Talk:Moshe Dayan's eulogy for Ro'i Rothberg

Useless sources

Polemic newspaper articles are very unreliable sources of history. To wit: "In April, 1956 Rotberg was patrolling the edge of the border area between the kibbutz and Gaza, then part of Egypt. Because the area was an internationally delineated no-man's-land in which no weapons were permitted, he was unarmed. He was accosted and kidnapped by four armed fedayeen, taken across the border, and tortured." The facts: Gaza was never part of Egypt. There was no no-mans-land on the Gaza-Israel border, only restrictions on military bases. There were no restrictions on civilians being armed, and as the kibbutz main security officer on patrol it is stupid to imagine he wasn't armed. He wasn't kidnapped, and wasn't taken across the border to be tortured, he was shot off his horse, shot again, and his body was dragged across the border. Zero^talk 09:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

The very first sentence does not look so very correct, grammatically speaking. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Reworking

Per AFD, this should be refocused on Dayan's eulogy. We can retain the information on the killing as a "Background" section. What should the new title be? Moshe Dayan's Gaza eulogy? Is there a particular line that seems to have made it into public consciousness? (I'm looking at Category:Speeches for titling inspiration.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• note the AFD was withdrawn by nominator after my expansion of the original article. There was no consensus to remove large sections of material or to move the title. I will try to achieve neutrality here.ShulMaven (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The whole reason the nomination was withdrawn was because every user other than you agreed that the speech was notable, even though the incident itself was not. I'm going to restore it back to the version that focuses on the topic that users agreed was notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Er, 1 editor agreed with you. 2 others did not opine on this topic. I disagreed with you. the the Nom withdrew the AFD. Let's stick to the facts, shall we? and include more of the facts you have deleted in the article.ShulMaven (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus to gut and completely change the article in the AfD (which was very brief because: withdrawn by Nom). What is in fact happening here is that Roscelese, who argued to have article deleted, failed to get her way, and is now hijacking an article about a notable death that led to a notable eulogy and turning it into an article about a eulogy. Effectively AfD by other means.ShulMaven (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of NPOV tag.

The article at this moment is basically a lie. Poor Israelis only wanted to farm the land, and the evil Fedayeen just wanted to kill them No mention that the vast bulk of "infiltrators" were unarmed farmers who sough to reap crops on the land that was recently stolen from them. No mention of the fact that many (thousands in total) of these unarmed infiltrators were shot dead. No mention of the large amount of violence across the border in the other direction. Well, the tag is temporary because the article will be fixed. Zero^talk 08:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I just made an edit unrelated to any POV issues, intended to refocus the article on the eulogy for notability/focus purposes. Did it happen to assuage your concerns, or are there other edits that you feel should be made? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is that the event is written in the context of fedayeen attacks, but it wasn't in that context at all. The fedayeen attacks were almost irrelevant and there is no evidence at all that fedayeen (meaning, the Palestinian intruders sponsored by Egyptian intelligence) had anything to do with it. The correct context was that the kibbutzim along the border were in a constant battle against the Palestinians exiled in Gaza who crossed back across the border to reap the crops and pasture their sheep. Until the article reflects that context, it is misleading. I will make a big edit soon. Zero^talk 01:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Article is well-sourced, neutral. Editors Zero and Roscelese brought no sources to the article or the argument, merely a POV. I will take this POV vandalism to the NPOV discussion board if they persist.ShulMaven (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• I don't see this as a POV issue. And the recent effort to AfD it, I note, was closed as a speedy keep. Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Good to have an additional opinion from an experienced editor. Zero, there are in fact multiple sources. Unless you want to tag tish artiles asking other editors to weigh in, I suggest taht we handle this by adding sources and material, instead of by tagging it and deleting sourced material. I ask that you will now remove the POV tag.ShulMaven (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Removed NPOV tag after working to make article well-sourced and NPOV.ShulMaven (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Title

