Talk:Dalal Mughrabi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Picture[edit]

She was slained after being out of amunition and got captured. A practice well know by Israeli Army to kill POW. Every body can research this in the various massacres done against Arab POW
If you have any proof of this claim then please add the reference to it in the text. Until then, it remains unsupported speculation and out of WP. Also, sign your names next time. altmany 08:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Reliability of sources[edit]

The single source used for this article (a Time magazine blog entry) is riddled with errors - it claims 70 killed in the Coastal Road Massacre (when just about every other reliable source gives a figure half as high), it says Israel's parliament is in Tel Aviv, and claims the bus was stopped by an Army unit, when the Coastal Road Massacre documents multiple sources syaing it was a local police unit. I suggest we remove this unreliable source, and find some better quality ones. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only thing the source is for is to verify that she was shot by Ehud Barak. There were no other sources before I added that sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. If that source can't be trusted on easily verified, non-contentious claims (where is Israel's parliament, how many people were killed) - why should we trust it on this highly dubious extraordinary claim? Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be rather well known, there is even footage of it. Problem is, it's hard to find sources about it. Here's a picture: [1] But I agree, proper sources should be added.FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's well known, it should be easy to support it with reliable sources. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just added one. For some reason, all the text only shows up in the cached version. And "well known" doesn't necessarily mean well known in the Anglosphere. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw a better version of the picture you linked to, its the cover of a hebrew magazine and it says (in hebrew) that the officer is taking off her equipment (the vest that holds the bullets) and there is no evidence that the officer is Barak. His angle is wrong for someone who is shooting and you can't see a gun. The only evidence I coul find fo the story was the mother's claim she saw it on TV but the story doesn't make sense: in the seventies Barak's identity was secret and any fottage would be the work of Israeli TV who would probably have aired it again by now. My guess is that the Hebrew article was erroneosly reported in Lebanon as shwoing the officer shooting Mughrabi (icidentally the "gun" could be a primitive attempt at picture doctoring) and that's what the mother remebers.

That may be your guess, but there are already several renowned journalists who back the Ehud Barak story: Robert Fisk, and here is an article from Andrew Lee Butters, from Time [2], so I think this is a very remarkable aspect of the story that should be mentioned. Let's put it back.Froy1100 (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telaviv1 (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He obviously wasn't there, so how does he know? He's not a source of any kind. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you can know things without being present at the event itself. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you need to provide a source for your information to make it verifiable. He provides no source.Telaviv1 (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry but while Fisk is a popular journalist I don't accept that his information is acurate. Firstly he states that Mughrabi's body was returned - it was not. As for what he calls the "surviving videotape" he obviously hasn't seen it and he provides no information about who shot it or when it was shown. I assume he's jsut recycling information given to him by Hizbullah which is what he's been doing for years.

I will wait for your response before I correct the article

BTW this article http://arabist.net/hatshepsut/?p=208 says Barak is shooting Mughrabi, the Hebrew text says he is removing the hand grenades from her vest. In other versions of the pciture the hebrew has been removed.

See also http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:BGy3i5fjMbAJ:www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Dalal-Mughrabi+dalal+mughrabi&hl=iw&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=il

http://www.zajel.org/article_view.asp?newsID=10753&cat=1

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems there is a fairly well-known video-tape which is referred to in several articles, and which was apparently aired in Israel. It's what the sources say, so if we don't believe it, it doesn't really matter, and claiming Fisk didn't see the tape is just speculation. What we could say though, is that "some sources say that Ehud Barak" did so on and so on. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli picture does not identify the soldier. Israeli policy is not to give names of fighters in elite units and Barak would not have been identified in the seventies, and if he was shown no one would have known his name. The soldier does look like Barak though. I am certain that there is no footage, however since there is a widespread belief in its existence I think it is fair enough to say that and it seems like a fair compromise. Telaviv1 (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What we think is irrelevant, it's the citations that count. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a citation. its hearsay. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yet again, that's your opinion. You'd have to find a source which contradicts the other sources for us to move anywhere from here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google cache link[edit]

Already defunct. AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still works, just has a wrong title. Only reason why I used a cache is because the entire article doesn't show up if you go to the actual source page. Why is that? FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a site with objective information, , stick to the facts. "This shows how Palestinians want their country back and they fight till death." is about as subjective as it can get. -- 27 December 2008 85.223.116.219

The edits you're referring to have already been removed. AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist[edit]

Labelling Dalal Mughrabi as "terrorist" is a show of [POV] that clearly goes against Wikipedia's rules. Even most mainstream media outlets avoid to use this term. The right term should be "militant". You can say that Israel considers her as a terrorist, just like many Palestinians consider her a heroine. I'm going to change it.Froy1100 (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there's no real Wikipedia policy which inhibits such fine upstanding citizens like Suleiman Khater, Samir Kuntar, and Dalal Mughrabi (whose actions had much more to do with indiscriminate promiscuous brutality than with anything remotely military-related) from being referred to as "terrorists". Many people (and not only in Israel) would say that the fact that anybody considers Dalal Mughrabi to be a "heroine"[sic] has a lot more to do with the sickness and racism that seems to pervade certain aspects of some Arab societies than it has to do with any valid considerations with respect to the correct meaning and usage of words... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, other authors of "actions that had much more to do with indiscriminate promiscuous brutality than with anything remotely military-related" such as the Jewish fundamentalist murderer Baruch Goldstein are not referred as "Israeli terrorist", but rather as "Israeli physician". Avraham Stern, Yiztzak Shamir, Jabotinsky and other members of organizations that were described as "terrorist", and which perpetrated horrible crimes agaisnt civilians at the time are also not described as "terrorists" in Wikipedia, so I think this label is too subjective and inconsistent with Wikipedia's POV policies to be used here either. You comments about "the sickness and racism that seems to pervade certain aspects of some Arab societies" also underlines your bias in this subject, and thus your lack of suitability to edit this article. You're not one of theose CAMERA Wikipedia editors [1], are you?Froy1100 (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- Baruch Goldstein is a terrorist of the most terroristic according to my criteria above, and I'll thank you not to toss around loose semi-random accusations about my ideological affiliations or Wikipedia editing patterns, when you really know nothing about either one. What is extremely clear is:
1) "Militant" is an obfuscatory euphemism of exactly the same nature as "protective reaction strike" as used by General Westmoreland or "sanitary engineer" used to replace the word "janitor". Since its purpose is to obscure meaning rather than clarify meaning, it has a very limited general usefulness -- however handy it may be as a journalistic crutch for reporters to avoid the appearance of taking sides on what they're reporting.
2) The only reason why anybody would mistake Dalal Mughrabi for anything approaching a so-called "heroine"[sic] is because they're nihilists who glorify violence purely for its own sake and/or because they don't consider Jews to be "real" human beings, and therefore acts which would be considered immoral brutal atrocities when committed against true humans are considered meritorious when inflicted on subhuman Jews. This second attitude would be called racist if held by anybody in Europe or America, but for some reason some people refuse to call Arabs "racist", even when their racism leads to the genocide of hundreds of thousands in Darfur...
3) Wikipedia certainly has policies which discourage the needless use of words which are more derogatory than usefully meaningful, but on the other hand, there are abundant sub-categories of Category:Terrorism and numerous articles classified into those subcategories, so there's no absolute ban on the term.
4) Here's a quote from that notorious hard-core Likud Zionist and unconditional supporter of every single one of Israel's actions, Kofi Annan: -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations General Assembly A/59/2005 21 March 2005

Report of the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan
In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All

"91. It is time to set aside debates on so-called State terrorism. The use of force by States is already thoroughly regulated under international law. And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians. I endorse fully the High-level Panel's call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. I believe this proposal has clear moral force, and I strongly urge world leaders to unite behind it and to conclude a comprehensive convention on terrorism before the end of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly."

