Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Mohammad Bhar

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

Tags

[edit]

@BilledMammal: You are required to detail the issues here on the talk page to avoid the appearance of drive by tagging. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant factual issues with the MEE source, and many claims not supported by sources, resulting in significant NPOV issues. I’ll add more detail when I have time, but important to note the issues for now. BilledMammal (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Template:POV tag allows its removal in these conditions: “It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.”
I would suggest you remove the tags and only re-add them when you can provide a satisfactory explanation and can engage in a discussion, per the conditions set by WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my explanation is sufficient, and I don’t have time to provide specifics - although the most widespread issue is that you have put a lot of claims in Wikivoice that the sources you provide prefer to attribution (I was trying to add this before edit conflicting with you) BilledMammal (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: ”I don’t have time to provide specifics,” is drive-by tagging. Per the template:
“Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, **pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOVviolation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.**” Makeandtoss (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I will discuss, when I have time. In the meantime, it’s important to prominently note the issues, andI have given you one specific issue that is actionable within the content policy; the use of Wikivoice for many claims that are attributed by sources. BilledMammal (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: I have gone over each sentence, adding attribution to information that was attributed in RS; which addresses the one specific actionable issue you have mentioned. Now that this has been resolved, you can remove the tags. Thanks for pointing out the issues. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's important to immediately explain tagging, and "I don't have time" and vague hand waves don't cut it. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: Agreed, and in addition to that, I have addressed the supposed concerns. Since no further ones have been elaborated by @BilledMammal: this tag can be removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues remain. In particular, many of the sources appear to be unreliable; for example, they say that Mohammad could not speak, but the BBC makes it clear that he could “He would panic and say, ‘I'm scared, scared’,” Nabila remembers. BilledMammal (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does "appear to be unreliable" mean? They are either deemed unreliable or not. You appear to be speaking about contradictory facts, which is normal in the first iterations of a news story. The example you've mentioned can be fixed by simply saying he was reported as being largely non-verbal – that's a simple edit, not a reliability issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the Middle East Eye article.
It claims that Nabila Ahmed Bhar said "I don’t know how he uttered these words; we had never heard him speak before." However, according the BBC she says he could speak "He would panic and say, 'I'm scared, scared'," Nabila remembers.
Either the witness is making things up, or the Middle East Eye is fabricating the interview. In such circumstances we shouldn't be relying on sources of questionable reliability; we should be relying on those with a strong reputation for fact checking. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] This source says he had speech difficulties and usually didn’t speak, which is probably the least confusing way to describe it. Wafflefrites (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She told MME they had been displaced at least five other times, and BBC quotes her saying they had been displaced 15 times. I think we are supposed to follow WP:SOURCESDIFFER so I will fix that too. Wafflefrites (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MEE reported that he was screaming in horror. BBC reported that he patted the dog on the head. Both reported that he called the dog “dear”. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't really registered that part, but I wonder which is more likely when one is being mauled – screaming or affectionate patting? More stellar journalism by the BBC. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it could also possibly be a mistranslation. Maybe he was flailing his arms and hitting the dog on the head since it was attacking him. Or maybe he was pushing or slapping the dog’s head away. Or it could be that there was no mistranslation, and the BBC were told that Mohammad was patting the dog on the head. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also MEE says both “dog” and “dogs”, so was there more than one dog? I think they made a typo. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we can get this right, it was this tiny contradiction the reason why you added the POV and factuality tags to the entire article? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He has never spoken" and "he has previously spoken" isn't a minor contradiction - either his mother is lying, or the MEE is fabricating interviews. Either way, we should be being very careful to only use top quality sources.
