Talk:Khalida Jarrar

Israeli denial of medical treatment

This whole section seems to be a bit of a tempest in a teacup. The linked article does not say she was denied medical treatment, only that she was initially told she does not need an exit permit, and then when she tried to cross without one, it turned out she actually does. She applied for such a permit, and got one (see the Adameer article in the "External Links" section), and got her treatment in Jordan. Accordingly I am removing this section, All Rows4 (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As the source states "She was not allowed to exit." There is no question that her ability to receive medical care is limited by the Israeli occupiers. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No , what it says, if we don;t cherry-pick statements out of context , is that she "had to apply for an exit permit via the Civil Administration's health coordinator." And, as the Adammeer link shows, she was allowed to exit once she did that All Rows4 (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly just POV pushing by All Rows4, the information is well cited and NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read my argument and respond to it. All Rows4 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Human right activist?

How is a member of a terrorist organization that purposefully murders Jewish children considered a "human rights" activist? Also, why is an anti-Semitic hate site like Mondoweiss being used as a source? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.136.223 (talk • contribs)

Administartive detntion

How do we resolve the contradiction between claims that she is under administrative detention (which is detention without charges or trial) , and the fact that she has been charged, and her trial begun? All Rows4 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

She was arrested for flouting the August 2014 exile order, which was framed as administrative detention. The commanding officer on 2 April said that was the reason for her arrest and imprisonment. Then a trial was slated, which looks like be delayed, the problem for the Israeli authorities being that the 'evidence' is secreted away and not available to the defendant or her lawyers, which means that putting her on trial, esp. since this case is closely followed abroad, is a tricky business. Until the actual trial takes place and is reported by sources, we have no option but to sit with what sources say. Newspapers are often stupid, and journalists careless about actually thinking about the consequences of their copy-and-paste editorializing.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've now clarified the distinction which is made in Addameer's comuniques.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it reads much better now. All Rows4 (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate info

Nishidani, is there a particular reason why the 2nd paragarph needs to state that Ghassan "has been arrested 14 times and spent 11 years", and then two lines later, again state "her husband has been detained 14 times and imprisoned for 11 years"? All Rows4 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There's no reason why in a wikibio on a woman who has been repeatedly detained by Israeli authorities, should not contain information given in articles relating about her, and her spouse, who is a witness to her life, and suffered the same persistent arrest she has. Why keep it out? Compare

Binjamin Netanyahu' Sara was working as a flight attendant while she was completing a master's degree in psychology.[244] .'

Barack Obama:'In June 1989, Obama met Michelle Robinson when he was employed as a summer associate at the Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin.[354] Assigned for three months as Obama's adviser at the firm, Robinson joined him at several group social functions, but declined his initial requests to date.[355] . . The Obamas have two Portuguese Water Dogs, the first, a male named Bo, a gift from Senator Ted Kennedy.[360] In August 2013, Bo was joined by Sunny, a female.[361].'

Tony Blair:'enrolled as a pupil barrister, and met his future wife, Cherie Booth (daughter of the actor Tony Booth). . .Cherie Booth, a Roman Catholic and future Queen's Counsel '

Silvio Berlusconi:'Il Foglio, one of the most influential Italian right-wing newspapers, is partially owned by his wife, Veronica Lario. After Lario sold some of her ownership in 2010, Paolo Berlusconi acquired a majority interest in the newspaper.'

Yeah I know. Other stuff exists. But I see no reason, as always, no reason why Palestinians should be treated differently from anyone else in their wikibios. Uh, oh, of course, Palestinians must not be treated like other people, because a suspicion hangs over their homo sapiens taxonomy as such.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please reread what I asked you, not what you imagine I asked. That sentence appears TWICE, separated by less than 20 words. why does it need to be there TWICE? All Rows4 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What religion?

People might think that this woman is some kind of political or religious prisoner - especially in these circumstances, where different religions are subject to radically different systems of justice.

Now, the PFLP was founded by a Christian and continues to be strongest in those few towns in the West Bank where there is some Christian presence, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nablus. Some people might think Khalid Jarrar was a Christian and that's the sole reason for putting her in prison.