You miss the point. That you consider Baruch Goldstein, Avraham Stern or Yitzak Shamir as terrorists or not is irrelevant. The point is that Wikipedia does not list them as terrorist, just like it doesn't label as such others you would probably call them so, like Samir Kuntar, which is also described as a "militant" or Suleiman Khater, mentioned as an "Egiptian soldier". It is a general and consistent policy of Wikipedia to avoid terms that denote subjectivity and POV. You can write in that Israel, the UN or whoever, considers Mughrabi a terrorist, that would be fine, but the objective fact is that she was a Fatah militant, and it should appear as such in the initial description of the article.Froy1100 (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I really don't know what your problem is -- you were the one who chose to bring up the name of Baruch Goldstein, in your attempt to smear and slur me (and what you were speculating my ideology to be) -- and then when I reveal that in reality I do not correspond to the caricature cardboard cut-out which you were creating of me in your mind, you all of a sudden do a complete 180° U-turn and now claim that Baruch Goldstein is "irrelevant"!! Inconsistency much? In any case, what I do clearly know is that a large number of people around the world are really growing rather tired of the tedious glib facile shallow ultra-moral-relativism and "equivalency" which attempts to create a phony pseudo-neutrality between those who commit brutal nihilistic atrocities and their victims. AnonMoos (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think wikipedia guidelines are actually quite clear: WP:TERRORIST. The definition of "terrorist" that you've chosen to accept doesn't much matter - you can't refer to someone as a terrorist on wikipedia, only attribute that labelling to someone else. Ie. "The United States has labeled X a terrorist [citation]." Yes there's a Category:Terrorism but no Category:Terrorists for just this reason... there's no possibility of attribution. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froy1100 (talk • contribs) [reply]
It's certainly our responsibility to come up with sources for the (rather widely-held) view that she's a terrorist -- but it's equally your responsibility to come up with an alternative acceptable term in place of the unacceptable (because deliberately obfuscatory) and Orwellian term "militant"[sic]. In the book 1984, Orwell says that "Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was assisted by cutting down the choice of words to a minimum", and this is exactly the purpose which "militant" serves in current-day political rhetoric (when extended beyond its immediate front-line use as a handy journalistic crutch). AnonMoos (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much point in us debating unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. I could just as easily claim (equally without evidence) that "current day political rhetoric" uses the words terrorism/terrorist in order to minimize spectrum thought, forcing polarized political views (ie. Oceania vs Eurasia) and that, in contrast, using words less common in the media (such as militant) increases the range of thought, as Orwell would have wanted. But that would be a totally irrelevant argument for me to make - as Froy1000 points out, the wikipedia guidelines are clear that "terrorist" is value-laden. If you want to debate the guideline, there are better places to do it than here. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, WP:TERRORIST is very clear: "Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighter" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article. Factual descriptions such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, hostage-taker, kidnapper, and suicide bomber are often suitable as replacements. So choose another word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froy1100 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be appropriate to labrl Mughrabi a "militant" but it was a "terrorist attack" that was carried out. I think that is a reasonably neutral description. Plot Spoiler (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, "terrorist attack" should also be considered against WP:TERRORIST, since it's still "value-laden", and shows clear bias towards the act described as "terrorist". Leaving it as just an "attack" would be more neutral and faithful to Wikipedia's guidelines. Others have tried to describe it as "resistance attack", which I also find subjective and unacceptable for Wikipedia. I'll leave it for other editors to decide about it, though.Froy1100 (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Froy1100. I've removed "terrorist attack" and let the sentence speak for itself. The views of Palestinians thatshe is heroic martyr and of Israel that she was a terrorist and listed in the body. Don't need to take sides in the intro with either one. Tiamuttalk 21:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but they killed (murdered) unarmed civilians ... among them a nature photographer named Gil Robin and then shoot Indiscriminately towards passing cars, how is that an act of heroism and not a Terrorist attack? how is that an act of heroism and not a Terrorist attack? 16:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Article talk pages such as this one are for discussing proposed changes to articles based on what published reliable sources say, together with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (see WP:TALK). They aren't for editors to express their personal opinions about things like heroism and terrorism. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


"Terrorism is any act designed to cause terror.[1] Terrorism is generally understood to feature a political objective. The word "terrorism" is politically loaded and emotionally charged.[2] A broad array of political organizations has practised terrorism to further their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-and left-wing political parties, nationalist groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[3] The symbolism of terrorism can exploit human fear to help achieve these goals.[4]"

by defintion she was terrorist Lioness (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


she was 100% terrorist by definition . to change is to spam the artical [3] Lioness (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The murder of innocent civilians is terrorism! She did not shoot at the soldiers! She did not shoot at tanks! She fired at civilians indiscriminately! This is the definition of terrorism! She shot to harm civilians and sow panic! The terrorists who carried out 9/11 are freedom fighters? What about suicide bombers from isis? Why just talk about Israel. You calling them "freedom fighters"? ? !!?

she 100% terrorist! End of story Lioness (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lioness (talk • contribs)

please look at defition of fbi [4] Lioness (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose: This is an old issue where numerous attempts have been made to classify Dalal as a "terrorist". Maintaining WP:NPOV, it has been clearly mentioned in the article quote "She has been hailed as a martyr and a national hero among Palestinians, while in Israel she is seen as a terrorist." Unquote. This gives a clear picture from both sides. The word "militant" has been used to describe her which is a norm in Wikipedia. For example, Ajmal Kasab was a terrorist who was responsible for 2008 Mumbai attacks and was later executed by Indian government has been termed as a militant and not as a terrorist. I think that the article for Dalal maintains WP:NPOV and should be kept in as-is conditions without the use of word "terrorist". Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_campaign_in_Wikipedia

NYT?[edit]

This ref:
<ref name="nyt">{{cite news |title=Palestinians Honor a Figure Reviled in Israel as a Terrorist |author=Isabel Kershner |newspaper=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=11 March 2010 |url=http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=679 }}</ref>
does not lead to the article described, but instead goes to the website of an unreliable source. Does anyone know where the link for the original article is? Tiamuttalk 21:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About 5 seconds with Google turned up http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/world/middleeast/12westbank.html -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi?[edit]

Which source says they first hijacked a taxi? This source says "They hijacked an Israeli military bus and took its passengers, some three dozen soldiers, as hostages after driving the bus along the coastal highway to the colony of Herzliya, where a nine-hour battle took place between them and Israeli forces, led by Ehud Barak, who later became prime minister and is now Israel's defence minister. The group was killed in the fighting, so were the majority of the Israeli soldiers on the bus." This account is vastly different than the one in our article. Where does the info in our article come from? Tiamuttalk 21:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a whitewashed Arab semi-propagandistic version of events to me, frankly... AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by an "Arab" version of events? Factsontheground (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He probably means a version where every Israeli person is called a soldier (even the children) and every Israeli vehicle is a military vehicle and which Arab nationalists might use to try corrupt wikipedia articles, as well as whitewash murderous actions by people who they support politically.
But I'm just guessing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't guess. Its WP:SOAP and not relevant to article improvement. What is relevant is that all significant POVs should be represented in the article. Tiamuttalk 10:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What significant POV are you talking about here specifically? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Tiamat, but retroactively recasting all Israeli victims of atrocious brutal criminal terrorist attacks as "soldiers" is an old well-known and rather tediously tiresome tactic which has been employed in the media of the Arab World on numerous occasions, and really lost all novelty many years ago among those who are even moderately familiar with modern middle-eastern rhetoric of various kinds. Wikipedia is not required to be "neutral" between the "POV" that the earth is flat and the "POV" that the earth is round! AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gulf Story source is obviously unreliable. Military buses? Three dozen soldiers? Look at this contemporary Time magazine story describing the hijacked buses as full of "tourists and sightseers." The National Insurance Institute of Israel has, on its website, a list of the victims (Go to the Coastal Road massacre entry for a full list and links. Among the dead, the following 19 "soldiers": Revital (Tali) Aharonovitch (14 years old); Erez Alfred (5 years old); Galit Ankwa (2 years old); Yitzhak (Yitzik) Ankwa (10 years old); Mathilda (Mathy) Askenazy-Daniel (68 years old); Liat Gal-On (6 years old); Naama Hadani (5 years old); Ilan Hohman (3 years old); Roi Hohman (6 years old); Rebecca Hohman (28 years old); Mordechai (Moti) Zit (9 years old); Josef Kheloani (66 years old); Malka Leibovitch-Wiess (58 years old); Yoav (Yoavi) Meshkel (6 years old); Tuvia Rozner (53 years old); Meir Segal (73 years old); Katy (Rina) Sosensky (49 years old); Joseph Sosensky (56 years old); Omry Tel-Oren (14 years old). Knowitall639 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, the Time story mentions the hijacking of the taxi as well.) Knowitall639 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are several conflicting accounts from different reliable sources. In this case, the most objective thing to do would be to mention them all as such. Sth like: "there is some controversy about the actual development of events. Western accounts like Time magazine say that..., whereas Arab news outlets like Gulf News say that...". It is widely known that in the case of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Western and Arab sources tend to show certain bias when reporting about the conflict. We shouldn't favor any above the other, as long as the sources meet Wikipedia's requirements.Froy1100 (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to those who found new sources with different narratives. Agree with Froy1100 that all the different POVs on what happened should be included and attributed to their authors. I'll try to help with this soon. There should also be a section on casulaties with the different casualty counts as there are conflicting versions on that too. Tiamuttalk 10:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm following you here. We have a list of casualties from an official source, but you think we should say that a 6 year old was a soldier because gulfnews.com says the people on the bus were soldiers? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If more is done to veil the fact that this attack was explicitly directed against civilians and that Mughrabi is deeply venerated in Palestinian society, we are going to POV court!!! Plot Spoiler (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way(in case anyone cares), the "taxi" would not have been what people in the United States think of as a city cab, but rather a Sherut... AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud Barak video[edit]

