Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:40, 19 June 2018

Ahed Tamimi is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by TheGracefulSlick (talk) at 01:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 December 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

Improvements needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stone Throwing

As may be seen in this WaPo piece, the Tamimis were not only allegedlyinvolved in stone throwing during the riots, but also allegedly threw stones from their compund On Friday, the army said, soldiers were in the village to contain a riot involving some 200 people, including the Tamimis. Some of the rioters, the army said in a statement, entered a nearby house and continued to throw rocks at troops. Then, it said, Tamimi and some women exited and started to “violently provoke” the soldiers..Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

An army statement, not an established fact then. -DePiep (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Its in the sources we may attribute it to the army then.Also, we can't say in wiki voice that cousin was shot by the IDF as it claim by the palestinians.--Shrike (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Whataboutery. What do you propose? -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

We probably should have an 'according to the Tamimi family..." and "according to the Israeli army.." paragraphs. DePiep - please refrain from inserting stmts by Bassem Tamimi without attribution in wiki's voice - NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Factual timeline, not "viral" nor "video"

See by Icewhiz (talk · contribs).

I object, because A. being "viral" is utterly irrelevant for our encyclopedia, and B. we are building the timeline of facts, and so the video itself is not relevant. (That is aftermath stuff). -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that is certain about this incident - is that there is a viral video. Furthermore, this is the main encyclopedic interest - this is what brought attention to the this incident. Just about every other detail regarding the incident - differs between the Tamimi family and Israeli authorities. So building a "timeline of facts" - is not something we will be able to do. The sole undisputed "fact" we have - is what is filmed in the actual video.Icewhiz (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"viral" is not encyclopedic. Popularity is not RS or V or fact. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Virality and popularity (actually - not the same) - are both quite quantifiable and measurable. However, we do not need to do such OR ourselves, as several RSes (if not most of them) have done so. e.g. . Since we have enough RSes stating this - then we can say in Misplaced Pages's voice that this is a "viral video".Icewhiz (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Still does not make "viral" encyclopedic here. Neither do we state: "The story was published in papers with huge readership". Then, the video itself is not part of what happened, and so no need to mention in the header. Should be described in the aftermath. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2017 (Uthis is not what TC)

The videos in general of Tamimi, and this video in particular, are the only thing that makes her notable. RSes report of the video and on the fame garnered from the video. Her notability doesn't arise being a Palestinian protester - but being photographed and videographed as a such in widely distributed fashion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No, she is notable for other reasons. Not because the video exist. So the "video" is not section header stuff (let alone, its "viral"-ness). Please remove the tag yourself. -DePiep (talk)

Several RSes, including WaPo, note she is notable for her videos and this one in particular - many placing the video in their article titles. For what "other" reasons is she notable? Most Palestinian activists/orotesters/rioters are generally not notable.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's choose our words more carefully. She is not notable for the videos, but because of the videos. If it wasn't for the videos she would be just another Palestinian teenager arrested for disrespecting her masters and almost nobody would have heard about it. Zero 06:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please mind WP:FORUM.We here to improve the article not to hear your political rants.--Shrike (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Where was Zero0000'a political rant? I would like to read it but all I found was well-informed advice on choosing our words more carefully.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

@TheGracefulSlick: - this and this are a gross NPOV violation. If we prefix an army statement (sourced to WaPo) - with and "according to the Israeli army" - and the statement says riot - then we use riot. Ditto regarding changing "violently provoke" to "provoke". Paragraph2 - can not be in Wiki's voice - it is primarily sourced to a Newsweek opinion piece by the subject's dad - Bassem al-Tamimi. The cousin being hit by a rubber bullet probably is not in doubt - the exact timeline, the relevance of that incident to this one (did they even know at the time?), is. Other details in the paragraph also need to be attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No, not "gross". Please remove the tag yourself. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Not an op-ed

This - - is not an op-ed. It is news reporting on the video. It appears in the news section of ynet, and is not an opinion. Particularly the observation that only Palestinian women (and soldiers) appear in the video frame is a trivial one from watching the video - and is something that one would expect a written report (in a newspaper or Misplaced Pages) to expand on.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Note, other sources note this - e.g. BBC A video taken on Friday shows a group of females shouting at and hitting two soldiers, who do not respond..Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you can safely restore with two sources.--Shrike (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh please, read the damn text. Nobody is denying that the video showed only soldiers and a group of women. The claim, which is clearly a conjecture of the Ynet writers, who wrote "evidently" in confirmation of the fact that they weren't there and have no evidence, is that the video was intentionally framed to exclude men. It is a charge without a known basis except for those journalists' diatribe. Zero 08:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Again its not opinion piece its a news reporting but you just don't like the facts.--Shrike (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, if you watch the video (posted here by some loony far-right group) it is obvious that the two soldiers are not monitoring anyone outside the frame. If there were men just out of sight, these soldiers must be real incompetents for not watching their movements carefully. Or, if there were men who the soldiers judged to be safe enough to not monitor, their omission from the video is innocuous. Just because some "news" story has some stupid conjectures in it doesn't mean we have to repeat them here. Zero 08:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If we are ORing the video, there are actually two kids who get into the frame, and in addition there is someone filming this - so there are at least 3 more people behind the two young women and the mother. Possibly more. They are however all in the direction of the Camera - towards which the soldiers are facing most of the time anyway.Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Claim of settlement expansion

We can not state it as a fact for example WashPO says "accuse Israel of expropriating their lands in favor of the nearby Jewish settlement of Halamish." it should be clear per WP:NPOV its the Palestinian claim--Shrike (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

At present it is "settlement expansion" without any charge of expropriation. Should we add a expropriation - we would have to say this is a claim. I'm not sure that there is any doubt, from any side, that settlements have been expanded (the question is more a matter of what they expanded on). I do think we should point out that this riot is "weekly thing" - dating back to at least 2010 (e.g. ) - and isn't about a particular event but is rather a recurring weekly event.Icewhiz (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Public perception

Regarding this edit I had to self-revert to avoid exceeding 1RR, I believe it is essential to the understanding of the divide in public perception. I thought this edit -- properly sourced -- described Tamimi without undue weight to one view or a lengthy quote essentially saying the exact same thing. Can we get consensus to re-include?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - and I think this is lede worthy as it summarizes the public perception of her across different demographics while being quite strongly sourced to WaPo.Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Cite overkill

There are two instances in the article which have more than four sources to cite one sentence. Per the advice given by cite overkill, I believe, since the information is uncontroversial, we can live without a few and preferably focus on the three best sources in each respective cluster.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Birth date

"he Israel Prison Service told JewishPress.com on Monday that their computer records show Tamimi’s birth date is January 31, 2001, which makes her 16 years and 11 months old."Oceanflynn (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Julian, Hana Levi (1 January 2018). "Ahed Tamimi, Mom Nariman Tamimi Indicted on Multiple Charges". The Jewish Press. Retrieved 6 January 2018.

Following that quote from The Jewish Press article there is a hyperlink to "Turkish PM eats breakfast with Palestinian girl who challenged Israeli troops" http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-pm-eats-breakfast-with-palestinian-girl-who-challenged-israeli-troops-37955 dated 30.12.12 based on "Palestine's "brave girl" Tamimi sits on world's agenda" http://aa.com.tr/en/turkey/palestines-brave-girl-tamimi-sits-on-worlds-agenda/290450 dated 30.12.12 which mentions 13-year-old Tamimi. Mcljlm (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple reports, on websites and in newspapers, reported her as being 13 years old in December 2012. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-pm-eats-breakfast-with-palestinian-girl-who-challenged-israeli-troops-37955. http://blog.camera.org/archives/2012/12/more_accolades_for_young_pales.html http://vestnikkavkaza.net/articles/society/35545.html https://www.hidayatullah.com/berita/internasional/read/2013/01/03/4183/gadis-kecil-yang-meninju-tentara-zionis-sarapan-dengan-erdogan.html. It seems unanimous that she was 13 in December of 2012. At that point in time, there was nothing to be gained by anyone lying about her age. Conversely, there is now much to be gained, by the Tamimi family, and by the Palestinian Authority, by lying now to make her seem younger than she really is. By claiming that she is still a minor, they have sparked international outrage. Based on the evidence, any statements about her being 16 should be be stated as claims, not as facts. PA Math Prof (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have seen her reported currenntly as 17 in many reports. It is all in the realm of inconsistent rounding/truncing.Icewhiz (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

She born in 1999 according to 2012 Turkish articles on the award. Sokuya (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I am *very* new to Talk pages and to the etiquette and technical language around them, so please correct me if I misstep. I fear I may already have done that by writing what i thought was an entry on the Talk page, but seems to be an actual Edit request, when this conversation has clearly already existed and i should have entered my contributions and thoughts here. So, just for clarity and thoroughness, i will paste what I wrote there and let someone more knowledgeable than I about process tell me which is the better place for it.

