Talk:Ahed Tamimi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Activist

We have a heading Activism. According to Merriam-Webster, this means:-

a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue ·political activism ·environmental activism Merriam-Webster

This word used in these contexts has always struck me as problematical. Were resisting occupation automatically 'activist', it means that the word automatically applies to 'the other side of a controversial issue', i.e., to settlers, and their supporters, who actively militate on behalf of their perceived right to occupy another people's lands. Indeed, newspaper usage will readily show that settlers are not, in their militancy for a cause, described customarily as 'activists'. That word is applied almost invariably to (left-wing) supporters of the Palestinian cause. Google 'settler activist+ West Bank' and you obtain a vast number of links to pages which define activist as the party in a dispute with settlers, while the term is not used of settlers and their allies.

In this specific case, Tamimi is active in the defense of her home (like many under an Israeli demolition order), her family's lands, and her right to a normal life in a country that is under belligerent occupation (the technical term). I think a neutral term, or better still, simply a sequence of sections dealing with her documented participation in confrontations with Israeli troops or settlers, is all that is required. It's a verbal nicety, perhaps, but, at least from my perspective, this whole field of conflict is garbled because Orwellian language traps exist in virtually all areas of discourse ( For example, settlers are 'colonists' in comparative historical perspective, but 'settlers' has won the day, and little can be done about it, despite its euphemistic function).Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Google defines activist as "a person who campaigns to bring about political or social change". I don't think the heading is wrong, though I wouldn't be opposed to a more descriptive heading such as "Resistance to occupation". Of 19 (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it an active resistance to occupation? If this is the case, then they may be described as "anti-occupation resistance-minded activists". The term itself is not wrong. As a word, it cannot be wrong. Rather, it's the misapplication of the term by those in the media and the local communities that consume media coverage that is wrong. One side ought not to claim ownership of the word and use it to describe the other side's activities even when those activities are identical to their own. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Activism has the advantage of both being short and it avoids taking a POV stance on her actions.Icewhiz (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the evidence above. The sources overwhelmingly use 'activist' in the I/P conflict only to refer to one party in the dispute, and thus it is intrinsically POV. I don't want to replace it with a POV of the kind suggested, i.e. 'opposition/resistance'. I don't believe we need a POV title of any description.Nishidani (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I can see your point, but it's unclear what you are suggesting instead of "Activism". Just sections for years would be strange. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a date line. The relevant year is all that is required. Either than or 'incidents', which is a bit lame. I'll think about it overnight.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You still need to delineate her activism (or whatever else you want to call it) from her personal life and whatever other future non-activism and non-personal activities she will be involved with. I see the point of activist being applied in English mainly to Palestinians and pro-Palestinians - but I fail to see the probelm as it is a neutral term and she is clearly in the Palestinian camp - so it not misleading. If we were to apply this label to settler organizations and affilated persons (e.g. environmental green now (https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/ירוק_עכשיו), Regavim (NGO), or Women for Israel's Tomorrow) this might be a relevant arguement (though I do no see a problem with a pro-settler activist terminology).Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a settler described as an activist in the Guardian [1] He has transformed himself from radical activist into a mainstream politician with an extremist manifesto. It might be that they are written about less.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow! One example. If you were more fluent in the jargon, you would realize that while 'activist' is appropriate for a diaspora Zionist as an epithet, it suffers a rapid loss of purchase in descriptions of Zionists who actually then go and colonize Palestinian lands.

I don't think so, anyway. It is easy for the rest of us to think this is primarily activism, but if you grow up with your dad being arrested at home, your home raided from midnight to dawn by armed troops, seeing a letter in the post box saying 'This is to notify you your house is subject to demolition', and being stopped from swimming in the traditional swimming hole of your village, on your dad's property, because a bunch of thugs threaten you or the army herds you off it, then basically you grow up defending a very small thing, your right to a decent unharassed, normal life, in your village. Of course, this can soon translate into activism or larger ideological commitments if you move on, join marches elsewhere, sign universal petitions, etc., but a child aged 10 shouldn't be called an 'activist' and Nabi Salih is basically about protesting over the right to be left alone, not robbed, not checked at gunpoint at checkpoints on the outskirts, etc. As I have often argued, all we are seeing here is a middle eastern rerun of the history of the wild West, with the Palestinians being pushed off their land by carpetgrabbing colonists, many from the US where this was once considered normal. I don't think the Cherokees who fought against Jackson's dispossession were 'activists' or 'civil rights militants'. They were doing something very parochial, defending a home and a patch of land you grew up on. This (Palestinians as red injuns) was all pointed out way back, by Jewish Zionists and anti-Zionist like the wonderful Victor Klemperer in the 1920s and 1930s. Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Besides her videos from the village, she has travelled the meet world leaders (Erdogan) and local ones (Abbas), speaking tours (or has attempted to do so in the US), interviews to international media, and a conference in the European Parliament.Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please try and pay attention to the point. I made a distinction between a 10-12 year old child's defiance of troops, and what occurred later. You have summed the whole period as 'activism' and iot is patently absurd to call a child's biting the hand of a soldier holding her little brother in a stranglehold etc., 'activism'. We've all, if we're normal, done these things as kids, in defense of kin and against thugs or bullies, and it ain't activist. Later, she became an activist, but that epithet cannot be retroactively applied to her from early childhood.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

She met with Abbas and Erdogan (separately) in 2012 - after her first videos/photos. Normal kids do not travel to Turkey to have breakfast with the PM (now president). The soldier biting video was in 2015.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Child activist?