So why is there no mention of this woman's religion in her article? 86.141.102.161 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, there are no WP:RS stating her religion, find that, and we can include it in the article, Huldra (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Arrests and re-arrests (not just the recent one) in the lead or the body?

Discuss. El_C 06:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• The fact that she was "released from Israeli detention, after an international campaign on her behalf" is definitely due weight in the lead and it is probably the reason why she is notable and the re-arrest is also an important notable event in this BLP. What Here come the Suns did was removing that from the lead. The lead should mention all the notable events that happened in this BLP life so that it can establish why this person is notable.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding that line to the summary of events in my versions of the lead, e,g: "She has been arrested multiple times by the Israeli authorities. Several of these arrests resulted in administrative detention without any charges being brought. She has aslo been charged and convicted of "incitement and involvement in terror", and sentenced to 15 months in prison, of which she served 6, before being released after an international campaign on her behalf". That last part needs to be supported by sources taht say that, of course. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• If you're moving the arrest details to the body, a summary of these details in the lead could be a good compromise to this dispute. SharabSalam, what do you think? El_C 15:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  Absolutely unacceptable wording and compromise, it makes it unclear when she was arrested without charges multiple times and when that one time she was charged and arrested also doesn't mention who brought the charges against her. The current version provides these important contexts and it is an appropriate summary of theses sections Khalida Jarrar#Expulsion order and Khalida Jarrar#Administrative detention and trial (the largest content in this article) while the version that is proposed provide only 2-3 small lines-next to the infobox- for the aforementioned sections, how is this an appropriate summary? --SharabSalam (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

My suggested wording states quite clearly that in several of these cases, no charges were brought: "Several of these arrests resulted in administrative detention without any charges being brought". It also says she was arrested by Israeli authorities, but if you want to make it more explicit, we can state that "She has aslo been charged and convicted of "incitement and involvement in terror" by an Israeli military court". The current version is not a summary at all, and in fact contains much information that only appears in the lead, not the article, in contravention of WP:LEAD. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns if you agree to add these contexts why did you launch an RfC? I agree with your suggestions although I dont see the problem with the current version. It is very important to mention She has also been charged and convicted of "incitement and involvement in terror" by an Israeli military court and before being released after an international campaign on her behalf.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The RfC is to get outside input. Input also about the extent of detail in the lead (versus the body). But if you agree that further summarizing (condensing) the lead and expanding the body is an option, then we have something to work with. El_C 09:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok,. let's start with what we agree on, above. Here come the Suns (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Maybe launch an RfC on this question (or make use of another dispute resolution request) to gain some further outside input into this matter. El_C 01:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for outside comments

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Having been open for 76 days and a last comment 71 days ago, it is clear that no further clarity will be achieved by this discussion. That said, only two editors not initially involved in this dispute saw fit to express an opinion and the opinions were evenly split. The only policy-compliant way to summarize this discussion is that no consensus has been achieved. In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the article's lead summarize the arrests, trial and administrative detentions (per the above suggested wording, or something similar), or should it have the current level of detail? Here come the Suns (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: It is impossible to know what one is agreeing/disagreeing with here. Please list, say version 1, version 2, version 3 examples (where each version has the complete wording listed), Huldra (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe this is the change thus far. El_C 20:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

To have "charged and convicted of "incitement and involvement in terror" by an Israeli military court" in the lead is obviously not acceptable. According to the article, she has been sentenced to "belonging to an illegal organization and "incitement"", alas, her trial has also been severely criticised (called "a Kafkaesque perversion of military law", by Haaretz.) Huldra (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Counter-proposals are welcome. El_C 20:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Alternatives for 2nd half of lead:

• Alternative 1:
• "She has been arrested multiple times by the Israeli authorities. Several of these arrests resulted in administrative detention without any charges being brought. She has also been charged and convicted of "incitement and involvement in terror" by an Israeli military court, and sentenced to 15 months in prison, of which she served 6, before being released after an international campaign on her behalf."

