Talk:Ahed Tamimi/Archive 1

NPOV
- this and this are a gross NPOV violation. If we prefix an army statement (sourced to WaPo) - with and "according to the Israeli army" - and the statement says riot - then we use riot. Ditto regarding changing "violently provoke" to "provoke". Paragraph2 - can not be in Wiki's voice - it is primarily sourced to a Newsweek opinion piece by the subject's dad - Bassem al-Tamimi. The cousin being hit by a rubber bullet probably is not in doubt - the exact timeline, the relevance of that incident to this one (did they even know at the time?), is. Other details in the paragraph also need to be attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not "gross". Please remove the tag yourself. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Factual timeline, not "viral" nor "video"
See by.

I object, because A. being "viral" is utterly irrelevant for our encyclopedia, and B. we are building the timeline of facts, and so the video itself is not relevant. (That is aftermath stuff). -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The only thing that is certain about this incident - is that there is a viral video. Furthermore, this is the main encyclopedic interest - this is what brought attention to the this incident. Just about every other detail regarding the incident - differs between the Tamimi family and Israeli authorities. So building a "timeline of facts" - is not something we will be able to do. The sole undisputed "fact" we have - is what is filmed in the actual video.Icewhiz (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "viral" is not encyclopedic. Popularity is not RS or V or fact. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Virality and popularity (actually - not the same) - are both quite quantifiable and measurable. However, we do not need to do such OR ourselves, as several RSes (if not most of them) have done so. e.g.  . Since we have enough RSes stating this - then we can say in Wikipedia's voice that this is a "viral video".Icewhiz (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Still does not make "viral" encyclopedic here. Neither do we state: "The story was published in papers with huge readership". Then, the video itself is not part of what happened, and so no need to mention in the header. Should be described in the aftermath. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2017 (Uthis is not what TC)
 * The videos in general of Tamimi, and this video in particular, are the only thing that makes her notable. RSes report of the video and on the fame garnered from the video. Her notability doesn't arise being a Palestinian protester - but being photographed and videographed as a such in widely distributed fashion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, she is notable for other reasons. Not because the video exist. So the "video" is not section header stuff (let alone, its "viral"-ness). Please remove the tag yourself. -DePiep (talk)
 * Several RSes, including WaPo, note she is notable for her videos and this one in particular - many placing the video in their article titles. For what "other" reasons is she notable? Most Palestinian activists/orotesters/rioters are generally not notable.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's choose our words more carefully. She is not notable for the videos, but because of the videos. If it wasn't for the videos she would be just another Palestinian teenager arrested for disrespecting her masters and almost nobody would have heard about it. Zerotalk 06:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please mind WP:FORUM.We here to improve the article not to hear your political rants.--Shrike (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Where was 'a political rant? I would like to read it but all I found was well-informed advice on choosing our words more carefully.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Not an op-ed
This - - is not an op-ed. It is news reporting on the video. It appears in the news section of ynet, and is not an opinion. Particularly the observation that only Palestinian women (and soldiers) appear in the video frame is a trivial one from watching the video - and is something that one would expect a written report (in a newspaper or Wikipedia) to expand on.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note, other sources note this - e.g. BBC A video taken on Friday shows a group of females shouting at and hitting two soldiers, who do not respond..Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you can safely restore with two sources.--Shrike (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh please, read the damn text. Nobody is denying that the video showed only soldiers and a group of women. The claim, which is clearly a conjecture of the Ynet writers, who wrote "evidently" in confirmation of the fact that they weren't there and have no evidence, is that the video was intentionally framed to exclude men. It is a charge without a known basis except for those journalists' diatribe. Zerotalk 08:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again its not opinion piece its a news reporting but you just don't like the facts.--Shrike (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Moreover, if you watch the video (posted here by some loony far-right group) it is obvious that the two soldiers are not monitoring anyone outside the frame. If there were men just out of sight, these soldiers must be real incompetents for not watching their movements carefully. Or, if there were men who the soldiers judged to be safe enough to not monitor, their omission from the video is innocuous. Just because some "news" story has some stupid conjectures in it doesn't mean we have to repeat them here. Zerotalk 08:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If we are ORing the video, there are actually two kids who get into the frame, and in addition there is someone filming this - so there are at least 3 more people behind the two young women and the mother. Possibly more. They are however all in the direction of the Camera - towards which the soldiers are facing most of the time anyway.Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Claim of settlement expansion
We can not state it as a fact for example WashPO says "accuse Israel of expropriating their lands in favor of the nearby Jewish settlement of Halamish." it should be clear per WP:NPOV its the Palestinian claim--Shrike (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At present it is "settlement expansion" without any charge of expropriation. Should we add a expropriation - we would have to say this is a claim. I'm not sure that there is any doubt, from any side, that settlements have been expanded (the question is more a matter of what they expanded on). I do think we should point out that this riot is "weekly thing" - dating back to at least 2010 (e.g. ) - and isn't about a particular event but is rather a recurring weekly event.Icewhiz (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Public perception