Is it possible to have a normal childhood under military occupation? That said, it's possible that "child activists" exist. However, it's not a recognised concept, unlike child soldiers. Both are abberations -- i.e. children shouldn't have to be activists nor soldiers. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

She seems to be described as a teen activist - e.g. [2] [3] and heck of alot of additional hits on gnews.Icewhiz (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources provided are both from 2017, while our section starts with 2012. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

2015 - [4] describes activism.Icewhiz (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Passing mention. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a label, and has been applied by a RS in 2015. A RS will typically describe a person and tehn refer to them by surname in the rest of their article. She is definitely described since 2015 as an activist.Icewhiz (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Our section starts with 2012. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

2017 sources who provide an overview of her life and activism (including 2012 events) frame the past events as part of her activism.Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

As well as in 2015 refering to 2012: Tamimi's activism already made her a fixture in social media. In December, 2012 she was filmed shouting at and shoving soldiers twice her size, which earned her an invitation to Turkey to receive a "courage" award.[5].Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Fun Fact: Standing up to two soldiers twice a little girl's size takes significantly less courage than doing it to one who is half her size, because the little guy is more likely to feel the need and justification to defend himself. But if she tested those truly dangerous waters, she'd look like a bully instead of a champion. There's nothing comedic about inviting a boss to Turkey dinner, but "never punch down" applies to all sorts of public performance beyond slapstick and vaudeville. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There is more then enough sources to describe her as an activist--Shrike (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The next time you, as usual, step in to 'vote', please read the thread. The distinction was made between a child at 12, and, after numerous incidents, an adolescent who is often described as an activist. No one contests that one can call her an 'activist' at this point. But it is argued that the first incidents in her childhood cannot be headed by Activism. Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani would Resistance be a more appropriate header? I understand what you are saying but I can't provide a clear answer, I'm afraid.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we need a heading. Surely it is simpler to delineate chronologically her history of clashes with the occupation. Resistance is certainly, thanks, the appropriate term for what she's caught up in, though in my feel for the word, it connotes a paramilitary effort to overcome an occupying power, and, if so, somewhat exaggerated, if not indeed forced. If I get time, I will rewrite the facts, as ascertainable, in chronological order. One way out would be to access the very first articles mentioning her, to see how they describe her, and use their language, until we get contemporary reports of her as an 'activist'. Sources that deal with her in the last two or three years, using 'activist' can then warrant that term, in the appropriate place. I'd be very surprised if on the day she first hit the headlines at 12, reporting sources described her then as an activist, though, given the slovenliness and POV spinning that also is possible. If I am right in this guess on 2012 sources, then there is no need to call her an 'activist' at that time. Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Mondoweiss exclusion

Mondoweiss has been discussed numerous times, (and in reading the archives note that several socks are almost the dominant if not only voices objecting to it) and Plot Spoiler's es that it is not RS doesn't reflect RSN arguments, many of which have accepted it as usable. It can't be reverted out on sight as was done. Most recently (a)here and specifically for Jonathan Ofir here . What Ofir said is utterly non-controversial, and the reason why Ofir and Mondoweiss is needed for much of this coverage is that they read and translate much of what the mainstream Israeli press reports in Hebrew but which is never echoed in the cautious NYTimes and other mainstream rags. Ofir doesn't make up his information. I'll restore it therefore, unless someone beats me to the gun.Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there was a consensus on RSN, ever, on Mondoweiss being or not being a RS - all the discussions ended with a "meh" from my reading. However, if all you have is Mondoweiss (a small, highly polemic, pro-Palestinian advocacy news-site that focuses on Israel/Palestine news almost exclusively from an advocacy standpoint) - it is WP:UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Its RS for its own view it doesn't mean that its WP:DUE to be included--Shrike (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The point used is not a 'view' but a referenced translation of what Israeli sources that are not picked up by the foreign press state. Secondly, Icewhiz has just shot himself in the foot with this argument, because he cites below (see my comment) Mondoweiss, and together with it, sources that certainly wouldn't be acceptable at the RSN board, for inclusion, only in this case it is to cover Michael Oren's statements. You cannot advocate using Mondoweiss for Michael Oren, but refuse to have it for statements made by Oren Hazan. That is patently biased judgemnent, so I take his comment above to be invalidated by the editor himself.Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm citing them to show the spread of Oren's statements - I am not suggesting to use them as a source. If you are using Mondoweiss for a translation - it would be best to also cite the Hebrew original.Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- I reviewed several RSN threads and there's no blanket "Mondoweiss is not RS" conclusion that I could see. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

POV tag

Tamimi, who is known for her confrontation and activism against Israel, has elicited some responses from Israel (e.g. Miri Regev and Michael Oren who have both been covered at length by international media). Redacting such attributed statements, e.g. [6], and leaving our article without substantive Israeli views (e.g. Pallywood, violence, etc.) is not NPOV, as we fail to represent views on the subject which are covered in just about every profile of her in mainstream media.Icewhiz (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

'Tamimi, who is known for her confrontation and activism against Israel.'

Jeezus Kerrist!!! So Martin Luther King was' known for his confrontation and activism against the United States'. Turkey just jailed major journalists writing on behalf of human rights as being activists hell-bent on staging a coup against Turkey. Would you write that as 'they are known for their confrontation and activism against Turkey'?

Tamimi is known for her activism on behalf of her, and her family, and the Palestinians', human rights. You are obliged to follow WP:NPOV, Icewhiz and not insistently spin any human rights movement against being fucked around by an occupying army as anti-Israel.Nishidani (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected - activism on behalf of herself, family, and Palestinians' human rights directed against the Israeli occupying army - whom we should represent as well.Icewhiz (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You obliged to follow it and if IDF position is presented in WP:RS we should present it too.--Shrike (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz if we followed your logic for every rights symbol that met criticism (or, in this case, flat-out attacks), Emmett Till would just be a trouble-making black kid who "asked for it", MLK would be a terrorist too, and Sophie Scholl would be a traitor to her nation. So I apologize if you have finally faced a scenario where your spin is not forced upon an article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly we should not be calling her such in our voice - per WP:TERRORIST (and for a number of other reasons) - that doesn't mean attributed statements from notable individuals representing the other side should be left out.Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I think commentary like Oren Hazan's "I would kick her in the face" should be covered here. Zero^talk 13:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hazan would typically be regarded on the fringe of the Israeli parliament.Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The difference between him and many others is that the others are more careful about speaking their minds. Zero^talk 08:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