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

Boundandheard (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Error

The first sentence of the last paragraph of the article states that the village has been occupied since only 2010. Of 19 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. It was probably copy-pasted from somewhere - the text block it was in was covering events already covered in this article at much greater length. I trimmed it down to the documentary itself.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Pallywood"

@TheGracefulSlick: - WP:IDONTLIKE is not grounds for labeling something as fringe. The parliamentary investigation was not able to conclude anything regarding familial relationship - they still concluded they were actors. The association of Ahed Tamimi and Pallywood is long standing, e.g. this New York Times piece from 2013, and has been covered in the Washington Post, BBC, CNN, and many others. Coverage of the parliamentary investigation is also wide: (amongst many others). Per FRINGE - Subjects receive attention in Misplaced Pages in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written - this subject has clearly been covered from around when Tamimi burst onto the world stage.Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the arguments for deletion of the declarations of the current Deputy Minister under the Prime Minister of Israel, current Minister of Parliament in the Knesset, university professor, award-winning historian, best-selling author, and former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, as reported by a major WP:RS, are completely ridiculous and show evidence of WP:IDONTLIKE by the deletionist. Or perhaps just plain ignorance of context. Hard to say which of the two. XavierItzm (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This is beyond what Oren is saying - supposedly there was an actual Knesset investigation. Oren is also far from alone in making this connection - he is however a significant and notable figure making the connection.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No actual information from the alleged committee is available, just an assertion from someone who used to be a historian and used to be respected but is now a barely-coherent spokesperson for the right. And "Pallywood" is a racist word, and people who use it are racists. And when are you going to learn that a story which is repeated by different news outlets is still just one story? Zero 08:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

One reason this story stinks is that Israeli holds the population registry for the West Bank (and Gaza too) and knows exactly who is related to whom. Zero 08:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A satirical response is here. Zero 08:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This association with "Pallywood" is covered in RS harking back to 2013 - e.g. NYT - . Regarding the casting claim allegedly investigated by the Knesset subcommittee - holding the population registry does not preclude that - all the population registry contains is names and DOBs - you could swap actual individuals.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That NYT article doesn't contain the word "Pallywood" and the only NYT usage I can find is in quotation. Zero 10:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Your assertion about the population registry is completely false. It has occupations, registered addresses, places of birth, parents (for young people), legal status, marital status, religion, identification number, passports held, etc etc. Children are registered as children of their parents like in most countries, not just as names and dates. Israel's copy (which is the one that counts here) is linked to any security records. Given the Tamimi family's activist history, it is 100% sure that the Shin Bet has a fat file on them too. The claim that Israel doesn't even know who belongs to the family is absolutely, totally, fucking, unbelievable. Zero 23:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, the registry would hinder adding a child, however it would not prevent a swap of a similar age and sex child - as it does not (to the best of my knowlegde) contain hard identifying information (e.g. DNA, fingerprints, and for many kids no photograph) for children. I might be wrong in this OR (responding to OR). There are plenty of other reasons (e.g. family love) why such a swap is unlikely, just I do not think the registry itself would prevent it - but in any event our personal estimates here are of little weight - sources are more important..Icewhiz (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Struck - this irrelevant OR - we should stick to what the sources say.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Where did I say I don't like it? That is thrown around as an excuse but if there was actual legitimacy here I would happily include the "investigation". However, all I see is pure racist language being inserted into a BLP on a fringe theory without any evidence other than a person's racist opinion (or, more accurately, denial of reality). And, worst still, we all know why editors consistently push for these attacks to exist; neutrality seems to die here and it is disgusting.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You noticed you just called a BLP racist? There is nothing fringe here - reporting about "Pallywood" and Tamimi dates back to the NYT in 2013 (at least!), and has been covered at length since then on a few different occasions - before Oren's remarks about the investigation.Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Racist language" and "racist opinion" but I don't recall saying a "racist person"; that's a good try though. There is no consensus to introduce this fringe theory to this BLP; you seem to be under the impression anything in the news, no matter how outrageous, needs to be translated into an encyclopedic article. Perhaps it could be analyzed in the Pallywood article but not here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It is reported by WP:RS and the source is unimpeachable. I hasten to notice that TheGracefulSlick has twice written that the Deputy Minister of the Prime Minister of Israel, who is a Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown universities visiting professor, has engaged in "Racist language" and "racist opinion", which is a BPL violation. XavierItzm (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not a BPL violation if it is true. Huldra (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I had to revert as the material is properly sourced to high quality WP:RS and those allegation are notable and hence WP:DUE--Shrike (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Huldra I apologize. You were correct at the AFD. No consensus to include this fringe theory but the article has become a POV playground. I thought it would be different. Again, I truly am sorry.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick Lol, no apology needed. Just live...and learn. After more than 12+ years editing in the IP area, I knew with 99,99% certainty that shit like this was bound to happen, if Ahed had her own article. There are lots and lots of people paid to get articles dishing dirt on each and every person who, say support the BDS into what counts as WP:RS...and many editors who fight tooth and nail to get the same stuff into their WP articles. Just take a look at the Talk:Linda Sarsour to see what I mean... cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

PS, BTW, 8-10 years ago, I would probably have voted keep for this article, too. Heck, 8-10-12 years ago I even started BLPs in the IP area! (yeah, I was an idiot....) As I said: live, and learn, Huldra (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Undue BLP content

• Undue: That's WP:UNDUE BLP content; sample: "All the members of the sub-committee who responded to Haaretz's enquiries said that they could not recall such a discussion..." etc. I removed the content with this diff.K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:@TheGracefulSlick: Yet this was widely covered - we base UNDUE decisions based on attention the aspect received in coverage, not on WP:TRUTH. What exactly are you objecting to? Any mention of Pallywood (which appears in nearly every western media profile of Tamimi - e.g. wapo, nyt, cnn, etc dating back to 2013?). The knesset subcomittee investigation (which did take place on the wider Pallywood claim and Ahed)? Or the specific probe of familial relationship (which seems to be a side issue few remember at the moment)?Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If this "story" gets a mention, it would also be fair to mention Haaret'z response The Israeli deputy minister who now entertains conspiracy theories about Ahed Tamimi's family not being 'real' was once a respected historian and skillful diplomat. Something must have gone horribly wrong. and also Bassem Tamimi's response “How did such a fool get to be your ambassador to the United States?” he asked. “...If that’s your elite, I’m not sure how you manage to beat us. Zero 10:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the main thing is the Pallywood association (which has long been raised and covered). The family/casting investigation (which seems was a small tangent in a sub comittee's greater probe) seems more of a headline grabber. I included Bassem's response in the original edit.Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You "POV FIX" was already included in edit there is no policy based reason to not to include this information--Shrike (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Shrike, please follow along. We already have detractors refer to her actions as a 'performance' aimed at discrediting Israel, which says the same exact thing. Why should we give any credence to a fringe theory on a BLP, especially when the person who championed it is being mocked for his bizarre claim.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Mocked by polemic outlets for a claim he did not quite make - he said the investigation was inconclusive. But do I understand correctly that your sole objection here is to Oren? You blanket reverted quite a bit of content that was not related.Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Not only Oren. I just don't feel the need to repeat myself several times and receive the same response with no actual resolution.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a concrete list of what you are objecting to and sources to back it up? Pallywood has been present in every western outlet that has covered Tamimi. Claiming UNDUE or fringe for something covered by nyt wapo cnn bbc etc... Does not cut it. Nor does fringe when this is both covered and the mainstream Israeli position here.Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz anything I say you will not get so what's the point? If it isn't the answer you want, you just conclude the person does not like it. I, and anyone who happens to disagree with you, cannot have a meaningful conversation with someone like that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You have failed to advance a policy based arguement here. Claims of UNDUE and FRINGE have been countered by several editors who backed their arguement with sources - every major Western outlet who has covered her has covered this aspect - going back half a decade.Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This content may be suitable for Oren's page but not here -- especially as written:

• "...Michael Oren said that a Knesset sub-committee conducted a classified investigation into whether Ahed and other family members were non-related actors that were cast together to perform viral videos as part of Pallywood. While the investigation did not reach a definitive conclusion regarding familial relationship, Oren said that the family members are Pallywood actors."

