Talk:Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis

Ridiculous article
This article is absolutely ridiculous. Let me count the ways:
 * How on Earth do you not mention that the Second Intifada was going on at the time of the murder. Really, how?
 * The Ekathemirini source is mangled and vital details are left out. Here's what the source says: An Israeli military court sentenced a Palestinian to life imprisonment yesterday for a series of attacks including a June 2001 drive-by shooting that killed Father Gerasimos, 37, the Greek Orthodox abbot of St George's Monastery in Wadi Kelt near Jericho, army sources in Jerusalem said. Ismael Hassin Radeida, 22, was found guilty of membership of an armed offshoot of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction. The court heard that Radeida had killed the priest in error in a shooting on the main Jerusalem to Jericho highway, believing him to be an Israeli. This became: In 2003, Ismael Hassin Radeida, a 22-year-old member of an armed faction of Fatah, was convicted of shooting and killing Fr Gerasimos. Radeida told the court had killed the priest in error, having intended to kill Jews driving along the road.  How do you not mention that the conviction was in military court, and why does "Israeli" become "Jew" ; the source does not state that the Radeida was trying to kill "Jews driving along the road"?
 * Barghouti was convicted in a civilian court, unlike the above. This was an important fact mentioned by all sources. Israel tried Barghouti in a civilian court as a demonstration of trying a high-ranking Fatah leader.
 * How do you leave out the fact that Barghouti refused to defend himself in court, stating that the prosecution was illegitimate? This point is mentioned in all sources cited in the article, as well as scholarly sources. See, for instance this book by Stanford University Press. Really, how do you do it? Do you not bother to read the sources you cite?
 * Almost all sources (past 2001) are talking about Barghouti, not the murder. Often the name of the victim isn't even mentioned and the whole matter gets a sentence or two.

This article needs a stick of WP:TNT under it. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Barghouti's conviction is mentioned as a one-liner. His refusal to defend himself is rather irrelevant minutiae in regards to coverage of the murder. It is perhaps relevant in an article about Barghouti. Jew and Israeli are often conflated in Palestinian speak, and in this case Gerasimos was actually an Israeli national - making clear that this was a reference to Jews (or Jewish Israelies) and not other people who happen to hold Israeli citizenship.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If the source is wrong, one uses a different source (or clarifies it, or something), not simply mangle the source as one sees fit. The details about Barghouti's conviction and the general situation (Second Intifada etc.) are not irrelevant minutiae. A thousand Israelis died in the Second Intifada; this murder is primarily notable because of Barghouti. Every source cited in the article (past 2001), is talking about Barghouti, not the murder. When EMG created this article because "it was in the news", it was actually because Barghouti was in the news, because he wrote an op-ed for the NYT. Barghouti is trying to get out his propaganda, and Israeli govt. is trying to counter it by their propaganda. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to serve as tools in either campaign. If there is to be an article at all about this matter (which I seriously doubt), one has to present it the way reliable sources present it, with WP:due emphasis on various aspects. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The murder of hannah bladon, a devout Christian on Good Friday in Jerusalem, has also brought this assault on christians in Jersualem back to the news. There is a bunch of google-books references here too -, not all related to Barghouti - but rather related to the assault on Christendom by the Palestinian movement. And in any event - a famous perpetrator often confers notability on his actions - there are many CRIME articles that are here because the perp is famous - and the crime received coverage as a result.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is pure WP:OR. There's absolutely no connection present in this article (or anywhere else) between Hannah Bladon and this murder. And nobody has claimed, anywhere, that Bladon was targeted because she was Christian. Nor is this murder, or Bladon's killing an "assault on Christendom by the Palestinian movement". Indeed, the WP article says that the person was targeted because he was Jewish; why would the person target a supposed Jew if they were actually conducting an "assault on Christendom"? The discussion has now become completely absurd, so that's all I have to say about the matter. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 09:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The article says a Fatah operative carried out the killing
 * The article says a Tanzim operative carried out the killing
 * The article says:
 * "Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti was convicted of murder in 2004 for having directed the attack."