He definitely speaks without a filter - he just got suspended from the Knesset (except for voting) for a long litany of statements - [7] - possibly the longest such suspension ever (it might not stand up in court, however). If were are including Hazan (and Smotrich whom I can actually see the sense in including (as a settler representative), definitely we should be including more mainstream voices, no?Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The feedback at NPOVN seems that the the diff under discussion was not neutrally written, given more credense to Oren's statement that was warranted. I suggest that the tag be removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The article fails to represent the mainstream Israeli government view here - which is clearly a side to the subject at hand and which are covered ad nauseam in most mainline RS. As for NPOV/n, I believe you are referring to - this comment - the context bit is irrelevant for this article (it is highly relevant for Oren's), and we can address the liberal criticism of Oren's comments by mentioning said criticism. Oren's comments are still being covered, e.g. - [8] from yesterday (20th Feb).Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz stop mischaracterizing the government's views as "mainstream". More sources/organizations/nations support Tamimi and condemn the court proceedings. I am not saying we should not represent the government's attempts to attack and dehumanize her -- readers learn a lot from that -- but do not pretend their views are held by a majority of people or sources.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify - I meant "mainstream Israeli" (which Smotrich or Hazan would not be), which is what I wrote, not "mainstream". The Israeli position is covered by mainstream RS - extensively - and so should we per WP:WEIGHT in the same proportion as mainstream RS afford the Israeli position (which is obviously covered due to being a side to this issue, but regardless - we should just follow the weight in the sources). For example, the recent ABC.AU profile of Tamimi which was quite favorable overall to Tamimi also covered the Israeli view - mainly via Oren's comments - both new ones given to ABC.AU (e.g. "He said the same thing would happen to a young person who attacked a policeman or a soldier in Melbourne or Sydney. "It's an assault. And if you look at the footage, it's a rather violent assault," he said.", and re-covering of his previous comments "They would dress as Americans. Audiences in the West would see children that look like their children being hit by Israeli soldiers.". One must also note that this piece also covers "The Israeli military prosecutor said comments made by Ms Tamimi on her Facebook page are what amount to a "call for suicide bombings"."Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Another reason for POV tag to stay is phrases like this "have known only a life of checkpoints, identity papers, detentions, house demolitions, intimidation, humiliation and violence" failing to explain that checkpoints for example are only apperead when Palestinians started to send suicide bombers to Israeli cities. Such one-sided quotes are clearly POV violation.--Shrike (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Israeli government view

• Comment -- Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for state propaganda. We don't have to represent the mainstream Israeli government view for the article to be neutral; this is not Pravda :-). The proponents of the inclusion have so far failed to present a neutrally-framed wording in the first place; please see feedback at NPOVN: permalink. The tag is therefore unwarranted. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You are misrepresenting the POV/n discussion. And yes - per WP:WEIGHT we have to cover viewpoints in proportion to coverage they have received - and the mainstream Israeli government view has received major coverage - present in just about every profile of Tamimi in a Western media source.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

Ahed's birthdate (and resultant age) either needs clearer citation than the ABC News article, which does not give clear evidence of that birthdate, or needs editing to acknowledge the ambiguity/lack of clarity around her actual age. Given that her age has been reported as various, and contradictory, ages over the years and that her status as a minor is a key element of the current discussion over her treatment by Israeli authorities, such specificity or acknowledgement of ambiguity seems proper. Her birthday of Jan 31 is reasonably supported by a Twitter post. However, two sources that would seem to support the existence of ambiguity around her birth year are these websites, which are supportive of the Palestinian cause and seem to have personal contact with the Tamimi family. By their calculations, assuming a Jan 31 birthday, her age would be 19 and...19 (this last page has Arabic characters in the URL, which don't seem to be copying properly here. I'm not sure how to include that link). So updating her age to 19, to reflect those 2 sources, or acknowledging the inconsistencies would seem appropriate. Boundandheard (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Formal edit requests using the template require that verbatim changes be proposed. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Rivertorch, here are my suggested edits: Change first line of page from "Ahed Tamimi (Arabic: عهد التميمي‎ ‘Ahad at-Tamīmī, also Romanized Ahd; born 31 January 2001)" to "Ahed Tamimi (Arabic: عهد التميمي‎ ‘Ahad at-Tamīmī, also Romanized Ahd; thought to be born 31 January 1999, exact date unclear)"

Under "Personal Life" Change "Ahed Tamimi was born on 31 January 2001 to Bassem and Nariman Tamimi " to "Ahed Tamimi was born on 31 January, somewhere between 1999 and 2001 to Bassem and Nariman Tamimi "

In the "Infobox person", please change the line "| birth_date = (2001-01-31) 31 January 2001" to "| birth_date = (1999-01-31) 31 January 1999 to Bassem and Nariman Tamimi"

Under "Activism", please change the first line of the 2nd paragraph from "In August 2012, when she was 11" to "In August 2012, when she was 13"

Boundandheard (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The emphasis here being on reliable sources. The proposed changes sourced to Twitter posts or blogs does not meet the meaning of reliable sources for biography of living persons purposes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Eggishorn. I can understand your concern and I certainly respect the need for "reliable" sources. I think the criteria for that here are both gray and a bit hard to meet. There are different records of her age all over the internet, none of them authoritative. Even the one currently being used by the Wikipedia page is an ABC article that simply lists her age, but makes no mention of how that information was obtained. Did the reporter simply accept someone's verbal communication of it? Did they see ID of some kind? Given the legal and political implications of Ahed being a minor, and the ripple effect of outrage from every visitor to this page seeing it written indelibly that she is 16, it seems the responsible thing to do to either get concrete proof of her age, or acknowledge the discrepancies. I acknowledge that the sources i found may not be sufficiently mainstream to mark her age authoritatively as 19, but based on their intended audience and context, they should certainly be sufficient to record that there is discrepancy. Does that not seem more reflective of the truth of the situation? Boundandheard (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: You misunderstand. Our personal opinions about claims made by reliable sources are not relevant. The age has been reported in a source that meets our criteria on reliability. If you want to change it, you need to provide sources at least as reliable that make different claims. This means no tweets, no blogs, no personal doubts, no conspiracy websites, etc. Your opinion on what reflects the truth is, ultimately, not verifiable and therefore not compliant with the Core Content Policies nor the Biographies of Living Persons Policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Israeli reactions - Regev and Oren