Not every allegation, especially discredited ones, do not belong in the BLPs of the subjects of such allegations. Hope this clarifies my position. Given that the source seems to be Oren, add it to his bio. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The source is not Oren but Haaretz reporting Oren and hence is WP:DUE to include it.--Shrike (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Haaretz independently investigating the Tamimi family and Haaretz reporting on Oren's allegations are different things. Unsubstantiated allegations and conspiracy theories do not belong in BLPs. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Text without Oren

Per K.e.coffman comments above, I added diff body+diff lead criticism without Oren (Seeing that his particular, though widely published and commented on in RS, views and claim of a probe have elicited most of the objections above). Summarizing the Israeli view of Tamimi - as published between 2013-8 prior to Oren's comments in just about every Western media profile of Tamim). @Zero0000: reverted (while also re-adding the factually inaccurate description of the slapping video occurring during a "raid on her home" - the soldiers were standing well outside of the house, and the Tamimis left the house and approached the soldiers). We already have several paragraphs of glowing praise for Tamimi, a 4.5 paragraph summary of the Israeli response is DUE. What are the concrete objections to this text? I'll note that as an alternative to a criticism section, we could place this coverage (sourced to sources covering each incident) next to each video - however it seems that the reaction is more or less the same for all the videos.Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

How is describing her life and protests "glowing praise"? And where does it say a "4.5 paragraph" (whatever that is) is automatically due? I believe the long quotes in "Life" need to be removed but I'd rather save my one revert to address POV pushing and attempts to bypass consensus. We already have To her supporters, she has been described as a "hero" for opposing those who enforce Israeli occupation; detractors refer to her actions as a "performance" aimed at discrediting Israel. Perhaps more on criticism can be proposed here first but you have proven you are incapable of maintaining a neutral point of view, especially in your more bulky edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

And you are still introducing the exact same paragraph at Bassem al-Tamimi and Michael Oren!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The body, at present, contains almost only praise for Tamimi. Criticism is limited to detractors refer to her actions as a "performance" aimed at discrediting Israel in the lead and a repeated detractors refer to her actions as a "performance" aimed at discrediting Israel in the body as well (in 2012-6) after some praise. These are not the words or tone used by the detractors (who explicitly say "Pallywood", "provoked", "staged", "propoganda", etc.). Tamimi's videos have faced quite a bit of criticism, and it is DUE to expand on said well-sourced criticism beyond a 12-word blurb (repeated twice).Icewhiz (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

In terms of sourcing: - clearly show this is due (and additional sourcing is not lacking) - criticism covered by top-notch outlets and over a long period of time.Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Is This Where the Third Intifada Will Start?, NY Times, Ben Ehrenreich 15 March 2013
2. Ahed Tamimi: Palestinian heroine or dedicated trouble-maker?, CNN, 8 January 2018
3. Palestine boy head-locked by Israeli soldier called 'Pallywood star', International Business Times, 31 August 2015
4. Ahed Tamimi: Spotlight turns on Palestinian viral slap video teen, BBC, 17 January 2018
5. Nabi Saleh images illustrate changing asymmetry of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Guardian, 1 September 2015
6. Eglash, Ruth (December 19, 2017). "Israelis call her 'Shirley Temper.' Palestinians call her a hero". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 28, 2017. Retrieved December 30, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

The only "praise" for Tamimi in the body is here: To her supporters, she has been described as a "hero" for opposing those who enforce Israeli occupation. If we were really "praising" her, I could write paragraphs devoted to each individual "Free Tamimi" movement and dozens of works dedicated to her. Unless, of course, you consider describing her protests -- the thing that makes her notable -- as "praise". I'm afraid the reality of the situation is the article balances "praise" and criticism but you want a rambling paragraph advocating for the POV you have been trying to push for days. An evenly toned article doesn't include every insult you find in the news: "Pallywood", "propaganda", "light-skinned", "Shirley Temper", "actor", etc.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I object to the re-introduction of the Pallywood material: . "Per K.e.coffman suggestion" in the edit summary was also confusing -- I made no such suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies - I thought I was responding to your comments regarding Oren. On what grounds are you objecting to adding sourced material that has appeared in nearly every in depth profile of Tamimi in the past 5 years? The article is seriously skewed in terms of POV as it stands.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The POV fest continues while removing properly sourced material about Pallywood the material from fringe Mondoweiss that is symphatetic with his views are allowed to stay with puffery like " "she was described as "painfully shy" and at times "giggled like young girls do", "dressed in jeans and a t-shirts, Ahed’s with a print of “Lola Bunny.""--Shrike (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It is quite telling that text sourced to mainline top-notch outlets such as NYT, WaPo, BBC, CNN, Guardian - all of which are even usually described as somewhat left of center (in editorial view) - is being cut out, while we have text sourced to the Oakland Institute, samidoun.net. , reedomflotilla.org, Mondoweiss, 972 Magazine, Wafa, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, http://www.respectfilmfest.com/, and https://www.bendsource.com - which are all polemic to very polemic and some are not regarded as RS (e.g. 972 which is a blog, or samidoun and reedomflotilla that are activist sites).Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Are we reading the same sources? For example, CNN article has this to say:

• For supporters, the video showed an inspirational heroine and an international symbol of Palestinian resistance to Israel's occupation. By contrast, many Israelis focused on the behavior of the soldiers. Some praised them for showing restraint; others said they had showed weakness, with the video itself dismissed as a PR stunt. Ahed has been called "Shirley Temper" because of her long ginger curls, and has been accused of starring in carefully choreographed "Pallywood" videos, a dismissive characterization of protests considered staged for the camera.
• Israeli Minister of Education, Naftali Bennett, said authorities should lock her up and throw away the key. Israel's Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman praised the soldier's restraint, but added a warning to anyone who'd attack the army. "Whoever goes wild during the day, will be arrested at night," he told reporters. "Not only the girls and the parents but others around will not escape punishment."

The Criticism section as inserted by Icewhiz is really about "Criticism of Tamimi by Israeli authorities". Of course, they would criticise her as they put her in jail awaiting trial. Such criticism should be given WP:DUE weight, which I believe the article already does.

Then there're allegations about the Tamimi family not being a real one. Here's the Haaretz article "Israel Secretly Probed Whether Family Members of Palestinian Teen Ahed Tamimi Are Non-related 'Light-skinned' Actors: Deputy minister Michael Oren says the probe never reached a definitive conclusion, but calls the family 'actors,' and 'what's known as Pallywood'"

• The inquiry by a Knesset subcommittee “didn’t reach unequivocal conclusions,” and was prompted by suspicions that the family from the West Bank village of Nebi Saleh was “not genuine, and was specially put together for propaganda" purposes by the Palestinians, a statement issued by Oren’s office said. In wake of the Haaretz report, Arab lawmakers demanded Wednesday that the subcommittee's minutes be made public.
• The final assessment was that it “apparently is a family, but slowly, children who fit the profile they sought were ‘annexed’ to it,” a spokeswoman for Oren told Haaretz. Nevertheless, she added, “there was no unequivocal conclusion on the matter.”
• He said he realizes this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but insisted that “we naturally had to investigate this question, how many of them really belong to the Tamimi family.” He added that he and his staff nicknamed the family “the Brady Bunch,” after the 1970s television show, because “that wasn’t a real family; they were actors.”

I've removed the NPOV tag; I don't see a justification for it. If there's a desire to add such content to the article, I suggest proposing a version on the talk page for discussion, rather than attempting to re-insert it into the article in various forms, which may violate BLP guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

At present we have exactly 12 words for Israeli criticism of an activist whose main activities have been in relation to Israeli security forces. 12 words - detractors refer to her actions as a "performance" aimed at discrediting Israel. Note there are other BLPs involved here - e.g. the soldiers involved in these incidents. In most of these incidents the Israeli response, covered in western mainstream media (BBC, NYT, WaPo, CNN, Guardian, etc.) has been that this has been staged, provoked, and part of a wider "Pallywood" phenomena. This is beyond Oren's RECENTish stmt - this has appeared in almost all coverage dating back 5 years. Our article does not reflect the language in mainstream sources. "performance" (in scare quotes) does not adequately reflect this language in CNN (and elsewhere): "Ahed has been called "Shirley Temper" because of her long ginger curls, and has been accused of starring in carefully choreographed "Pallywood" videos, a dismissive characterization of protests considered staged for the camera.".Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The those whole article reads like WP:PUFFERY piece--Shrike (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No Shrike it reads like an article about a Palestinian. Change it to anyone else and the disruptive POV pushing I've witnessed here magically disappears.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

PS - If the article had some peace and quiet, I could easily introduce a neutral paragraph or a few sentences in an existing paragraph detailing criticism. Perhaps it will dissappoint a few editors that I won't be one-sided, won't handpick quotes, and won't bring introduce undue fringe theories but c'est la vie.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Again, I'm not sure if we are reading the same sources. For example, here's the BBC article that was used in your addition: Ahed Tamimi: Spotlight turns on Palestinian viral slap video teen, BBC, 17 January 2018:

• It is not the first time that videos of Ahed have been the subject of intense debate, leading to Israeli accusations that her family deliberately provokes soldiers to stage anti-Israeli propaganda. Pro-Israeli activists call such footage "Pallywood". (...)
• dismisses suggestions the videos featuring Ahed are staged. "They say it's a movie, or it's a theatre? Then I ask you how can we bring those soldiers to our home to make this play?" he says.

You chose to include the allegations of staging, but not Bassem Tamimi's response. This looks like WP:CHERRY-picked and non-neutral: Criticism.

