Talk:List of Palestinians allegedly killed by the Mossad

Move-warring
What's up with the undiscussed move? There are sources, and the sources don't say "allegedly." The sources say "assassinated." You might consider that if you change the title to "allegedly assassinated" then it moves the bar for sources much lower. I can find hundreds of Palestinians and Germans (in the 40s-60s) that were alleged in this or that source to have been assassinated by the Mossad. It seems to me that keeping the hedge out of the title limits the scope of the list more appropriately. Otherwise it's going to get out of hand and we're going to end up with a lot of noise obscuring the signal.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. The lead has also been changed to "allegedly". --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We must be very careful with such allegations on Wikipedia. The reports about those so called "Mossad assassins" are unconfirmed and based on assumptions. "The Israeli government's refusal to comment on the death has once more gained worldwide publicity for Mossad". Let's be objective here: In the articles of those Palestinians, would we write that they were assassinated by the Mossad as a fact? No. Let's examine what some of their own articles say about "how they were assassinated by the Mossad": Do you still think this article's title should be "List of Palestinians assassinated by the Mossad"? This would be a serious violation of a few rules. The rest on the list are also not clear at all. We can only say with confidence that just one of these so called assassinations seems to have been executed by the Mossad as exposed documents may have revealed. These speculation are so unclear that I'm not sure this article should even exist. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Muhammad Youssef al-Najjar[1][2] - nothing
 * Atef Bseiso[3] - "Yasser Arafat blamed the Israeli secret service Mossad for the killing. This involvement, to date, has not been proven."
 * Wadie Haddad[4] - "According to the book Striking Back, published by Aharon Klein in 2006, Haddad was eliminated by the Mossad"
 * Izz El-Deen Sheikh Khalil[5] - nothing
 * Kamal Nasser[6] - nothing
 * Wael Zwaiter[12] - "The Israeli Mossad suspected him of being the head of Black September in Rome, and put him on an assassination list after Black September's attack in Munich."


 * Who cares what their own articles say? Do you claim that Wikipedia is a reliable source? Each one of the people on this list has a source that says explicitly that they were assassinated by the Mossad. If we change it to "allegedly assassinated by the Mossad" there are going to be hundreds more eligible people, since it's easy to find sources that say any fat old Nazi who died of pneumonia or any Palestinian blown up by a car bomb was "allegedly" assassinated by the Mossad.  This way, on this list, we have sources for each entry that explicitly say that they were assassinated by the Mossad.  I don't think you're thinking this through carefully.  What rules is it a serious violation of?  And if you don't think it should exist, send it to AfD, don't change the title without discussion.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That the main articles doesn't have that info or isn't properly sourced doesn't mean that it shouldn't be right here. It could be in the lead that Israel doesn't acknowledge it but that doesn't mean that we should change it to being only about "allegations" when they are not described as such. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This move is ridiculous. If there are sources that can verify assassinations, then they are not "alleged"...if there aren't sources, the names shouldn't be on the list. We don't want to start a trend where every such list includes a qualification (like "Alleged murderers", "Alleged record-holder" or "Alleged celebrity"). Liz  Read! Talk! 23:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You might misunderstand how some things work on Wikipedia, because in a case like this, before claiming a person was assassinated by someone else, you must to provide reliable proof for it. The issue has to settle down before controversial titles and information are allowed in the article.
 * You want to use at the sources cited in this article? Okay, to begin with, the person I removed in this edit did not even have a source, nevertheless he was still included in this article, (i.e "List of Palestinians assassinated by the Mossad") and that is of course wrong. Now let's examine everyone on the list and what the sources cited to them say:
 * 1. Ahmed Bouchiki - info seems okay, but it must be proven that the books is reliable
 * 2. Atef Bseiso - there needs to be a link to the source or the exact quote (assuming the book is even reliable)
 * 3. Wadie Haddad - same as #1
 * 4. Ghassan Kanafani - disputed, but seems okay
 * 5. Izz El-Deen Sheikh Khalil - no mention of the world Mossad in page cited, he must be immediately removed
 * 6. Mahmoud al-Mabhouh - same as #2
 * 7. Muhammad Youssef al-Najjar - where does it say "Mossad"?