I removed the following from the article:

According to some reports, Ehud Barak, the current Israeli Defense Minister, led the military operation against Mughrabi, and there is video footage of him firing shots into her dead body and dragging her across a road.[1] [2]

First of all, the Butters source is a blog. It says so right on top of the page. Blogs are not WP:RS.
Second, the fact that only Fisk makes the exceptional claim that there is a video of Ehud Barak shooting a dead body is not enough. Something like this would not be a secret known only to Fisk. We need an exceptional source (see WP:V#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources) or at least a couple more mainstream sources.
Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lee Butters is not some guy writing his personal opinions in a private blog, he is a Beirut correspondent writing in the Time Magazine. WP:RS clearly states that "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." This is clearly one of such cases, so the source is fully acceptable. Sorry, but the videotape story is relevant, since it mentions a high profile politician involved with the article's subject, so it has to stay.Froy1100 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole alleged Barak connection is certainly notable enough to be mentioned in the article; the question is whether or not it should be presented as likely to be factually true... AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we write "According to some reports", instead of presenting it as a proven fact. If you have any reliable source refuting it, please bring it forward, and we will also include the refutation. So far, there is no such reliable counter-claim, so I think the Barak story must stay as it is.Froy1100 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "counter-claim" is that the supporting evidence is in fact rather weak in several respects. There won't be an official denial by the Israeli government or Barak, because that would be contrary to Israeli policies. AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be "official", just to come from a reliable source: a newspaper, a book, any relevant person. Our opinion as Wikipedia editors is in no way relevant, however, so even if we think that Fisk and Butters are lying, it doesn't matter. The best we can do is to input the allegations as such, instead of as proven facts.Froy1100 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as Wikipedia editors we're perfectly well entitled to evaluate the reliability of sources, discounting those which seem to be predominantly propagandistic, or recounting middle eastern style urban legends (also known as conspiracy theories). 17:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe so, but here we are talking about professional correspondents of well-known publications, so we can't dismiss them without proper evidence. Our personal opinion about their reliability will never be enough. You think it's not reliable, other may think it is. In the end, they are just private personal opinions of non-relevant people. As I said before, we don't have to present the allegations as proven fact, but we have to include them in the article since they come from several relevant sources and report relevant events.Froy1100 (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fisk being a professional journalist gives him a certain leg up, but it doesn't mean that we have to present everything that he says as being unquestionable gospel truth. AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we write "According to some reports", instead of presenting it as a proven fact. And Fisk is not the only professional journalist reporting it. There is also Butters. 2 credible sources. Good enough to include it.Froy1100 (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know this blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control as required by WP:RS? Butters says this was on TV. How likely is it that something like this would be on TV but the only people who mention it are two guys in Beirut? Also, we have Fisk saying there's a tape and Butters saying it was on TV. These two sources don't even agree on what they're reporting.