The two most covered Israeli mainstream reactions are by Culture Minister Miri Regev and deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Office and head of public diplomacy (a deputy-ministerial spokesman position) Michael Oren. Oren initially made some comments in December 2017 immediately when this broke a tweet, which was then covered sparodically for the next month by various outlets both in news and in opinion pieces, He was also interviewed on BBC radio (pain to locate transcript - there is reporting on the interview). Not that this is scant coverage, however what really got the ball rolling are comments on a parliamentary inquiry he made initially (on 23 January) to an Israeli newspaper, in Hebrew, Maariv. They were repeated in a number of other outlets in Hebrew - . Haaretz the next day, 25 Jan, ran a full feature rebuttal of the Tamimi family asserting that they are real. Haaretz (which vies with JPost for being the Israeli newspaper of record in English) then translated both pieces to English. This was also translated by other Israeli outlets, This was also picked up by AP, and oddly picked up by the Israeli YNET and Israel Hayom (someone was asleep the day before?) from the English AP wire. The English translations and the AP write was then repeated by a whole raft of other outlets, including first-line international ones, often attributed back to Haaretz. This was then discussed in in-depth pieces about Oren himself, Opinion pieces against Oren by highly liberal and/or pro-Palestinian writers (some in non-RS, however the opinion is attributable, others in significant outlets), including a J Street release against him (I'd guess he's more of an American Israel Public Affairs Committee kinda fella). coverage around Tamim's trial on 13 Feburary, other coverage of Tamimi related events, Independent re-interviews with Oren in Tamimi profiles. In which NPR says in its own voice: "ESTRIN: In 2015, Oren led a classified parliamentary inquiry to investigate whether the Tamimis were a real family and not actors dressed in Western clothing, provoking soldiers on camera. He acknowledges the inquiry found no proof. The Tamimis are a prominent family in the area. Now Israel faces another dilemma. Her arrest has given her even more international attention." And there is quite a bit more of this - Particularly in spurts (e.g. around 24-26 Jan, 29 Jan, 13 Feb due to this being in related / copied coverage) - I did not type in all of what is available - if I had more time we could push this into the hundreds.

Miri Regev has been covered in January, and in February, for two separately made, but similar, comments.

References

Any objections to their inclusion?Icewhiz (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course they can't all go in, because (a) no editor here would challenge your right to edit in material on what Oren and Regev say. You should have just gone ahead and added it. There's nothing problematical in doing this. (b) you can't add all of that meme reproduction it is sourcing overkill to document the obvious. Nota bene: while you challenge Mondoweiss above, you include it here, along with a lot of sources which are regional recaps of wire service information reported in the mainstream press. Thus we have,Al-Araby Al-Jadeed (pro-Palestinian), The Straits Times (provincial wire feed), Daily Sabah (pro-Palestinian, provincial), Euronews, Kol Hazman, Israel Hayom (privately financed pro-Netanyahu news rag), Al-Monitor (generally pro-Palestinian, i24NEWS (pro-Israel), RT (TV network) (pro-Palestinian , National Public Radio ,Palestine News Network (Palestinian advocacy news site, The Intercept (nb ‘adversarial journalism); Mondoweiss (pro-Palestinian, J Street (advocacy journal), +972 magazine(pro-Palestinian), le Parisien, Pakistan Today (provincial pro-Palestinian), Irish Times (anti-Palestinian), The News Tribune (Tacoma)(provincial). I.e. you are ready to accept any source regardless of status or accuracy if it documents what you want documented, for material already covered by mainstream sources.

Obviously you can add the bits about Regev and Oren, with the two or three sources which cover the relevant details. It doesn't need a long paragraph, per WP:Undue.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be citing some 40+ odd references for Oren, and 10+ for Regev - no. We'd source them each to mainstream sources (e.g. WaPo, NYT, Guardian, CBC, and the like) - keeping 3-4 citations, and keep this down to 1-2 lines each.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

My point was, don't overwork yourself with the impression you have to convince a bunch of people who often disagree with you. A lot of things we all never question since it is commonsensical, and this is just one case. You can, i.e., make a lot of edits requiring a few minutes work, rather than work your guts out for an hour or two, on the mistaken belief people will cause problems if you don't.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Not trying to divert, but, I must ask, why is this article turning into a commentary piece or, as I call them, a "he said/she said" article? Quotes are supposed to convey something our voice alone cannot accomplish -- something that should not be overused. Do we really need an evaluations and reactions section; we are not a blog and it is far more easier to be concise. When Icewhiz was trying to push the Oren paragraph -- for one opinion -- I could shorten it into a sentence and it conveyed the message better than before. I realize Icewhiz and Shrike need some sort of substance demonizing the girl or calling her a terrorist but it does not require the opinions of every single possible person to accomplish that. Can we please return this to an encyclopedic article?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Be careful about WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA--Shrike (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Shrike your edits and banter here speak for themselves. If you are ashamed when someone calls you out on it, perhaps you should re-evaluate your approach.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Most I/P articles, to name but one area, are not about facts, but about burying the facts in a motherlode of commentary or interpretations, this in order to balance the puny David with a slap or sling narrative with, per NPOV, Goliath with his armed-to-the-teeth myrmidons, bunker-blasting bombs and total electronic surveillance. This is evident in the Gaza war articles - compare Norman Finkelstein's forensic deconstruction (Gaza: An Inquest into its Martyrdom 2018) of the Israeli/New York Times/mainstream spin narrative of the 2014 war with the articles, dutifully supervised by the Israeli hasbara ministry, on that event. We have huge contemporary newspaper sourcing, full of bullshit straight out of army reports as fed to the media, on a succession of bogies - terror tunnels, mosques as arsenals, human shields - and no deliberated analysis of what actually took place. If we rewrote those articles according to the actual historical scholarship, they would be factual, and 20% of their length, comparing armaments, casualties, real as opposed to imagined threats, and a timeline showing the events leading up to the outbreak. That would make readers think in terms of relevant factual information, but I don't think the purpose of I/P articles is to make readers think.

So you are quite right. But editors do have a right to write about responses, the media noise, since that is established practice. This is one article where the spin collapses, for obvious reasons. Even Oren's remarks make him look foolish (nothing unusual there). I just work with what we have, knowing the pure encyclopedic option won't have traction. In the present case, all that really needs to be done is to rewrite the activism bit, and get the precise chronology of events in the 2017 Dec incident precise, i.e. write that her young relative was shot before writing about her going outside and slapping the soldier etc.Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She's been glorified by some, demonized by others - as aptly put by "Israelis call her 'Shirley Temper.' Palestinians call her a hero for instance. I don't think we need to reflect every opinion - but we should reflect the mainline Israeli government opinion, as it is clearly a side to the issue here. One way of doing so is by using quotes - which is sometimes the easiest way in a contentious subject (as we do not have to consider whether it is correct or not to write certain words in our own Wiki voice). since Tamimi has been getting quite a bit of coverage, we've moved beyond unattributed or vaguely attributed labels (all be it in WaPo, NYT, and other mainline sources). Both Oren (who is filling a government publicity role essentially - as a deputy minister) and Regev have been quoted widely - instead of leaving us with a "some Israeli/pro-Israelis/bloggers say" - we have a clear statement, attributed to a notable person carrying out an official role, and which per WP:WEIGHT (seeing the wide coverage out there of stmts by these persons) - we should reflect in our article.Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani, Icewhiz as of now there are four paragraphs (not including box quotes) devoted to commentary; I believe we can -- and should -- knock it down to at least two solid paragraphs with much less "he said/she said" bullshit. We cannot keep repeating this cycle for each wave of news coverage; please consider the long-term stability of this article and the likelihood for more notable events that receive commentary. Also, look at GA articles on other activists, as I have. I have yet to see this much commentary devoted to people, many of who are much older than Tamimi.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