• Alternative 2:
• "She has been arrested multiple times by the Israeli authorities. On April 2, 2015 she was arrested and held in administrative detention, and not released until early June 2016 after an international campaign on her behalf. She was rearrested in July 2017, and released on the 28th February, 2019, after 20 months in administrative detention in Damon Prison without any charge or trial made against her."
• She is presently again being held in administrative detention, after being arrested by the Israelis at her home in Ramallah, in late October, 2019.

Vote

• Alt.2, Huldra (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Alt.2,Nishidani (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• Alt.1, Darwin Naz (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Alt.1, as nominator Here come the Suns (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Dicussion

Note: Here come the Suns suggested Alt 1, I suggested Alt 2. As El C said above: people are welcome to make Counter-proposals Huldra (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, Shin Bet are saying now that Jarrar was involved with the Murder of Rina Shnerb. The main "suspect" in that murder has undergone severe torture, enough to send him unconscious to hospital, where it took him 2 weeks to regain consciousness. It was first reported 29 September 2019 that he had “suffered a heart-related problem”. It was later reported 15 October 2019 that he had “severe internal injures, including broken ribs and kidney failure”. Funny, I didn't know you got that from "heart-problems"...

I know that if I had been the subject of the same treatment, I would have confessed long ago. Not only that, I would have sworn that on my life that El_C, Zero0000 and Nishidani was in on it, too! Actually, we first started conspiring way, way back! I swear!

In other words: I will be extremely surprised if someone don't come up with a "confession" that Jarrar was behind the murder. When the Israeli are clearly willing to torture people to death, that will be the result, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

An article in Haaretz today quotes from the present indictment and makes the point that Rina Shnerb is not even mentioned. Zero^talk 23:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Archive.org of the same article, Huldra (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is all very interesting, but has nothing to do with this RfC, which is about the lead, which doesn't even mention the current charges against her, in either of the suggested alternatives. Perhaps you should open another RfC about the "trial and detentions" section. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Off course it has something to do with the RfC: your suggestion for lead leaves out the fact that many have called her so-called "trial" a mockery, ("Kafkaesque" is another word used,) Huldra (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That level of detail belongs in the section about the trial, not the lead. And stating the obvious, various claims about the 2015 trial are not what you and Zero are discussing in the paragraphs above, which are all about the events of 2019. Here come the Suns (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You brought in the level of detail (namely what she was supposed to have been found guilty of). In all fairness, then also the opinions about that trial should be mentioned, Huldra (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Read what I wrote, carefully this time: The above discussion , where you and Zero are bringing-in various sources that discuss the events of 2019 is entirely irrelevant to the two proposals for the lead, neither of which even mentions the 2019 events. If you want, start another RfC. Here come the Suns (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

We are discussing two things here: the recent development, (which hopefully is allowed on her talk page)...and your suggestion for a lead. You write that she was convicted of "terror", please give the source for that. I can only find that she was charged with that, but that she was convicted of "belonging to an illegal organization and "incitement"".

Also, if we are placing in the lead that she was convicted in an Israeli court, then we also need to add what various spokespersons have said about that Israeli court, Huldra (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No. I started this RfC, specifically to ask (for outside opinions, mind you, we already know yours) about the level of detail in the lead. There are two suggestions being debated in this RfC, neither of which mentions the 2019 events. If you wish, start another RfC. Here come the Suns (talk)

Ok, I have asked for a source for your lead-suggestion (that Jarrar was convicted of terror): you are apparently unable or unwilling to give such a source, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If you cannot find a source for that claim that she was "convicted of "incitement and involvement in terror"", then your suggestion for lead looks like a WP:BLP violation to me, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) This is not my lead suggestion , this sentence was the in longstanding version of the article's lead, even as edited by you - see [1], for example. My suggestion merely retained that part of the lead, which you had no issue with a few weeks ago. (2) This longstanding version does not say she was "convicted of terror", but rather "involvement in terror" (3) Here's a source for you: "JARRAR was arrested by Israeli security forced and sentenced to 15 months in prison for inciting terrorism" [2] (4) I am ok with changing that sentence in the lead to "She has also been charged and convicted of inciting terrorism" . Here come the Suns (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have edited some 13,000++ articles: do I check everything before I, say add an author name? Heck no. And "inciting terrorism" is quite different (at least to my ears) than ""convicted of "incitement and involvement in terror"": so yeah, please correct that.