Again, this is an exceptional claim. Not because Barak is some kind of pacifist, but because he is a famous politician from a country that's constantly in the news and it's pretty unlikely this sort of thing wouldn't pop up in the numerous articles and books where this guy is mentioned. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know it's not subject to the newspaper editorial control? The blog is in a renowned magazine's official website. I don't see any reason to doubt its seriousness. You'll need a stronger reason to remove it.Froy1100 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it is or it isn't. I don't think sources are considered RS by default. I am of course open to learning otherwise.
I did notice that user:factsontheground returned the disputed text into the article after I moved it here for discussion. Seems like that user is trying to get himself blocked by edit warring over several articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the Fisk piece referenced here is an opinion piece. One opinion piece and one blog for an act by a famous politician that would certainly get wide coverage, and which was supposedly on TV for everyone to see. How likely is that? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we discussed before, the blog is within a renowned magazine's website and is written by a professional journalist, so it fully complies with WP:RS. We have two relevant sources citing a relevant event related to the article's subject, so it has to appear. If you find any reliable source refuting it, feel free to include it. Wikipedia is about adding as much relevant information as possible. We don't have to be minimalistic.Froy1100 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What we have is one opinion piece and one blog that we don't know falls under the editorial control of a renowned magazine making somewhat similar but not quite the same claims. We also have a WP:SPA edit warring this into the article.
I liked your little trick with requesting me to refute a claim that got very limited publicity about something that probably didn't happen.
Anyway, I'm going to wait a little to see if anyone from the "other side" has the integrity to remove this like it should be, and barring that I'm going to report you for edit warring. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go tell dad on me. As I see it, it is you who is incurring in edit warring, and disregarding Wikipedia's clear guidelines about WP:RS. We have two sources from professional journalists from renowned publications. There is no evidence whatsoever about Butter's blog not falling under Time's editorial control. Ever heard of presumption of innocence?Froy1100 (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Associated Press story, printed by many major newspapers, has this: "Israeli forces killed Mughrabi in the operation, and a black and white photograph shows former Prime Minister Ehud Barak - then an officer in Israel's military - standing over the woman's body." (Mock funeral for woman bomber draws calls for women to join fight, by HADEEL WAHDAN, Associated Press Writer; 1 February 2002; Associated Press Newswires). That source is certainly citable but it is somewhat vague. I didn't find anything about a video. Zerotalk 12:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vague unless you're expecting it to say something about something we're not sure happened (ie, shooting into a dead body).
It doesn't mention a video, and it doesn't mention corpse mutilation. I feel pretty confident in saying that we would be able to find a lot more information about Barak shooting into a dead woman if there was actual video footage of it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Zero, would you care to have a word with the WP:SPA that keeps edit warring this suspect information into the article? I'm getting kind of tired of this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One opinion piece and blog surely aren't sufficient to say that a living person fired shots into a persons dead body and dragged her across a road ? It doesn't matter how award winning/respected a journalist is or what RS it appears in if it isn't a report in an RS under full editorial control. If it's verifiable it will be in several RS under full editorial control. Having said that, if these sources were talking about a Israeli who had been shot and the person accused of doing the shooting worked for a human rights organization the rule of impressively blatant double standards for living people who say things bad about Israel would suggest that it's fine BLP policy compliance-wise...sigh. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "one opinion piece and one blog", we are talking about two articles in two renowned publications written by professional journalists. All of this fulfills the requirements of WP:RS, so there is no objective reason to remove the information. Our subjective opinion about the accuracy or veracity of the claims is not relevant. We can include citations from other relevant sources refuting the facts, but not delete the information altogether, which is relevant.Froy1100 (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources that mention it are:
  • this article in Now Lebanon - ("Ehud Barak, who would later become Israel’s prime minister, shot Mughrabi point blank during a shootout that occurred after Mughrabi and her unit of 11 members hijacked two buses headed to Tel Aviv.")
  • The Guardian says "Mughrabi's body was dragged off the tarmac and shot several times by Barak in images captured by the media." This article also has some useful information not mentioned in our article currently, such as what the goal of the operation was (attacking the Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv), how Mughrabi declared a Palestinian state and planted a flag, and how while Israel says Mughrabi blew the bus up with grenades, Palestinians say that Israel hit one of the buses with a missile from a helicopter gunship.
Someone should add the Guardian source, which is not an opinion piece, but a news analysis, and that should be the end of it. Its obvious many reports exist of this happening. People not liking it, is not a reason not to include it. Tiamuttalk 11:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Froy1100, to answer you, WP:BLP is relevant policy here. I didn't mention subjective opinions about the accuracy or veracity. Is the statement about a living person in this article verifiably true, yes or no ? Based on an opinion piece and a blog only its a 'maybe/sort of' which isn't good enough. Is it is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources ? It has to be all of those things or else it must be left out. Is it a ref flag, a surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources ? Yes, it will look that way if the only sources used are an opinion piece and a blog. Tiamut's Guardian source is the kind of source for a statement that is required to comply with BLP. If the statement in this wiki article is policy compliant it will be well-documented by many reliable published sources and there shouldn't be any need to use opinion pieces and blogs. And yes, people not liking what the reliable published sources say is just tough shit. Here's another one from the SanFran Chronicle "Uncontestable, though, were the television images of Mughrabi's already dead body being shot by Barack.". Tiamut, I reindented your comments, hope you don't mind. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, another source, (and indentation) Sean.hoyland. I think that between what we had, what I've dug up and what you have, we have enough to support this statement and attest to its relibility and notablity. Will add your link too so its there for future reference. Cheers. Tiamuttalk 12:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the Guardian and SFgate articles were written by the same person, published one day apart, but don't say the same things.
I wonder why we can't find these images.
So as far as reliable sources go, we have an opinion piece (not good), a blog (not good) and two articles by the same guy which have some pretty striking differences. Good enough for a BLP? To paraphrase Sean, if we were talking about someone working for a human rights organization who had a fetish for Nazi memorabilia, would this be enough to state that as fact?
By the way, I'm not arguing Barak didn't do it. I don't know if he did or didn't. I just find it pretty remarkable that something this media-worthy, which apparently was caught on film, doesn't have more extensive (and reliable) coverage. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once more. The "blog" complies with WP:RS, where it says clearly that "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". Your presumption that the blog is not under editorial control is baseless until you prove otherwise. As for Fisk's "opinion" article, the guy is a Beirut correspondant reporting an event in Lebanon. That is something more than an opinion article. He might introduce some personal comments and his general perception about the issue, like all correspondants do (otherwise newspapers would just buy the articles from news agencies), but when he cites the videotape he is not giving his opinion, but rather mentioning an objective fact he believes to be true. If you think the story is false, please provide credible sources about it, or leave it alone.Froy1100 (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This story is out, it is weakly cited very controversial content about a living person, this content is not included on his article and neither should it be here either. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you say. I find it relevant and sourced by sources which comply with WP:RS. It must appear.Froy1100 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It must appear"?? What happened to the idea that we work by consensus? 79.123.72.200 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you prefer. Let's not get lost in semantics. There is no credible reason to remove the information.Froy1100 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are fourfive sources cited stating that there is video evidence of Barak shooting Mughrabi's body and draggin it across the road. That's enough to include this information. Those deleting it should stop. Tiamuttalk 16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- "Your presumption the blog is not under editorial control is baseless until you prove otherwise"...nope, it's the other way around. Assume it's not by default, prove it is. Same for info, assume it's not veriable true by default, prove it is. Same for RS, assume it's not an RS for the info by default, prove it is. BLP related info can't be wrong. It's based on a do no harm principal. There's the Guardian and SFGate sources. Those are good sources. What else ? More would be better to get consensus. People will keep complaining about blogs/op-eds for BLP info. Not sure how Mughrabi's body was dragged off the tarmac and shot several times by Barak in images captured by the media. and Uncontestable, though, were the television images of Mughrabi's already dead body being shot by Barack. published by 2 separate RS are 'strikingly different' according to NMMNG but whatever. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unconceivable that a world-renowned magazine like Time would not control what their correspondants write on its webpage. WP:RS clearly states that this kind of "blogs" can't be considered in the same way as private blogs from non-professional journalists. Your position to prove that they are indeed under editorial control (how?) is completely unreasonable. On the other side, Fisk's article is certainly not a blog, and although, like all correspondants, he includes personal reflections, is NOT an opinion piece, but an article about the area where he is correspondant. All this splitting hairs is a clear attempt to prevent relevant but unflattering information about Israel's Defense Minister to become public and widespread.79.155.23.114 (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The different reports by the same author are 'strikingly different' because in one he says the bus was full of civilians and in the other he says they were soldiers. Pretty weird for reports published one day apart.
Anyway, do you think this issue is sourced enough or not? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to this problem is found in the footnote correction in the Guardian item. The SFGate is obviously the earlier, incorrect "buses of soldiers" version of the same story. To answer some other points, Barak was not famous in 1978, so the lack of contemporary accounts is not surprising. A videotape apparently exists, but there is no indication that the footage was ever aired. There's some relevant discussion at Talk:Coastal Road massacre. Telaviv1 found these http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Dalal-Mughrabi and http://www.daylife.com/photo/05Q8c5zdae4a7 links with photos, apparently of Barak, at the scene.John Z (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, if there were a law against shooting at a dead persons body and dragging it across a road would a jury be convinced by the evidence provided in the sources here ? Seems unlikely. I think there are enough refs to support the current hedged line "According to multiple media reports, Ehud Barak, the current Israeli Defense Minister, led the military operation against Mughrabi, and there are reports of images of him firing shots into her dead body and dragging her across a road". It's not in Wikipedia's narrative voice, it's not stated as a fact, there are reports and people can read the refs and make up their own minds. More refs would be better. The existence of this ABC news show from the next day, March 12, 1978 suggests that maybe there's more out there to be found. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing I changed it from stating as fact that there is a video then. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are muddling everything. Butters and Fisk clearly mention a video. There are pictures of Barak as well, but one thing is not necessarily in contradiction with the other. And what's more, the way you put it is inaccurate: there are pictures of Barak handling Mughrabi's body, not "images of him firing shots into her dead body and dragging her across a road". Better leave it as it was, or put both things, but don't mix up.Froy1100 (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki statement "images of him firing shots into her dead body and dragging her across a road"
BLP compliant Guardian/SFGate sources
  • Mughrabi's body was dragged off the tarmac and shot several times by Barak in images captured by the media.
  • Uncontestable, though, were the television images of Mughrabi's already dead body being shot by Barack.
It looks consistent to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

having seen that the wiki entry for Ehud Barak states he was studying for a masters in california in 1978, and only seeing hearsay type of evidence (the one photo i saw showed a man who was similar looking but was such low quality and a bad angle it hardly proved his ID), no video, no official notice, and apparently no special forces (which, according to the israeli military he wasn't in from 1973 onwards. he'd been promoted past operational status and was involved in planning as far as i can tell from his wiki and encylopedia.com pages) were involved in the incident only traffic/local police, is it possible that his name could be removed from this article? i'm no fan of the policies of the state of israel, and don't really care one way or the other about Mr Barak, but i find this point of ID falls below wiki standards. there is no proof of Mr Baraks involvement, he should not be named in the article. the photo's aren't enough without supporting evidence (an official photo from the israeli gov would be best for comparison, but even then it's still not proof), and with the possibility he was overseas being at least as likely it seems unfair to name him. this in particular is totally unsubstantiated in it's original source "Uncontestable, though, were the television images of Mughrabi's already dead body being shot by Barack" i also looked for any video of ehud barak shooting dalal mughrabi, or news articles referencing the video. the only refs i found were connected to the afor mentioned blogs. seems to be a clear case of not enough evidence. i don't say he didn't do it. i say there's not enough evidence to pass wiki standards.188.220.151.59 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The only evidence needed to pass wiki standards is having the material reliably sourced. It is. So no. nableezy - 17:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Robert Fisk: 'Theatrical return for the living and the dead' - Robert Fisk, Commentators - The Independent
  2. ^ The Remains of Dalal Mughrabi Andrew Lee Butters - Time Magazine

soldiers or civilians?[edit]

