Talk:2014 Gush Etzion kidnapping and murder/Archive 3

Arab Media Response
We should have a section on the Arab media response. For instance, the despicable cartoon of three rats with skullcaps on Fatah's facebook page. --monochrome _ monitor  22:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Thoughts?


 * Fatah's facebook page is not a media outlet. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If RSs cover Arab media response (or Fatah or Hamas or Israeli response), that would appear to be appropriate to reflect -- pointing to the coverage in the RSs.

--Epeefleche (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Fatah and the Palestinian Authority's statements and depictions of events (as per RS) whatever media they use are important enough to go in the lead. I am adding them now. Wikieditorpro (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think introducing claims directly in the lead based on assertions by Israeli Hasbara groups like Palwatch is particularly helpful or likely to lead to an encyclopaedic coverage of the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are reliable as per WP:RS. (And regardless of how you describe them, Palwatch has a long record of accurately documenting the Palestinian Media.)
 * The reaction of the Palestinian Authority and Fatah as documented by the RS's are as important as the reaction of Abbas himself. Wikieditorpro (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't go into the lead. Unless you wish to get over the idea that this is the PNA key fact, while the other congruent facts that (a) the PNA gave Shib Beit, as often, its key breakthroughs (the car and the fact that two of the Qawasme tribe were suspiciously missing within a day of the kidnapping) are mere details to be buried below. You are doing the POV-pushing, and making unilateral declarations of intent and acting on them immediately, before due discussion should not be done on a page like this.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is well documented as per RS's. According to the source mentioned here and later, "The president of the Palestinian Authority stands alone in the face of bipartisan support for the kidnapping of Israelis".
 * Given the opposition to Abbas from his own ranks, It is POV to portray the view of only Abbas himself as the view of all non-Hamas Palestinians. Wikieditorpro (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not an explanation of what you have done. You have (a) done a blanket revert of my edit, while explaining your objection is to just one of 4 significant alterations I made to the page.
 * (a) The blanket revert restored to the lead a POV-pushing piece of cherry-picking as if it were the major feature of the article, which it is not. (The material appeared on a number of Facebook and web sites and was picked up by Palwatch, circulated by Aritz Sheva and then splattered across the internet, but generally ignored by mainstream media from 13-16 of June. The lead gathers the synthesis of events over three weeks: what the lead should say of this is that Abbas stood alone against dissent within the PA/PNA and Palestinian society, as both Elhanan Miller notes (the situation for him is impossible: back Israel against his own society translates into being a Quisling: defend his society, and he is a terrorist). It is also relevant that reports refer that Palestinian opinion has said the kidnappings may be rigged (stupid), that Israel exploits them to destroy both Hamas and the Unity Government; that 640 Palestinians have been arrested, 2,100 houses and buildings ransacked, over a hundred casualties from tear-gas and rubber bullets, and 8 dead, with also the tail-end story of Muhammad Hussein Abu Khdeir which may be settler revenge, or it may be clan vendetta, but it a consequence of the kidnapping like the 'collateral' deaths. Of this nothing, while unilaterally, without substantive debate, and two editors disagreeing, you edited the lead, indifferent to consensual rational construction.
 * (b) You blind revert was so egregiously indifferent to details that you restored for that 4 sources, 2 of which are identical (Elhanan's article is twice mentioned. You didn't see that. (ii)The other source Arutz Sheva is not considered valid for facts, (iiI)the Australian Jewish Weekly picked this up from Palwatch and Aritz Sheva.
 * (c) This material is covered by serious analysts, Elhanan Miller and Justin Scott Finkelstein,'Contradictory Signals from Palestinian Authority on Abduction of Israelis,' Foreign Policy Association  June 16th, 2014 and Max Schindler, 'How Israeli teen murders are portrayed in Arabic and Hebrew media,' Christian Science Monitor, 1 july 2014. Since Arutz Sheva is contested, Miller and Finkelstein's analyses of the cartoons are the proper sources, and if this goes into the lead, after talk page discussion, so in the lead will go a summary of all of the 35,000 plus thumbs up to Israeli Facebook pages chanting for vendetta, or IDF soldiers, et5c.etc. which are widely reported, but which I haven't jumped at, for example, to try and twist things to favour a partisan view of these tragic events. I.e., (Gad Lerner, Israele, quel selfie dei ragazzi che invocano la vendetta,') La Repubblica, 4 July 2014 pp.1,35; Ben-Dror Yemini, 'Jewish Jihad developing within us,' at Ynet 4 July 2014, speaks of rabbinical jihad on the margins of this pathology, etc.
 * The elision of the Amnesty list contesting violations of universal norms can be justified as requiring a synthesis, which someone did. The synthesis was so brief, without touching the lengthy defenses from three Israeli or Jewish law professors (a minority opinion by the way, since those remarks are not reflective of neutral legal scholarship), that the removal of the bulleted list left the section with an WP:Undue imbalance. I made a second succint synthesis, (a compromise) and your blind revert wiped this out without discussion.
 * More violently, I noted on this page that there was a devious edit that altered and misreported maliciously a source.
 * "In response to proposals in the Security Council to make a statement to the press condemning the kidnapping, and the justifiable deaths of Arab terrorists and rioters during Israel's operations on the West Bank, no agreement could be found.'"
 * The source was note 187, which is Reuters, 'US, Jordan in disagreement at UN over Israel condemnation,' Ynet 24 June 2014.
 * There is nothing in that source to justify the patient rewriting in the bolded sentence, and the original text honestly reported its contents. You restored the falsified reportage, which had failed verification, and is patently idiotic.
 * In short, get off the page, and leave it to serious editors who understand source control, do not automatically revert a disliked editor (Nishidani in this case) on sight without checking the nature of the edits, and work out things in a difficult article by careful dialogue and consensus on the talk page, no obiter dicta declarations of intent followed by immediate edits. The mess you made is patently antagonistic and blind, and must therefore, obligatorily, be reverted.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll start off by noting your rather bizarre sense of entitlement and ownership of this Wikipedia page. I could end there, but I'll go on anyway.
 * Firstly, I find it strange that your attack Israel National News being used as (one of three) sources when the notorious Ma'an is used over 40 times as a single source, including being the source of some extremely dubious claims. You can't seriously claim that Ma'an is more reliable than Israel National News. Israel National News also compares favorably to single sources like Al-Monitor which you use to present claims as unimpeachable facts.