Alas, that leaves my second objection: If we are going to include her conviction by an Israeli military court, then we also need to add the opinion of her trial, ("Kafkaesque", "mockery" etc) Huldra (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but as you can see, it has no outside support in this RfC, so it will remain your opinion, and out of the lead. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, as we all can see: there hasn't been an overwhelming outside interest in this RfC, Huldra (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't been overwhelming interest, but what interest there was agrees with my version, as did Sharab Salam, who I initially had the dispute with. At this point, you need to walk away. Alternately, I could ask El_C to tell you to walk way, as you are being disruptive. Here come the Suns (talk)

One -1- outside vote. Take whatever consolation you want from it. And please don't threaten me with AE, or admin intervention or anything else. You have done it again and again and again. Either just report me, ...or shut up. As for disruptive, what do you call suggesting a lead (""convicted of "incitement and involvement in terror"") (in a RfC) something which isn't supported by sources? Huldra (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That sentence was in the lead a long time before my involvement, I did not add it. You OTOH, unilaterally and without consensus reverted the lead to your suggestion, while the RfC was on-going, and after me and Sharab Salam had already agreed to my version, and after the only outside inout also agreed with it. That is pretty much the definition of being disruptive. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PFLP is a terrorist organisation

Currently the opening paragraph only states that she is a "politician". It seems incredibly biased not to mention that PFLP, which she leads, is designated a terrorist organisation by most of the western world. I tried changing the opening paragraph to the following:

Khalida Jarrar (Arabic: خالدة جرار‎; born 9 February 1963) is a Palestinian politician.[2] She is a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)[3], which has been designated a terrorist organisation by the United States,[4] Japan,[5] Canada[6], Australia[7] and the European Union.[8] She is also a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), to which she was elected in January 2006 as one of the PFLP's three deputies[9][10] and has continued to serve as an elected representative ever since.

But it was reverted (see my edit from 14:05, 15 July 2021). The reason for reverting was: "Not allowed to edit here, Arbpia. The article is about KJ not about PFLP".

Indeed the article is about KJ, but KJ is one of the leaders of a terrorist organisation, and it seems incredibly one-sided not to mention that and to merely call her a "politician". The opening paragraph of Osama Bin Laden's wiki entry reads:

Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden[1][7] /oʊˈsɑːmə bɪn ˈlɑːdən/ (Arabic: أسا‌مة بن محمد بن عو‌ض بن لا‌د‌ن‎, Usāmah bin Muḥammad bin Awaḍ bin Lādin; March 10, 1957 – May 2, 2011),[8] also rendered Usama bin Ladin, was a founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda. The group is designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, and various countries.

and no one would consider deleting the fact that al-Qaeda is a terrorist group simply because the entry is "about Bin Laden and not about al-Qaeda". Obviously the fact that the person leads a terrorist organisation is of prime importance to the entry and it would be odd to remove this information.

Can someone who may edit this article please revert back to the changes I made on 14:05, 15 July 2021?

Try following WP procedure and submit an editrequest.Selfstudier (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I did so now. I did not know this was the procedure. Wikeewike (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

edit request: clarifying the status of PFLP as a terrorist organisation in the opening paragraph

• What I think should be changed:

I think the opening paragraph should include the information that PFLP is widely recognized as a terrorist organisation. More specifically, I would change the current opening paragraph into the following:

Khalida Jarrar (Arabic: خالدة جرار‎; born 9 February 1963) is a Palestinian politician.[2] She is a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)[3], which has been designated a terrorist organisation by the United States,[4] Japan,[5] Canada[6], Australia[7] and the European Union.[8] She is also a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), to which she was elected in January 2006 as one of the PFLP's three deputies[9][10] and has continued to serve as an elected representative ever since. She is also the Palestinian representative on the Council of Europe and is currently head of the Prisoners Committee of the PLC.[11] She played a major role in Palestine's application to join the International Criminal Court.[12]

