Talk:Faris Odeh

POV tag

Why? Tiamat 16:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To start with, because it is one-sided, and it relies almost entirely on a highly biased essay from a magazine which fails WP:RS. When providing context from an Israeli newspaper, this article does not link to Haaretz directly, but quotes a biased secondary-source which is clearly cherrypicking material that supports its thesis. GabrielF 16:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Amoruso (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Prod tag

I have no idea who Jihad Shaar is or what his relevance to Faris Odeh is. This article is about a child whose image of throwing a rock at a tank has immortalized, widely published, and who has since become a symbol of Palestinian resistance. Please use the regular AfD process if you think he's really not all that notable. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is WP:ONEEVENT and also a bit of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. I've AfD'd. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The image is of him wasn't taken at the time of his death, has been published worldwide since then, and is widely recognized as a symbol of the Palestinian resistance. I don't think WP:ONEEVENT is applicable here at all. Tiamut^talk 01:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

The image is not on this page. I'm guessing it has something to do with copyright. could somebody who knows about these things make it clear why the image isn't on the page. thanks. Delad (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. It's a justified use of a copyrighted image according to fair use doctrine and wikipedia's non-free content criteria. We can use copyrighted images if they're very famous and central to the notability of our article's subject; cf. 1968 Olympics Black Power salute, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, etc. <eleland/talkedits> 01:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Still POV?

The article seems pretty neutral to me now. I'm not sure why the POV tag is necessary. GabrielF (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It was never necessary. It's been repeatedly added without explanation. This time User:Amoruso is claiming that to use the word "resistance" is POV - it has to be "what Palestinians regard as resistance" or some such nonsense. Typical "I don't like it, so it's POV" attitude. <eleland/talkedits> 00:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly say "he has become a Palestinian legend, hero, lesson and model, whose valor is celebrated" is unbiased. I have removed this sentence, it looks more or less unbiased in my opinion now. TastyCakes (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, the sources cited say exactly that. He is a Palestinian legend, hero, lesson and model, whose valor is celebrated. WP:NPOV isn't about toning down what reliable sources say about how someone is viewed. It's simply about representing all significant and reliably sourced viewpoints on a given subject. If you feel that there are other views on Faris Odeh that are not represented in our article, please reference the sources and include them in this article. I'm going to restore the sentence you deleted now since it is an accurate representation of what the sources cited say. Tiamut^talk 21:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the sources say exactly that, it's obviously a pro-Palestinian statement to call him a hero, legend, lesson or model, or to say his actions were valorous. You can find articles (particularly opinion pieces like this one) that say positive things about all kinds of people, from a clearly biased perspective. Furthermore, it is not presented as a direct quote from the source (which it isn't) and the source makes it clear that he is these things to Palestinians, not that he simply is these things, as the article suggests now. I am reverting again. TastyCakes (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "Palestinian hero" means WP is calling him heroic any more than calling Haile Selassie the "Rastafari God" means WP is calling him God. I've restored the text in question, slightly edited to make the editorial distance more explicit, although I don't think that's actually necessary in context. <eleland/talkedits> 22:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And calling him valourous isn't POV? Saying he's a "Palestinian hero" is someone more supportable, but even that is a nebulous claim that Wikipedia should avoid - what is the definition of hero? Are all kids that throw rocks at tanks heroes? Are all civilians that are killed by an occupier heroes? Do you have to save lives to be called a hero? Make a truly selfless act? Where is the line drawn? Personally, I think even some Palestinians would take issue with calling Odeh a hero when so many other civilians have been killed, many of them much greater pillars in their society. That is why an encyclopedia article shouldn't make such claims, as indeed it doesn't on other articles about people subjectively described as "heroes", such as Pat Tillman. I don't think it should be in there at all, but if it is I'm going to add the "many" to the Palestinian bit, and change "celebrated" to "portrayed" since celebrated makes it seem the article is claiming to know the motivation behind every Palestinian artist that has used his image. I hope that will be acceptable to everyone? TastyCakes (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to get into a big argument over very minor questions of word choice. But I do note with dismay that you're writing text that compromises between the findings of reliable sources on one hand, and your own personal views about heroism and resistance on the other. And you're also reading a great deal more into the text than is actually there, ie, saying he's a hero for Palestinians doesn't mean every Palestinian loves him any more than saying George Washington is a hero for Americans means every American loves George Washington. Same with saying he's celebrated in Palestinian art. (As a general comment I really don't understand why so many Wikipedians are dead set against punchy prose, preferring the sort of leaden Autistic literalism that replaces "George says x" with "George has stated that x" and "The group campaigns against Freedonia's 'discriminatory policies' targeting Elbonians" and "The group campaigns against Freedonian policies which it describes as targeting Elbonians for discrimination," etc.) <eleland/talkedits> 22:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree in every day life saying George Washington is an "American hero" is not necessarily wrong, nor does it imply that every American considers him a hero. But will you find that term in George Washington's wikipedia article? No, because it is a nebulous description that should be avoided. I take issue with it because it is sloppy language for an encyclopedia as much as it being non-neutral language. The reliable source you are referring to is an opinion piece, and while correct is not written in language that values neutrality above (almost) everything else, as Wikipedia articles strive to be. I feel that is the difference, and is why I don't think these word choices are "very minor" considerations, although I assure you I too want to avoid a big argument over this. TastyCakes (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I passed over the last sentence of your reply without really reading it. I would have thought it was pretty obvious why you would change "campaigns against Freedonia's discrimination" rather than "campaigns against what it describes as Freedonia's discrimination". The first is implicitly saying that Freedonia practices discrimination, which is very likely to be disputed by Freedonia (among others). This seems analogous to the common example "So how long have you beat your wife, Mr Smith?". It is not Wikipedia's job to make such partisan suggestions, to take a side one way or the other.