As I said above, if you wish to include the Pallywood material, propose it here so that we can discuss. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the positive aspects of her activism are already amply covered - but I do not object to a "Palestinians/family says X, Israelis say Y" format - either as a separate reception/criticism section or next to each incident - I would also be more than happy if instead of proposing text (in the artice or on talk - and facing blanket reverts of sourced content) - that somebody else would propose a compromise text. I thought I made a step in that direction by suggesting text without Oren (who was opposed at length above by some editors).Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the material per WP:PRESERVE. People deleting good material from the BBC, the NYT, and the Guardian are in violation of WP:PRESERVE.XavierItzm (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"pro-Israel"

The description "pro-Israel" introduced in two places by Icewhiz (one in the lead) is unacceptable pov-pushing. The passionate criticism comes mostly from the pro-occupation camp (including those who claim to be against the occupation but actually aren't), and does not include most of the large group of people who believe that ending the occupation would be in Israel's best interest. This conflation of "pro-Israel" with "pro-occupation", with its intentional implication "anti-occupation implies anti-Israel", does not belong here. Zero 23:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on your "pro-occupation" comment, quite ironic that you're complaining about POV-pushing. And you're an admin!? #smdh Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

He was elected admin long time ago when pov pushing advocates had far less of a chance to advance themselves here on wp. "So no point you havah herea".--TMCk (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This is consistent with English sources. FWIW Zero is correct in this case that there is a relatively small, yet vocal, group of radical left wing (in Israeli political terms) Israelis that oppose mainstream Israeli politics. (Palestinians as well are not a monoblock in this regard - however those in favor of so called (in Palestinian discourse) "collaboration" are fewer still. pro-occupatiin would be incorrrect here - the mainstream, 2 state, Israeli left is also opposed here. There is also non Israeli support for the mainstream Israeli position.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Eglash, Ruth (December 19, 2017). "Israelis call her 'Shirley Temper.' Palestinians call her a hero". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 28, 2017. Retrieved December 30, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Let me rewrite some of that:

there is a relatively small, yet vocal, group of radical left wing Israelis that oppose the mainstream Israeli occupation of Palestine.

All of these epithets are stupid, mainstream in what regard? Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies and misrepresentation of sources

@Al-Andalusi:

1. this diff - the source does not support that "she was detained by Israeli authorities for slapping an Israeli soldier during an raid on her home in a video that went viral." - you are making a mess of the rather polemic source you are choosing to source from (despite sourcing in the body) - of two separate events. One is the viral video - which involved two soldiers (not one as you modified to) outside of her house. The second - is her arrest that occurred in an overnight raid a few days later (and in which she did not slap anyone on film).
2. in this diff - you are possibly (source unclear) confusing the incident with her cousin (who was on/behind the wall when allegedly hit by a rubber bullet) and the viral video. The viral video was shot in the walkway in front of the house. This is clearly evident from the video itself (you can see the road behind the soldiers) - and from every description of the event.
3. Riots, in which stones and other objects are hurled, are generally called riots - not protests - this language is present in most non-polemic sources.Icewhiz (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi please revert your recent edits. Inaccurate statements will not help our cause in creating a neutral article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

1. I realize that the source got the timing wrong, but what we currently have in the lede is correct. Any activity surrounding her home is a "raid" on her home. A raid is not necessarily the one where she got arrested in. The lede content does not say that it resulted in an arrest, hence it clearly refers to the first event.
2. So? the part I added is in a paragraph describing the events involving the cousin (first event as you call it), and not the video. I think 2 soldiers were involved in both events, and you are confusing both. Also, this is a claim made by her father, so hardly "inaccurate", because you "saw" the video.
3. This framing of Palestinian protests against the occupation as a criminal affair is a common theme in Zionist representations of these events. Goes back to the days of the British. I've seen strange insistence from you elsewhere, and now here, to replace "protests" with "riots". Also with your "riots", there is typically no mention of them beginning as largely peaceful protests and then transitioning to "riots" (as you call them).

@TheGracefulSlick:, I disagree. Pls see my reply. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

In this diff, the source calls the first events a "raid". Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi you don't need an over-the-top effort to make the soldiers look bad -- they do it themselves. A riot did indeed break out; soldiers entered the house to stop stone-throwers. We aren't saying they are right or wrong, just stating what sources tell us. I'm afraid if you add bullshit or half-truths to the article, you will encourage others to add their own bullshit to counter it (like the POV paragraph Shrike and friends insist on). Please revert and discuss the changes here so we can work it out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but what parts are BS? It is indeed possible that two soldiers had jumped the wall of their backyard before the video was captured, and recording started after they were already forced out to the main road. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi according to who? You? Like I said, you don't need to go over the top to make them look bad. Shooting a child is bad enough and sources support that they did that. To answer your question, yes it is possible but the majority of sources do not support that scenario. I understand there is an effort to distort facts for Palestinians but that should give you incentive to be better then those editors, not worse.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

According to her father. It's not up to you to judge the validity of the statements. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of "riots" is attributed to Israeli authorities

I partially agree with the edits. Indeed, the word “riot” appears in the coverage on Tamimi, but it’s generally attributed to the Israeli authorities. Here’s a sampling (emphasis mine):

• The Independent: “Tamimi threw stones at them , threatened them, obstructed them in fulfilling their duty, took part in riots and incited others to take part in them,” the military said on its public affairs Twitter account.
• Haaretz: The accused was a dominant factor in the riot and persuaded those around her to throw rocks, states the indictment. Separately: “Prosecutors also claim streaming the incident on Facebook Live was incitement to violence.” (!) So essentially using social media as an activist is a criminal offence - ?
• Jerusalem Post: The army said Tamimi had participated in a “violent riot” in which 200 Palestinians threw stones at soldiers. According to the IDF, some of the stones were thrown from Tamimi’s home with the family’s consent, and soldiers removed “all the rioters from the house,” guarding it to prevent anyone else from entering.
• BBC: The girl - identified by her family as Ahed Tamimi, 16 - is accused of assault and taking part in a violent riot. (…)"Several Palestinians entered a nearby home and continued throwing rocks at soldiers from inside the home with its occupants' consent," the military said. "Forces removed the rioters from the home and remained standing in the entrance in order to prevent further entry. Later, several Palestinian women came out to face the soldiers in order to incite provocation."
• DW: "Tamimi threw stones at them (the soldiers), threatened them, obstructed them in fulfilling their duty, took part in riots and incited others to take part in them," the military said.
• ABC News: Ahed was suspected of "assaulting an IDF soldier and officer" and participating "in a violent riot last Friday,” the Israeli army told ABC News in a statement. Army officials said the only reason they were there was because "rioters" had been throwing stones from the Tamimi house. The army stayed at the entrance to make sure no one else entered and that's when "several Palestinians exited the house and began to violently provoke the soldiers."

Based on the above, I don’t believe that describing the incident as a riot in Misplaced Pages’s voice is appropriate at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• I had less issue with replacing "riot" with protest and your points here show why. Either attribute riots to the Israeli authorities or, preferably, describe when it became more violent -- which, in my opinion, we already accomplished.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Separately, "soldiers removed 'all the rioters from the house,' guarding it to prevent anyone else from entering" sounds like a raid to me. I.e. the viral video was shot in the aftermath of / during a raid. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• At the very least it would be grossly inappropriate to describe violent rioting as "protests" in Misplaced Pages's voice (which would be a BLP policy violation vs. the Israelis involved) - this would have to be attributed to whomever is calling the stonethrowing activities a "prostest" while mentioning the authorities statement that these were riots. As far as "during a raid" - this is not used by neutral sources to describe this, and the video was shot afterwards - the soldiers had already left the premises, and they were approached by the Tamimis and not the other way around.Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There is not a skerrick of doubt that the use of the word 'riot' via newspaper feedback from IDF reports recycled in 'mainstream' sources is not neutral, but espouses the POV of the 'belligerent occupying power'. I, for just one, been editing and arguing that for a decade. This is particularly true when we have neutral words like 'protests'/'demonstrations'. We do not use 'riot' as the default term, as editors do invariably when Palestinians protest against the occupation, at Protests against Donald Trump, in some of which the protests broke out into rioting. This is particularly so of events in the West Bank where a number of village engage in regular Friday protests,(Nabi Saleh, Kafr Qaddum,Bil'in, Ni'lin etc.,that are put down as 'riots' by the intervention of IDF units. According to the First Additional Protocol (IAP) to the Geneva Conventions (1977), the right to resist an occupation resulting from an armed conflict is recognized. To make an assertion that the use of 'protest' to describe legitimate opposition to armed dispossession of one's lands or housing constitutes a WP:BLP policy violation vs. the Israelis' ranks as one of the most farcical constructions on both reality and Misplaced Pages policy I've had the opportunity to read here. It means that neutral language itself is a violation of the rights of the Israeli soldiers (and sometimes settlers).Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

And yet most western mainline reporting covers the Israeli statements as well, which is a strong that lack of coverage by us is a NPOV issue. Regarding Protocol I (not ratified by Israel or the US we should note) - you could argue that the rioting was lawful perhaps (I'm not even sure of that) - yet it would still be a riot if it involved violent public disorder. Regarding BLP - while corporations may be people legally, but for Misplaced Pages BLP purpose, Israeli soldiers and settlers are people - and BLP (when they are alive) applies to them as well and to statements made on Misplaced Pages in regards to them. This is particularly true when they are alleged to have acted violently against others which may be construed as a crime by some (Per Nishidani - possibly even a violation of the Geneva convention) - WP:BLPCRIME would apply to most Israeli soldiers and settlers, who are not WELLKNOWN, and they should be presume innocent on Misplaced Pages unless convicted.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Israeli authorities describe the events leading up to the slapping video as a “riot” and a “violent riot”. And so do you on this talk page, in exactly the same language, notwithstanding your BLP concerns about other people in the situation :-) :

• it would be grossly inappropriate to describe violent rioting as "protests"...
• you could argue that the rioting was lawful…
• I do think we should point out that this riot is "weekly thing"… – and not an “alleged riot”?