Can we assume the amended Guardian report by Hugh Macleod supersedes his previous SFGate report that the buses were full of soldiers?
Would the contemporary ABC and Time reports that these were civilians (including the video of the funeral of a 5 year old) make the Gulf News report somewhat FRINGE? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's complete fringe and doesn't even deserve mention in the article unless it is to highlight propaganda surrounding the event. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. To even have a sentence mentioning that one report claimed it was soldiers is stupid. It makes no sense when you read further and see that children were killed in the attack. If the bus is full of soldiers, where did the children magically appear from? Poor journalism to report this way, and certainly against Wikipedia policy. Breein1007 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it worth retaining this account since it doesn't seem to be confined to Gulf News alone. Not that Kershner, in her article mentioning the 13 children killed, atributes this information to Israel. I believe there is more than one POV on who was on the buses and that the truth likely lies somewhere in between (i.e. that there were significant numbers of soldiers on at least one of the buses). Let's look further into the sources describing the event and see what comes up before deciding to dismiss information outright. Tiamuttalk 07:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a single source that says they were soldiers, while both contemporary sources and the surviving member say nothing of the sort. Not only that, the Guardian corrected their claim that there were soldiers, meaning they looked into the issue. That you "believe" there were significant numbers of soldiers on one of the buses is pretty irrelevant (if not surprising). By the way, there's a list of casualties at Coastal road massacre. You think the ages are consistent with significant numbers of soldiers, or do you think Israel just made the names and ages up?
Anyway, I suggest we removed this FRINGE theory until someone comes up with more RS making the same claim. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was that I believe the truth lies somehwere in between (I don't deny that children died. Do you deny that any of the adults were soldiers?) That's irrelevant though. The reason I think the information should be included is that this a widespread view in the Arab world and therefore constitutes a signficiant POV, whether or not it is a fully accurate recounting of events. Its quite unfair of us to present how venerated Mughrabi is in Palestinian society while not explaining that most Arabs believe the victims of the attack she led were Israeli soldiers (we re not quite as bloodthirsty as you would like to have people believe).
It seems that the idea that the victims were soldiers stems from a Fatah statement of responsiblity made on the day of the attack. Unfortunately, the source I found for this is not an RS, so I'm still looking (here it is if you are curious). Its important for us to note Fatah's claim, if we do find an RS for it. Whether or not its true is really besides the point - its still a significant viewpoint that helps explain the other information in the article, like her widespread veneration in Palestinian society. Tiamuttalk 08:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if any of the adults were soldiers or not, but if you look at the ages of the victims they're quite inconsistent with "significant numbers of soldiers". Yeah, I know, you're not quite as bloodthirsty as you think I think you are. If you say a group of civilians were soldiers, then it's all ok. Who cares if most of them were under 15 or over 50. We can imply Israel made that up.
Anyway, to the point, if the PLO made a statement that those killed were soldiers and that is widely believed in the Arab world then that's what the article should say, contrasting it with the official casualty list, what the surviving member says and the fact the guardian corrected itself when it made the same claim.
Right now the article is stating that the buses were "filled with Israeli soldiers" as possible fact. I think even you know that's not true. The best case scenario for your heroine is that one of the buses had a lot of soldiers on it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut -- there is an unfortunate Arab propaganda tendency (fully endorsed by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, among many other (WP:BLP violation redacted,  Sandstein  20:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)) [5] [6] [7]) of calling all Jewish Israeli adults "soldiers", since the majority of Israeli adults serve an obligatory term of service in the Israeli army, and can subsequently be called up for reserve duty until they reach a certain age. (Some of the more extreme bloodthirsty bigots and Jew-haters even call Israeli children "soldiers", because they may grow up to serve in the military!) However, if such victims of brutal terrorist atrocities are not on active military duty, not in military uniform, and not performing military functions at the time of the terrorist attack, then this broad-brush sleazy propaganda technique really has no validity whatsoever in excusing or justifying such attacks under international law. There is no reliable evidence whatsoever that the majority or remotely close to a majority of victims of the Coastal Road were on active military service. AnonMoos (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this discussion would have a much better chance of being constructive if editors could avoid soapboxing accompanied by blatant WP:BLP violations. Please strike your characterization of Qaradawi. I don't care to hear your 'analysis' of "extreme bloodthirsty bigots and Jew-haters", unless its mentioned in WP:RS that are directly relevant to the subject of this article. Its also irrelevant to this article's development if all the people on the bus were soldiers or not in actual fact (WP:TRUTH)). The only relevant information as regards this issue is who holds that viewpoint as outlined in reliable sources because it is a significant viewpoint that seems to be widespread. Pontificating on why its widespread, in your OR opinion without referring to RS, is something I don't care to hear and goes beyond what we are expected to discuss per WP:TALK. Tiamuttalk 09:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion would have a much better chance of being constructive if people weren't repeatedly trying to resurrect already throughly-debunked propaganda canards which have zero validity, and in fact zero relevance to anything other than a sleazy attempt to somehow justify the morally unjustifiable... AnonMoos (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to document a significant POV without making judgements about whether its right or wrong, true or false. That's what a neutral Wikipedia editor tries to do. Those engaging in advocacy and soapboxing might think differently.
AnonMoos, once again, please redact your BLP violation above, or I'll be reporting you for it. Tiamuttalk 10:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It seems to me you're trying to push a FRINGE theory into the article. We have yet to see there is a significant POV that "the buses were filled with soldiers" like you put in the article. Perhaps "it is widely believed in the Arab world that the buses were filled with soldiers", but we've yet to see RS for that either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Whatever -- I really don't know what you're talking about, Tiamut, unless for some reason you're somehow expressing some degree of unwarranted solicitude for that (WP:BLP violation redacted, Huldra (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)) Qaradawi. Since I didn't add it to the "Yusuf Qaradawi" article, didn't propose adding it to the "Yusuf Qaradawi" article, never had the slightest intention of adding to the "Yusuf Qaradawi" article, didn't add it to the talk page of the "Yusuf Qaradawi" article, never had any intention of adding to the talk page of the "Yusuf Qaradawi" article, and wasn't even talking about Qaradawi as such (but merely happened to mention him in passing as one example among a large number of ideologues who publicly uphold sleazy propaganda tactics which would be found to be unacceptable by most decent people who have any concern whatsoever with morality and ethics), it's hard for me to see your cries of "BLP violation" as any real legitimate concern (as opposed to an attempt to harass me for expressing my opinions in the context of discussions about how to improve the Dalal Mughrabi article, for example).[reply]

Anyway, what I said about international law above was not merely my personal opinion -- just look at the following excerpts from the Amnesty International report Without distinction - attacks on civilians by Palestinian armed groups, Amnesty International document "MDE 02/003/2002", 10 July 2002[8]}: AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC) --[reply]

Others have suggested that the prohibition of the killing of civilians does not apply to the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories because, as Sheikh Ahmed Yassin has said, "[a]re there any civilians in Israel? They are all soldiers, men and women, except those religious persons, who do not serve in the army, the rest are all soldiers. The only difference is that they wear civilian clothes when they are in Israel, and military clothes when they come to us."(68) Such arguments are not only factually erroneous, they seek to blur the distinction between civilians and combatants by describing a whole society as "militarized". International humanitarian law defines a civilian as any person who is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict (Article 50 (1) Protocol I). Members of the armed forces comprise all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to the party, including militia and volunteer corps forming part of such forces (Article 43, Protocol I).