Regarding this edit I had to self-revert to avoid exceeding 1RR, I believe it is essential to the understanding of the divide in public perception. I thought this edit -- properly sourced -- described Tamimi without undue weight to one view or a lengthy quote essentially saying the exact same thing. Can we get consensus to re-include?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - and I think this is lede worthy as it summarizes the public perception of her across different demographics while being quite strongly sourced to WaPo.Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Cite overkill
There are two instances in the article which have more than four sources to cite one sentence. Per the advice given by cite overkill, I believe, since the information is uncontroversial, we can live without a few and preferably focus on the three best sources in each respective cluster.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Error
The first sentence of the last paragraph of the article states that the village has been occupied since only 2010. Of 19 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It was probably copy-pasted from somewhere - the text block it was in was covering events already covered in this article at much greater length. I trimmed it down to the documentary itself.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Pallywood"
- WP:IDONTLIKE is not grounds for labeling something as fringe. The parliamentary investigation was not able to conclude anything regarding familial relationship - they still concluded they were actors. The association of Ahed Tamimi and Pallywood is long standing, e.g. this New York Times piece from 2013, and has been covered in the Washington Post, BBC, CNN, and many others. Coverage of the parliamentary investigation is also wide:       (amongst many others). Per FRINGE - Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written - this subject has clearly been covered from around when Tamimi burst onto the world stage.Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the arguments for deletion of the declarations of the current Deputy Minister under the Prime Minister of Israel, current Minister of Parliament in the Knesset, university professor, award-winning historian, best-selling author, and former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, as reported by a major WP:RS, are completely ridiculous and show evidence of WP:IDONTLIKE by the deletionist. Or perhaps just plain ignorance of context.  Hard to say which of the two. XavierItzm (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is beyond what Oren is saying - supposedly there was an actual Knesset investigation. Oren is also far from alone in making this connection - he is however a significant and notable figure making the connection.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No actual information from the alleged committee is available, just an assertion from someone who used to be a historian and used to be respected but is now a barely-coherent spokesperson for the right. And "Pallywood" is a racist word, and people who use it are racists. And when are you going to learn that a story which is repeated by different news outlets is still just one story? Zerotalk 08:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One reason this story stinks is that Israeli holds the population registry for the West Bank (and Gaza too) and knows exactly who is related to whom. Zerotalk 08:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A satirical response is here. Zerotalk 08:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This association with "Pallywood" is covered in RS harking back to 2013 - e.g. NYT - . Regarding the casting claim allegedly investigated by the Knesset subcommittee - holding the population registry does not preclude that - all the population registry contains is names and DOBs - you could swap actual individuals.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That NYT article doesn't contain the word "Pallywood" and the only NYT usage I can find is in quotation. Zerotalk 10:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your assertion about the population registry is completely false. It has occupations, registered addresses, places of birth, parents (for young people), legal status, marital status, religion, identification number, passports held, etc etc. Children are registered as children of their parents like in most countries, not just as names and dates.  Israel's copy (which is the one that counts here) is linked to any security records.  Given the Tamimi family's activist history, it is 100% sure that the Shin Bet has a fat file on them too. The claim that Israel doesn't even know who belongs to the family is absolutely, totally, fucking, unbelievable. Zerotalk 23:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the registry would hinder adding a child, however it would not prevent a swap of a similar age and sex child - as it does not (to the best of my knowlegde) contain hard identifying information (e.g. DNA, fingerprints, and for many kids no photograph) for children. I might be wrong in this OR (responding to OR). There are plenty of other reasons (e.g. family love) why such a swap is unlikely, just I do not think the registry itself would prevent it - but in any event our personal estimates here are of little weight - sources are more important..Icewhiz (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Struck - this irrelevant OR - we should stick to what the sources say.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Where did I say I don't like it? That is thrown around as an excuse but if there was actual legitimacy here I would happily include the "investigation". However, all I see is pure racist language being inserted into a BLP on a fringe theory without any evidence other than a person's racist opinion (or, more accurately, denial of reality). And, worst still, we all know why editors consistently push for these attacks to exist; neutrality seems to die here and it is disgusting.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You noticed you just called a BLP racist? There is nothing fringe here - reporting about "Pallywood" and Tamimi dates back to the NYT in 2013 (at least!), and has been covered at length since then on a few different occasions - before Oren's remarks about the investigation.Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Racist language" and "racist opinion" but I don't recall saying a "racist person"; that's a good try though. There is no consensus to introduce this fringe theory to this BLP; you seem to be under the impression anything in the news, no matter how outrageous, needs to be translated into an encyclopedic article. Perhaps it could be analyzed in the Pallywood article but not here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is reported by WP:RS and the source is unimpeachable. I hasten to notice that TheGracefulSlick has twice written that the Deputy Minister of the Prime Minister of Israel, who is a Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown universities visiting professor, has engaged in "Racist language" and "racist opinion", which is a BPL violation. XavierItzm (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a BPL violation if it is true. Huldra (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I had to revert as the material is properly sourced to high quality WP:RS and those allegation are notable and hence WP:DUE--Shrike (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize. You were correct at the AFD. No consensus to include this fringe theory but the article has become a POV playground. I thought it would be different. Again, I truly am sorry.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Lol, no apology needed. Just live...and learn. After more than 12+ years editing in the IP area, I knew with 99,99% certainty that shit like this was bound to happen, if Ahed had her own article. There are lots and lots of people paid to get articles dishing dirt on each and every person who, say support the BDS into what counts as WP:RS...and many editors who fight tooth and nail to get the same stuff into their WP articles. Just take a look at the Talk:Linda Sarsour to see what I mean... cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * PS, BTW, 8-10 years ago, I would probably have voted keep for this article, too. Heck, 8-10-12 years ago I even started BLPs in the IP area! (yeah, I was an idiot....) As I said: live, and learn, Huldra (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Undue BLP content

 * Undue: That's WP:UNDUE BLP content; sample: "All the members of the sub-committee who responded to Haaretz's enquiries said that they could not recall such a discussion..." etc. I removed the content with this diff.K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet this was widely covered - we base UNDUE decisions based on attention the aspect received in coverage, not on WP:TRUTH. What exactly are you objecting to? Any mention of Pallywood (which appears in nearly every western media profile of Tamimi - e.g. wapo, nyt, cnn, etc dating back to 2013?). The knesset subcomittee investigation (which did take place on the wider Pallywood claim and Ahed)? Or the specific probe of familial relationship (which seems to be a side issue few remember at the moment)?Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this "story" gets a mention, it would also be fair to mention Haaret'z response The Israeli deputy minister who now entertains conspiracy theories about Ahed Tamimi's family not being 'real' was once a respected historian and skillful diplomat. Something must have gone horribly wrong. and also Bassem Tamimi's response “How did such a fool get to be your ambassador to the United States?” he asked. “...If that’s your elite, I’m not sure how you manage to beat us. Zerotalk 10:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the main thing is the Pallywood association (which has long been raised and covered). The family/casting investigation (which seems was a small tangent in a sub comittee's greater probe) seems more of a headline grabber. I included Bassem's response in the original edit.Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You "POV FIX" was already included in edit there is no policy based reason to not to include this information--Shrike (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Shrike, please follow along. We already have detractors refer to her actions as a 'performance' aimed at discrediting Israel, which says the same exact thing. Why should we give any credence to a fringe theory on a BLP, especially when the person who championed it is being mocked for his bizarre claim.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mocked by polemic outlets for a claim he did not quite make - he said the investigation was inconclusive. But do I understand correctly that your sole objection here is to Oren? You blanket reverted quite a bit of content that was not related.Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only Oren. I just don't feel the need to repeat myself several times and receive the same response with no actual resolution.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we have a concrete list of what you are objecting to and sources to back it up? Pallywood has been present in every western outlet that has covered Tamimi. Claiming UNDUE or fringe for something covered by nyt wapo cnn bbc etc... Does not cut it. Nor does fringe when this is both covered and the mainstream Israeli position here.Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz anything I say you will not get so what's the point? If it isn't the answer you want, you just conclude the person does not like it. I, and anyone who happens to disagree with you, cannot have a meaningful conversation with someone like that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You have failed to advance a policy based arguement here. Claims of UNDUE and FRINGE have been countered by several editors who backed their arguement with sources - every major Western outlet who has covered her has covered this aspect - going back half a decade.Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This content may be suitable for Oren's page but not here -- especially as written: Not every allegation, especially discredited ones, do not belong in the BLPs of the subjects of such allegations. Hope this clarifies my position. Given that the source seems to be Oren, add it to his bio. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "...Michael Oren said that a Knesset sub-committee conducted a classified investigation into whether Ahed and other family members were non-related actors that were cast together to perform viral videos as part of Pallywood. While the investigation did not reach a definitive conclusion regarding familial relationship, Oren said that the family members are Pallywood actors."