This article began as Killing of Roi Rotberg an article about an Israeli murdered by fedayeen, who was honored with a large funeral at which a memorable eulogy was delivered. In this form it surived a brief AfD, brief because the article was improved and Nom withdrew it. At that point 2 of the editors who argued strongly for "delete" in the AfD, came to this page, deleted background information about rising tensions that led to a visit by journalist I.F.Stone, deleted infor about the importance of the funeral attended and written up by Leon Uris, deleted info about the memorial built to honor the man who was murdered, and changed the title to Moshe Dayan Eulogy. I have now restored much of the deleted information, rewritten the title to achieve NPOV and to include both the notable death and the notable eulogy. Death and Eulogy of Roi Rotberg. Previous titles redirect.ShulMaven (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this POV-pushing and article ownership and I think you should abide by the observations of the other users at the AfD, who noted that it was the eulogy, not the murder, that was notable. You must not let your emotional investment in the issue of Arabs killing Israelis interfere with your adherence to policy and consensus. Before I bring this issue to a wider forum, I'd like to give you the opportunity to restore the better version of the article from before. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That AfD lasted for 2 days before it was withdrawn and involved 4 editors and the Nom, of which 1 editor agreed with you. I continue to assert that both the death (its causes, context) and its impact (a funeral important enough to draw the Chief of Staff as eulogist) are important and ought not to be obliterated by converting this into an article exclusively about the eulogy. The eulogy is important. Which is why I have included both the eulogy and the death in the current, NPOV title and article. But, if you must, then start appropriate conversations here re: your deletion of much/most of the contents of an article, well-sourced material about the situation of the kibbutz at the time, about the killing, and about the amount of national attention focused on the funeral, even about your deletion of the fact that Leon Uris attended.ShulMaven (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rotberg does not inherit notability from notable people like Uris. If his death were notable, sources would be covering it, instead of focusing almost exclusively on the eulogy, sometimes with a couple of lines about the death for context. [1][2][3][4][5], etc. Appeals to how special and amazing the death was have no place at Wikipedia, because to determine notability, we use reliable sources, not editors' personal interest. Please abide by the decision of every other keep user in the AfD (myself, DGG, Zero0000, who all explicitly supported keeping the article because of the eulogy and not because the death was notable. Remember that you do not own this article and do not exercise veto power over anyone's changes, including removals of content that does not belong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be best to improve the article by adding well-sourced material about the meaning of the eulogy, rather than by deleting material.ShulMaven (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not both? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said there, and as was generally agreed, the focus should on the eulogy. But I think the current title "Death and Eulogy of Roi Rotberg" is hopelessly awkward. The simple "Death of Roi Rotberg" would seem better, and in line with our general way of writing titles. It's the contents that needs the focus. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Death of Roi Rotberg certainly simple and clear. I like it.ShulMaven (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned about the title, but I'd like to alert you to the rest of DGG's comment. Do not take his/her proposed shortening of the title as an endorsement of your focus of the article on the non-notable event. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Confusing scope

It needs to be decided what this page is about: a biography, a page about a death, or a page about a eulogy. Currently it has no main focus, either in the title or in the structure of the page itself. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I totally disagree. It is exactly what the title implies. Background sections are part of every good article, and it's especially useful where its content is not covered by other Wiki articles so a link wouldn't do it.

This topic is a point of reference in the I/P conflict and deserves some space. No surprise it's being scrutinised since the Hamas massacre of 7 Oct. and the ensuing bombardment of Gaza, when POV and rage take over. But it shouldn't, not in the proposed manner.

To state the obvious, even if redundant: the point of interest is Dayan's eulogy, but nobody can understand a eulogy after a murder w/o learning its details and something about the deceased and the wider circumstances of his death. Arminden (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, as a further illustration of the problem, the title emphasises "death" as one of the key facets of the page, and yet, on the page, there is not even a section on death separated from "background" - so which is it? Is the death just background? So is the subject a eulogy? Or is the subject partly the death, and if so, why is it not better delineated like a notable death would be? And FYI, I arrived here simply because it popped up in my feed, and, immediately upon arrival, I observed some pretty odd conventions on the page. Hence the tag. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Arminden: If you want to say something like this, say it, don't embed it in an edit summary. Also, not very complicated. It was on my watchlist already, and somebody edited today. Simple. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Legacy needed in body

There's a brief sentence in the lead of the impact/significance of this eulogy, but nothing on it in the body. If the eulogy is significant, a section on this after the presentation of the eulogy is the most obvious current omission. The material in the lead needs at least some corresponding material in the body, per MOS:LEAD. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure. There's a source there, so go ahead. I don't expect to have the time, sorry. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Scope and title

My take on the discussion above. Rothberg was not in himself notable enough for an article, nor was his death a notable event. The eulogy for him would also not be notable except for the combination of two essential factors: (1) Moshe Dayan gave it, (2) the extraordinary things he said. This combination gave the eulogy a long life, with repeated references in reliable sources that persist today. This would not have happened if some random nobody had delivered the eulogy, nor would it have happened if Dayan had only said boring stuff. So I think the title should be something like "Moshe Dayan's eulogy for/of Ro'i Rothberg". The circumstances of Rothberg's death would fit into a Background section. Zero^talk 23:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

A titular reference to Dayan (over the death) would make quite a bit of sense. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Zero's title proposal. The circumstances of RR's death are already in a section called "Background".