Israelis between the ages of 17 and 56 can be mobilized to serve in the armed forces. Under international humanitarian law a person remains a civilian for as long as they are not incorporated into the armed forces. Reservists when not in active duty are not members of the armed forces and can therefore not be classified as combatants. The fact that some people within the population are not civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character and thus of its protection from direct attack (Article 50 (2) and (3) Protocol I). The occasional presence of soldiers among passengers on ordinary commuter buses, diners in a café or shoppers in a market does not make such venues legitimate targets for attack.

In addition to prohibiting direct attacks on civilians, international humanitarian law prohibits indiscriminate attacks, including attacks which strike military objectives and civilians without distinction, as well as attacks directed at a military objective but which cause disproportionate harm to civilians (Article 51 (4) and (5) of Protocol I). There are also obligations on both sides to take precautions to protect civilians by removing civilians from the vicinity of military objectives and avoiding locating military objectives near densely populated areas (Article 58 of Protocol I).

Conduct in public discourse (was:Break 1)[edit]

AnonMoos; please redact your words about Qaradawi. If you don´t: I will report you, (..if Tiamut doesn´t beat me to it.) WP:BLP is a policy for talk-pages, too, and you are presently in blatant violation of it. (Btw: I have no knowledge of this man, Qaradawi, what-so-ever. Just some knowledge of policy here. If anyone feels the need to use extremely vulgar language about living persons, I´m sure there are plenty of other web-sites were you can do that..but NOT on here on WP. Thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this...? We are trying to discuss Dalal Mughrabi on this talk page. Please don't bring these threats and personal matters to an article talk page. If you want to report someone go ahead, but it's not relevant here and it's interrupting the discussion. Breein1007 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- as you and Tiamat have for some reason been unable to perceive, I was not actually discussing Qaradawi as such (just mentioning him in passing), and certainly didn't have the slightest expectation or interest in influencing the contents of the Yusuf al-Qaradawi article in any manner whatsoever by my comments here. However, I have now added citations for the fact that Qaradawi is a (WP:BLP violation redacted,  Sandstein  20:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)) (something which a number of commentators, not just myself, have said in substance previously, though not necessarily in those precise words). If Baruch Goldstein were alive, would you be reporting both Froy1100 and myself for the "BLP violation"[sic] of saying that he is a terrorist?! -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but comparing someone who makes controversial comments that some have criticized to someone who killed 29 people is way out there. You are still violting BLP, but since the person is Arab, no one seems to care. Tiamuttalk 12:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are those who commit atrocities, and those who spin ideologies in order to incite and justify atrocities. Sometimes the latter are actually more culpable than the former... AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about you quit implying everyone is racist?
Either report him or drop it. You think it's a BLP violation. He doesn't. It's pretty obvious that nagging about it here is not going to help. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<redacted>, Huldra (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sincerely sorry if I have been unnecessarily uncivil on this talk page, but attempts to excuse, condone, and morally justify brutal atrocities which deliberately and intentionally had the specific purpose of targeting non-combatant civilians (as both Froy1100 and Tiamat seem to have been somewhat approaching towards or flirting with from time to time) have the effect of physically disgusting and nauseating me -- and since my contempt for certain old tired stale standard boilerplate propaganda tricks which wore out their welcome a long, long time ago (such as claiming that all Israeli victims of terrorist attacks are "soldiers"[sic]) is limitless and unbounded, I sometimes have great difficulty in refraining from expressing such contempt. Furthermore, I was not piling up a bunch of meaningless insulting epithets onto Qaradawi, since in fact I really do believe -- as my considered honest opinion, sincerely arrived at after intellectual deliberations and the consideration of various facts over a number of years -- that Qaradawi is a (WP:BLP violation redacted,  Sandstein  20:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)). However, I never had any intention of starting a discussion on Qaradawi, but merely referred to him in passing as one concrete specific example of a current prominent personality who has adopted the particular specific dishonest propaganda tactic which I was actually discussing at the time... AnonMoos (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your complete reversal of what Ethic of reciprocity is about is quite amusing. FYI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2[edit]

To attempt to return to the topic, I think in this case the CNSNews.com story by Patrick Goodenough is good enough for careful use as a source here or at Coastal Road Massacre for Fatah's claim. Checking on CNSNews.com at WP:RSN archives, it has had some support, along with more criticism, as an RS; I think this particular story is sufficiently neutral, informative and reliable. Reliability is never black and white. Other corroborating sources are Cynthia Ozick's Letter to a Palestinian Military Spokesman in the NYT mentioned by Goodenough, and perhaps A reply and the source I think Ozick is replying to: SOME PALESTINIANS ARE PROUD OF ATTACK; P.L.O. Spokesman Warns of More Raids--. Unfortunately these NYT stories are behind a paywall.John Z (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you want to use this as a source for "while in the Arab world there are reports that the victims were soldiers, they were in fact civilians"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JohnZ for finding those (I found the NYTimes pieces too but because of the paywall was hesitant to bring them up here). I think instead of creating a leding sentence like the one suggested by NMMNG, we should state simply that, "A Fatah statement of responsibility for the attack said that 33 Israeli troops were killed. This is thought to be the reason for the widespread belief in the Arab world that the victims of the attack were soldiers." Tiamuttalk 12:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CSN specifically says that "In fact, those killed were civilians, many of them children, as reported in numerous contemporaneous media accounts". As long as words to that effect are put somewhere near the Fatah claim, we should be fine.
Which source are you using for the "This is thought to be the reason..." bit?
By the way, do either of you have access to the full articles? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pic[edit]

I have some concerns about the pic in the article. It represents her in a halo-like background as if she's some sort of angel. Although segments of Arab society view her in this light, she is seen by mainstream society as a despicable mass-murderer and per wp:npov, we should get a pic that is representative of the mainstream view. I'll remove this contentious pic pending a clear consensus to the contrary. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??????? I think the picture of her looks absolutely horrible....far, faaaaaar too much makeup <shudders> (..not unlike the "ideal" in a few Arab countries, I´m afraid... never understood why some Arab first-ladies apply make-up as if they were porn-stars...<shudder again>). However, what *I* think is irrelevant; seriously; Brewcrewer; have you heard about WP:IDONTLIKEIT? If there are no copy-right-questions: the picture is in. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC) (who is a female Scandinavian, and who has one, and only one, 20+++ year old lip-stick ;D!)[reply]

I don't really upload pictures or know the proper procedure for dealing with copyrights, but if someone is interested in choosing a more appropriate picture, I think this one is better. [9] It solves both issues mentioned above and is overall just a higher quality, less creepy photo. Breein1007 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the picture just below the Barak-picture (i.e while she was still alive): I agree: a *much* better picture (Jeez, I *hate* these pictures where women are hidden behind 150 ton of make-up, I really do). However, like you, I have no knowledge about copy-right.... If it can be uploaded, I would very much like to use it instead of the one presently in the article. (Possibly: cutting off the bottom half...the uniform is really not *that* interesting) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC) (Something must be wrong here: I have agreed with Breein1007 *twice*...in one day? Srsly ;D)[reply]
I am indeed talking about the second photo (the one below the one allegedly of Barak. Has it been twice today? Where was the first? Too bad our agreements can only come on such trivial issues. Breein1007 (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[10]. Ok; if the two of us agree: let us get/await someone with knowledge of copy-right -issues to (if possible) upload it. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think she looks kind of sexy in it despite the outdated fashion sense. However, it glorifying her could be a concern. Fair Use Rationales (especially an historic image that cannot be replaceable) often rely on significance. This image might even be considered iconic with it being used on banners and what not. It does present a potential POV issue. From poking around media related to the event, there are at least two other images that are just as iconic. There is the one of her dead and the one of her all dressed up to kill. Her being dead is why she is notable so it could be used. Same as her in her less than Western garb. All three could qualify for FURs. Unfortunately, that would be a lot of copyrighted images in an article. POV wise, they all say something different being the lead image. I think it should be replaced or another added. I thought it might be an easy way out to base it on MoS and not use images of her facing away from the text but that is two out of three of them.Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist. Again.[edit]