She's done a bit more than just straight up activism. I would be content with 1-2 lines (each) for Regev+Oren - but saying exactly what they are saying, and another blurb for a judicial decision if and when - maybe a few swaps/additions (someone else might say something more notable) - but overall a around a good paragraph worth of what Israelis are saying. I'll note that this article, in general, is more about narrative than substance - and probably will remain so (in the foreseeable future) - as much as what she has done is symbolic, but beyond the symbolic she has not done much yet (she might in the future).Icewhiz (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Barring the edit Icewhiz said he'd do, we have the basics, and of course, once we have the commentary done, it can be copyedited to get it down to 2 separate paras., with the bare minimum. I tried to do this with my contribution to the area: Oren Hazan,Lieberman, Bennett and Smotrich, but even that can be pared down. No objections then, from me. The Harriet Sherwood piece is showcased because it is taken to endorse the theory she is acting, rather than what HS is really saying:- the occupation has driven this girl and her generation into a madness not of their own making, but to bring that out would be WP:OR, so it's a hard piece to cut down.Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz what purpose does Regev's quote serve other than to dehumanize a girl who, by the way, has not been convicted of anything, let alone terrorism? Oren's opinion is included in the article but I, as have others, disagree with trying to give it the "credibility" you are trying to push. Can I propose a paragraph of criticism here and seek your opinion? I may actually surprise you while also moving closer to the two-paragraph approach.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how calling someone a terrorist dehumanizes them. Regev presumably views pre-1948 Revisionist Zionism leaders (any maybe some Haganah people) as heroes. Placing Regev's quote frames how some, but not all, Israelis see these activities as terrorism or close to terrorism. Are they correct? Maybe not. But that's the breadth of views here.Icewhiz (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see how calling someone a terrorist dehumanizes them -- huh? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ynet oped Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Précis vs removalism

Graceful slick. We had.

On 26 February, in a pre-dawn raid, Israeli forces arrested ten members of Tamimi's family, releasing 15 year old Muhammad Fadel al-Tamimi, who was scheduled to undergo reconstructive face surgery on March 5, some hours later following an interrogation. The Israeli Defense Ministry's Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Yoav Mordechai then claimed, in a Arabic post on Facebook overelaid with the words 'fake news', that Mohammed, had admitted his head injuries had been sustained after falling off of his bicycle. The Tamimi family in response said in a statement that "What began with a far-fetched attempt to claim that we are not a real family at all has now moved to the denial of documented reality" and released medical records from the Istishari Hospital in Ramallah stating that Mohammed had been hit by a bullet. A follow-up investigation by Haaretz concluded that the Army version did not coincide with eye witness reports, which state he was shot in the head immediately on raising his head above a parapet, nor with the CAT scan evidence and images of the bullet taken when he underwent surgery. Residents of Nabi Saleh also added that the boy was scared over his detention and made the admission to secure his release.<ref name="BergerKhoury"

It is a fair criticism to say that this incident is not worth an entire para., but removing everything, rather than providing a succinct précis that covers all bases in two lines, just obscures the record. Knowing how these things play out, once an official smear gets into the news cycle, it becomes hard to eliminate, and what we do in wiki is to cover all angles to ensure that readers can get full coverage of this kind of crap.In future it's best, surely, to just ask someone to boil it down. I'll do a précis if no one else does in the meantime.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Given that Muhammad Fadel al-Tamimi's injury, allegedly from an Israeli rubber bullet, is a significant narrative point / motivation of Tamimi (according to herself and her family) for her actions in the Cause célèbre du jour (well - ok - trimester now really, and it ain't dying soon) and given that coverage of Muhammad allegedly being self-injured from his bicycle (or per Ha'aretz - possibly saying so to get out of detention) has been receiving extremely wide coverage (and it ain't a detail that is going to go away in future coverage / in-detph pieces) - we should certainly cover it in our article (including the Tamimi's family denial (note - that the Tamimi family themselves referenced Michael Oren's statements last night (in the widely quoted "What began with a far-fetched attempt to claim that we are not a real family at all has now moved to the denial of documented reality") - increasing the DUENESS of Oren yet further (not that this is required really - we'll RfC this one day, I suppose)).... I do agree that the paragraph has grown a bit too much - but a more selective axe should've been applied - this is definitely something that could be covered in 2-4 lines, and brief inclusion is required per NPOV (as we fail to represent all view points regarding Tamimi's narrative vis-a-vis Muhammad's injury). And heck - if you have Nishidani and I agreeing on something, well..... That's grounds for inclusion. :-).Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani I just do not understand the apparent inability by Icewhiz to write accurately and to the point. All this requires is two sentences, something like: Ten members of the Tamimi family, including Muhammad Fadel al-Tamimi, were arrested on 26 February. After interrogating Muhammad, the IDF claim he admitted his injuries were sustained during a bicycle incident, contrary to both eye-witness reports and his medical records.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That would be a clear violation of WP:CLAIM, a NPOV issue. In addition Nameless eye-witness reports need to be attributed (to, say, Ha'aretz) and medical records need to be attributed as well (family provided, allegedly from the Istishari Hospital in Ramallah - and while this hospital in particular doesn't have a history in regards to reporting accuracy (I think! It is new) - most Palestinian hospitals do in this regard - medical records in the I/P space are treated with some skepticism), and the IDF stmt should be attributed to COGAT Yoav Mordechai..... And more to the point of this seemingly personal attack (of my abilities or inabilites), which you should retract, I had this paragraph at 3.5 lines - Version as I left it, Nishidani expanded it to 8.5 lines Version as Nishidani left it.Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. GS's slick edit gets the gist with laconic grace, basically, and when he writes:'something like' he is tendering a hint, not claiming he has worked out the ideal précis. What the IDF came up with, notably on an Arabic language site (not to the English speaking world, which generally finds this trumpery deeply distasteful) was a claim, extorted by browbeaters from a scared adolescent, was not an admission, but a 'get out of gaol' gambit, almost universal in these West Bank kangaroo court proceedings. The villagers also claim he fessed up, but this cheap extortion flagrantly flies in the face of forensic evidence, and eyewitness testimonies. I expanded your edit because it ignored much of the telling detail accompanying reports of the 'admission'. The only thing wrong with GS's synthesis is saying the IDF alone 'claimed'. Villagers, not his own family it would seem, claimed he 'admitted' it was the handlebar (take a look at the photo!!). That can be fixed with a tweak or two, and adding 'contrary to both eye-witness reports and his medical records, Haaretz reported.' Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The dramatic looking photo of the youth is due to surgical removal pf part of the skull bone - it actually is not related to the initial injury - but rather to getting access for treatment (finding and removing what was inside). That aside, it is correct, per WP:CLAIM to say COGAT said. It actually seems some of the villagers admit COGAT may have been correct in saying the youth admitted it (all be it - allegedly per unnamed villagers to get out of detention).Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(a) Crap. That the thugs in the IDF and those who defend them think it normal to showcase what a shitscarred 15 year old says when his house is broken into before dawn, and he is hauled before a bunch of STASI type interrogators and brow-beaten without the presence of a lawyer or family, and made to confess strains commonsense, not to speak of civilized juridical procedures. That villagers reading that post took it at face value, and justified it, unless it tells us what every expert knows: under an IDF grilling, kids can be made to say anything. See now Amira Hass, Analysis: How the IDF got a teen who was shot in the head to say he fell off a bike, Haaretz 27 February 2018. I might add that my brother and I flew down a hill on Christmas day, back in our childhoods, on new bikes, and he skited he could race me without gripping the handlebars, and had to brake when a car loomed, and went arse over tit, and suffered facial grazes. He looked, nonetheless, nothing like that kid and didn't need brain surgery (t least for that). The IDF line is utter cynical bullshit: you know it, the world knows it, decent experts in Israel know it. They know that in these operations, there is always a two or three man group, with the sighter, and a marksman, standing out of rock range, and picking whom to shoot. The boy was just the latest of thousands to get hit that way. It's standard practice from the 'purity of arms' gangsters who run that occupation.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Well...I was brought up as a 100% Zionist....first time I started doubting was when an Israeli spokesman said a clear, obvious lie. A stupid lie, at that. As this is. Icewhiz: you don't get a head injury like that from a bicycle fall....as anyone who has ever been, and fallen off, a bicycle knows. Actually, I think it it great that Isreli spokespersons tell these stupid, stupid lies...it will get more convinced Zionist (like I was, once) start doubting...Huldra (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If we were being entirely accurate, the sentence should say "The IDF forced a confession..." so "claim" is entirely appropriate. Why you are trying to legitimize this falsehood Icewhiz, I do not know, but I am certain even sources like The Washington Post see just how ridiculous the IDF's claim is. But, of course, "it is due and needs equal coverage blah, blah, blah".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP reprinting an opinion by an activist is not a source. There is coverage - both of the youth's alleged admission and the alleged inaccuracy of the youth in the admission. The bike claim was that the handlebar entered the skulll which is, on purely technical grounds, possible. Regardless, COGAT was repeating what the youth had allegedly said. We follow sources, not our own opinions, when writing articles.Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