 * 8. Kamal Nasser - provide the quote where it says the word "Mossad" (and that they killed him. I can't seem to find it), or he must be removed
 * 9. Ali Hassan Salameh - disputed, but seems okay
 * 10. Fathi Shaqaqi - disputed, but seems okay
 * 11. Khalil al-Wazir - provide the exact quote that says he was assassinated by the Mossad, then we'll see if the book is even reliable
 * 12. Wael Zwaiter - same as #11
 * In sensitive cases like this, a direct quote/access to the source are more than just a recommendation. Only after that, we could rename the article back, and do what IRISZOOM suggested: Write in the lead that Israel denies whatever it may be. Shalom11111 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are so totally missing the point. The article title does not depend on the content.  The content depends on the article title.  As it stands right now I could add a hundred more names where I have sources saying that they were allegedly assassinated by the Mossad.  Then, according to you, the article could never be moved back, and it would be a ridiculous article.  If you have a problem with content you don't move the article to make a point about it, you bring up specific problems with the content on the talk page.  Do you have a policy based reason why your move is appropriate or do you not?  Also, you don't have the right to demand of editors that they produce offline material for you. Go look it up yourself at the library if you don't believe it.  There does not "needs to be a link to the source" or "the exact quote." per WP:V.  In fact, there specifically does NOT need to be any of those things.  Plus #2 isn't even a book, it's a newspaper.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're only partially right - in this specific case the problem with the content required the article to be renamed. And evidently, I'm not the first user who thinks this title (with "allegedly") is the correct one. The problem here is the title you want this article to have, not the current one, so it's you that should "bring up specific problems with the content on the talk page." Which you did properly, so it's alright. At WP:DISPUTED, it says If you come across a statement which seems or is inaccurate, please do the following: Correct it right away if you can. Which is what I did, by changing the article's title. I could have inserted a dispute tag instead, but that would've been a timely solution. Currently, those whose source lack the claim that The Mossad killed them are 'Izz El-Deen Sheikh Khalil' and 'Kamal Nasser'. Please find a source for them, or remove them. Also, reading the notability guidelines for books, a few of the books used in the article seem to fall short of the required standards. Shalom11111 (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You seriously moved the article to something completely untenable to correct a sourcing problem? That's... I have no words for it.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC on article title
Should the article title be (a) List of Palestinians allegedly assassinated by the Mossad or (b) List of Palestinians assassinated by the Mossad or (c) Something else?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey
Please support and/or oppose your preference here, followed by an explanation. For clarity when it's time to close, please use the following subsection for threaded discussion.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk)

Oppose
1. This would allow the inclusion of any Palestinian who was reported as being "allegedly" assassinated by the Mossad, even if no reliable source were willing to say without qualification that the person was assassinated by the Mossad. That would lead to indiscriminate inclusion and endless arguments over who's doing the alleging that the RS is reporting on. It's better to stick to cases where the RS is willing to stand behind their sources and make an unequivocal statement of fact.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 2. Assassination and killing (including targeted killing) are 2 different things. The killing of a person can be either: a) the illegal crime of murder (an assassination); or b) legal (for example a targeted killing, or self defense). This title certainly would foster the shoe-horning in of legal killings as "illegal murders" ... if one can find 1 RS that uses the phrase assassination. Thus, by analogy, the killing of Osama bin Laden for example would be deemed an illegal murder, if one could find 1 RS saying the Seals "assassinated" him (which of course one could do even though it is not the common view in RSs). There is clearly not a consensus view in RSs that targeted killings are unlawful murders and assassination, but this suggestion would lead to the Project implying that is the case.Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
1. The inclusion criteria for this list should be the existence of a reliable source that states without qualification that a Palestinian was assassinated by the Mossad or by Israeli government agents. If we allow "alleged" assassinations the list will expand beyond reason, even with reliable sourcing. Also, there's no good reason to have a list of every Palestinian that a reliable source reports was alleged to be assassinated by the Mossad. It would put us in the business of parsing the reliability of the allegations the reliable source is reporting on, and that would almost certainly require original research.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose
1. There is a problem with the use of the word "assassination." Assassination and killing (including targeted killing) are 2 different things. The killing of a person can be either: a) the illegal crime of murder (an assassination); or b) legal (for example a targeted killing, or self defense). This title certainly would foster the shoe-horning in of legal killings as "illegal murders" ... if one can find 1 RS that uses the phrase assassination. Thus, by analogy, the killing of Osama bin Laden for example would be deemed an illegal murder, if one could find 1 RS saying the Seals "assassinated" him (which of course one could do even though it is not the common view in RSs). There is clearly not a consensus view in RSs that targeted killings are unlawful murders and assassination, but this suggestion would lead to the Project implying that is the case.Epeefleche (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On the subject of the distinction of "assassination" and "targeted killing," for example, see:


 * The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, by Georgetown Law professor Gary D. Solis ("Assassination and targeted killing are very different acts")
 * The Impact of 9/11 and the New Legal Landscape: The Day That Changed Everything? Day that changed everything?, Matthew J. Morgan, Bob Graham ("There is a major difference between assassination and targeted killing.")
 * "Targeted Killing as Active Self-Defense", by Amos Guiora, 36 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 319 (2004)("Targeted killing is also not an assassination")
 * Fatal Choices: Israel's Policy of Targeted Killing, by Steven R. David ("there are strong reasons to believe that the Israeli policy of targeted killing is not the same as assassination")
 * "Targeting Terror: The Ethical and Practical Implications of Targeted Killing" E Patterson, T Casale, International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, Volume 18, Issue 4 January 2005, pages 638-52 ("Perhaps most important is the legal distinction between targeted killing and assassination.")