What I do miss is an analysis of Dayan's speech, which is full of metaphors and references which are quite opaque to people not closely envolved with Zionism and the Bible (although: who apart from those would end up here? But still.), and some data of how this eulogy remained a point of reference in Israel. But this has been said before and nothing was done about it. Anyway, this I would find by far more significant than changing the title. I am sure that if one searches for Dayan +eulogy +Rothberg, he would end up here very fast anyway, so the title issue is an academic, not a substantive one. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Correction: the death was part of the Background section, but I've left it outside of it, in its own Incident section, precisely because of the title. So yes, interconnected. And yes, still marginal compared to the missing analysis & impact discussion. Arminden (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 and Arminden, do you both agree with "Moshe Dayan's eulogy for Ro'i Rothberg" as a title? If so, I will change it. Zero^talk 13:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that change in emphasis lends better clarity and is an improvement, yes. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you.

The next thought should be about redirects, to have it done properly:

• Ro'i Rothberg's name, in all the common variations. I don't know if there are other notable people by that name, needs some searching.
• Whatever you might think of. I checked "Nahal Oz ambush 1953" and it didn't bring up anything.

Thanks. Arminden (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Why so many tags?

Hi @Professor Penguino: To the already extant tag, you have added another 2. Please elaborate.

Now we have 3 tags:

• Multiple issues
• Confusing
• Unencyclopedic tone

Several major issues have been spelled out here on the talk-page. There is a lot of work to be done - do you feel up to it? However, the unelaborated collection of tags seems less than constructive to me, and considering the usual Wiki quality standards, a bit over the top.

What exactly is confusing?

What do you mean by "unencyclopedic tone"?

Thanks, Arminden (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I did not add the “confusing” template. I added the template about the article’s tone because I thought that the tone of the article could be a little bit more encyclopedic. I have been working on some changes in my Notes app that might make it clearer to readers. I simply added the “Multiple issues” tag because there was more than one area the article could be improved in. I can come back to you soon. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

An example: in the lede, “calling upon Israel to search its soul and probe the national mindset” is not very encyclopedic, although it would be very good in, say, a personal essay. If this is how the speaker put it themselves, then it should be attributed as such and/or put in quotes with a reliable source. I think the article is pretty good, actually. I just think it can be improved. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Topic is EULOGY. Not 1956 events, IDF massacres, etc.

@BubbleBabis: hi. I can see what bugs you. It is fully legit to place that material on a page which actually deals with the 1956 events, first Israeli occupation of Gaza, Arab casualties, IDF massacres for all I care; but here we have a narrowly defined topic: what Moshe Dayan said at one specific funeral. The rest (background, aftermath) only creates the immediate frame, or else nobody would know what Dayan was talking about, with his metaphores and biblical references. So no, what you've added can be used elsewhere, but here it's the wrong place.

Once you've placed it where it belongs, you can and probably should link it here, I guess under "See also". I'm placing your material here below.

the IDF perpetrated the massacres of Kafr Qasim, of Khan Yunis and of Rahah, killing hundreds of Palestinian civilians under the claim of a search for Fedayeen fighters.

According to Jean-Pierre Filiu, the process of identifying 'fedayin' was inexact, it sufficing to have a picture of Nasser on one's wall to become suspect, or be arrested because one had a similar name to someone on Shin Bet's suspect list.

Cheers, Arminden (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Translation

The translation of the Eulogy has several deficiencies which should be amended. I am not able to edit the translation because I don't have extended-protected status; hopefully someone with such status can apply the edits.

The translation "Why should we declare their burning hatred for us?" does not make sense; a better translation would be "Why should we complain about their burning hatred for us?"

The translation "The young Roi who left Tel Aviv" deviates from the source for no apparent reason; the translation should be closer to the source: "Roi Rothberg – the thin blond boy, who left Tel Aviv"

The translation "was blinded by the light in his heart" might flow well in English, but a more literal translation "the light in his heart blinded his eyes" is preferable because it better captures the allusion to the Biblical character Samson, whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines. Nor3gbl (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)