After inflicting a 15 year old with serious brain damage, the brave Israelis beat him up, and refused him medication until he said had done it himself. (Ah yes: the Israeli occupied land: the only place where the surgeons pick a bullet out of your brain after you allegedly fell of your bike... ) Huldra (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I reflected upon the sources more fluently and accurately, all in less sentences. Not sure what there is left for you to argue. Should I replace the text with: The IDF undisputedly asserted that the cousin confessed to sustaining his injuries during a biking accident, contrary to those sketchy Palestinians, their even sketchier medical records, and the sources the encyclopedia typically depends on. Also, Ahed's "family" was fabricated in a Pollywood plot to discredit our occupation protection of the West Bank. I have no stake in this I/P feud on Wikipedia, but I am glad enough editors have eyes on this article; otherwise, we would have an actual NPOV issue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The IDF did not "undisputedly assert", as COGAT merely said that the youth himself said so when questioned. COGAT did say "that the Tamimi family has a culture of “lying and inciting.”"[9] - however he did not, I believe, take a definitive statement on the veracity of the statement in question but rather attributed it back to the injured youth. He further clarified by a subsequent statement - "A statement put out by his office tried to water down the impact of his Facebook post by explaining that it was based on taped and documented testimony Muhammad gave to an officer of the civil administration." (same source). As for medical records in the I/P conflict - there is a very long history here - we should take care to attribute any claims regarding medical records (in this case - the family showing documents purporting to be from the Istishari Hospital in Ramallah - and if sourced to the hospital (which I haven't seen, but I would not be surprised if there is such a source) - then from the Istishari Hospital in Ramallah).Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This non-opinion (but possibly NEWSBLOG (not sure of "worldviews" status) - it is credited to a staff writer (bureau chief) with 2 contributing correspondents staff) in WaPo covers the various counter-claims in a quite balanced manner - covering COGAT as well as rebuttals by the family and pro-Palestinian activists. I'll note that they are careful to attribute medical records - "A medical report provided by the family from a hospital in Ramallah says....". They also provide an attributable (better than Ha'aertz's unnamed villagers) for a possible false statement by the youth "Having been interrogated under such conditions, it's no wonder if Tamimi indeed confessed to sustaining the injury due to a bike accident,” he said. “He may as well have confessed to it being the result of a dolphin-back-riding accident in the sea of Nabi Saleh.” (Amit Gilutz, B'Tselem).Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Aaaaah, yeah, those well-known dolphins of Nabi Saleh....I'm just waiting for COGAT to state something about the excellent surfing conditions at Nabi Saleh...That they haven't mentions it yet, surely must be an oversight? Huldra (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

ANALYSIS

Hello,

Under the 'Analysis' heading, within the last sentence of the first paragraph, the word 'Palestinian' needs an 's'.

I also noticed one other small error, but can't recall where in the article it was, so you may or may not receive one other edit request from me.

Otherwise, great article! Thank you (all) for your contribution(s).

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clsmooth (talk • contribs) 16:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed!Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Say vs assert

I reverted the recent wording changes [10] & [11]. While IDF's statement was changed to "say", the wording around the boy's statement was retained as "assert", which on balance of things comes across as non-neutral. Separately, under the international law, persons under the age of 18 are considered children, so the use of "boy" is appropriate.