In any case, Misplaced Pages is not a publishing platform for state propaganda. We go by what independent RS say; they do not describe the incident, in their own words, as a riot that I have seen. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of "protests" / "protesters" is common

Here's sample coverage using the word "protests" / "protesters". Jerusalem Post:

• Palestinian protesters clashed with Israeli soldiers in the village of Nabi Saleh in the West Bank on Saturday at a demonstration calling for the release of a 16-year-old Palestinian girl who was indicted this month for assaulting an Israeli soldier. ("Clashed", not "rioted").
• The incident for which the teenager, Ahed Tamimi, was charged, has made her a hero for Palestinians and was seen as humiliating by right-wing Israelis. Palestinians threw stones at the soldiers who responded by firing tear gas grenades to disperse the crowd at the protests on Saturday. 

The Independent:

• Israel's hard-charging prosecution of a 16-year-old Palestinian girl who slapped and kicked two Israeli soldiers has trained a spotlight on her activist family and its role in what Palestinians call “popular resistance,” the near-weekly protests against Israeli occupation staged in several West Bank villages.
• Since 2009, villagers have protested the seizure of some of their land and a spring for a nearby Israeli settlement, with demonstrations often ending in clashes between Palestinian stone-throwers and Israeli soldiers firing tear gas, rubber bullets or live rounds. (Note: “demonstrations ending in clashes”, similar language to what the Wiki article currently uses).
• Bassem Tamimi was an activist in the first Palestinian uprising, which was largely driven by stone-throwing protests and helped produce interim Israeli-Palestinian deals in the mid-1990s.” (Again, no “riots”. Etc. Note that the word “protest” / “protesters” appears 6 times in the article, while the word “riot”/”rioters” none at all.)

Both outlets use the word “protesters” so I don’t see any BLP violation in Misplaced Pages doing the same. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Your first source refers to events a week later. At the very least we need to state the violent nature of these "protests" and "clashes" and that they have beeen described as riots by the Israelies - to do otherwise would be a BLP violation towards Israeli soldiers who are claiming self defense in responding to violent attacks on them which are described in the article (particularly as we are describing the cousin who was allegedly shot by a rubber bullet).Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP violations towards Israeli soldiers, so I don't really understand the concern there. My point was that even when stone-throwing is involved, the events are still described by the media as "protests", not "riots", let alone violent riots. You mentioned whomever is calling the stonethrowing activities a "prostest" -- I gave examples of the media describing stone-throwing activities as "protests". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Shooting rioters is distinctly, in a legal sense, a separate issue from shooting protesters. The first is a legal action, the second could be see as an unlawful act by the individuals involved, possibly even a war crime. These are BLPs, and stating the circumstances of the situation they were involved in, as they described it, is due for a BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a rule where all reported actions by Israelis towards Palestinians must be framed to seem legal? Do we really have to accept and repeat all Israeli propaganda? Do we even have to use the words "allegedly shot by a rubbet bullet" on this talk page when it would be more accurate to say "shot in the face with a rubber coated bullet"? Of 19 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two sides to the story. Most Western mainline reporting is covering the Israeli view as well which is a clear indication that NPOV requires us to do so as well. Regardless, regarding whom, by whom, why, and how was allegedly shot - if you are relying on the statements of connected, involved, POVish eyewitnesses - then you wither have to say allegedly or attribute the statement.Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

CBS News:

• Bassem Tamimi said that minutes earlier, soldiers had fired a rubber bullet from close range at 15-year-old Mohammed Tamimi, a cousin of Ahed and a frequent guest in the Tamimi home. Rubber-coated bullets are commonly used to disperse crowds. While considered nonlethal, they nonetheless can be dangerous. The teen remained in intensive care Wednesday after surgeons removed the bullet that had entered from his mouth and lodged in his brain, said officials at Ramallah's Istishari Hospital. The patient was alert after extensive surgery and would likely recover, they said.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that the boy had been shot, unless the hospital is lying about removing the bullet, which seems unlikely. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There always seems to be a dozen stories whenever the regular shooting of a Palestinian child is actually reported in western media. Call me bias, but when I see Palestinian children shot and Israeli troops are the only armed people nearby, my first thought isn't that it's fake or a mystery worthy of Agatha Christie.

NPOV doesn't require us to write from our echo chamber, nay the opposite.

That those who identify with the target of the protests seek to vilify the protests by labeling them as riots (and to justify violence against the protesters) is no surprise. But as[REDACTED] does not identify with any side we should call protesters that and nothing more. Of 19 (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There is isn't any doubt that the youth in question was hospitalized. As for everything else - it is mainly sourced to Bassem Tamimi and other family members. Details of the surgery are sourced to a hospital in Ramallah - this is better than the Tamimi family, however there have been several reliability issues (in regards to conflict related information) with the Palestinian ministry of health previously - as you see, the source you are quoting is deliberately attributing both the circumstances (to Bassem Tamimi) and the medical care (to the hospital officials) and not stating this in its own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixing the "Life" section

I think we can all agree there are some lengthy, needless quotes that need to be addressed. Aside from a solid first paragraph, the rest of the section is a mess. This may sound drastic but I propose we remove the second and fourth paragraphs. Readers don't gain any insight from quotes that describe what she wears, and I already described her cause -- Palestinian autonomy -- further in the article without overwhelming blocks of quotes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree its read like WP:puffery we also have to get rid of some low quality sources like blogs(timesofisrael) and polemics(mondoweiss)--Shrike (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The use of Mondoweiss's reportage on the Palestinian side is not 'polemics' and the RSN board has on several occasions accepted it. The article in question consisted of an interview, and while there's not that much there that warrants inclusion, it is fair to use sources like Mondoweiss which take the trouble to examine the inside story of Palestinians. Generally this article needs reformulating to cover the Tamimi family since there is extensive reportage of them in this context for some 10 years or more, and to single out one daughter's activism is rather pointless. In the meantime, before that is fixed, the proper approach would be to do a background section focusing on that family's activism, to enable one to contextualize the girl's behavior in the two or three incidents covered.Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There was never consensus to use such fringe source--Shrike (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit.Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

We can certainly use Mondoweiss if we balance the bias by using Arutz Sheva.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you kindly take a break from Misplaced Pages for the time required to read closely and carefully our core policy pages. It is plain just from the last few comments that you don't grasp WP:BLP, nor WP:RS. That is just one further absurd remark cluttering a work page. RS are not determined by bartering or trade-offs. Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

A RS (Mondoweiss possibly may be a RS - borderline either way) can still be WP:BIASED, in which case editorial discretion is required.Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Virtually all sources on the I/P conflict are biased, from the Jerusalem Post to Haaretz, to Mondoweiss. Editorial discretion means foraging for the telling factual details, or opinions per attribution, (scumsheets excluded of course) Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

