from a smashed window, or a whiff of teatgas. Ma'an does the same, it includes gas inhalation (the Border police, watch any video use toxic showering of protests, and you do need m edical help if you breathe that in. I don't report it generally) If some Israeli or Jewish interest is not affected, it doesn't generally get reported. I'm surprised people nitpick on this: you nhave 1 Palesatinian source, vs 6/7 we accept as RS ftom as variety of Israeli perspective. The dice a cogged, but I don't whinge.I do protest at people who insist that even that one Palestin ian source is to be eliminated, so that what we know of the on the ground realities is to be measured only through Israeli interests, i.e. WP:Systemic bias. You do0n't like the tone of Ma'an? I can understand that. I am disgusted by the vast hothouse of stupid thoughtless clichés in the parallel Israeli reportage. What does one do? One reads for facts. Meaning, with Ma'asn you read the first 4 sentences ands ignore the background paras below that churn out the same context time and again, just as I ignore the emotional hysteria scaffolded on the basic language of 'terrorism' and its suspects under every rug, in every angle of every ransacked house every night, and try to get the facts. Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't oppose the use of Ma'an, but I think it should be treated with caution, not that it matters.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harrasment.

[edit]

Back in the day, I remember @you told me that incidents that do not result in any injury or damage to property, should not be included, and that you don't care much about "bus drivers who get scratched by glass". Now I ask you, why does a report on harrasment by settlers and "attempted" stealing, according to what "locals said", with a "video" showing a soldier talking to an Arab person, while 10 kids stand around, and apart from some super strong language like "Get out!" responed by "I don't want to leave" and then the kid tell the man "you are garbage" and the man respond by "don't take to me like that, all of your family is garbage", and the soldiers are standing in between, thinking about their Thailand vacation, nothing really happene, should be in this list?(<- too complicated sentence I know) Should I include incidents of stone/molotov throwing that resulted in no injuries or damage to property? Or for instance, incidents where Palestinians were arrested with knives, admitting they wanted to attack soldiers but were arrested without any use of fatal weapons? Cause if not, I think that "harrasment" does not meet the standard of this article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2018

[edit]

wsas > was 2605:E000:1301:4462:74DB:E72B:AD6F:6FA1 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Danski454 (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_violent_incidents_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_July–December_2016&oldid=1201584850"