I think you are exaggerating with the "George says" vs "George has stated" bit. But in some cases using the latter case would obviously be the better choice. If George has since changed his mind, he may no longer say this and Wikipedia would be incorrect. Further if you were to use an even less supportable verb like "George thinks this", not only would we be in the situation that George may think something different now, but we are stating something that cannot be proven - we cannot know what George is really thinking, we can only know what he has said on the matter. This all seems a little pointless without a contentious issue behind it, but perhaps if an article said "George Bush sincerely thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the invasion", you would agree that "George Bush said" would be an eminently better choice of words.

You may think this is all pedantic, and I really don't mind if you write Wikipedia articles with flowery prose rather than clear, fact based language. But please understand that other editors (like me) will modify the language to be 1) neutral, 2) supportable and 3) concrete. TastyCakes (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what the quotes are for. It's obvious from context what they mean. Except for some people, and that's one of the reasons why reading WP prose can be a cringe-inducing experience. To be honest, reading your last comment was a cringe-inducing experience. Bye. <eleland/talkedits> 21:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, bye. TastyCakes (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a legitimate POV dispute so I am adding the tag. The language screams bias and do not understand this denial. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

POV tag 2

Hi. I added the tag per this dispute. The discussion qualifies as an on-going dispute over the language and neutrality of the article, which is why I added the tag. I am not too familiar with the subject but there is clearly some balance issues, though users with certain POVs might not be able to interpret such qualities. I suggest you direct further questions to User:TastyCakes since he was the one involved. Edits like these wreak of POV-pushing and do not represent a neutral approach that is necessary in articles like these. That edit is still in the article. Sentences like, "Odeh and the now famous image of him have since become symbols of Palestinian resistance to the occupation" do not fit well in neutrality laws. The syntax is opinionated, expressions like "resistance to the occupation" need to be framed in a more-honest way. I don't know, here's an example: "Odeh's and his subsequent portrayal in the media have made him a symbol of the Palestinian resistance movement in the occupied territories blah blah blah..." I don't know, I really don't care I'm just trying to point out obvious issues. So I'll restore the tag if no one responds or the discussion ends. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