...and there are presently 420 links to Mondoweiss on en.wp, see link, while there are 3,239 links to Arutz Sheva, see link, ie 7-8 times as many, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Arutz7 is larger and wider than Mondoweiss and serves as the mainstream media for the growing settler population - often being the best source available for settler related news. Mondoweiss on the other hand is mainly editorial with little original on the ground reporting - it is mainly useful when they run English articles teanslared fron a non-English source.Icewhiz (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you drop using words like 'mainstream' in the sense of 'fringe with a large following. It's even more bizarre than saying the actions of anonymous soldiers occupying a foreign country cannot be described withoutr delicate consideration for them as 'living persons' (while they shoot the occupied).Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I would not say it is a mainstream source in general, it is for localities such as Beit El, Ofra, Ariel (city), or Kiryat Arba (where their readership share is high) - for sourcing settler opinion or local in-depth coverage of these sort of localities it is sometimes useful. The soldiers described in this article are not anonymous - the identity of the company commander and his radio operator in the 2017 incident, as well as the identity of the soldier in the 2015 incident are known - they are not anonymous due to their appearance in these videos with Tamimi.Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva caters to a special interest group, whose status in international law is that of an illegal usurper of another people's land. Mondoweiss is not a special interest group: it has no payback for covering the occupation of the West Bank, no personal return. Both have POVs, just as does the New York Times or any other mainstream media group, but technically, mainstream newspapers are obliged to give the appearance at least of covering all angles. A7 regularly hosts discredited journos like Giulio Meotti, sacked by serious newspapers for faking his 'research' by outright plagiarism: it regularly posts conspiracy crap about Obama; it regularly pushes the (conspiracy) view Yigal Amir did not shoot Yitzhak Rabin: it spins the Vatican's political accord with the PLO as a combined Catholic-Arab attempt to expel the Jews from Jerusalem; it hosts Manfred Gerstenfeld, touted as 'the world's foremost expert on anti-Semitism,' simply on the strength of a bizarrely ignorant quip by Anshel Pfeffer, otherwise notorious for his ethnic profiling of all Norwegians as 'a barbaric and unintelligent people', or for accusing Germany of engaging in a 'conspiracy of silence' about criminality among Muslim immigrants. One reads Arutz Sheva to get paranoid adrenaline thrill kicks about the great conspiracy abroad against settlers, Israelis, Jews. nothing else. Nothing of that ethnic-targeting tripe is supported by Mondoweiss.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

POV editing and "Pallywood" (Part 2!)

I once again needed to revert a large body of editing which is either POV, poorly-written, or both. Avoid turning the article into a he-said, she-said; an army rebuttal or "clarification" isn't required for every possible instance. We also already had alengthy discussion about these "Pallywood" allegations and their relevance (of lack thereof) to Tamimi. I have discussed this term -- and other edits -- extensively with editors, and concluded these racially-charged insults and attempts to dehumanize Tamimi are not appropriate for a neutral BLP; rather clear consensus above also supports this. Icewhiz, because your edits have been challenged by several editors multiple times, I recommend you reaccess your approach and come to the talk page more often to propose edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

1. If you continue to revert sourced content - to wapo, nyt, bbc, etc. No less - who have no problem writing Pallywood in their articles (as it is not a "racially-charged insult" - but rather a political stmt describing the videos) - with absolutely no policy rationale - beyond unsourced IDONTLIKE - then we shall open a RfC on this. We have not concluded anything in the discussion above regarding pallywood - and several editors have objected to your removal of sourced content.
2. Regarding Israeli army stmts - in every single instance we describe matters from a Palestinian viewpoint regarding interactions with the army - the army response is due - otherwise we have a NPOV issue as well as BLP issues regarding the army personnel involved. NPOV requires we describe all sides to the issue - and as the IDF response is being covered widely in RS - per WEIGHT it should be here as well.Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean two other editors supported your insistence on "Pallywood". Five (that is three more in case you did not realize) -- myself, Huldra, K.e.coffman, Nishidani, and Zero0000 -- objected and I assume Al-Andalusi would object as well. Or do we not count? You need consensus to include material when it is challenged by several editors, sorry to say.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

One can use the Pallywood meme once, I'd think, in a short summary statement, no more. Israeli military courts have had a 97-99% conviction rate, a record equaled only by the classic voting for the supremos in Bulgarian elections. To make up for the lack of facts, and challenge the IDF based reports and, in camera secret reports by the Shin Bet, B'tselem several years ago handed out large numbers of handcams, teaching Palestinians in fraught areas how to use them, and advising them to film immediately, anytime 'incidents' began to take place. That has become deeply embarrassing, because videos are raw documentation of what, up until that point, was known only through hearsay and official reports. We now have universal coverage by smartphone users of incidents around the world: I don't see anyone suggesting this too is some Bullshit scenario set up and staged for some end. Wer have the Pallywood meme uniquely for the I/P conflict, which essentially states that rumours of Palestinians being beaten or shot in a 50 year occupation are based on staged provocations by tens of thousands of tutored actors intent on humiliating Israel's occupational dignity, and purity of arms. 27-29,000 youths suffered fractures during beatings in the first intifada, but we only had a couple of videos as proof in the good old days. In these circumstances, we are obliged to get to the known facts, (as reported by both sides) describe them sequentially, and that is not hard to do. The rest is just a spin-binge, and, though one can mention the fact in a summary statement in 'Evaluations', just threshing out the details, incident by incident, allows the readership to make its own mind up, rather than be sucked into a cluttered hodgepodge of 'statements' (which by the way, notoriously for those who follow the news feeds, change by the hour, as words have to cope with new video evidence).Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) WP:VOTEing is not a substitute for discussion. In this case, you have not advanced a policy based rationale (IDONTLIKE / unsourced claims of slurs) for exclusion of this specific mayerial (previously there was objection to Oren, or to a section standalone (though I will note the article had an evaluations section added today)... It seems that your unsourced arguement of the day is that Pallywood should be excluded as offensive - despite mainstream outlets using it widely). The section being discussed here follows the language in the Washington Post, which generally avoids offensive language, and mentions Pallywood in a single sentence:

In 2015 she was filmed biting and striking a masked Israeli soldier who was apprehending her brother for throwing stones. Supporters of Israel described the videos as "Pallywood propaganda", while Arab media described the soldier filmed as a "coward".Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It is common practice for the media to place unacceptable labels like "terrorist" or "Pallywood" into quotations when reporting the opinions of others. I think we all must realize that we come from various nations, some where racism and loaded-language is normal, though I hope we can all agree to rise to the highest standards and not use words that are offensive to others even if we don't understand or care why they are offensive to others. Of 19 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

As you might see in "illegal_alien" Fairly recent NPOV/n discussion on The use of the term "illegal alien" per WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:WEIGHT (and possibly a few other policies) - we generally do not ban words that are used by WP:RS - and we follow the sources. And in "illegal alien" there was a stronger case for banning the term on Misplaced Pages in that the editorial boards of some respected outlets (e.g. NYT, WaPo) decided (in their style guides / editorial policy) to avoid using the term while other outlets did not decide to do so. In this case, we have NYT, WaPo, and others using the term, in an attributed fashion, without any issue. Changing the terminology used (in a widespread fashion over half a decade at least by many speakers) to something else (per an editor's own POV and OR regarding equivalence (which would seem to be false - as the same editor is claiming that one is pejorative and the other is not) - would misrepresent the criticism leveled at Tamimi's videos, which is a NPOV issue (as well as a BLP issue regarding Israelis captured on said videos).Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, like the NYT and WaPo, we should only use offensive terms like Judea and Samaria, Pallywood, and terrorist when there is no possible alternative, the text in question is vital to the article, and their usage must be attributed to the offensive term user. Of 19 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The Graceful Slick is basically correct. Anyone in the forefront of news will become an icon for their group, which doesn't warrant us, however, brandishing 'Pallywood' as an important figure for reporting such things. It is a mockery of the idea that, like the rest of humanity, Palestinians have a right to represent themselves as beings other than actors staging fake news, which is what that word strongly claims. It is a toxic smear that prejudices the neutral description of events, and no matter how widely reported by the lazy mainstream, is simply meme reproduction. It would be justified were there evidence of a clear case of setting up an incident. You don't have to set up incidents in these places: soldiers stopping, checking, rousting people out of their beds at midnight, shooting, arresting, demolishing, and spraying people with chemical 'shit' constitute the daily round of events even before one moves. Since it's attested, one should note, as I said, the usage of the term also regarding here, in the Evaluation section that will note that she is viewed as a 'poster child' or Pallywood actress. or icon etc. But to go beyond that mention of media spin, is to play the game of manipulation. In America for some months, even a 'pass' at a woman has, with some justification, become synonymous with harassment. In Palestine, if you as much as show you are pissed off with being robbed and caged on a daily basis, you get put on trial and suffer media exposure as a faker, and actress (by the same US press that has massive reflex reportage of any complaint of harassment of women). People never 'connect' the dots. Nishidani (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

1. "West Bank Teen Ahed Tamimi Becomes Poster Child for Palestinians". NBC News. September 12, 2015. Archived from the original on December 28, 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
2. "This Viral Video Of an Israeli Soldier Trying to Arrest a Palestinian Boy Says a lot". The Washington Post. August 31, 2015. Archived from the original on December 28, 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I'd repiped Pallywood in the lead, unaware of this talk (till the reversion). Just seemed the clearest article for what we're trying to explain. But if it's frowned upon, that's fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - while objected to, no calid policy concerns raised to not include the Pallywood claim which has been repeated, including in titles and bylines, in several mainstream RS. This will probably end in an RfC.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Also note - there has been no agreement on the talk page not to use the term - this would misrepresent the talk page here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I only meant to imply it was frowned upon, not necessarily generally or universally. If it's pissing anyone off, I'm leaving it alone. I might watch the RfC dispassionately, but that's about it. May the best side win! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

WP:LABEL

I watched the video in the article that is cited above: "This viral video of an Israeli soldier trying to arrest a Palestinian boy says a lot". It's definitely not staged -- unless the Palestinians "provoked" a heavily-armed soldier into chasing the boy, putting him in a headlock and pushing his head into a rock. As the soldier departs, not being in any danger, he throws a tear-gas grenade at the villagers and the press.