 * But how could Barghouti have 'directed a shooting' on the Greek priest, when it was admitted that the car was shot at, by whoever, because it had Israeli license plates, and no one apparently knew who was in it?

The Greek Ephemeridies article cannot be reached through the link,and in itself is not RS. et etc.etc.etc. If you are going to write an article you need to have a solid material evidential basis in encyclopedic work. This is just a patching together of extremely thin newspaper reports, which contradict erach other creating, to cite just one instance, the confusion I have outlined above.Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have done a major expand, source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Irish times source
Where does the Irish times source say that this killing will make peace talks more difficult? I can't see anything like this there. I can't access the other source. Please quote the relevant part of the source. I have removed the passage pending verification. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist
The word 'terrorist' shouldn't be there. In the technical literature, this period is described as a war, a prevalent term used by the army as a framework for what they and settlers did in the Occupied Territories.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The people who performend this particular shooting, weren't in uniforms or carrying any identifying embelms (as opposed to other PA factions (PA police and various security apparatuses) which were in uniform part of the conflict) - thus clearly Unlawful combatant, and were targeting a clearly civilian object without a clear military objective beyond the impact of the news of the action (as this was a sporadic action, not a continuing blockade/firing of the road for instance). They also operated outside the command of an official government (if we call the PA such) under the direction of loose tanzim association (so they aren't government sponsored saboteurs or espionage agents). While the perpetrators may have been Force 17 members - they were operating outside the command structure (under Barghouti and not the chairman of the PA) and without uniforms. Thus terrorist rather clearly applies, all the more so given charges levied against them. Your claim would have had more merit were they Palestinian police or security apparatus members acting under orders of their organization and in uniform.Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * AAgain, you ignore wiki usage: many editors from the 'Israeli side' mechanically plunk 'terrorist' because that is how Israeli papers deal with anything violent a Palestinian may do. From a Palestinian perspective (and not theirs alone) the continual shooting up of Palestinians every other day is a form of state terrorism. We use neither. Irt must be removed. In war, guerillas or militants don't imitate the occupying army by wearing uniforms. The criterion is, is it a war or not. War has its rules, of course, and the shooting of civilians is terroristic, but both sides in the I/P conflict are guilty of that, and since we do not call IDF killings terroristic, we shouldn't call these actions terroristic.Nishidani (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was actually referring to the international warfare legal status of the perpetrators - which were unlawful combatants (in contrast to other Palestinian participants there were clashes/battles with on-duty Palestinian Security Services personnel that were acting within the accepted rules of war regarding identification), acting outside of established Palestinian command structure (in this case - receiving instruction from Barghouti and via the official chain of command in the PA). The military objective of the action itself (shooting a random civilian vehicle and then retreating) - is difficult to construe as anything other than attempting to affect hearts and mind (terrorizing). Not all palestinian forces are terrorist - for instance, it would be technically incorrect in my opinion to refer to most of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict Hamas-affiliated forces as terrorists (though Israeli media does). Not every killing of a civilian is "terroristic" - the question is a matter of military objective - which in terrorism is mainly to strike fear and not achieve a different military objective (e.g. restricting supply to a certain area by consistently shooting the roads to that area). In contrast - collateral damage is not terror and conversely genocide (e.g. Armenian Genocide or Rwandan genocide) is also not terror (as the goal isn't to strike fear, but to actually kill then entire targeted group - which is much worse than "just" terror). In contrast to your blanket statement (to which I agree the Israeli may err in some coverage, but not always) - I'm referring to this specific case.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ceasefire stuff
I have removed the ceasefire stuff in the article, due to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Firstly, I cannot find in either of the sources (LA Times "Sharon, Arafat Back U.S. Cease-Fire Plan" on 13 June, and the Jerusalem Post editorial on 14 June), that the "preliminary ceasefire" (I have no idea what that means) by Arafat was operative at the time of the shooting. Second, there is no connection between the disco bombing and this murder, so it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to connect the two. Third, there were plenty of ceasefires before this, and as the LA Times piece notes; they all fell apart quickly. Fourth, there is no indication that the ceasefire organized by George Tenet, on 13 June, had anything to do with the murder; the sources state that the ceasefire was negotiated over 6 days, and the murder is only mentioned (in passing) because it happened on the same day as the ceasefire was negotiated. Fifth, the "demonstrators marching through Ramallah" has absolutely nothing to do with the murder. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a bit disingenuous to remove all references to the Second Intifada from the article - after you complain in the Afd (and the top of this talk page) that there is no mention of the second intifada! The disco bombing is connected in terms of the timeline of events (and is what triggered the ceasefire) - as the previous major terrorist attacks on civilians (12 days prior). The ceasefire was in place from the beginning of June - see this source from June 3rd (immediately after the disco massacre) -  (Hebrew), which is notable in that Bargouti (who was convicted of organizing this murder) voiced public opposition to Arafat's unilateral ceasefire. here is an English language source from 12th June -  stating Arafat's call to stop the violence in the beginning of June (bottom of article) + acceptance of Tenet's plan. I strong suggest you self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional English language source - - see 2nd June 2001. Placing this event into context - the second intifada and attempt to organize a ceasefire - are highly relevant as you yourself tried to point out - "This article conspicuously does not even mention the fact that the Second Intifada was going on, because it undermines the point of the article.". You can't have it both ways. Putting in the context - Second Intifada, immediately following the disco bombing, Arafat's order to immediately cease violence (2nd June), and Tenent's truce attempts (which were accepted on the day of the murder - the 12th). Given that a source check here also reveals a Barghouti statement from June 3rd - "The intifada and armed resistence will continue as long as a single soldier or settler remain in the occupied Palestinian terrotories"  - a clear call to armed violence from the person convicted of murder despite Arafat's order to cease violence - 9 days before the murder - this is all the more relevant. Mentioning Arafat's call to cease the violence which was prompted by the aftermath of the disco bombing - without mentioning the disco bombing is problematic. This is not OR or SYNTH.Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Material that I added to article regarding the ceasefire was from articles that discussed this murder as an event related in several ways to the cease fire. It is not SYNTH when reliable news media make the connection.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is understood that the comment refers to the state of the article at the time the complaint was made. It does not matter if the article changed in the future; my complaint would still remain valid. Let us separate out the Second Intifada part from the ceasefire part, which is the topic of this section. The Independent source does not say that the ceasefire after June 1 disco bombing was operative; it says that Sharon declared a ceasefire on May 22 but Palestinians dismissed it as a stunt. Arafat then called for a ceasefire after the disco bombing, but there was no indication that it was operative or even effective. The Independent article says: the CIA chief arrived last week to try to stabilize a shaky cease–fire that has been punctuated by Palestinian attacks and Israeli fire in return. The Telegraph article says that on June 10, the Israeli army shelled a Bedouin camp. That's not much of a ceasefire; indeed, the Jerusalem Post editorial complains about this very point. This is all rather beside the point. The main point is that the ceasefire (after Tenet's negotiations, enacted on June 13) has nothing to do with the murder; nobody has given any indications that the two were connected in any way, or one was the cause of the other, or one hindered the other, or anything like that. If there is some source which says directly that Barghouti directed the murder to undermine the ceasefire, one can add it to the article. Otherwise, it would be WP:OR to connect the two, as you are attempting to do. From WP:OR: you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 12:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I added references to the second intifada - immediately after you complained they weren't there - following which you deleted a bunch of stuff - including all references to the second intifada! That aside. The independent (bottom) - "After a Palestinian suicide bomb attack in Tel Aviv June 1 killed 21 people, most of them Israeli teenagers, Mrr Arafat called for an immediate end to violence". telegraph timeline - "Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat declares an "immediate and unconditional cease-fire" incorporating the Palestinian security services following the suicide bomb attack in Tel Aviv" . So this is an unconditional one-sided cessation of activities by Arafat (or one-sided ceasefire). Hebrew language sources from 3rd June - - both state uni-lateral ceasefire by Arafat, and Barghouti's (who was convicted for murder) stmt that "The intifada and armed resistance will continue as long as a single soldier or settler remain in the occupied Palestinian territories". Regarding Tenent - per Telegraph  - "Israel accepts the Tenet ceasefire plan but insists on the right to carry out "deterrent defensive operations"." Note that the monk's murder is on the same day - detailed below this. Sources provided clearly show that:
 * 1. on 2nd June Arafat declared a one-sided ceasefire - this declaration was still in force on 12th June (and as you can see here - - there were no fatal attacks against Israelies by Palestinians from 3rd June until the 12th June (the murder of the monk).
 * 2. on 3rd June - Barghouti (convicted for murder of the monk) stated Tanzim will not abide to Arafat's declaration - in relation to activities inside the occupied territories.
 * 3. Tenent's truce was accepted on 12th June - the day of the murder.
 * The tank fire incident (tank fire on suspected armed figures) - was by the Israeli side, not bound by Arafat's one-sided declaration, and in response to movement towards an Israeli position.
 * You are correct on one point - one should state that this was a unilateral one-sided ceasefire from the Palestinian Authority (to put this in context - following a similar one-sided ceasefire from the Israeli side on 22nd May). A more comprehensive truce negotiation (Tenent) was ongoing - and accepted on the day of the murder (at this point - I'm not sure if before or after the murder).
 * The context of the second Intifada, as you yourself pointed out, is important. Georgios Tsibouktzakis was shot not as a random act of violence, but rather as part of an ongoing national struggle - the second intifada.Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me state the main point and then work from there. There was a ceasefire being organized by George Tenet from around June 8 to June 13. Is there any connection between the ceasefire and the murder? What is it? Did Barghouti direct the murder to try to undermine the ceasefire? What is the evidence for this? If not, why is the ceasefire mentioned at all? Unless one can show the connection, all discussion is beside the point. We then come to the Second Intifada issue. The Second Intifada was, at the time of this incident, ongoing for 8 months. One can't simply pick one incident from there and randomly plonk it in the article, especially when that incident (the disco bombing) has nothing to do with this murder. For the moment, I have simply added a mention of the Second Intifada in the lead. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The connection between the ceasefire and this murder was made by the newspapers I cited. I "found" the ceasefire and the articles about it that I added by searching for sources about the murder.   It belongs in the article because WP:RSs connect the murder to  ceasefire.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides the unilateral Palestinian ceasefire (to which Barghouti stated, in public defiance of Arafat, that it wouldn't apply inside the West Bank) which was in-place and on-going Tenent negotiations, there are ample WP:RS making the connection. For instance: "A shooting death took place as Mr. Arafat was meeting with the C.I.A. director. A Greek Orthodox monk was killed while driving on a road connecting East Jerusalem to the large Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim.". There is no SYNTH or OR in the article - just placing the shooting of the monk in the general context of the conflict in June 2001.