Please see diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Use of claim is non policy complaint and a violation of NPOV per WP:CLAIM. Asserted should also be fixed, but is less of a problem than claimed. The subsequent treatement (following a "contrary" in wiki's voice) of Palestinian sayings as wiki fact (eyewitnesses, medical records) are further neutrality problems here - and should be attributed (nameless eye witness account in such and such newspapers, family provided records from a Pallestinian hospital). In any case - you are in clear violation of WP:CLAIM which is a guideline in restoring this language - and if there was a problem with a subsequent assert - you should have fixed that instead of restoring non neutral language. Boy for 15-16 old without specifying age misrepresents the subject and is also a NPOV issue. 15 year olds are usually deemed legally responsible for their actions - as opposed to boys (below 12) that are not - while both are minors, criminal culpability is different.Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about, using Israeli military terms as if they were neutral descriptors (15 year olds are usually deemed legally responsible for their actions - as opposed to boys (below 12) that are not). Drop it. Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

See Defense of infancy, present in most common law systems. Not Israelli military at all. It is 12 in Israeli law and in the military courts in the West Bank (raised from 9 under Jordanian law by military ordianance).Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Try not to assume other editors are gullible or stupid, i.e. linking to Defense of infancy to make out that Israel's laws apply to the land it occupies and the occupied people. The latter are under military jurisdiction, military courts and have none of the protections required by the relevant international legal conventions regarding children, something which Jewish children have. Every legal body in the real world outside of the hasbara gymnasium recognizes that Israel systematically violates all standard customary and international laws if their 'suspect' lacks the wrong 'genetic' ID. See Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, or watch Youtube or listen to Avraham Burg for once.Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Wording change

"Some Palestinians also suggested that the video might have endangered their cause, in that it showed the aggressors as behaving gently.[35]"

I'd suggest changing "aggressors" to "soldiers" or something similar. Not only is it a bit more neutral, but in the context of the sentence, the chosen word doesn't make a lot of sense. 70.74.71.183 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and do that for starters. Gabriel syme (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, gently? Gabriel syme (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

non violently or perhaps gentlemanly.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually it seems NYT is using this - Palestinians, while universally praising the girl’s courage, debated whether the video might have damaged their cause, by showing their oppressors behaving gently, or helped it, by showing that resistance can be effective even when one is unarmed. - the source in the article. This YNET op-ed refers to officers being gentlemen - [12]. I suppose bowing to the phrasing of the NYT is more correct.Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Gently works ok for me, personally. It's common english where I am, and sounds right even in an encyclopedic setting. *shrugs* 70.74.71.183 (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

How sweet. When the page is normalized and brainwashed we can forget Gideon Levy's words, (Philip Weiss Gideon Levy on Israeli denial: ‘Anyone who raises a question is demolished’ Mondoweiss 9 March 9, 2018) The Israeli media are in the tank on Israeli propaganda about the Tamimi family.

The media hardly covers them, and if they cover them, it will always be according to the Zionist narrative. A terrorist of 12. A girl of 14 with scissors in her hands as an existential threat to the state of Israel. A girl who is slapping a soldier as someone who deserves life sentence. Not less than this! A girl that one hour before her cousin was shot in the head 50 meters from her home. So now the Israeli army claims that this was fabricated. I mean, even the Israeli propaganda lost its shame.

The Israeli claims about the Tamimi family show that the propaganda has never been so desperate:

When Israel dares, dares to claims that this child Mohammed Tamimi whom I met a few days after he was injured, he lost half of his brain, that he fabricated his injury, then you see that Israel is really desperate. If Israel needs this kind of level of propaganda, if Israel is getting so low, in denying shooting in the head of a child of 15– and claiming that he falls from his bicycle– then you know that things are getting worse. Maybe it’s a hope for a new beginning, but right now look how low does it get there.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Bassem al-Tamimi (father): name change proposal

Here a proposal is made to remove/keep the "al-" prefix in Bassem al-Tamimi, Ahed's father. Today, it is opposite to this article's name then. (not having the "al-"). - DePiep (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sentence in lede lacking support in body

@TheGracefulSlick: - re this diff. I agree "her detractors argue her acts are staged performances aimed at discrediting Israel." is present and sourced in the body. However "Tamimi's supporters consider her a symbol of resistance against Israeli occupation in the West Bank, and a courageous advocate for Palestinian autonomy" is not. I agree "Tamimi's supporters consider her a symbol of resistance against Israeli occupation in the West Bank" should be in the lede and in the body (where it is currently missing, though we do have a source using this in the title). However I am iffy about a courageous advocate for Palestinian autonomy for a number of reasons - the least of which is puffery around courageous, the more significant since per my understanding Tamimi is advocating (I'll note that analyzing what Tamimi stands for is not so easy - analyzing her father's positions is much easier (he has written and interviewed extensively) - Tamimi's appearances (not of the viral kind) and interviews to date have been in controlled settings, possibly coached/prepared, and more focused on her role in the resistance as opposed to positions beyond resistance) either for a One-state solution (supporting BDS) or Palestinian independence - not "just" autonomy. We do have She believes documented, organized protests against the Israeli occupation would lead to wider recognition of the Palestinian struggle for autonomy in the body - however this language is not supported by the cited sources (who do not use autonomy), and in the context of the lede refer to Tamimi's positions - not supporter's views in relation to Tamimi. Your thoughts?Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Tamimi's supporters consider her a symbol of resistance against Israeli occupation in the West Bank is described and sourced in a similar sentence in analysis. The terms "heroic", "brave", and "defiant" are commonly used to describe Tamimi, but I thought "courageous" would not immediately be protested by you as "puffery" or "POV". I certainly can replace it with one of those other terms, however. Scores of sources--including ones present--focus on Tamimi's views for freedom or liberation, to drive their occupiers out of the West Bank, and to regain control of their land. A single word--"autonomy"--describes this desire for self-rule even if I am not copying text from a source. If anything, we should be discussing how Tamimi also views the Palestinian cause as a humanitarian cause, and how that can be incorporated into the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I do not see the symbol text in the body - I agree it should be there, but it is not (unless I am blind - I searched for symbol, and reread the analysis section). I think it used to be there and that it should be re added (but am holding off doing it myself since you say it is there). Autonomy in the Palestian context is conflated with the post Oslo Palestinian National Authority which has (in some areas) autonomy from Israel - Tamimi is aiming for more than that.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Improvements needed

This article could have improvements. Is should be a good encyclopedic article. Needed, with sources:

• What is the best video available?
• Did an Israeli Minister say Ahed should be in prison for life?
• Did the soldier hit Ahed before? (5 secs)
• Israeli journalist Ben Caspit proposed "in the case of the [Tamimi] girls, we should exact a price at some other opportunity, in the dark, without witnesses and cameras". Source, translation & add to article.
• Current status of the nephew shot (released from hospital?), and the three detainees?