not exactly, he is a "Symbol of Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation", he and the picture are "symbols of Palestinian resistance to the occupation", and the image is iconic. If that is the basis for the tag you are going to have to do something better than that. Nableezy (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing your POV. Occupation itself is an ambiguous word because many Palestinians consider the state of Israel to be entirely occupied - not just Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. My recommendations are endorsed by policy, I'm restoring the tag. This is a legitimate and obvious neutrality issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not an ambiguous word, it has a specific meaning, and in the context of "Israel occupation" it means something specific. And not just many Palestinians, but nearly all the worlds governments have a clear definition of Israeli occupied territories and occupied Palestinian territories. What policy endorses your 'recommendations'? If you say WP:NPOV I am going to have to question your reading comprehension level and whether you should be allowed near electronics, much less a computer with an internet connection. Nableezy (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Obviously you have an emotional connection which I prefer not to deal with. The language of the statement is POV and not neutral. I gave an example of a more neutrally toned sentence and you've dismissed it. Eleland's rationale and immediate revert is a clear demonstration of a neutrality dispute. Thanks for the compliment btw. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not neutral? It is the viewpoint of the (vast, nearly without exception) majority of the world. Neutrality does not mean treating those who say 2+2=4 and 2+2=7 equally. Nableezy (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And there is nearly no substantive difference "made him a symbol of the Palestinian resistance movement in the occupied territories" and "become symbols of Palestinian resistance to the occupation". But if that will take your attentions elsewhere from an edit that happened a little under 1 year ago then make the change. Nableezy (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Though the beginning of the sentence should still read "Odeh and the now famous image of him have since become symbols" Nableezy (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not the opinion of the vast majority of people. Some may consider him a manipulated teenager who has been used to legitimize suicide bombings, killing, etc...But we aren't here to be a platform for the vast majority of people, we are here to be neutral. The sentence I laid out was far more balanced than the current edit, and this is only ONE example. This article has less than 50 edits and its entire notoriety revolves around a photograph so whether the addition was more 1 year ago is hardly relevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

opinion bit was on the occupation. The article currently has 100+ edits. Nableezy (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "iconic", quote from a book by Anton La Guardia, defense and security correspondent for The Economist: "some of the most powerful, iconic of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, such as the David-and-Goliath scene of Faris Odeh, a 12-year-old boy, throwing stones at an Israeli tank" Nableezy (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, I've edited the sentence to take account of your concerns. It now reads: "The boy and the image subsequently assumed iconic status within the Palestinian territories as symbols of resistance to the area's occupation by Israel."

A point about the NPOV tag: it's meant to be used as a last resort, and should always be accompanied by detailed suggestions for how to achieve NPOV within the provisions of the content policies (NPOV, V, and NOR). It shouldn't be added before trying to resolve the issues, and it also shouldn't be left on pages for weeks or months after the discussion has ended. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is a neutrality dispute, a tag should be on the article. Either that, or a balance tag...some sort of flag that says there is a neutrality/balance/etc problem that is on-going. Nableezy dismissed all arguments for POV whatsoever. That right there is a major problem when contributing editors can't recognize blatant issues. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To show that there is a neutrality issue, you have to be specific, and the problem is that you're rarely, if ever, specific when you tag articles. You said yourself above that you didn't really care, and weren't familiar with the subject. Tags are a last resort, and have to be accompanied by specificity and actionable suggestions. Otherwise it's like spraying graffiti on someone's front door because you don't like him, and when he washes it off, running back and spraying it again, and again, and again, so that his home always bears the mark of your personal disapproval. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Well I don't think the article, as written, is nearly as biased as it was at one point. And I'm not really torn up about the changes you link to, I think they say the same thing more concisely. It still reads as being on the Palestinian side, but I don't think that can be avoided in a subject like this. Basically, other than finding content from "the other side of the issue", I'm not sure what more can be done to make the article neutral. However, did the IDF say anything about the incident? There seems to be an implication that they shot him on purpose, I wonder if there is any comment as to that. Also, the history of his childhood seems to go a little overboard - some of it does not seem relevant to the notable event of his life (the picture and his death) and should probably be removed. Does it really matter that he jumped between two buildings once? TastyCakes (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

the article is written from an activist's perspective. It's hard to deal with editors who clearly have an emotional connection and won't recognize those kinds of concerns. I too am curious if he was shot intentionally cause the article gives the appearance that Faris was throwin' rocks and the soldier(s) just flipped. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to look for sources and add material about that to the article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Pov issue