 * Palwatch is certainly a reliable source. Its reports are documented with more photographic, audio and video evidence than any other source that is mentioned in this article. Again, compare that to Ma'an with its ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims, or completely unverified claims from one individual e.g. "One of the refugee camp detainees complained that soldiers had stolen $580 from his wallet."
 * I haven't made any attempt to introduce the numerous likes and support from the Palestinian public for the kidnappings into this article or any other. There is a huge difference between 35,000 Israelis (less than 1%) liking something and the views of the Palestinian government which is the focus of that sentence and that part of the lead.
 * The statement "Abbas stood alone against dissent" does not at all convey the attitude of the PA/Fatah mentioned in the sources.
 * I'm not sure why you think that your sources are "right" and all other sources are wrong. There is certainly no reason why your preferred (POV) "serious analysts" are somehow better than the other sources. If you want to add other sources, I have no problem with that.
 * You also seem to suddenly think that a Times of Israel article which contained a paragraph that you strongly insisted should be included in the article later on, is suddenly no longer a good source. If its good for the geese, it's good for the gander.
 * As far as the Amnesty part goes, their views that collective punishment is being employed are clearly outlined as are those of the PA. Refuting claims of collective punishment will necessarily use more words and space than just claiming that one side is using it. Wikieditorpro (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay to repeat. You are talking past the objections to your blind revert. To recapitulate.
 * The lead edit was without consensus.- You declared your point of view, met objections and went straight ahead and altered the lead. And re-reverted automatically when I challenged your indifference to collegial editing.
 * Other sources exist for Arutz Sheva, which has been challenged here. Indifferent,you went ahead, ignored those sources, and replunked the dubious source back in.
 * You didn't examine the sources, because in your revert, you cite twice the same source Elhanan Miller.
 * The Amnesty list of several points was reduced to a couple of phrases, while the three fringe comments by legal scholars was unaltered, creating a WP:Undue problem, which I fixed, and which you without discussion reverted.
 * You restored a patent and blatant violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:VANDAL, which rewrote the source and article wording-'collective punishment' with the the justifiable deaths of Arab terrorists and rioters during Israel's operations on the West Bank, a fiction attributed by your edit to the UN. You didn't check the source, and you didn't care that this absurd overwriting of the source broke the rules.
 * The last point proves you did not examine the sources or check what you were doing in reverting me, and above, you fail to respond to it. If you were aware it means that you (a) found nothing troublesome in a deliberate spinning and falsification of sources (b) or don't examine sources, or both. You secondly, ignore the obligation to use the talk page to obtain consensus on questionable edits.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to the points that I raised concerning your bizarre attitude here. It is laughable of you to claim that I edited without talk or discussion being that I've justified all of my edits here.
 * At the same time you went ahead and made several highly controversial and POV edits without discussing them here first then ranted and raved when I reverted them. Your sense of entitlement is glaring.
 * Once you accept that you are held to the same standards as other editors, this discussion might become productive.   Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Add a link to the Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir ?
Should a link to the Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir be added in the "See also" section? These two events appear to be linked. GastelEtzwane (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. According to reliable sources they may be related and so much should be reflected in this article.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 13:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You're quite correct, BC, that they may be related, but there are other hypotheses, and until the police finger the malefactors responsible, and clarify whether it was revenge for the 3 boys undertaken by some Israelis, or an Arab honour killing, we should not put this into the See also section, and only do so if it is determined that the revenge hypothesis has been verified.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting opinion. The See also section contains a lot of links to different kidnappings done by the Hamas, but the involvement of the Hamas is just a hypotheses put forward by certain Israelis. Why put one series of links but not the other ? GastelEtzwane (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a point. They all deal with ostensible kidnappings (as opposed to murders) of Israelis by Palestinians. But the emphasis is on who did it, not the political affiliation. It is not a matter of Hamas (or any other group). The titles are problematic by the way. One might as well add Murder of Ofir Rahum because the method is identical and in many of these cases, the person is not 'kidnapped', but lured into a car and quickly killed, as here. That doesn't technically qualify as a kidnapping. I think these see also sections lend themselves to POV stacking, and dislike them, but whatever, rules must govern their inclusion or exclusion. Khdeir's case has now been added, in defiance of the talk page here, and should be reverted. Until it is shown that Israelis are culpable, doubts remain as to its relevance to an article dealing with ethnic enmities and violence. Of course, from a Palestinian point of view, it is normative for the State of Israel to 'kidnap', 'abduct' and 'detain' (to gain information, or compel families to become informers, or to punish suspects, etc.) Palestinians, but we don't have articles on the thousands of incidents of this type, as we don't have articles on the many cases where settlers have kidnapped boys, usually shepherds, and held them for several hours, even a day, for obscure purposes. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Murder or Kidnapping and Murder?
I know that at first this was thought to have been a kidnapping. But there was no ransom demand, in fact, teh murder took place very quickly. Perhaps there is information that it was an attempted kidnapping (for intended political ransom demands. But was it a kidnapping? Or maybe the fact that it has been called one for several weeks makes it one?   Creating an article on  Murder of Shelly Dadon and trying to understand the verbal distinctions here.ShulMaven (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Suspects in lead
It is well-known that the theocracy Israel has different laws for Jews and Arabs, and that Palestinians in Israel are not presumed innocent until proven guilty, unlike Jews. Wikipedia should uphold more humane and civilized norms and not depict suspects as terrorists or murderers based on suspicions and without a trace of evidence. The lead clearly violates WP:BLPCRIME, especially when in the lead. It is also WP:UNDUE in the lead. Should an anonymous statement be in the lead?