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the disco bombing - it was the trigger - again by multiple RS - for the unilateral ceasefire by Arafat, it is required for context. We have A+B, and B+C, and C+D. An encyclopedia, when writing an article, combines disparate (reliable!) sources in a unified concise view - of A+B+C+D. Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That one source can go in. Everything is a 'trigger' in I/P history. You have numerous sources saying everytime an American diplomatic initiative is launched, as the diplomats arrive, Israeli leaders preemptively sabotage them by tightening the screws, demolishing houses or announcing more settlements. In the intifadas you get events started by one side interpreted as closing off options by the other: all this is nonsense of course, because the thickness of events, means no objective starting point exists: you can privilege a disco bombing or some Israeli IDF act of egregious violence, or some incident like this, or the Death of Yehuda Shoham a week earlier, and spin it the way you like. In any case, Kingsindian is correct: unless sources contextualize this within the 2 Intifada, one cannot fudge up a paragraph to make it look like Barghouti sabotaged Ariel Sharon's 'peace' initiative, which 'was broken immediately by both sides'. The disco bombing was done by Hamas, Arafat's enemy; Yehuda Shohan by unknown stone throwers, not known to be connected to any group; the killing of Tsibouktzakis is attributed to Barghouti, on evidence never made public, in a trial international observers said was a farce. History can't be written on innuendo, and since the Israeli conviction rate has a percentage of success like that of voting for the communist party in Bulgaria in the good old days (98%), the court judgement is essentially meaningless.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * fact check  Articles DO NOT SHOW that this is "Sharon's peace initiative," as an editor who took the trouble to read would know.  They make it crystal clear that Arafat unilaterally announced the series of ceasefire(s), to avert Israeli retaliation for the nightclub attack, and that if anyone "owned" the negotiated ceasefire, it was the American State Department, clearly described as twisting both Israeli and Palestinian arms to get it signed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There were three "ceasefires" (in a 20-day period). Sharon declared a ceasefire on May 22, but said he will retaliate against violence (you can parse that declaration yourself). Arafat called for a ceasefire on June 3 (Arafat had little control over the various factions). Then there were long discussions between Israel, Arafat and the US from June 8 to June 13, and a ceasefire was declared on June 13. The last one happened because none of the earlier ceasefires (over the previous 8 months) were worth a damn, because they were violated all the time by both sides. The last one was not particularly effective either, but whatever. All I want is a some source that states that this murder had anything to do with the June 13 ceasefire. The only sources so far in the article state (in passing) that the murder happened during the last day of the negotiations. There is no cause-and-effect, and there is no evidence that Barghouti directed this murder to try to undermine negotiations, as the "context" section is attempting to do. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Causation is possible, not definite. In any event - this is relevant for context. The information should be there, as it is in RS, and the reader should make his own conclusions - many are possible. If you think the text goes beyond implying possible to causation to asserting definite causation - I don't see that - but argue on those grounds (rather than throwing out the entire context of the conflict leading up to this incident). The New-York times connects Tenet's ceasefire negotiations and agreement with the attack - here - saying it occured as Arafat was meeting Tenet. Ceasefires, in practice, are almost always "shaky" until they "take hold" - in this case the one-sided declarations actually did somewhat take hold, and Tenet's ceasefire held for at least a month (mid-July) with some impact later. The degree of Arafat's control of the Palestinian side (ranging from: complete mastermind, fostering unofficial wings, fostering some unofficial wings and tolerating others, tolerating unofficial wings, not cracking down on unofficial wings, not able of cracking down, to even not knowing unofficial wings exist (OK - this one is a stretch, though possible for some of the time vs. some of the organizations)) - is a matter of debate, with many possible viewpoints, and probably won't be fully determined for each point of time and each unofficial organization. I don't think this is a matter of IL-PA POV nowadays (it used to be - back when Arafat was alive and PA head - back then IL government POV tended to push for mastermind, PA apologists to unable) - today it is much more mixed. In IL all (or a mixture of all in different times) is possible. In PA it really depends on internal political discourse and degree of hagiography attributed to Arafat. I don't think this article should go into this issue - this should be covered in Second Intifada, Yasser Arafat, etc.... As Arafat was a major PA political figure and the titular head (with actual control over at least some forces - the official ones, and with responsibility regarding law and order enforcement) - his one-sided ceasefire declaration on 2nd June is relevant to a Palestinian attack (by an unofficial wing of his own party) on 12th June.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources make one (in passing) comment on the ceasefire on June 13 and the murder -- because it happened on the same day, and it is the job of newspapers to summarize what happened on the day. Nobody, anywhere, makes any connection between the two. There is absolutely no connection to anything else in the last three or four paragraphs in the "Context" section. The disco bombing, Barghouti's comment about the settlers etc. (the source cited is from 6 June) have absolutely no connection to the crime. I can, kicking and screaming, countenance one brief mention of the ceasefire on June 13, but the rest of it is not acceptable. Please see WP:SYNTH. The connection has to be made by sources. One cannot pick arbitarily things from the period and weave a story around that. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ceasefire and this murder were linked by sources Kingsindian deleted on 25 April .E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Most news releases from around the time make the connection. Lists of events detailing the IL/PA conflict - e.g. - make the connection. The killing of the monk occurred in a particular context - the second intifada and ceasefire negotiations - and it is typical in an article to provide background. This wasn't a "random killing by some crazy" but rather an act of violence that occurred in the framework of a wider conflict. Furthermore, if a person convicted of murder is quoted on record by RS, 9 days before the killing, calling for violence of the sort committed - it would be odd to leave that out.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