• Why it should be changed:

Currently this article seems incredibly biased: KJ is one of the leaders of PFLP (as is mentioned in the current opening paragraph), and PFLP is designated a terrorist organisation by much of the western world (EU, USA, Canada, etc), yet the article calls her a "politician" and does not at all mention that PFLP is related to terror. This seems one-sided and moreover makes the reading of the article difficult (to say the least). It seems to me the proposed change is crucial in order to make the article understandable so that the the described events are put in context. The change I propose which adds the non-controversial information that PFLP is indeed designated a terrorist organisation while still keeping the opening sentence calling KJ a "politician" seems to me to be the very minimal change that has to be taken in order to restore somewhat the neutrality of this article.

Looking at other biographies on wiki I see that it is indeed very much the norm not only to state the name of the organisation the person belongs to, but also to state that it is a terrorist organisation. This makes a lot of sense, for not doing so would be the hiding crucial and relevant information.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

In my reverted edit of 14:05, 15 July 2021 (I did not know back then I was not allowed to edit this page) the sources are already incorporated. In case it helps to have them separately, here they are:

USA designates PFLP as a terrorist organisation:

Japan designates PFLP as a terrorist organisation:

The European Union designates PFLP as a terrorist organisation:

Canada designates PFLP as a terrorist organisation:

Australia designates PFLP as a terrorist organisation:

Wikeewike (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

References

The article on the PFLP covers the views of various governments towards it. We have wikilinks for a reason. The USA or Japan or Canadian designation of the PFLP has nothing to do with Jarrar, who in any event is a member and not a leader of that organization. The US Army has been designated a terrorist org by the government of Iran. We don't include that information in every article on any member of the US Army or department of defense. nableezy - 22:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I would not disagree if you proposed that right after mentioning that PFLP is recognized as a terrorist organisation by the countries I mentioned, that others such as Iran do not consider it a terrorist organisation. However, to hide this information altogether and to rely on the reader following a link in order to find this very relevant information seems odd. As I mentioned it makes it difficult to understand this article without this information. Moreover, looking at other articles on Wikipedia, it seems to be a standard practice to shortly describe the organisation when it is relevant, and here it is incredibly relevant.

You say she is not one of the leaders, but there are many sources stating that she is. Here is one:

Moreover, even the current (pre-change) version of the article in the very opening paragraph admits that she has a senior role in PFLP. Wikeewike (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