Why have we brought up again the definition of the subject as terrorist? I thought that this issue had been made clear enough. As per WP:TERRORIST, it is clear that this definition has no place in Wikipedia. That Israel considers her a terrorist is clearly stated further below in the article. Militant is the term usually applied in these cases. Please check articles about other "terrorists". Let's not start this fight all over again, please.Froy1100 (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can put the claims about her definition as "terrorist" in a separated segment, not in the initial explanation, where it denotes a clear POV. She has also been referred as a "heroine" o a "martyr". We are not going to start placing all the labels that have been placed on her in the introduction just because they are referenced. Let's be sensible.Froy1100 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even with Bin Laden, if one reads his article, it doesn't mention the word terrorist in the introductory section even once. According to it "Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden is a member of the prominent Saudi bin Laden family and the founding leader of the militant Islamist organization al-Qaeda, best known for the September 11 attacks on the United States and numerous other mass-casualty attacks against civilian targets." Does anybody think there are no references about him being called a terrorist?? Why does Mughrabi have to be defined as a terrorist in any way in the introductory section if this is clearly not the normal practice in Wikipedia? It just doesn't make sense. I suggest this introduction to be changed to be consistent with all other Wikipedia articles.Froy1100 (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TERRORIST does not say that we cannot use the term. One cautious way of doing it would be to spell it out as "she is a figure reviled in Israel as a terrorist" Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sources I have seen (and I have seen many) OBL must be referred to as a terrorist, and generally has been in that article. There are some well-meaning people who know virtually nothing whatever of the subject occasionally revert. And the style guideline you reference admits of exceptions in any case. IronDuke 23:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but OBL was not referred as a terrorist, until you came along and introduced the word. "Terrorist" is per se a charged word that Wikipedia deliberately avoids, just like "freedom fighter", for the opposite reason. I guess your change will be reverted soon enough, you'll see (not by me). Please check that this is not necessarily an ideological matter. Other "terrorists" such as Samir Kuntar, Baruch Goldstein, Iñaki de Juana Chaos or Abimael Guzmán are also not referred as such either, even if there are enough references to do so.Froy1100 (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, just go back and reread my post. IronDuke 22:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"generally considered"[edit]

Let's take a look at how a number sources describe Mughrabi:

There are obviously sources that call Mughrabi a terrorist, but a number of sources choose to use language such as "militant", "guerrilla", or "fighter". I dont see how we can say that she is generally considered a terrorist. nableezy - 03:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters does not use the word terrorist about anyone, as policy, in part, they claim, to protect their journalists abroad, no matter how obvious the terrorism may be. So, yes, they would have to choose a word other than the obvious one, but that's not relevant for our purposes. Fun quote from the Ottowa Citizen:

"Terrorism is a technical term. It describes a modus operandi, a tactic. We side with security professionals who define terrorism as the deliberate targeting of civilians in pursuit of a political goal. Those who bombed the nightclub in Bali were terrorists. Suicide bombers who strap explosives to their bodies and blow up people eating in a pizza parlour are terrorists. The men and women who took a school full of hostages in Beslan, Russia, and shot some of the children in the back as they tried to flee to safety were terrorists. We as journalists do not violate our impartiality by describing them as such. Ironically, it is supposedly neutral terms like 'militant' that betray a bias, insofar as they have a sanitizing effect. Activists for various political causes can be 'militant,' but they don't take children hostage."

The Guardian is notoriously anti-Israel (some say even antisemitic), as I think you know. It also calls her a "fighter" or "guerilla leader." Not militant (which is, as per above, POV itself). Nor do any of these sources explicitly reject the term. IronDuke 22:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you know how the Ottawa Citizen (and Canada's National Post) skew in terms of "pro" or "anti" Israel. But I dont see how that matters to the point. There are many sources that use some word other than "terrorist" to describe Mughrabi, including some of those that Epeefleche googled to support the "terrorist" label, such as this AP story where she is called a "militant" in the narrative and "terrorist" only when quoting SoS Clinton. But let me ask you a question. What makes somebody a terrorist? Is any person who has committed a terrorist act, assuming we can agree on a definition of "terrorist act", a "terrorist"? If a state committed such an act would the leadership be "terrorists" or just the actual perpetrators of the act? The label when applied to people is not informative, forget "neutral". If the point is to say she committed a terrorist act then say that. That would be informative, hell, that might even be "encyclopedic". nableezy - 00:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But are there any sources that abjure the label? I think the debate about what is and is not terrorism is both fascinating and useful, but not here; what makes someone a terrorist, for our purposes, is someone who is generally called a terrorist. IronDuke 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if many source do not call her a terrorist how exactly is she generally called a terrorist? nableezy - 00:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "many." Reuters cannot use the term, and the Guardian is hugely biased on this issue. I'll give you Kessler. What else you got? IronDuke 03:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AP one linked above, the NYTimes which just says she "helped hijack a bus in 1978 in which 37 Israelis were killed". TIME ME blog: the first famous female fighter, an icon of the Palestinian resistance. SF Chronicle: just says what she did without the label, "led a team of 13 Palestinian and Lebanese fighters who landed at Jaffa beach intent on attacking the ministry of defense in Tel Aviv. ..." I dont want to keep going if it is pointless. Tell me how many sources you would like and what would be acceptable publishers. I hope you will be reasonable and not say 100 from either the JPost, Ynet or Arutz Sheva. nableezy - 04:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You hope I’ll be reasonable? I cannot imagine what that hope might be based on. Looks like I’m going to have toughen up some.
Seriously, let’s try to laser in on our issues. I think terrorist is more appropriate, you think militant. To that end, what I’m looking for in terms of what will support or undermine my position are articles which call her a terrorist, or ones which call that term a misnomer, respectively. You can also argue that “militant” is a better term regardless, but you would need sourcing that used that specific term, and your sources, in quality and number, would have to be better than mine.
Your NYTimes piece supports me, cause you’ve got (in addition to a perhaps predictable use by Itamar Marcus), reference to a State Department statement using unambiguous language (and State, IIRC, has been reliably pro-Arab for over a half century). The Time piece is written by an author who does not describe her as a militant, and wouldn’t even describe “the old PLO's mission: the destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state by force” as terrorism. If people won’t use the word at all, it doesn’t really help us in the debate. Just as people might not want to use the word “Israel” but “Zionist entity” instead does not mean we have to wonder what term we ourselves should be using. SFGate does not use either terrorist or militant.
I don’t think this is pointless, please go on if you feel so inclined. IronDuke 22:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont believe the NYTimes piece supports you, what I see from that piece is that the NYTimes itself refraining from using such language and instead simply describing her actions. All it supports is that SoS spokeman Crowley is opposed to the "honoring of terrorists". I dont believe you recall correctly regarding the State Department's leanings, they have been admittedly less pro-Israel over the past 50 years than other sectors of the government, but that does not make them pro-Arab, and I dont think I should need to remind you of Mrs. Clinton's leanings on such issues. I wasnt giving these sources to support using "militant" or any other word, my point was that many sources decline to call her a terrorist. I realize that some of the sources I provided dont call her either a terrorist or a militant, I dont see the problem with going that route either. Surely the best way to convince a reader that Mughrabi was a terrorist is to tell them what she did, no? How about this, would you be opposed to not calling her a terrorist but saying she took part in a terrorist attack? nableezy - 01:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I'm on firm grand re State -- I can get your sources if you're interested. Yes, you are right that she is not universally called "terrorist," but that seems to be a function of the exquisite sensistivity of Reuters, among others, rather than some rejection of the term as applicable. I see no positive arguments against using the word, if you follow me. I'll think about your suggestion, though it seems a little odd to me, sort of like describing her as committing a terrorist act for Palestine, without mentioning that she was a Palestinian, hoping the reader would thereby be "convinced" of that fact. IronDuke 16:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

subheadings[edit]

I changed the subheading "Veneration in Palestinian society": to "Legacy in Palestine", but another ed. changed it back. Headings are supposed to be as neutral as possible. Making judgements in headings is editorializing. She may well be venerated in Palestinian society, but it still doesn't belong in a heading. They are like article titles, and the rule follows WP:NDESC

I notice another editor changed it, and you reverted that also. I'm changing it again. If it is reverted, rather than continue this, I will take the next step., which is to bring it to the attention of the community at the NPOV noticeboard.