And no, that wasn't the only reason. Other reasons included the previously mentioned use of Wikivoice for attributed claims, the inclusion of the criticism of the BBC in the lede, the use of "widely criticized" for the BBC headline when such a claim is not supported by the source, and the use of "who was killed after he was abandoned" although sources don't support the claim that the Israeli's abandoned him to die. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe.. just a figure of speech, given in a tense moment while being interviewed by media on how her disabled son was mauled by a dog unleashed by Israeli forces and then abandoned to die? The article uses all high quality sources which have reported on the exact same thing. Lede is a summary of body including any prominent controversies per MOS:LEDE; there are two articles on this controversy, making it notable. Leaving an injured person who has speech and walking difficulties in a war zone is pretty much abandonment, as described by the family as such, and attributed now in this article as such. As for "widely," I have removed it. So these concerns can be considered addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the speech difficulties/never spoke before discrepancy was a good catch. I think the factual accuracy tag was appropriate to double check the sources. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a discrepancy for sure, but it could have been readily handled at the level on an inline tag, and, let's be honest, it's not exactly narrative critical. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the sources, I now understand why BilledMammal added the NPOV tag too. At one time, a doctor came in and did try to treat him. I added the tourniquet to the lead for NPOV. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A tourniquet isn't treatment, it's triage. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“ In medicine, triage (/ˈtriːɑːʒ/, /triˈɑːʒ/) is a process by which care providers such as medical professionals and those with first aid knowledge determine the order of priority for providing treatment to injured individuals” Wafflefrites (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and stop bleeding. Let's not get sidetracked. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources support the claim that he was abandoned and left to die - it is possible, even likely, that he died while being treated and the Israeli’s abandoned his corpse. BilledMammal (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? The BBC now literally says "left to die" in the headline, and many more sources say the same without couching it in terms of "mother says", presumably because there are multiple family witnesses. Also, because it's happened again and again and again in the conflict. Perhaps don't speculate too much about the rest. Let's not forget who, in this scenario, performed the "killing by dog mauling" of a disabled person. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEADLINES, and the BBC is quoting the mother. Further, even the mother doesn’t know what happens - when she was forced to leave both her son and the Israeli troops were still there. All we can say is that he died after an attack by an Israeli dog, despite being attended to by an Israeli military doctor. Speculation beyond that is unsupported and cannot be put in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the headlines dissatisfy you, read further. He clearly wasn't dead after the dog mauling, so by virtue of not having his immediate medical needs addressed or being medically evacuated, he was left to die by the soldiers that set a dog on him and who were entirely responsible for him after forcibly separating him from his family. If you cannot treat someone on scene, you evacuate them for treatment. If you do neither, you have left them to die. Hence the multiple headlines to the same effect.[2] Just add "his family said" everywhere if you like. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or he died while receiving treatment at the location. The sources don’t say whether he dies before or after the Israeli’s left, and we can’t speculate. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The disabled victim was locked alone in a room, and not even his family were allowed to see him in order to administer aid. If he was badly wounded, he was at risk of bleeding out. That was him being left to die. If he was lightly wounded, the point which he passed the point of medical intervention was later. Then he was left to die. There is no indication that he was dead at the time the family were forcibly displaced from their house. "Bhar was left behind when the soldiers forcibly moved out the family. He was found dead when they returned several days later." [3] Iskandar323 (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't left alone in a room. Initially the Israeli soldiers were with him, and later the Israeli doctor.
This discussion is going nowhere, so lets simplify it. Can you provide a source that says he died after the Israeli's left? Not the family, who left before the Israeli's did, but the Israeli's? BilledMammal (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're muddled here. Dying while being forcibly held in a room is also being left to die. "After several hours, it is not clear how many, the family was ordered at gunpoint to leave.[4] – this is presented by the BBC (your favourite source) as occurring after the doctor arrived and presumably applied a tourniquet. So that's hours after triage with no further medical assistance or evacuation, a.k.a. being left to die. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we've been unable to identify a source that says the Israeli's abandoned him, I've removed that claim from the article. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. He was quite clearly left in the room under the supervision of Israeli forces, later to be found dead. I've clarified that. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't speculate as to the reasons why statements from two separate interviews differ – especially not those in translated interviews with a bereaved mother. There are a myriad potential reasons for the discrepancy, which I will also not speculate on, but it certainly does not indicate unreliability one way or the other. If anything, the account that has been called into question is the BBC's, whose original sloppy headline drew such criticism online that it was compelled to change it. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the absolute nature of statements (either he had spoken previously or he hadn’t), and the incompatibility of them, there is no reason other than the witness or the source being unreliable.
The BBC’s headline was criticised, but not the accuracy. At the very least, we need to remove the MEE source; it’s reliable has always been questionable, and given the issues here we should be relying on better sources than that. BilledMammal (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. There is no reason to remove MEE. Again, I don't want to speculate, but there are a million ways to read between the lines here. As mentioned higher up, if WP:SOURCESDIFFER, both accounts can be produced. WP:VNT, yes? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is, because one of two things must be true - either the mother has been making things up in interviews, or the MEE fabricated an interview. When there are concerns like this the only appropriate thing to do is rely on top quality sources, with a solid reputation for fact checking - a definition that does not include the MEE. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:VNT. We're not here to establish truth; we're here to reflect sources. You're actually performing OR in your dismissal of the countless alternative scenarios: mistranslation, figure of speech, mistranslation of a figure of speech, etc. So no, one of the two things in your false dilemma does not have to be true. I imagine the truth is somewhere in between: that he barely spoke and was largely non-verbal. "I'm scared" is a four-letter word in Arabic, whereas he uttered an at least two-part phrase while under attack. It may well have been his first sentence. I suggest going back and clarifying with the mother for further details. There's no evidence that MEE "mis-interviewed". Iskandar323 (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source that mistranslates an interview is still an unreliable source that we cannot rely on. It needs to be removed from the article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have no indication of which, if any of the above scenarios, is the correct one. So please stop speculating. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is there is no circumstance where both the mother and MEE is reliable.
It's unclear to me why you're pushing back so hard on this. There is clearly some issue with sourcing, and all I am asking is that we rely on high-quality reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we can't agree on what reliable is here in the local page context. You believe the BBC to be impeccable, despite its specific story in this instance being ridiculed, and being iffy. And despite it being the state-funded media of a country complicit in the war crimes and genocide. Hardly fertile ground for contextual reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the BBC's rating of "generally reliable" is incorrect, I encourage you to open a discussion at WP:RSN. However, it isn't only the BBC that MEE's claims conflict with; they also conflict with the National. BilledMammal (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any claims conflict. I think with have multiple witness statements that don't necessarily align perfectly. But we're not a jury or judges, so we're not in a position to adjudicate between them. Meanwhile, your assertion that the BBC is definitively more reliable on the matter is laughable. What I think we should actually do is summarise the sources, as I mentioned earlier, by stating something like he was "largely non-verbal", or, as mentioned by AA, only spoke simple words. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the same witness. If a witness both says he had never spoke, and that he had previously spoke, then that means that there is a reliability issue somewhere. BilledMammal (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was "never spoke [sentences]". People abbreviate sentences in Arabic. It's very common. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He only spoke on simple words previously.[5] Wait long enough and look hard enough, and the sourcing provides. Also: "The Palestinian family was ordered by the Israeli army to leave the house at gunpoint. “Mohamed was left bleeding inside the room,” she recalled. "As we stood outside the house, we heard Mohamed asking for water. After a few moments, silence prevailed,” the mother said. “At this moment, we came to know that my son has died.” Alive inside of a locked room. Later dead. Pretty clearly left to die. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AA is classified as a generally unreliable source on this topic at WP:RSP. BilledMammal (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. GUNREL, not deprecated, so still potentially useful here in mediating when WP:SOURCESDIFFER. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't address reliability concerns with a generally unreliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not addressing reliability concerns; we're navigating conflicting sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Iskander, the sentence you added makes little sense. The way you have phrased it suggests that he died, then he was locked in a room, and then he was found dead. In addition, sources don't appear to support the claim that the dog was "set on him by Israeli forces", rather than Israeli forces losing control of the dog.