This article has a pov-issue. The boy is not at all important but only the picture of him in front of the tank and this because of the symbol around it (not him).
The article should be written accordingly. It is too much some sort of martyr's biography.
I have no intention of being provocative, but there is no more reason to talk about the boy than to talk about the history of the Merkava in the picture. Ceedjee (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The material from the Washington Post article could be trimmed. But this is a biography of the boy, and the material was published in reliable sources i.e. reliable sources wanted their readers to know something about him after he died. It therefore seems quite legitimate to add it, as with e.g. Muhammad al-Durrah. But I do agree that it takes up too much of the article, while there's nothing about exactly how he was killed, and what the IDF said about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

the bio section relies almost entirely on the one WP reference (that as of yet cannot be verified 100%) in an obituary/editorialized article written by a prominent Palestinian advocate. I would like to see the bio be supported by a more neutral author but that would be hard considering very few reliable sources on Faris Odeh exist. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Washington post source

the entire biography section relies almost exclusively on this source washington post but I cannot find the original link.. I would like to replace the current link with the original WP reference to verify its authenticity. There are some other reference issues so I'll post them all here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked for that article in the Washington Post archive, both under the headline and the author, and I can't find it. I did find one by that author from December 11, 2000, part of which is here. I may e-mail the writer to ask if he wrote another one in May 2001. It's very unusual for the Post not to archive material, unless I entered the wrong parameters. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well at least that verifies the article was written - but I'd like to see the full article to meet standards. The date on the WP article and the current link is off by 1 year, not sure if that matters though. Perhaps we could rely on other references because that one is essentially an obituary written by a prominent Palestinian advocate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see we do have the right date, in fact. It's that website we link to that got the date wrong. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Like all families of Palestinians killed by Israeli troops since September, the Odehs received a $10,000 check from President Saddam Hussein of Iraq" is unsubstantiated and unsourced. As pointed out above, that the article came from The Washington Post is at best disputed. More likely, the contributor included it to defame Odeh himself and all Palestinians — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAtoz (talk • contribs) 22:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I was able to find the article in LexisNexis and it is from the Washington Post. I've uploaded a copy online here. The article specifically says: "Like all families of Palestinians killed by Israeli troops since September, the Odehs received a $ 10,000 check from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein." (third to last paragraph). GabrielF (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The story, including the disputed quote, may now be directly viewed in the Washington Post online archive. This issue should be put to bed and the disputed tag should be removed. Scharb (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

the date was Nov 8

The heading says Nov 9, and later it says "Although different sources offer different dates, all agree that Odeh was shot between November 8 and November 10." The death of Faris was reported on Nov 8 by Agence France-Presse in a report that states explicitly it happened that day. Also BBC Monitoring Middle East reported on Nov 8 that the Voice of Palestine (Ramallah) reported on that morning that Faris had died a short while earlier. Both those reports actually name Odeh. He was killed on the morning of Nov 8 and there is no need to note incorrect dates. Zero^talk 09:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that Zero0000. I agree that including incorrect dates creates needless ambiguity. Tiamut^talk 10:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faris Odeh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716233207/http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=79224&Date=2/20/2002 to http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=79224&Date=2/20/2002

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Faris Odeh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=79224&Date=2%2F20%2F2002
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526142604/http://palestinemonitor.org/Activism%20pal%20solidarity/Dr_sitta_for_award.htm to http://palestinemonitor.org/Activism%20pal%20solidarity/Dr_sitta_for_award.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2019

Under reception at the bottom of the article, add wikilink for both Eyad al-Sarraj and Gaza Community Mental Health Programme. *Starfire2999* talk 02:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Age

Is it confirmed that Faris was born in December 1985? There are sources that claim he was 12, 13, or even 15. ImTheIP (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello ImTheIP, based on The Palestinian Civil Registry that Faris was born on 3 December 1985 (FYI أمين) --Alaa :)..! 16:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@علاء: Do you have a source for that fact? If there is no source it can't be stated in Wikipedia. ImTheIP (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP:, Hello, after searching for his full name in the Palestinian civil registry, it became clear that he was born on December 3, 1985, Also The Palestinian News Agency mentioned this information here , thanks أمين (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I added the link as a ref. ImTheIP (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ImTheIP and أمين, I added it also to Wikidata. --Alaa :)..! 13:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)