Yet, false confessions based on torture, a tradition that US and Israel share, are not announced. But even if, the article should be reserved, to maintain WP:NPOV, also in the article's body. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

what about violence by Palestinian and Israeli Arabs
May be I miss something but I see no info in the article about riots & violence by Palestinian and Israeli Arabs against Jews, about the wrecked tram line, etc. What I see is only such one about Israeli violence.

This applies in particular to the events that occurred after the funeral of three Jewish teenagers and in the following days in Jerusalem and other Israeli cities. There is plenty of evidences in media about them.

This information was not yet in the article, or it has been deleted? --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you provide links to some good sources so that editors can have look at them ? Maybe it was added to Kidnapping_and_murder_of_Mohammed_Abu_Khdeir instead. I guess the reactions to these 2 events have merged somewhat.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you have not seen such sources? Basically, my question was to know about this article history, and I haven't receive any answer yet. Imho, this info should be in both articles. --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've seen sources about Palestinian and Israeli Arab riots & violence against the Israeli army and police. I haven't seen sources about Palestinian and Israeli Arab riots & violence against Jews. Sorry, I can't answer the question about the article history. Haven't been paying enough attention to do that but someone else may know the answer to your question. I guess you can check for large negative edit sizes in the article's history to see whether it has been removed or moved to the other article. I agree that the info should probably be in both articles (and kept synchronized if possible).  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw a lot of reports also about settler attacks, police violence or collective punishment (see this or this or this or this or this for example, from dozens on what occurred on the West Bank over this period, when eyes were elsewhere) during this period against Palestinians. But since few if any mentioned the kidnapping, I dismissed them as worthy in wikipedia's terms, of inclusion, per WP:OR. A historian knows otherwise, that context counts, but we are not permitted this liberty.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Just killings on occupied land ?
I don't know who murdered these three and what the motives where. But they where all settlers, living on occupied territory and therefore (indirect) a part of a rather brutal, illegal, ongoing and expanding occupation of Palestinian land on the West bank. This background could be an argument for that these murders, if they where politically motivated, could be considered legal and part of a ongoing war. It would have been a completely different issue if the killings have happened within Israels recognized borders. I think these considerations should be a part of the article.--Ezzex (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is obscene and possibly reportable. Please revert it, and don't open discussions on your views on wiki talk pages.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Only one of the boys lived across the green line in the oPt. Israeli settlers are civilians. Deliberately killing civilians in a war is not legal. See B'Tselem for example,
 * Land Expropriation and Settlements in the International Law - "The illegality of the settlements under international humanitarian law does not affect the status of the settlers. The settlers constitute a civilian population by any standard, and include children, who are entitled to special protection. Although some of the settlers are part of the security forces, this fact has absolutely no bearing on the status of the other residents of the settlements."
 * If a Palestinian militant group argued, as I think they have at times in the past, that Israeli settlers or Israelis in general are not civilians for some reason and said this with reference to these killings, and RS reported it, I suppose that view could be included in the article. But since no group has claimed responsibility, that seems unlikely.
 * Also, as Nishidani says, talk pages are not for personal views. See WP:TALK.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well you could be right, but I find it strange since it seams that most of the settlers (or at least a large part) have moved there for politically reasons. And people who move there for such reasons are in my mind equal to military combatants.--Ezzex (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hamas evidence
Has the Israeli government provided evidence to the international community that these abductions were constructed by Hamas? It would be great if someone had some sources where the Israeli government provides evidence, especially so we can put it into perspective for the mass arrests of Palestinians as well as the bombings of Gaza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kawasmeh? Qawasmeh? al-Qawasmeh?
Can the name of the suspect Marwan ??? be spelled only one way in the article? Abductive (reasoning) 07:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've standardized it to Qawasmeh (without the al- because most sources drop that) using Q rather than K since it's القواسمي (per this Ma'an article for example).  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Biased article
The article seems to be biased against Israel and depicts Israel as a "bad" country. All the photographs and descriptions seem to be inclined towards Palestine and West Bank. I expect Wikipedia to be un-biased and to have balanced representation of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgatade (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