It is not a question of whether sources support it. That applies only to the text. It is wrong to use this sort of judgmental term in a heading. We're an encyclopedia , and devoted to NPOV, and our headings like our page titles must show absolute neutrality. It would be equally wrong whether one thinks her activities highly honourable, or the reverse. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I garee with your changes but went further too. I've changed the heading to "Legacy" since Israeli and American reactions are included. I've edited down the text a bit, removing overquoting. I also removed the attribution to Palestinian Media Watch they are not an WP:RS). I'd prefer a replacement source be cited for the information but I believe its true so I retained it for now. Tiamuttalk 23:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Coalition against Hate Education[edit]

re: my edit summary "report doesn't mention dalal so all this may be synth. added citation to at least support "beloved bride" statement which is apparently sourced from palwatch.org. suggest this material is discussed on talk".

This is the report that doesn't mention "beloved bride" etc or Mughrabi. The Their report Funding Hate Education concludes bit and the report should probably be removed to avoid synth. I added a citation to support the the case of a children's television program, in which Dalal Mughrabi was celebrated as the "beloved bride, daughter of Jaffa, jasmine flower." (from here) but as I said, this info appears to be sourced from palwatch.org. The "see for yourself watch the show here" link goes to palwatch's youtube channel.

All of this probably needs a bit of discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Hands Campaign[edit]

Editors involved with the Dalal Mughrabi page may wish to add a section on the recent White Hands Campaign controversy involving Dalal Mughrabi, or at least link to it in some form. Also, I would point out that there's a mistake in the first paragraph of the DM article: it should say "while in Israel *and elsewhere* she is a figure reviled as a terrorist." Explanation: see AJC article "AJC Calls on UN Population Fund to Dissociate from TV Campaign Glorifying Terrorist". The AJC is a US-based organization.—Biosketch (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

photo[edit]

The photo is labelled by a source which is a blog and no longer exists. I doubt very much it is a correct photo. I suggest to remove it, unless independent confirmation found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.88.109 (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the or at least a correct photo. See this NYT photo for example. There are many other examples that you can find yourself using google. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to find anything "myself": I am pointing out that the source is unreliable. If you are happy with it, then <shrug> whatever. 71.146.88.109 (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

blog[edit]

I see that Sean restored a blog into the article. Considering the reliability of this source was questioned, and that it contains what would be a BLP violation (which we discussed in the past) and that I suggested it be taken to RS/N before being re-introduced, I'd appreciate an explanation. Sean is the last person I'd need to remind these articles are under discretionary sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to help. The Hebrew source needs a translation so I was trying to save someone the trouble. Sorry, I'm not aware of the background re. BLP vio. What is it ? Is the pertinent part of the translation okay ? If so, why not just paste the pertinent Hebrew and English into the ref and remove the blog ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do anything about it now because of 1RR. If you remove the blog I'll go over the translation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the translation on the blog is not exact. Do we need the whole thing or just the first couple of paragraphs?

תקוותיהם של הפלסטינים נגוזו ב-16 ביולי. הם ציפו לקבל בחזרה את גופת הגיבורה שלהם, המחבלת דלאל אל-מוגרבי, במסגרת עסקת חילופי השבויים עם חיזבאללה, ולפרוץ בשורת חגיגות ניצחון. אבל ישראל לא העבירה את הגופה, ולא בשל תרגיל של הרגע האחרון. הסיבה אחרת לגמרי: זרמים תת קרקעיים סחפו את גופתה של אל-מוגרבי מבית העלמין לחללי אויב, ו"הכלה מיפו" נעלמה.

is translated to English thusly (notice where the blog made a mistake that reversed the meaning of the article)

The hopes of the Palestinians vanished on July 16th.

They expected to get back the body of their hero, the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, as part of the prisoner exchange with Hezbollah, and to break out in victory celebrations. But Israel did not transfer the body, and not because of a last minute trick.

There was a completely different reason: underground currents swept Dalal Mughrabi's body away from the cemetery for enemy dead, and the “Bride from Jaffa” disappeared.

There are some formatting problems with the Hebrew text in the blockquote above, but I copied it directly from NRG. Do we need more text or is that enough? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that should be "to break out in a series of victory celebrations". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume we only need enough to support what's in the Wiki article so I guess that's enough. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Father's family home[edit]

It would be more accurate to specify that her father's family home was located in "Jaffa, Mandatory Palestine" instead of "Jaffa, Palestine." Leaving it as the latter conveys the false impressions that Palestine was a sovereign country (notably, the Wikipedia link that the word "Palestine" redirects to is also the article for "Mandatory Palestine"). Sammy1857 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WATC and the PA[edit]

The latest amendment (May 2017) on the naming of a centre after Dalal Mughrabi falsely claims it was the Palestinian Authority that named it. The center is however run by an NGO called Women Affairs Technical Committee (WATC), which is not part of the PA. This needs to be corrected.

Additionally, the Norwegian government said in a statement (can be found here: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/unacceptable-glorification-of-terrorist-attacks/id2554704/ ) that it had no relation to the centre even though it provide funding to it in the past. I suggest using this source instead of the Israeli news websites. Gahgeer (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the WATC thing? All the sources I saw so far name the PA.
I will add the official Norwegian government site, but I don't see how it contradicts anything already in? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the Israeli sites is that they straight assumed that 1) Norway funded the centre in questoin (when it didn't), and 2) that WATC is affiliated with the PA (when it isn't). I think in any case it's best to provide the response of the Norwegian government so thanks for that.
As for WATC,if you can look here[1] and here[2] you will see that they are 1) NGO and 2) formed in 1992 i.e. they predate the PA, which was formed in 1994.Gahgeer (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We need something explicit. We can't assume that because WATC was created before the PA is is not now part of the PA, and we can't assume it's the WATC and not PA who ran the center without at least a couple of sources saying so, since we have some that say explicitly it was the PA. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "here".
  2. ^ Anna Lindh Foundation http://www.annalindhfoundation.org/members/womens-affairs-technical-committee-watc. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2017[edit]

"while in Israel and some other countries" must be changed to "while in Israel and other countries" Melvin toast (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dalal Mughrabi. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2018[edit]

are you kidding? "some" consider her a terrorist-- she murdered 38 people! do you have to get to 39 for wiki>? 104.129.196.99 (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 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. — IVORK Discuss 02:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth[edit]

According to formal palestinian sources, Dalal Mughrabi was born in 1958 and not in 1959. See [| Fateh web site] בן אביגדור (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"غ" and Arabic transliteration[edit]

Perhaps we should translitarate the Arab "غ" as "ġ" (i. e. not using a Greek "gamma", "ɣ"). Let us write Dalāl al-Muġrabī. 87.143.180.13 (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to change the title of the article? Anway, I don't know what dialect of Arabic uses that pronunciation. "G" is actually a semi-marginal sound in Modern Standard Arabic, except in Egypt. AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023[edit]

Change under "Commemoration as a martyr" from "Among Israelis, she is viewed as a terrorist responsible for the deadliest terrorist attack in the history of the State of Israel" to "Among Israelis, she is viewed as a terrorist responsible for the second deadliest terrorist attack in the history of the State of Israel" SKShoes (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just updating for the fact that October 7th happened; I would support the change... AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dalal_Mughrabi&oldid=1207387469"