 * The source is not Oren but Haaretz reporting Oren and hence is WP:DUE to include it.--Shrike (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Haaretz independently investigating the Tamimi family and Haaretz reporting on Oren's allegations are different things. Unsubstantiated allegations and conspiracy theories do not belong in BLPs. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Text without Oren
Per K.e.coffman comments above, I added diff body+diff lead criticism without Oren (Seeing that his particular, though widely published and commented on in RS, views and claim of a probe have elicited most of the objections above). Summarizing the Israeli view of Tamimi - as published between 2013-8 prior to Oren's comments in just about every Western media profile of Tamim). reverted (while also re-adding the factually inaccurate description of the slapping video occurring during a "raid on her home" - the soldiers were standing well outside of the house, and the Tamimis left the house and approached the soldiers). We already have several paragraphs of glowing praise for Tamimi, a 4.5 paragraph summary of the Israeli response is DUE. What are the concrete objections to this text? I'll note that as an alternative to a criticism section, we could place this coverage (sourced to sources covering each incident) next to each video - however it seems that the reaction is more or less the same for all the videos.Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How is describing her life and protests "glowing praise"? And where does it say a "4.5 paragraph" (whatever that is) is automatically due? I believe the long quotes in "Life" need to be removed but I'd rather save my one revert to address POV pushing and attempts to bypass consensus. We already have To her supporters, she has been described as a "hero" for opposing those who enforce Israeli occupation; detractors refer to her actions as a "performance" aimed at discrediting Israel. Perhaps more on criticism can be proposed here first but you have proven you are incapable of maintaining a neutral point of view, especially in your more bulky edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And you are still introducing the exact same paragraph at Bassem al-Tamimi and Michael Oren!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The body, at present, contains almost only praise for Tamimi. Criticism is limited to detractors refer to her actions as a "performance" aimed at discrediting Israel in the lead and a repeated detractors refer to her actions as a "performance" aimed at discrediting Israel in the body as well (in 2012-6) after some praise. These are not the words or tone used by the detractors (who explicitly say "Pallywood", "provoked", "staged", "propoganda", etc.). Tamimi's videos have faced quite a bit of criticism, and it is DUE to expand on said well-sourced criticism beyond a 12-word blurb (repeated twice).Icewhiz (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In terms of sourcing:    - clearly show this is due (and additional sourcing is not lacking) - criticism covered by top-notch outlets and over a long period of time.Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The only "praise" for Tamimi in the body is here: To her supporters, she has been described as a "hero" for opposing those who enforce Israeli occupation. If we were really "praising" her, I could write paragraphs devoted to each individual "Free Tamimi" movement and dozens of works dedicated to her. Unless, of course, you consider describing her protests -- the thing that makes her notable -- as "praise". I'm afraid the reality of the situation is the article balances "praise" and criticism but you want a rambling paragraph advocating for the POV you have been trying to push for days. An evenly toned article doesn't include every insult you find in the news: "Pallywood", "propaganda", "light-skinned", "Shirley Temper", "actor", etc.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I object to the re-introduction of the Pallywood material: . "Per K.e.coffman suggestion" in the edit summary was also confusing -- I made no such suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I thought I was responding to your comments regarding Oren. On what grounds are you objecting to adding sourced material that has appeared in nearly every in depth profile of Tamimi in the past 5 years? The article is seriously skewed in terms of POV as it stands.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The POV fest continues while removing properly sourced material about Pallywood the material from fringe Mondoweiss that is symphatetic with his views are allowed to stay with puffery like " "she was described as "painfully shy" and at times "giggled like young girls do", "dressed in jeans and a t-shirts, Ahed’s with a print of “Lola Bunny.""--Shrike (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is quite telling that text sourced to mainline top-notch outlets such as NYT, WaPo, BBC, CNN, Guardian - all of which are even usually described as somewhat left of center (in editorial view) - is being cut out, while we have text sourced to the Oakland Institute, samidoun.net., reedomflotilla.org, Mondoweiss, 972 Magazine, Wafa, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, http://www.respectfilmfest.com/, and https://www.bendsource.com - which are all polemic to very polemic and some are not regarded as RS (e.g. 972 which is a blog, or samidoun and reedomflotilla that are activist sites).Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)