names
While we can say the IDF released names, that is insufficient for Wikipedia to give names of "suspects" as Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I am mindful of the Richard Jewell case where news sources ended up in hot water for their treatment of a "suspect." Until we reach the WP:DEADLINE, the necessity of including names of non-notable living persons eludes me. Collect (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably better to keep the discussion in one place for now at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I commented there -- and made an edit which requires I post here per policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I actually hadn't noticed your edit until after my comment. Apparently that's how thoroughly I research the facts before voicing my opinion.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reasonable comments for consideration all around. As to BLPCRIME, in the case of public figures, which these individuals have become with all the public attention (same as with the accused Boston Marathon bombers, for example), there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs and articles that refer to living persons should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative.

Attack on ambulance & biased sources
I have removed the part about the attacked ambulance (day 18) because of a biased source (jewishpress.com). Probably, if you go on and check every source for this page you will find various biased sources from both sides, constantly added. Will be a lot of work. If you have an unbiased source claiming this, put it back. If you have an unbiased source that claims this didn't happen, please give that one too, in a reaction here. I've also seen some people claiming it's a hoax and the bodies were brought back by helicopter, but haven't found a source about that yet. I want to know the truth. Erikivo (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Suspects in the lead
There are some 3 million suspects in the WB. Numerous Palestinians, including children, have been arrested and held without trial. Mentioning only two in the lead, without any evidence, is improperly and undue. Minor details, such as time of missing, are usually covered by the body, not in the lead.

A stupid anonymous remark like "their disappearance constituted clear evidence the two suspects have links with the abduction", which would not be accepted by any judge (outside states as Israel and Egypt), is the last thing that should be in the lead. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are not these suspects mentioned in numerous reliable sources? Do reliable sources mention any other suspects? Please see WP:V.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What Brew said. Epeefleche (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think an intelligent compromise could fix this. Wickey-nl has a point that, in wiki's neutral voice, one cannot state what almost all think to be the case, to be the truth. A slight adjustment fixes that,
 * "'their disappearance is thought to constitute clear evidence the two suspects have links with the abduction',"
 * ( I've thought for nearly a month that the two were probably killed soon after
 * By the way, we have 10 casualties in the infobox. If that includes the two elderly Palestinians who suffered heart attacks in the raids, there's a congruency problem with the infobox on Operation Protective Cliff, where consensus is the old woman who died in Haifa of a heart attack during a siren alarm, was not to be included. If so, and if the two elderly Palestinians are in that list, whatever sources say, we should probably remove them, and downscale to 8 or whatever.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm partial to it the way it is, and think the editor who just deleted the whole para was out of line. The most accurate rendition is the form we have. The "is thought" construct begs the question "by whom," and adds more confusion than clarity IMHO.  Though I appreciate Nish having given it thought. And the initial comment, disparaging the statement reflected as "stupid" and "would not be accepted by any judge" misses the point completely -- we don't only reflect those statements the editor views as intelligent, and we don't only reflect those statement that a judge would accept in a court of law -- rather, we reflect what the RSs reflect.   As to the box -- I'm of course fine with Nishidani's suggestion, given my view that the box and content in the article should both separate the event titled in the article from the follow-up operation. Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Is widely thought'. The PNA, the FBI and ISA directly involved in the investigations all concurred on this rapidly, as the article shows, and that is why agency is not needed, and the passive construction avoids the implication Wickey-nl detected. Constitutes clear evidence is wikipedia saying their disappearance is proof. This is not a court-room, and we should not espouse a judicial verdict as to the tenability of what is otherwise a strong, logically grounded suspicion by the prosecuting and investigative authorities. I disagree with the suggested change in the box. The positions are diametrically opposed, and good sense suggests a compromise. I have offered one.Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As to the lede -- Not at all. An attributed statement is emphatically not "Wikipedia saying."  It most certainly is not "a statement in Wikipedia's voice." That's only the case on Opposite Day ... which is not today.
 * As to your suggestion for the box, I support it (as I was trying to say); though I would support more (as I've already said), and I thank you for that sensible and non-POV suggestion. Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies. You are quite correct, and it was foolish or rather lazy of me (actually fatigue from extra wiki heavy farming duties etc.,) not to look at the page itself. Worse still, unless I am mistaken, I wrote that line with attribution, so Alzheimer effects are also kicking in. Sorry for needlessly wasting editors' time.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. And thanks for not taking my prickliness to heart.  I'm annoyed -- but not at you (I appreciate your efforts at even-handedness this week).  What still bothers me is this edit by Wickey-nl; it was wholly non-consensus, and I'm troubled that he chose to make it ... pointing even as he did to this conversation as his basis.  I've held back on templating him (which he should understand is a gift -- especially as he is already on final warning), but I hope he understands that is not acceptable.... nobody could possibly have read this discussion, where nobody agreed with his deletion suggestion, as support for his wholesale deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Wickey-nl.--Ezzex (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple deletions by same editor
IjonTichyIjonTichy has deleted the same material twice, within minutes, just minutes ago. That is unacceptable. He is also I believe incorrect (and for example equates attributed non-quote statements with "quotes", but that is a secondary issue). --Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was under the (possibly incorrect) impression that my second edit was the one revert I was allowed. I believed (perhaps incorrectly) that my first edit was not an official revert of recently-added content.
 * I have no intention to revert that material again within at least the next 24 hours (and extremely likely much, much longer than that). This particular article does not interest me that much (although I am sad for the loss of all the families involved, on all sides of the conflict). Instead, I'd like to explain my view. Just because something appears in a reliable source, does not immediately imply that we are obligated to cite it in the encyclopedia. We (WP editors) are not automatic robots - we are supposed to, indeed we are required, to exercise judgment. (Otherwise we could all be replaced by artificial intelligence software that would edit WP harmoniously and peacefully without any [human] editorial disagreements.) Please read very carefully the WP policies on WP:Weight and WP:V. So-called "off the record" statements attributed to "anonymous officials" should be treated, in my view, with extreme suspicion and doubt, to the point where they deserve zero weight, regardless of the nationality, religion, ethnicity, race, socio-economic status, geographic location (or any other factor) of the "person" who is alleged to have made the "statement." And this applies, in my view, to all WP articles, and particularly to extremely controversial articles, and especially when the statements attribute crimes (or any actions) to people (i.e., WP: BLP issues may also need to be considered).
 * I hope this helps. I hope that other editors will participate in this discussion to help me learn if and where I may need to adjust my views. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy  (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You are, I believe, incorrect on the more substantive issue (for example you equate attributed non-quote statements with "quotes"). But that is a secondary issue.