-DePiep (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A couple of links that cover some of the above questions and a few more.[13][14][15] - Wayne (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Be wary of quoting Caspit out of context, that would be a BLP vio towards him. He clarified the intent of that blurb as a night time arrest, not in front of staged cameras, which is what was done here.Icewhiz (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Also using opinion pieces is against WP:BLP--Shrike (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No. Quoting Ben Caspit from a column they published themselves is not BLP-vio. Invoking "context" may change the view (we could improve the quote for example), but Ben Caspit did not change or withdraw that quote. Full stop.

Also, the article aleady says: "... a matter of debate in Israeli society" so this is about opinions clearly.

I claim the Bes Caspit quote is acceptable, secondary notes (multiple sides) could be added. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• It is written "advocate for Palestinian autonomy" - it should be "advocate for Palestinian Independence" Y Haifawi (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead edit

I removed the restoration of material in the lead as shown in this edit. My rationale was: "Excessive intricate detail unneeded in the lead; the sentence / term is what's important". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We generally mention in ledes of people convicted in court what they were convicted for. "agreeing to a plea bargain" is non-standard as well - typically we will say "pleaded guilty as part of a plea bargain". Note that " she was detained by Israeli authorities for slapping a soldier" is incorrect - as she was detained for other reasons as well (the incitement charge related to the video and additional posts accompanying it). I do agree that we could summarize this more briefly - perhaps (which will also be chronologically correct. The "sparking international interest and debate" could alternatively go on the end (as it is ongoing - also post-conviction)):

In December 2017 she slapped an Israeli soldier, in an incident recorded on video that went viral, sparking international interest and debate. She was detained, and after pleading guilty to assault, incitement and other charges as part of a plea bargain was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment..Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Once more, meaningless edit summaries used to excise or censor what is in the public record

Icewhiz, you excise this as an opinion piece.

The article by Beaumont cites two court cases decided roughly around the same time, one in which a Palestinian girl, Ahed Tamimi, got 8 months for slapping an IDF soldier, the other in which an Israeli border police officer got 9 months for shooting dead an unarmed Palestinian who posed no threat. It is not an ‘opinion’ to adduce and contrast two facts, and the point is important for the Tamimi record here. Your edit summary is also silly (‘No particular reason to include this opinion piece (which as formulated contains a BLP vio as we do not (unlike Beaumont) say this was a mistake or wrongful death’) There is no BLP violation in mentioning the name of the soldier. He was convicted in an Israeli court, and this is in the public record and was widely publicized.Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a BLP vio in not mentioning what he was convicted for - which was a mistaken shooting (which Beaumont does mention). Regardless - this opinion piece is WP:UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The information does not violate BLP. Nobody blames the soldier. Both sentences are just compared.

The opinion is not UNDUE either. Given the controversy around the affair, the comparison made by the journalist makes sense and that way he gets the point. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mention that Beaumont also cited the Elor Azaria case where Azaria eventually served 9 months (Tamimi 8 for a slap, Deri 9 months for what was effectively murder, whatever the excuses, which no one outside an Israeli military court believes since 2 unarmed Palestinian protestors were shot dead from the same area in succession), nor do I mention the other egregious comparison that has been made, when (Yoav Haifawi 'Why Yifat Doron slapped the prosecutor at the Tamimi trial– and only spent two days in jail,' Mondoweiss 29 March 2018) the young Israeli female activist Yifat Doron slapped a military prosecutor during a hearing in the case dealing with one of the Tamimi, symbolically repeating the Palestinian girl's action, and spent just 2 days in gaol, with the appeal judge later determining that “The actions allegedly committed by the suspect do not pose a risk which mandates further remand”.') She proved her point: a Jewish activist can do precisely what a Palestinian activist does, and get 2 days rather than 8 months, while if a soldier murders a harmless Palestinian, or one rendered harmless, in the street, he gets just a month more than what Tamimi got for a slap. Beaumont therefore has been cited tersely to illustrate what appalled the British Foreign Office, for one. Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The Jewish activist hasn't been charged yet - she was held for an investigation for 2 days - so we don't know how that will end up (there are some later sources for her after March (Hebrew -[16][17][18]) - this is somewhat ongoing - to the best of my knowledge this hasn't been dismissed/closed (charges may be filed in such cases even years later)). Your statement above regarding Deri is a BLP violation - he was convicted for switching ammunition types (live / rubber) by mistake - and our article should make that clear if we include it - which I think we shouldn't - as there is no particular reason to include random opinion pieces (of which there are several on Tamimi).Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

If the journalist of The Guardian considered important to make a comparison between Tahimi and Deri, we just follow him.

That's not a "random opinion piece". It is obvious that comparing the way Palestinians and Israelis are judged is relevant.

Your argument regarding the fact that charges could come years later does not make sense. Everything can evolve and we describe the events the way they are known at the time we write about them. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Icwhiz. You are not reading the edit. It runs:-

Ben Deri, who was to serve 9 months for shooting dead an unarmed Palestinian demonstrator, who posed no threat to Israeli security units at the time

This states the facts of the case. I.e. that he was convicted of being the person who shot the Palestinian dead. The details of the case are irrelevant, and even if we were to make an issue of them by writing them up, it would be an embarrassment which I avoided, an embarrassment because it is another of the thousand cases where a soldier can get away with murder, and a Palestinian can be convicted for identical periods even if they have done little or nothing in the presence of soldiers. You know that, the record knows it: I don't mention it, nor do I write articles on the several dozen cases where such things have occurred. I kept this to the minimum necessary for the Tamimi case.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Documentary

@TheGracefulSlick: Regarding your edit; How about briefly mentioning somewhere in the article that she was featured in a documentary? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

If we mention this we should mention that it was banned for its bias.--Shrike (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be in (jeez - Nishidani, Mhhossein, and myself agreeing on an I/P article). If and when the article becomes longer, it might make sense to pare this down - but we're not there yet - we're still at a fairly short bio.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein the documentary can stay. I was preparing for GA review at the time I made that edit; I felt the sources passively mention her and, in the long-term, I had doubts whether it would be essential to her biography.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick We'll do it just by a short sentence. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)