 * Ireland and the Middle East: trade, society and peace, Rory Miller (2007)("Targeted killing ... is not 'assassination' for three reasons")
 * "Targeted Killing and Assassination: The US Legal Framework", William C. Banks, Peter Raven-Hansen - U. Rich. L. Rev., 2002 ("Targeted killing of terrorists is therefore not unlawful and would not constitute assassination")
 * Responses to Terrorism / Targeted killing is a necessary option, Judge Abraham D. Sofaer, March 26, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle ("When people call a targeted killing an "assassination," they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action.")Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
, you make quite a good point. Would you consider adding a section to the RfC for a title incorporating your distinction, or proposing something in the "something else" section?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be open to considering something else (e.g., killed), but haven't thought it through. My view, however, is that the use of "assassinated" on this list, which seems to be replete with what others would call targeted killings, is IMHO a non-starter.  I'll continue however to give it a think.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of "killed" too, but there'll have to be some way to make sure to exclude people killed in military actions. I'm also nervous about straight-out using the term "targeted killing" in the scope, because it's rarely used in reliable sources to describe particular instances of it, being mostly a term of art rather than of reporting. It's a conundrum.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure why this article exists (although I'm aware of category->list history). Using Mossad to kill people is the statistically least significant method used by Israel to kill Palestinians isn't it ? On the wording in the title, I think it's probably better to keep it simple and use a word like 'killed' to avoid embroiling another Wikipedia article in debates about the various social constructs associated with the act of killing.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe it should be merged with List of Israeli assassinations. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good idea since Mossad is too narrow a category; I'm sure a soldier walking by who (thought he) identified some known target and just shot him would not be a Mossad killing.
 * By the way, under Assassination we have a subsection called Targeted killing which gets into some of the differences alleged by perpetrators and their supporters. I have a feeling counter-arguments have been left out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering what Sean.hoyland said Epeefleche's very good points, IRISZOOM'S proposal is obviously the single most logical and appropriate solution. Merge it with that article. Shalom11111 (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shalom11111 and IRISZOOM here. I certainly would have proposed a merger if I'd known the proposed target existed.  Is there much in this article that's not already there?  Perhaps a simple redirect would solve this local problem.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with the target article is that is suffers from the same malady that the above titles suffers from, in that it refers to assassinations rather than killings.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true, but at least the target article attempts to discuss the problem. Also merging this list there, which would take nothing more than a redirect as far as I can see since the info's here's already present there, would at least give us one place to solve one problem rather than trying to do it here and there in parallel.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as the target article has the issue in its title addressed, and this title that is redirected reflects killings and not assassinations (we can't very well accuse people of murder without BLP issues, and we can't accuse organizations of murder without appropriate consensus RS support which we don't have here) that seems to work for me.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A merge is the best idea, and since we have consensus on this I think someone should go ahead and implement it. In the same context, we should also merge Category:People killed in Mossad operations with Category:Assassinated Palestinian people (who are all "Israeli assassinations" as well), right? Shalom11111 (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Does it then seem like a reasonable course of action to (a) redirect this page to List of Israeli assassinations and then (b) take up the question of that article's title over there? I don't think there's anything here that actually needs to be merged over there.  I would rather not have settling the title of that article be a precondition of redirecting this one, since it'll leave a two-front discussion open.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Alf -- that sounds reasonable if we change the title of this article, per the above, from "assassinated" to "killed", before redirecting it.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So (a) move this article to List of Palestinians killed by the Mossad, (b) redirect it to List of Israeli assassinations, and (c) take up the question of that article's title? I just want to be clear on what we're thinking here, so I can state it with clarity in a new subsection so others can weigh in before we commit.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's almost right ... "allegedly killed" would keep the existing format, switching out the conclusory "assassinated" for the non-conclusory "killed".--Epeefleche (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Shalom11111, subcats could be used but it seems like we shouldn't have these type of categories (killed by X) at all. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Concrete proposal to move past RfC
There seems to be a possibility to reach consensus to:
 * (a) move this article to List of Palestinians allegedly killed by the Mossad
 * (b) redirect it to List of Israeli assassinations
 * (c) take up the question of that article's title at that article's talk page.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I still see problems with the word "allegedly" as explained ad infinitum above, but am willing to overlook them in favor of this step forward, which will allow us to centralize the discussion and get rid of this article, which now strikes me as an ill-formatted, ill-formed, ill-referenced fork of the proposed target.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, per the above discussion, and agreeing with the above comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. To the two above me, thanks for taking the time to weight the options and helping reach a better consensus. Shalom11111 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) This is the best solution. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Well, with four supports and no opposes and no action on the RfC, I'm just doing it. Feel free to undo if it needs more discussion and otherwise we'll meet again at the new target article to discuss naming issues. I don't see anything that urgently needs to be merged right now, so I'm just redirecting.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)