 * Your multiple reverts within minutes are just the sort of problematic 1RR violation that makes the editing of articles in this area so difficult, and the reason these articles were subjected to 1RR in the first place.


 * Furthermore, you suggest here that you did not understand that your first deletion of text added by another editor was a "revert".
 * First, that's pretty basic. When an editor adds material, and you delete it (or hit "undo), of course that is a revert.
 * Second, you are an experienced editor, with thousands of edits.
 * Third, you seemed to understand perfectly well that a "first revert" is in fact a revert, when you brought this complaint to the AN/I noticeboard two years ago.
 * Fourth, the 1RR tag above clarifies, with an inline link, what "revert" means. Epeefleche (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted my own edit.

Dear Epeefleche, the diff that you provided to my edit from two years ago was (a) made under entirely different circumstances and context and is entirely irrelevant to the particular circumstances and context under consideration here, and (b) made two years ago, and thus ancient history. In other words, you'll need to try harder to bring more recent evidence (much more recent than two years ago) that shows that I am prone to edit warring. Good luck with that, because such evidence does not exist.

Furthermore, Epeefleche, your edit summary reverting my edit appears to accuse me of editing in order to push a POV, and now you appear to be accusing me of being less than truthful. In both cases, it appears you (a) may have failed to assume good faith, and (b) may have rushed to make serious accusations against another editor based on flimsy (actually, non existent) evidence.

Additionally, you appear to be ignoring the view that statements attributed to "anonymous officials" speaking "off the record" (regardless of whether such statements are quoted or non-quoted but attributed) are highly detrimental to the encyclopedia and make a complete mockery of WP. You may want view our article on The New York Times (and/or search online) for the profuse apologies from that newspaper (and other reliable sources) after they liberally and generously printed hundreds of statements attributed to "unnamed senior government officials speaking on condition of anonymity" in the run-up [and even during the first few weeks] of the war on Iraq. Many of these statements (e.g. on possession weapons of mass destruction) were later proven to be false in whole or in (significant) part.

"Off the record" statements attributed to so-called "anonymous" "officials" do not rise up to the high standards of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Especially when such statements are made in highly controversial articles. And especially when they are made in the lead section. And especially when these citations may also be in violation of the BLP of the persons who appear to have been accused (by some conveniently "unnamed senior" sources) to have committed very serious crimes.

Best regards, IjonTichy (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The Times of Israel and David Horowitz
It is written in the article that "Hamas denied any involvement in the kidnapping, but an unnamed anonymous post on a forum that claimed to be the spokesman for the group, according to The Times of Israel, "hailed the 'success'." Firstly, The Times of Israel is a biased magazine, which is obvious after the consideration and analysis of the articles on their internet main page. David Horowitz is the editor of magazine, and his views are far from being objective or being result of the scientific approach. Secondly, it is written that there is an anonymous post on some forum, and references lead to the pages of The Times of Israel, in which the anonymous post is never mentioned. PenroseT (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC) PenroseT


 * That a media source is biased doesn't mean that it should never be cited ever. If that were so, then Arabic news sources known to have some kind of connection to the Palestinian side would be extinguished from Wikipedia, which would be silly.

Hamas kidnappings
Under the "Speculations" section, end second last paragraph, the statement "Hamas has put considerable effort into kidnapping attempts through its large network.[34]" is unsupported by the quoted reference. I would appreciate help in how to add a citation query to this effect. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fake kidnapping
The leader of Hamas in Qatar claimed the kidnapping was fake, and staged by Israel to generate public support for another crackdown on Palestinians. Certainly Israel has means and motive. The teenagers were not kidnapped, which does not fit the Hamas profile, and the suspects disappearing also seems suspicious. I feel this should be mentioned in the article. There are many web sites that promote this theory with more information and different theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.167.88 (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Small correction: Shu'fat versus Shu'fat camp
Just a minor factual correction. In the section about Israelis violent reactions, the name Shu'fat is linked to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shu%27fat_camp in two instances, the first related to the place where Moussa Zalum was attacked in the first kidnapping attemp, the second to the place where Mohammed Abu Khdeir resided. The latter link is accurate (he resided in the Shu'fat refugee camp, East of the "Wall"), the former is not, because the kidnapping attempt (as well as the later successful kidnapping of Mohammed Abu Khdeir) happened in the main street of Shu'fat, which is not related to the refugee camp, and is West of the "Wall", so the correct link would be to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuafat If needed I can try to provide a map of the neighborhood to demonstrate the point (that I know for sure because I temporarily live rather near to Shu'fat), anyway you can just have a look at the more specific page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Abu_Khdeir where links seem to be correct. dr.psycho (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

palestinian mini holocaust ignored
Israel practices

1 walling off palestinians (like Jew ghetto of ww2)