material related to background and/or context
It has been proposed that a lot of material be removed from this article. This background material is similar to background sections in other articles, is backed up by reliable sources, so I think it should be kept. It was questioned whether this counted as "synthesis", but I do not think that this is the case because the article does not try to make interpretations, just presents established facts. Like with all other articles with background/context sections the readers may may decide for themselves based on the facts. For example, the article provides the relevant context that there was a ceasefire before this attack, but does not try to form implications about the effect of the attack on the ceasefire. Connections are only stated when they come from a notable politician, referenced in a reliable source, and in this cases these opinions are attributed to the politician who stated them. OtterAM (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The section above is dealing with this very issue; please give your opinions there. Also, it is customary to keep the material out of the article while discussion is going on. This is mandated by the ARBPIA3 rule anyway, but it is a stupid rule so I don't like to cite it. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Some proquest sources
A lot of the sources are cited to ProQuest. I don't have a subscription, but I found some of them by Googling around. Can someone tell me what this source: " Lahoud, Lamia (22 June 2001). "Barghouti denies part in murder" Jerusalem Post" says? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I hate paywalls. Here's a full text copy past of requested article:

Senior West Bank Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti strongly denied Israeli allegations that he was behind the June 11 murder of Greek Orthodox monk Georgios Tsibouktzaltis, outside Jerusalem.