That the PFLP is a terrorist organization is a political point of view, promoted by Israel and accepted by several other nations, which join Israel in lockstep on all these issues. It is one of 411 organizations, including all Palestinian political parties, even the PLO, banned by Israel as terroristic since the occupation began in 1967. Israel has never formally indicted or presented public evidence involving Jarrar in any act of terrorism perpetrated by or attributed to that group, despite a momentary lapse in which the Shin Bet asserted she was involved in the Murder of Rina Shnerb in a press leak intimidating it had proof, an accusation not repeated when the actual charge sheet was presented later in court. A calculated smear, in short. All we know is that she is a member of the political wing of that organization, which is highly compartmentalized, and a parliamentarian. The PFLP page has all the details about those countries. The editor is saying that in every wiki bio of a PFLP member, we must copy and paste the EU/Canada/Australia stuff, to what end? To suggest, I suppose, that the Israel military court's definition of each member as a terrorist because they refuse to dissociate themselves from that party is correct. We shouldn't allow such innuendo in a BLP article, esp since there is massive evidence that all major human rights movements, from Human Rights Watch to Amnesty International, deplore these kangaroo court style indictments in her regard in the last decade as a travesty of justice, military-judicial persecution for a political end of suppressing or intimidating dissent, which is a crime (see her 2012 indictment) in occupational military law. Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I find it odd that you say that it is a political point of view whether or not the PFLP is a terrorist organisation, as the entry of PFLP on Wikipedia mentions that members of the PFLP have murdered hundreds of Israelis, and when literally all governments of the western world designate it a terrorist organisation. This article seems to be suggesting that which you are suggesting: that KJ is being prosecuted by Israel for political reasons. I claim this is incredibly biased, and at the very least one should mention the background of this prosecution: membership in a terrorist organisation. Wikeewike (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and that page is a farce. Examine the ridiculous non-RS sourcews. The article simple states that since 2012 (Israel is formally at war with Palestine) I Israeli has died in one of 3 attacks claimed by or attributed to the PFLP, ending in 2015, in that decade. Please note that phone calls to newspapers asserting that the caller on behalf of the PFLP claims responsibility for some attack, have been dismissed as mere propaganda by Israeli courts and defense officials in the past. Of course Jarrar is being prosecuted for political reasons: she has been under military restrictions for 33 years, since she was an adolescent, and over that time scale, the Shin Bet has yet to present a skerrick of evidence connecting her to political violence. Even the judge found the assertions she advocated kidnapping Israeli soldiers lacking convincing proof. The only grounds on which she has been repeatedly arrested, detained without trial, and convicted, have been that she has remained a member of that organization.Nishidani (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So you claim. But to maintain neutrality in the article it is crucial not to hide the information that this organisation is a terror organisation. I'm quite shocked this is controversial. The article as it stands right now is unfair to its readers -- it hides relevant information. Wikeewike (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What I wrote paraphrases what major human rights organizations and area experts write. In a BLP article dealing with a politician representing a people who, from birth, are denied human rights, even of political assembly, like the Tibetans, Uyghurs, or Palestinians, due caution is required, esp. when dealing with a military institution's labels, with military court brandings of subjects as 'terrorists' where, over 3 decades of systematic detention without trial, the occupying power has never presented any evidence the subject in question has knowingly advocated, or personally engaged in, terrorism. Readers are not dumb: they don't have to be shouted at or hit over the head with usual political epithets. Jarrar admits she belongs to the PFLP. Click and you will find out that politicians in Canada and Australia clearly far more informed about the realities of life in Israel's occupied territories than she does. One doesn't have to lay it on with a trowel, to ensure that the smear sticks. Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, so you claim, and Israel claims differently. I trust Israel's view that KJ has been involved in terror. I find it far fetched to believe she is being detained for no reason. I understand and accept the fact you believe other sources. But is the way to achieve neutrality to hide all facts that seem against your opinion? Therefore I say that to maintain neutrality one has to state all the facts. I claim one has to mention that PFLP is a terrorist organisation, or else it is like brainwashing the reader into accepting your point of view without even letting them know you are doing that: telling them that Israel is arresting her for political reasons. Once again, this is your point of view and I accept that. But please see that there is another side which believes that PFLP is a terrorist organisation and that KJ is involved in terror. I would not argue if you thought that after mentioning that PFLP is terrorist organisation one should also mention that others claim that she is only a part of the political side and not involved in terror, contrary to what Israel claims. Wikeewike (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

WP goes by sources not trust. We have sources that demonstrate illegality upon illegality carried out by Israeli authorities. Illegal administrative detention, illegal military tribunals, illegal use of Israeli law in an occupied territory and the list goes on and on. So I think there is plenty of blame to go around here and while you may want to take the Israeli side, it seems to me that more rights are being violated on the other side. Also your account shows contributions solely to this article and nowhere else on WP, we call that a SPA (single purpose account) and it usually indicates a lack of intent to usefully contribute to the encyclopedia so you might consider making useful edits in other places besides engaging in forum like activity in this area.Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stick to the facts that are related to this edit proposal. 1. KJ is a very high ranking member of the PFLP. 2. PFLP is considered a terror organisation by most western countries, since its members have murdered hundreds of innocent civilians. Your claims that 'there is plenty of blame to go around..' sidesteps the issue. One can argue countless hours over who is really to blame and how the conflict started and why it is maintained. As you know each side has their own view which vastly contradicts the view of the other side. I suggest we stick to the facts that are related to this edit proposal. If on top of my suggestion of mentioning that PFLP is considered a terrorist organisation by EU, USA, Canada, Australia and Japan you wish to also add that it is not considered such by China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, I will not disagree. But something has to be stated or else it is hiding incredibly relevant information and making this article one-sided, which is misleading and unfair to its readers. As for your accusation that this is my first contribution on Wikipedia: that is true. Wikeewike (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The facts are as stated below, written before you wrote this latest wall of repetitive text, there are 3 4 (I forgot Huldra) editors not agreeing with you and you need support of other editors for your proposal or it is going nowhere.Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You want to add the sentence