2 cut off essential food water and electricity

3 maintain poverty due to lack of development space

4 promote settlers in Palestine land (like German ww2 liebenstraum policy)

5 do not recognize rights of innocent Palestinian children and bystanders in giving insanely high death toll of nearly 1000 (unarmed civilians majority) for avenging death of just 3 Israelis by a few anti socials..

This insanely high death thirst by israel seems like Nazi thinking post Versailles treaty.. May be life comes full circle and Israel is the Nazi of 21st century and So unarmed palestinian civilians' plight is no better than holocaust victims ! So Sad ! Hdhdhd763 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are the names of the Palestinians killed removed from the lead?
Earlier the name, age, and homeplace of each of the Palestinians was listed in the lead. I cannot see any discussion about removing them, but someone obviously have done so. Should they not be returned? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OF course, it should be reverted back immediately, and since the removal of stable text, whose relevance had been discussed here, took place without any consensus, restoring does not infringe 1r, since the removal was vandalistic.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , I wouldn't risk violating 1RR and claiming vandalism in this kind of situation. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, normally defying consensus is not vandalism. Claiming the vandalism exemption, which is actually not even available per WP:ARBPIA, for edit warring is dicey.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip-off. I try to limit my edits to any one page to one a day because I don't understand the niceities of the rule. In this case, I waited a day (I think: it's terrible editing in here. One has to check on a slow computer when one made one's last edit before doing anything, even the most elementary corrections of falsified sources, or updating dated info, etc., and it is extremely unpleasant to see consensual or stable text wiped out by a newcomer to the page without any minimum warning or discussion.)Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian: Mohammed Dodeen (15, of Dura), Ahmad Sabarin (20–21, from Jalazone refugee camp), Mustafa Aslan (22, from Qalandiya refugee camp), Mahmoud Atallah (Ramallah), Ahmad Khalid (36, from Ein Beit al-Ma' refugee camp).