"These are false allegations and fabricated rumors that the Israeli security officials came up with....the purpose ... is to use it as cover and justification for a crime that Israel intends to carry out," Barghouti said implying that Israel is planning to assassinate him.

The GSS said it arrested two suspects who confessed to the murder of Tsibouktzaltis and said Barghouti helped them obtain their weapons.

Barghouti said he did not know the two suspects, who are allegedly members of the PA's Force 17.

Barghouti accused Israeli settlers of the killing, a charge echoed by the PA. In an official statement, the PA Ministry of Information argued that Tsibouktzaltis was killed on the same road as a Palestinian man, shot two days later.

A previously unknown group calling itself "Shalhevet Gilad" claimed responsibility.

The PA statement said that the Greek Orthodox Church also holds settlers responsible for the monk's death.

The accusations against Barghouti follow repeated statements by the Fatah leader that the cease-fire only applies to areas under Palestinian control and that Fatah will continue to ambush settlers until they leave the territories. Since the two sides agreed on the Tenet cease- fire plan, three Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinian gunmen and five Palestinians have been killed by the IDF.

Palestinian security officials denied that the cease- fire order was valid in Area A only.

"The cease-fire should apply everywhere," one senior security official said. But a Palestinian security officer admitted that no one is taking any action against those who carry out attacks outside Area A.

One security source said that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat does not want to enter a confrontation with his people, while he is getting nothing in return from Israel. However the PA issued a statement Wednesday night calling for a halt to all killings of civilians. The statement came after heavy diplomatic pressure on Arafat and after it became clear that US special peace envoy William Burns will return today to prepare for a visit by Secretary of State Colin Powell and to try to work out an agreement on the implementation of the Mitchell Report and the cease-fire plan.

A PA source who knows Barghouti well said the Fatah leader was too smart to get directly involved in purchasing weapons for Palestinian gunmen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Murdered priests"
Removed Category:Murdered priests because Father Giorgios was not targeted because he was a priest, but, rather, as a presumably Israeli driver of a car with Israeli plates. Inappropriate category.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Spelling
Due to certain characteristics of modern Greek spelling, "Tsibouktsakis" and "Tsimpouktsakis" would be quasi-equivalent, but "Tsimtouktsakis" with -mt- seems a little strange... AnonMoos (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This name is also going through a Greek-Hebrew/Arabic-English translation loop in some sources, making the range of results in use a bit funky.Icewhiz (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be worthwhile to include his name written in Greek and/or Hebrew? OtterAM (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In Greek certainly. Maybe also Hebrew and Arabic, though I'm not sure the spelling is consistent in both of these.Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2019
The article should be moved from Category:Murdered priests to the subcategory Category:Murdered Eastern Orthodox priests. Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)