[PFLP]...has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States,[4] Japan,[5] Canada[6], Australia[7] and the European Union.[8]

to the article (things in the lead are supposed to be a summary of things in the article body). What about the countries that have not so designated the PFLP? Should we also list all of them?

KJ is not a PFLP leader, even the compliant Israeli press does not go beyond (senior) member, your statements in that regard are false. And she IS a politician. Comparing KJ to Bin Laden is like comparing Hitler to Corporal Danforth of the Fifth, no comparison at all.

At the moment, there are three four editors unconvinced of the need to do as you suggest so I think we should wait and see if there is any support for your position from other editors and then go from there. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me make one crucial correction. You make it seem as if only a few small countries consider it a terrorist organisation. The entire western world does, and I have provided sources. I believe this deserves mention in an article whose main axis in order to main neutrality should be: is KJ a politician or a supporter of terror? Currently, it does not even mention the fact that the organisation she leads (or is claimed to lead by Israel) is a terrorist organisation. This is awful: it can be used to slander Israel without even giving Israel's (and the entire western world's) point of view. (As for your second claim, there are sources saying Israel claims KJ leads PFLP in the West Bank.) Wikeewike (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

China is a big country, maybe you forgot. Anyway, I am not here to engage in small talk, nothing has changed, you need support from other editors for your position.Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You wrote above I claim this is incredibly biased, and at the very least one should mention the background of this prosecution: membership in a terrorist organisation. The lead of the article says In March 2021, after having been held without charge since 2019, she was sentenced by an Israeli military court to two years in prison after a plea bargain, in which she declared herself guilty of membership in an organization which Israel regards as a terrorist group. The body includes According to the arrest warrant, she was involved in 'incitement and involvement in terror. The article already says that Israel charges her with membership in a terrorist organization. You seem to want to include the claim that the PFLP actually is a terrorist organization. Well that isn't exactly neutral or relevant here. nableezy - 16:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

When the article calls her a politician and later brings Israel's accusations in quotes, it gives the strong impression that she is being unfairly prosecuted. You say that me wanting to include that PFLP is a terrorist organisation is not neutral nor relevant here. First, I do not want to say that it is a terrorist organisation (though it is clear to me that it is): I only want to include the facts, that most of the western world designates it as such, with references. Second, it is incredibly relevant: she is being prosecuted by Israel because according to Israel she is the head of PFLP in the West Bank and the PFLP is a well known terror organisation. You do not have to agree that it should be phrased exactly this way; one can find a more neutral phrasing, such as the one I originally offered. But to exclude any reference to the actions of PFLP altogether seems odd to me. Is KJ a politician that is being unfairly prosecuted by Israel or is she one of the senior members of what has been designated a terrorist organisation by EU, USA, Canada and Australia? It seems that both of these two facts, not only one of them, have to be mentioned, in order to maintain a shred of neutrality in the article. P.S. the article later goes on to call her as much as a human rights activist! Wikeewike (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality according to you and nobody else at the moment, thrice repeated wall of text notwithstanding.Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Much of the western world designating the PFLP a terrorist organization isn't relevant to the biography of Jarrar, especially given the fact that the Israeli military has said that Jarrar “did not deal with organizational or military aspects of the organization.” And the article calls her an activist because guess what, so do reliable sources. Examples: Haaretz: a Palestinian political activist and former parliament member who is serving a prison sentence in Israel. Journal of Palestine Studies: Jarrar, who is a lawyer and human rights activist prominent in Palestinian efforts to take Israel to the International Criminal Court. Jarrar has indeed worked as a human rights activist for years. nableezy - 17:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Much of the western world designating PFLP a terrorist organisation is relevant since the reason Israel prosecuted Jarrar is for being a high ranking member of a terrorist organisation. How could one conceive this as irrelevant? As for your first link, I did not say she has actively held a weapon; only that she is a high ranking member of an organisation involved in terror. As for your second link, it calls Jarrar a 'political activist' and not a 'human rights activist'. As for your third link, it is from an interview with Jarrar titled 'The Israeli Occupation Must End' from 'the Journal of Palestine Studies'. Hardly sounds like a neutral source. Wikeewike (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself, see WP:Bludgeon.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely big on repetition. Math teacher say proof by repetition not proof.Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