Because this is a page about the Israeli teenagers who were kidnapped. Kids who were waiting for a ride home from school and were killed in cold blood. If you would like to start a NEW page for the Palestinians who were killed, feel free to do so but please mention what they were doing at the time they were killed. (User talk:Mir227
 * , do not refactor talk page comments again. You rearranged the posts to put yours at top. This is not permitted.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (User talk:Mir227
 * , I apologize, I did not realize I should have put my comment on the bottom. Noted for the future.Mir227 (talk)
 * In the editing frenzy wars always kick off, editors everywhere pounce in, as is their right, and edit according to whatever their reading throws up. Newcomers to a page rarely look at the archives. This article was rather singular for the collaborative atmosphere prevailing among different groups to avoid any strongarm unilateral edits or reverts. This issue was discussed in the archives several times, inconclusively, and the information stayed up almost from the inception. See Archive 3 here; Archive 2 here; Archive 1here and here if en passant, etc. Three Israeli boys were shot in cold blood, and this was known immediately the day after. A manhunt to return them, though dead, 'safe and sound to their families' was announced, and as the West Bank was turned upside down by an army crackdown, involving a lot of shooting at protestors, several Palestinian youths were killed. The Israeli teenagers' deaths, and Israel's response to it, led to the deaths of several boys, and that is why, as in other articles where collateral deaths are noted in infoboxes on kidnappings and murder incidents (I checked), we make no exception here. Articles that engender high emotion demand cool heads and collaborative dialogue,consensus. They get no where by opinionated editing that ignores the edit history and just reverts. Naturally, if you wish to remove stable text, open up a discussion here, and editors will weigh the pros and cons as they have (inconclusively) in the past. Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . By the way, Undid revision 619763942 by 74.130.154.244 why is this and this immediate revert of my restoration of the infox entry not a n egregious violation of 1r, 'egregious' because, once more, no discussion took place to remove a stable text, for two days queries have been made as to why it had been removed, and, thirdly, the editor immediately reverting it, Mir227, appears not to care to answer my indications as to the problem on the talk page, except with an obiter dictum to justify it? Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are two consecutive edits and count as one revert, not two.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, chief. But I never will get the hang of it. A slow computer never allows me to do two successive edits before someone steps in quickly to transform the second edit into a second revert. Still, the editor persists now twice in having no argument, but reversing a stable consensus, but I guess one can do that here with impunity. Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The names were taken out by an IP some days ago, against long-standing consensus, and without discussion on talk.  And the names clearly belongs here; they were  killed as a direct result of the kidnapping, Btw, I believe  there are still several names missing from the list. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There never was a "long-standing consensus" for the inclusion of consequential victims. In fact it has been contested from day one. Numerous editors, including myself, have opposed the inclusion in the infobox. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Direct result? I don't agree. Indirect, I can see. But not direct. Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Shall we compromise and just state that they were killed "as a result of the kidnapping"? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a compromise. That's OR. And synth.  There was a kidnapping.  That led (in part) to an Operation.  The Operation led to clashes. The clashes led to deaths. That's not direct.
 * I imagine the deaths led to funerals, and the funerals led to tears at the funerals ... but you wouldn't say the tears at the funerals were "the results of the kidnappings". It wouldn't be a compromise, obviously -- it would simply be an inappropriate statement. Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of those who died did not participate in the "clashes", as you put it. All died as a result of/in the operation. Cheers,  Huldra (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Where they died as a result of the clashes (all if not most), then the clash was the precipitory event. Where they had a heart attack during a sweep, it is even less clear.  In any event, it's obvious one would think that barring overbearing SYNTH nobody would think that the kidnapping CAUSED the deaths. I mean ... are you going to charge the kidnappers with those deaths in a court of law? Of course not.  Because they didn't cause it. This is very basic stuff. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Brewcrewer you reverted the names out and then restored them when you saw there was no 'consensus' to remove them, didn't you. Epeefleche, there is such a thing as a gentleman's agreement not to do anything over which opinions among the parties were clearly split fairly evenly, until a clear decision is achieved on the talk page. What I find objectionable is IP removals, that simply leap discussion, and then their confirmation by newbies who ignore the talk page and then press on. By all means we can rediscuss this, or have a RFc, but what occurred was ugly and formally improper. Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally have, I might add, no obsessions about the infobox, though I think comparable articles show there is nothing anomalous in that. Creative compromises are possible. One is a section listing their names and giving more details, rather than just a note in the infobox, for example. Nishidani (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Proven kidnapping by Hamas
The 2 men involved in the kidnapping are Hamas militants. That is an unquestionable fact. Hamas's profile has been to kill and kidnap civilians simply for being Jewish, as they have done repeatedly since the establishment of Israel. Any articles that say otherwise are outright lies. Hamas are a terrorists organization and are considered so by the US, Australia, Canada, EU, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Norway, Russia, UK, China, and Egypt. . Hamas's charter states that all Jews need to be killed. Hamas has been explicit in its Holocaust Denial.. Would you like to deny the holocaust didn't happen as well? Because that's what you're defending when you defend Hamas. A group of lying cowards whose goal is to kill innocent civilians including Palestinians. Israel would not kill its own citizens and goes out of its way to protect Palestinian civilians as well. Your implication that Israel would kill its own citizens because you read about it in an article written by a terrorist in a country that supports terrorism...do I even need to finish this sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mir227 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The kidnappers were acknowledged to be working independently from Hamas by Israeli Police Forces. Why is this kidnapping still being framed as a Hamas coordinated operation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesmondE (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Teenagers or military aged males
The title is somewhat onesided, I think. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Incongruency
Our text has:- "According to court documents, Kawasmeh stated that Hamas members in Gaza financed the recruitment and arming of the killers" Sheera Frenkel writes:- "'An 18-page summary of the investigation by Israel’s internal security services, reviewed by BuzzFeed on Wednesday, makes no mention of Qawasmeh receiving orders from the Hamas leadership to carry out the attack.' Sheera Frenkel, 'Israel Releases Details Of Hamas Cell Accused Of Kidnapping And Killing Three Israeli Teens,' Buzzfeed 6 August 2014" Frenkel is a very careful researcher. Not so many (mainstream) sources that jump at first reports without independently reading the primary material. Note the court document is reported as referring to 'Hamas members in Gaza', whereas Frenkel says court documents make no mention of the Hamas leadership in Gaza. The incongruency is explained if 'Hamas members in Gaza' refers to Husam Qawasmeh's brother, Mahmoud Qawasmeh, as one can intuit from Frenkel's details. In short, the sentence should be rewritten to catch the nuances.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Background
This article would benefit from a Background section. At present it seems that the kidnapping was a random event that came out of the blue. Instead it is part of a chain-of-events that was preceded by a period of relative calm. This chain-of-events is semi-continuous and related in terms of cause-and-effect. With a Background section the kidnappings would be afforded a reasoned historical context. If this critical event were not afforded such a context, then it must be questioned why so many other critical events are indeed graced with a Background, but not this one, clearly a question that I am posing. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection, I will add such a section Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS issues
Speculations on kidnapping motives (4th paragr) - "Hamas has put considerable effort into kidnapping attempts through its large network.[58]" is unsupported by the reference provided. Propose deletion if this is not fixed. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas official admits Hamas was responsible for the kidnappings.
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/In-first-Hamas-official-takes-credit-for-kidnap-and-murder-of-Israeli-teens-371703