I've added information about him receiving treatment from an Israeli doctor, but I suggest rewording the sentence to: who, according to his family, was mauled by an Israeli military dog. Following the mauling he was placed in a separate room from his family, where he received treatment from an Israeli doctor before his family was forced from the house. His family found him dead when they returned a week later. BilledMammal (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the disputed text, though not due to the above speculation. Since it is all according to his family, i.e. multiple witnesses presented in multiple sources, what is your solution here? Attribute every single statement? I think it's enough that the first sentence states this and that it is periodically mentioned. It is not particularly odd that the story is based on witness testimony. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any statement that reliable sources generally decline to attribute cannot be put into Wikivoice - if there are no statements that reliable sources generally put in their own voice then yes, we have to attribute every statement. BilledMammal (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't necessarily to attribute every statement in, for example, a paragraph where the context is clear. It is only the family mentioning every detail, including the attendance of an Israeli doctor for example. It would make for broken reading if every single sentence said "according to the family" at the end. Hence why many of the news pieces do so in the headline, to bracket whole story. It should perhaps be noted in the lead that the family's testimony stands alone and has neither been confirmed nor denied by the Israeli military. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think there may be copyright violations. I saw this:

According to his family, Bhar liked to dance, play sports, and eat Mulukhiyah, a famous Palestinian dish.

This is the text in the article https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2024/07/17/gazan-man-with-down-syndrome-found-dead-after-israeli-police-dog-attack/

Mohammed, who also had autism, liked to play sports, dance and eat molokhia - a famous Palestinian dish, his family said. He was also very attached to his mother, spending most of his time with her.

I think this may be a copyright violation. I also removed a sentence that had no backing in the source which the editor had put in place. Enhazaam (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

This sentence: "Bhar’s death sparked outrage on social media."
Appears exactly here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-war-palestinians-dog-attack-b2581144.html Enhazaam (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
This sentence: spent his days sitting in an armchair
Appears exactly here:https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz9drj14e0lo Enhazaam (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Apart from the violations I mentioned, the article is structured as a story and most of the sources are based on an interview with his family. I don't think it's encyclopedic. Enhazaam (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, striking through comments of non-confirmed user, who are only allowed to make edit requests here. The close paraphrasing meanwhile has been addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protest section

[edit]

@Pachu Kannan: Sentence does not need a separate section, can you please combine that with the aftermath section? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-RM discussion

[edit]

The current title 'Killing of Mohammad Bhar' is quite unrecognizable. A title more recognizable to our readers would be Israeli dog attack on Palestinian man with Down's syndrome, possibly appended by 2024. Before I ask the community to invest their time, I want to know if there are any good reasons to oppose it. I think the current title is a goodfaith attempt to follow WP:KILLINGS, but those that supported that essay only meant for its suggestions to be a general guideline, not a hard rule in this RfC. I think the proposed name is significantly more recognizable.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can also drop either "Israeli" or "Palestinian" from the proposed title (but not both) for WP:CONCISE-ness.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My primary issue with the proposed title is WP:CONCISE. In addition, it doesn't include the aspect that made this attack notable - that it killed Mohammad. That could be addressed by changing the proposed title to Deadly Israeli dog attack on Palestinian man with Down's syndrome, but that worsens the WP:CONCISE issue. BilledMammal (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for the keywords of the recognizable title would nevertheless lead to this page. Page views are currently numbering in the thousands daily anyway so maybe the current naming is also fine. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
Created by Makeandtoss (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 42 past nominations.

Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]


In-line citation

[edit]

@Wafflefrites: This sentence: "They also said that a tourniquet was found on his arm, having been left to die by Israeli forces, without stitching his wounds or providing any care." meant to be sourced to the BBC article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, I will revert and change the source to BBC. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the brother didn’t say ”left to die”, just left. The “to die” part implies that he was alive when they left him, but BBC says they don’t know his condition when the soldiers left. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wafflefrites: Then please feel free to restore and edit accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. I restored your edit and removed “to die”. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also when the family said it was too dangerous to take his body to the graveyard, I am not sure if they were talking about Israeli razing of cemeteries, or if it was because they were surrounded by heavy bombing and intense fighting, but I did not remove the wiki link. I also added to a mortuary. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Mohammad_Bhar&oldid=1235846263"