"Pallywood" is mentioned once, in passing: "Some Israel supporters have described the videos of the clashes as "Pallywood propaganda" and have dubbed Ahed 'Shirley Temper'." Note that WaPo refers to "the videos of the clashes" in general, not to Ahed specifically. The video was also described as follows:

• A left-leaning Israeli daily newspaper, in an editorial, called the skirmish video “a perfect picture of the occupation.” “An army that fights children and chases them as they flee is an army that has lost its conscience,” Haaretz wrote.

For balance, why don't we also include this description:

• "Horrifying Viral Video Shows IDF Soldier Beaten by Mob of Palestinian Women, Children"? Etc.

Yet, the portion hand-picked from the article was the passing mention of "Pallywood". In any case, not every attempt to denigrate the subject belongs in a BLP. To include Pallywood, we should see an RS discussion of how Ahed's videos are examples of this phenomenon and who analysed them and how, and not just some people think that she is a Pallywood actress.

Also, please see WP:ONUS: "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". There are such things as WP:LABEL, WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRY-picked. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: no calid policy concerns raised -- please see above: I've listed several guidelines. There's been no response to my comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You addressed a single source, when this critique of the videos has been repeated in several - dozens of times at least in mainstream Western media (and more than once in WaPo). I guess next time I propose text here we will have to go the WP:OVERCITE route - instead of just sourcing to one good source.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Where the "Pallywood" label comes from

I’ve seen vague language on this Talk page such as The association of Ahed Tamimi and Pallywood is long standing and This association with "Pallywood" is covered in RS harking back to 2013. However, it was unclear from the sources cited in the initial addition who and how made this association, apart from Oren. This is a critical missing link preventing the application of this contentious label. Sample:

• CNN (one of the sources used): Ahed has been called "Shirley Temper" because of her long ginger curls, and has been accused of starring in carefully choreographed "Pallywood" videos, a dismissive characterization of protests considered staged for the camera. The proposed language for the article was equally vague: “Supporters of Israel described the videos as ‘Pallywood propaganda’…”

I wanted to find out who and how made this connection. Here are some sources that I found:

• Jerusalem Post: “Right-wing Israelis have charged that these videos, which they call Pallywood, are carefully orchestrated cinematography.”

• Washington Post: Israelis call her ‘Shirley Temper’ and say she epitomizes ‘Pallywood,’ or Palestinian propaganda attempts to discredit Israel. (…) Her regular spots in such videos have garnered her the nickname “Shirley Temper” from pro-Israel bloggers. ah, that’s who. They, like the Israeli police, say her actions are staged and a clear attempt to create a negative image of Israel. The term “Pallywood” is used to describe Palestinians attempts to win the public relations war against Israel by manipulating the media. (“Pro-Israel bloggers” links to "Shirley Temper Arrested" from israellycool.com).

• Washington Post: Some Israel supporters have described the videos of the clashes as "Pallywood propaganda" and have dubbed Ahed “Shirley Temper.” Shirley Temper links to israellycool again (Shirley Temper's Name Splashed Across Daily Mail/).

• Sky.com, citing Michael Oren: "Now, you've heard of Bollywood and you've heard of Hollywood, this is what we refer to as Pallywood, and these incidents are paid for, they are making money out of this in order to manipulate and deceive you, the press."

• International Business Times: A picture of an Israeli soldier head-locking a 12-year-old Palestinian boy has gone viral as the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) accused the boy's family of being "Pallywood stars" to stoke anti-Israel sentiments. The Israeli soldier, who was injured in the incident, was attempting to arrest the boy in Nabi Saleh.
• Etc.

I also found this article that sheds some light on why and how these labels (Shirley Temper, Pallywood) came about in the attempt, as the author puts it, to “demonise minors”. His explanation makes sense to me, given the above:

Israel's 'Eric Garner Moment' Entrenches Its Habit of Victim-blaming

Haaretz, by Asher Schechter, Sep 02, 2015:

Sometimes, an event attracts so much negative international attention that it gets the public mobilized. Israelis analyze videos and photos, obsess over details, and generally act as self-appointed public defenders whose job is to exonerate Israel of blame and put the world (especially the media) on trial. (…)Nabi Saleh is turning out to be . Right-wing bloggers and activists have been poring over photos and videos, scrutinizing every detail of the Tamimi childrens’ resumes, and formulating theories to explain how and why a soldier with a headlock on a child was the innocent victim of a global smear campaign. 

Ahed Tamimi, who is seen biting the soldier's hand, is not just any other Palestinian teenager, the bloggers discovered. She is quite the professional provocateur. Videos and images have surfaced in which Tamimi is seen taunting and confronting Israeli soldiers. In some, she is only 10 years old.  

Moreover, Tamimi, they also discovered, comes from activist stock, her parents being two well-known Palestinian activists. That was enough to brand her a "Pallywood star", a term coined by historian Richard Landes to describe anti-Israel propaganda disguised as news, and accuse her of ambushing the soldier for publicity. In blogs and in the media, she was portrayed as violent and dangerous and was given the nickname Shirley Temper, as if she and her brother were the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen of Pallyhood Hills. (“Pallywood star” links to Daily Mail)

And thus the bloggers, right-wingers and most of the Israeli media dismissed the images from Nabi Saleh as a deliberate Palestinian attempt to manipulate the media and present IDF soldiers as thugs. The girl honored by Erdogan strikes again! proclaimed Channel 20 in reference to a courage award given to her by the president of Turkey. 

The fact that whether or not provoked, the soldier did resort to violence, is immaterial to Israels defenders. What’s important is that an innocent Israeli soldier fell victim to a shrewd, manipulative plot. 

In summary, WP:LABEL requires that we avoid value-laden labels, unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. We can’t really attribute “Pallywood” to CNN and WaPo and say that they describe Tamimi as Shirley Temper, etc., because they don’t – not in their own words. They repeat the labels but are careful to distance themselves. And wouldn't one agree that Michael Oren, the IDF, and right-wing Israeli bloggers are not RS when it comes to labelling someone a Pallywood actress?

We could state that “According to the IDF, Michael Oren, and right-wing Israeli bloggers, Tamimi is part of staged Pallywood videos aimed at discrediting Israel”, but it would be akin to saying “According to Donald Trump (c. 2012) and other birthers, Obama was born in Kenya”. Yes, birtherism was widely covered, but it’s not part of Obama’s bio. So WP:WEIGHT comes into play. That’s my thinking on the subject at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not quite the same enough. Obama did a lot of notable things after reportedly being born somewhere or another. Tamimi basically just does this sort of thing, for some reason or another. So, proportionately, more lead room should naturally be devoted to analysis of the thing she's noted for than when people talk shit about a man for something he had no absolutely no control over as a fetus. At least we know she's aware of her surroundings when she acts/behaves/whatever in public. Counts for something in a bio. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

You can add Ben-Dror Yemini to the list (a journalist - not a bloger) - the Haaretz piece you quoted at length attributes this to and most of the Israeli media dismissed the images from Nabi Saleh as a deliberate comparison... most of the Israeli media (please note that Ha'aretz's political editorial line is different from most Israeli media and does not reflect it - taking a pro-Palestinian line). Unlike the birther theory - the notion that these videos have been staged has not been refuted. Oren is a mainstream figure of note. Placing the response of those the videos are directed against is DUE - just as we say in People's Protection Units that Turkey considers YPG a terrorist organization. There are two sides here, and placing the Israeli response is required for NPOV, as well as possibly BLP concerns regarding IDF soldiers who appear in the videos. We currently describe the Tamimi viewpoint at length - regarding actions vs. the IDF, we do not describe the viewpoint from the IDF.Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

In the "Infobox person", please change the line "| birth_date = (2001-01-31) 31 January 2001 (age 23)" to "| birth_date = (1999-01-31) 31 January 1999 (age 25) to Bassem and Nariman Tamimi"

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

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

References

1. "Tweet showing Ahed Tamimis approximate birthdate".
2. "Live From Occupied Palestine".
3. ^ McNeill, Sophie (January 17, 2018). "Israeli court orders detention of Palestinian teen Ahed Tamimi until end of her assault trial". ABC News. Retrieved January 27, 2018.
4. "Tweet showing Ahed Tamimis approximate birthdate".
5. "Live From Occupied Palestine".
6. "Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association".
7. "Tweet showing Ahed Tamimis approximate birthdate".
8. "Live From Occupied Palestine".
9. "Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association".