I think this article should be changed accordingly. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not news that Shin Bet thinks Saleh al-Aruri is behind the kidnapping. That may well be the case. But we have denials earlier by Israeli intelligence of a Gaza direction, (2) admissions by one of the Qawasme that his brother in Gaza was the conduit, denied by his lawyer as made under torture, and now this third version, which, however was mentioned frequently in the first week or so June 9th onwards as the probable source of the kidnapping. It's two months stale. It reemerged under Shin Bet sponsorship in the last two days, and now we have a video of him praising the abduction/killing. Whether he took orders from Hamas in Gaza or not is not yet shown. The sensible thing to do is to wait until a serious newspaper makes an analysis of this report. The Jeusalem Post is not serious, and the article too thin on details.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol @ saying JPost isn't a serious newspaper simply because you don't like what it has to say. Whether or not you like what it has to say, it's news, and should be included in this article as such. Knightmare72589 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Red what I wrote. The JPost is casual, flimsy with reportage and dull. The report itself is of interest. In a day or two that TV news will be examined and filtered by newspapers with more competence providing more details. That is all I am saying. One does not splash 'breaking news' snippets on encyclopedic articles. I've known about that Saleh al-Aruri hypothesis since mid June and have, rather than using it, waited for something reliable and detailed to be used for this article. Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think JPost is a serious newspaper as well. I cannot take a newspaper seriously who just call all Palestinians terrorists. This story is still pretty new to the main stream western media and more should come out in the next few days.GGranddad (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 19:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact the section has to be rewritten as it is POV-pushing. He did not 'admit' Hamas was behind it. He boasted that it was a Hamas operation, and this may or may not be true. As the Guardian reports:
 * "According to Matthew Levitt, an analyst with the Washington Institute, al-Arouri was forced to leave Israel in 2010 after serving more than 15 years in prison for actions related to his Hamas membership. He lived in exile in Syria until the unrest during the Arab spring, when he moved to Turkey.Hugh Lovatt, Israel and Palestine coordinator at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that while al-Arouri was a significant Hamas figure – serving as the group's most prominent representative in Turkey – the former militant could have an ulterior motive for making his claim. 'Given the timing I would be very suspicious about his claim. I still don't believe Hamas as an organisation and its upper echelons sanctioned the kidnappings – something that Israeli intelligence also believes,' he said.Lovatt said that al-Arouri may be trying to claim credit for the actions of others in an attempt to demonstrate his own continued sway in the West Bank and Hamas's ability to hit Israel after failing to secure significant concessions after six weeks of violence in Gaza.'A second, more remote possibility, is that al-Arouri is telling the truth and that he has operated on his own initiative – a development with very worrying repercussions as it would imply a serious power struggle and splintering within Hamas,' he said."
 * One sort Memritv is not RS. A couple of the others spin as a Hamas admission what for the moment is a boast by a Hamas operative (conflicting with other testimonies). And as Levitt remarks, it must be attributed as his position, not Hamas's, for the moment, with at least two possible readings. This is per NPOV, and not as you take it, a 'smoking gun' proving one political contention.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal has stated that it was Hamas members who kidnapped the Israelis kids but they never had any orders from the Hamas leadership and the first he knew about it were reports from the Israeli investigation. GGranddad (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 19:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence that begins “On August 20, 2014”: The wiki text and some of the references use the term “admitted” when referring to what Aruri said. But it should be referred to as “claimed”. Describing him as a leader of Hamas and then saying he admitted to something implies that Hamas as an organization is responsible. In light of the Meshaal Yahoo interview, Hamas leadership's involvement is clearly in question. Only the guardian and Telegraph articles use the correct logic by avoiding the general implication of the Hamas organization. Also having 7 references after that logically flawed sentence gives that sentence a false air of truth. The word “admitted” in the first sentence should be changed to “claimed”. And all the references at the end of that sentence should be removed with the exception of the guardian and telegraph articles and the video of Aruri's speech. Michael ages (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And same thing for the sentence beginning with "On 20 August" in the "Suspects arrest" section. Michael ages (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Guardian and Telegraph link were put there by me for another piece that was deleted by someone else but they left the links. I agree with Michael ages that the word should be changed to claimed and not admitted being as the actual leadership of Hamas has denied they gave any orders for it.I also think it has way too many sources at the end of it.I believe there is a question mark also over the translation of what the Hamas guy in Turkey actually said, the Israelis newspapers have certainly run with their own translation. GGranddad (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 19:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole section is a farcical addition of bits and pieces. It was known by everyone in the world from the outset that members of Hamas killed the boys. Hamas denied responsibility. The clan member relative blamed a contact inside Gaza, which sources suggest was his brother, who has no rank in Hamas. Arouri's speech was then massively misreported. His lawyer said his statement was extracted under torture. Its significance lay in one member of the leadership saying the operation was conducted by Hamas members. I.e., he stated publicly what everyone knew. This was spun as an admission by the leadership they accepted responsibility. Meshaal said the leadership had no advance knowledge of the murder, and what it knows it learnt from Israeli investigations. That's it, and all the relevant passages should be collected, dated per item, and written sequentially in one brief para (until of course further information is forthcoming)Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the Meshaal "admitted" should be removed as well. In the video he admits nothing and just says that he knows what the rest of the world knows from reading the news. The only new information from his interview is that he didn't know about the abductions until the rest of world did and that he didn't know anyone from Hamas was involved until the rest of the world did. I also agree with Nishidani that this section is messy due to new information coming out daily. Michael ages (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to change the wording "Salah al-Aruri admitted" to the more natural "Salah al-Aruri said" I am ok with it since that wording appears in the first sentence of the Guardian article . Best wishes Tkalisky (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I haven't suggested making the changes to be more neutral, but to be more accurate. Michael ages (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as it keeps the wording of the sources and does not include original research it is ok by me. Be well Tkalisky (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)