She isn't charged by the western world, so no it is not relevant. And the Journal of Palestine Studies is a peer-reviewed journal published by University of California press. nableezy - 15:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, there appears to be a solid consensus against the requested change. While consensus can change, until it does I don't see a reason to keep going in circles here. nableezy - 16:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Phrasing in "family" section

The section on Jarrar's family currently reads:

"The couple have two daughters, Yafa, with a degree in law from the University of Ottawa and Suha, with a master's of science degree in climate change science and policy, who grew up thinking soldiers pounding on one's doors, arrests and the imprisonment of parents was a normal part of children's lives."

I believe the second part of the sentence (which I've bolded to clarify) is unnecessarily editorializing and violates NPOV. I removed it because I believe that it is:

1. Unnecessary to provide that level of detail given that the article is about Jarrar and
2. The specific phrasing violates WP:NPOV, given how negative the prose is

It is necessary to include detail about Khalida Jarrar's life. There is room to include information written in a neutral manner about her husband's incarceration or Suha and Yafa. But this level of detail examining the mindset of Jarrar's children is unnecessary. I'd like the bolded part to be removed and potentially replaced with a more neutral phrasing that would provide more context to Jarrar's life but without relying on examining her children's beliefs about what is "normal". Perhaps a mention of how Suha was born while her father was incarcerated would be more appropriate. I'd appreciate it if User:Nishidani would collaborate with me on this. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I dont think there is anything in WP:NPOV that says how negative the prose is has anything to do with its neutrality. Be better as an attributed quote though. But certainly relevant given Suha's subsequent work as a human rights organizer, and dont see why we wouldnt include any detail about the subjects daughter. nableezy - 17:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

What's a mindset to do with the price of fish? The detail is reflexive: Jarrar has this happening to her personally since 1988, and since she married, to her husband and family. It is a repeated regular integral part of their lives. Yes she is the subject, but in the anecdote she is a mother of two children who were made to witness this. You are, secondly, laboring under an epistemological fallacy. Facts are not neutral or tendentious: they state what is the ascertained case. The statement is not a belief about normal. We have statistics on how many Palestinian families have experienced nights raids and the resultant traumas, or witnessed them from nearby with neighbours. Such trauma is endemic - a normal part of everyday life there- and, if the source finds it relevant to grasping the topic of the woman's outlook,there's no reason for non-inclusion. At Norman Finkelstein we mention his reminiscences of his parents' Stalinism in connection to the Holocaust - both affected him. We mention this personal anecdote for similar reasons, as we do the varied figures in Zeev Sternhell's background, or the extensive quotation about his social environment in David Ben-Gurion's wikibio, which throws, for me, significant light on certain distinctive traits in his outlook or at Golda Meir where it is noted as formative that her earliest memories of her father boarding the door whenever rumours of an imminent pogrom circulated. I can recall a wikibio of an Israeli who witnessed a relative who was shot, but can't recall which. What is said of Jarrar's daughters is of the same value: she is a woman who raised a family is circumstances of constant fear. Or is it, that being a Palestinians she lacks entitlement to a closer view of the reality she and her family has to cope with?Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)