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

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

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

Activist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child activist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli government view

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

Mondoweiss exclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli reactions - Regev and Oren

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

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

References

1. Michael Oren‏ tweet, 18 December 2017
2. DEF. MINISTER: PALESTINIAN WHO SLAPPED SOLDIER WILL GET WHAT SHE DESERVES, 19 December 2017
3. Michael Oren says Palestinian activists stage ‘kids in American clothes’ to provoke Israeli army, Mondoweiss, 19 December 2017
4. ISRAEL THREATENS TEENAGE GIRL WHO SLAPPED A SOLDIER. WHO IS AHED TAMIMI?, Newsweek, 19 December 2107
5. A Symbol of the Palestinian Resistance for the Internet Age, the Atlantic, 5 Jan 2018
6. Oren: Israel must 'shoot to kill' suspected Palestinian militants, al-araby, 31 December 2017
7. Palestinian teen Tamimi in 'slap video' back at centre of propaganda war, The Straits Times], 29 December 2017
8. Palestinian girl Ahed Tamimi faces bail hearing after slapping video, Sky News, 15 January 2018
9. Ahed Tamimi is the Palestinian Rosa Parks, Al-Jazeera, 15 Jan 2018
10. Ahed Tamimi and lives without political value, Daily Sabah, 29 Dec 2017
11. Quién es Ahed Tamimi, la palestina que con 16 años ya es ícono de lucha contra la ocupación, El Pais, 29 Dec 2017
12. Israeli court detains 'slap video' Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamini until trial, Euro News, 17 Jan 2108
13. Israeli human rights organisation criticises treatment of Ahed Al Tamimi, The National, 3 Jan 2018
14. MK Oren: "We checked if the Tamimi family was real", Maariv, 24 January
15. MK Oren started a Knesset discussion on whether the Tamimi familiy is real, Haaretz, 24 Jan 2018
16. Liberman boycotted Yohanatan Gefen - Zandberg mocks, 23 Jan 2018, Kol Hazman
17. Ahed Tamimi Affair: This is how Israel created a symbol of resistence to occupation, al-monitor, 26 January
18. How Israel created a Palestinian heroine (English translation of previous one), al-Monitor, 26 Dec 2017
19. The Tamimi family is convinced they are real: "How do you beat us?", Haaretz, 25 January 2018
20. Israel Secretly Probed Whether Family Members of Palestinian Teen Ahed Tamimi Are Non-related 'Light-skinned' Actors, Ha'aretz, 25 Jan 2018
21. Ahed Tamimi's Family Mocks Israel for Launching Secret Probe to Check if They Aren't Actors, Ha'aretz, 25 Jan 2018
22. Deputy minister: Israel probed whether Tamimi family is ‘real’, Times of Israel, 24 January 2018
23. Israeli minister investigated if Tamimi family was 'real', i24News, 24 Jan 2018
24. Israel official doubted Palestinian protest icon, her family, AP, 24 Jan 2018
25. Israeli official draws criticism for doubting Palestinian protest icon, Israel Hayom, 25 Jan 2018
26. MK conducted investigation into Tamimi family's origins, YNET, 25 January 2018
27. Arab News
28. Israel investigated Palestinian protest icon, her family, Philidelphia Tribune, 26 January 2018
29. ISRAEL QUESTIONED IF AHED TAMIMI FAMILY WERE 'LIGHT-SKINNED ACTORS’ IN SECRET PROBE, Newsweek, 24 Jan 2018
30. Michael Oren Admits He’d Like Top Job at Jewish Agency, but Hasn’t Discussed It With Netanyahu, Haaretz, 12 Feb 2018
31. Michael Oren’s Political Transformation Leaves Friends Baffled, Forward, 1 Feb 2018
32. Michael Oren’s Conspiratorial Hasbara Is More Common Than You Think, Forward, Yousef Munayyer 6 Feb 2018
33. 'Paid actors'? Israeli diplomat derided over probe into Tamimi tinfoil-hat theory, RT, 26 Jan 2018
34. Tamimi: Israel’s claims that we are “actors” is a form of madness, PNN, 28 Jan 2018
35. Senior Israeli Official Mocked for Bizarre Claim That Detained Palestinian Teen Is a Paid Actor, The Intercept, 25 Jan 2018
36. Israel, are you a real state?, Mondoweiss, 26 Jan 2018
37. FROM CELEBRATED HISTORIAN TO SHAMELESS CONSPIRACY THEORIST: MICHAEL OREN’S ABSURD TAMIMI INVESTIGATION, JStreet, 26 Jan 2018
38. Is Michael Oren a 'real' person?, 972 mag (blog), 24 Jan 2018
39. Israel’s decision to put a Palestinian teen on trial could come back to bite it, Washington Post, 13 Feb 2018
40. Trial of Palestinian teenager who slapped Israeli officer closed to press, ABC, 13 February 2018
41. Hundreds of Young U.S. Jews Send Birthday Wishes to Jailed Palestinian Teen Ahed Tamimi Ahead of Trial, Haaretz, 5 Feb 2018
42. AHEAD OF TRIAL, AMNESTY SAYS ISRAEL MUST RELEASE AHED TAMIMI, JPost, 13 Feb 2018
43. Ahed Tamimi, icône controversée de la cause palestinienne, 13 Feb 2018 le Parisien
44. Retour à la case prison pour Ahed Tamimi, 13 Feb 2018, Le Temps
45. Meet 17-year-old Ahed Tamimi, the new face of Palestinian resistance, CBC News, 4 Feb 2018
46. Trial Set To Start For Young Palestinian Activist Who Struck An Israeli Soldier, 12 Feb 2018, NPR
47. Lieberman seeks to ban poet from Army Radio over Tamimi poem, YNET, 23 Jan 2018
48. Israel to ban poet who referred Ahed Tamimi as hero, Pakistan Today, 26 Jan 2018
49. Israeli Defense chief urges IDF radio to ban poet praising Palestinian ‘Joan of Arc’, RT, 23 Jan 2018
50. Once, Israeli Pop Culture Icons Publicly Criticized the Occupation. What Silenced Them?, Haaretz, 7 Feb 2018
51. Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi's trial begins behind closed doors, Guardian, 13 Feb 2018
52. Israeli Military Court to Try Palestinian Teen Protest Icon, New York Times, 12 Feb 2018
53. Trial of Palestinian girl who slapped Israeli soldiers begins, Irish Times, 13 Feb 2018
54. Israeli military court to try Palestinian teen protest icon, News Tribune, 13 Feb 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Précis vs removalism

Graceful slick. We had.

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

A nanosecond's googling would have told you, Shrike, or Icewhiz or anyone else, that this is not reducible to a journalistic oped, but formed part of the media reportage of the Tamimi verdiot, unlike the smear op-ed removed with Beaumont earlier. Anyone, feel free to restore this. Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Can someone fix this, the mess made by my edit? My new section keeps being collapsed with a prior section and becomes unreadable. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nishidani: is this what you wanted?--Calthinus (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

1. '10 members of Tamimi family, teen who was shot in the face, detained overnight,' Ma'an News Agency 26 February 2018.
2. Israeli Army Detains 10 Palestinians, Including Teen Cousin of Soldier-slapping Ahed Tamimi, Haaretz, 26 Feb 2018
3. Yotan Berger, Kack Khoury, 'Israeli Army: Tamimi's Teen Cousin Admits Head Wounds Not Caused by Bullet, but by Bike Crash ,' Haaretz 26 February 2018.
4. Tamimi medical records dispute IDF official's claim teen’s head wound a con, i24 News, 27 Feb 2018
5. Releasing medical records, Tamimi family disputes claim teen’s head wound a con, Times of israel, 27 Feb 2018
6. 'Israeli policeman gets 9 months for killing Palestinian teen,' AFP,Washington Post 25 April 2018
7. Isabel Kershner, 'Israeli Who Shot Palestinian Teenager Is Sentenced to 9 Months in Prison,' New York Times 25 April 2018.
8. David M. Halbfinger, 'Ahed Tamimi, Palestinian Teen, Gets 8 Months in Prison for Slapping Israeli Soldier,' New York Times 21 March 2018.

Family members killed

Ok, AFAIK she has had at least two close relatives killed by the Israelis.

Why isn't this in the article??

I would think that would be...rather influential (to put it diplomatically) on her outlook on life, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Her aunt was died 8 years prior to her birth. Other Nabi Saleh deaths are not that closely related. If cousin relationships go in, we should include Ahlam Tamimi and Nizar Tamimi who would also be a relevant influence.Icewhiz (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Im thinking about that it has been reported that she watched her maternal uncle Rushdi Tamimi being killed in 2012 (when she was about 11), in addition her cousin Mustapha was killed by the Israelis the same year.(A quick googling brings eg.: Why the trial of Ahed Tamimi, who slapped an Israeli soldier, is gaining international attention Memo to ‘NYTimes:’ Go to Ahed Tamimi’s village in Palestine and report the truthPortrait of Ahed Tamimi: A Palestinian Child Star in Israeli Prison) Huldra (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed WikiProject Women articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women articles
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles