Talk:2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy/Archive 1

Page moved

The page was moved for a number of reasons. Apart from those mentioned in the move summary, this title is most neutral. I don't like titles including "organ harvesting" as the claims made by Aftonbladet are so vague and unsourced that no organ harvesting has been proved or even made suspiscious. Such titles are a bit pro-Aftonbladet POV. I also dislike titles involving antisemitism, since they per se conclude that antisemitism was an issue in the publication and thus are anti-Aftonbladet POV. The current title makes it clear that this was a controversy involving Aftonbladet and Israel but does not take sides on the topic itself.Jeppiz (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

could someone translate the article title in swedish wikipedia --Osm agha (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Putting Isreal in the article name is misleading. The Aftonbladet criticism has moved far beyond the Isreali FM and is being discussed way beyond Israel's shores. Indeed, this is not so much an Israeli issue, but a Jewish issue. Although are plenty of conspiracy theories going around, this specific libel struck the cord of Jews worldwide because of Jews' history of suffering from these types of blood libels. Thus, this is much more about antisemitism, then about Israel per se. Granted, that at this time, the evidence that this article arose from antisemitism is only circumstantial, but its antisemitism that is the bete noir and main undercurrent here and should properly be represented in the article name.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Indeed, this is not so much an Israeli issue, but a Jewish issue." That is your opinion and I dare say that it is not correct. The allegations were made against the IDF. It's the an Israeli army, not a Jewish army. There are people of different religions and ethnicities in the IDF, they are all Israeli but they are not all Jewish. For all we know, the soldiers having killed the boy mentioned in the articles could have been, say, Druzes. Liberman is a state representative of Israel, not the Jewish people of which the majority live in other countries that Israel. So having Israel in the name is in no way misleading.Jeppiz (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I support Jeppiz' reasoning and think the title "Aftonbladet-Israel controversy" is quite resonable, and also short. Tomas e (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Brewcrewer that putting "Israel" in the title is a bit misleading. This is not just a controversy between Aftonbladet and Israel. There has also been strong reactions in Sweden and several other countries for that matter. /Slarre (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a reporter at Aftonbladet who raised questions about IDF (Israel's army) practices. Israel's government officials publicly condemned Aftonbladet. They demanded Swedish government intervention; that government has chosen to remain uninvolved. Aftonbladet has stood by its right to freedom of expression. An Israeli lawyer has filed a suit against Aftonbladet for "'racist blood libel' against Jews and Israeli soldiers."[1] I'd say that Aftonbladet-Israel controversy pretty much sums up the main actors here, no? Tiamut^talk 18:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The controversy mainly concerns allegations of antisemitism against Aftonbladet. Those allegations were made by many different individuals and organizations in Swedem, Israel and in other countries. /Slarre (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

With no offense intended, that sounds rather like the position of the Israeli lawyer putting forward the libel suit. For most of the world, I think, this is about a report that was published in Aftonbladet that the Israeli government has taken deep offense to and is making a big stink about. Personally, I think its unwise and offensive for the Israeli government, or anyone else, to equate the raising of questions surrounding the practices of its army with blood libels against Jews everywhere. Certainly, I will not agree to titling this article in a way that predetermines a libel suit on that very issue that has yet to be heard. Tiamut^talk 18:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is true that organ harvesting as well as antisemitism have been mentioned in the discussion. However, those who defend Aftonbladet and criticize Israel have focused on organ harvesting while those defending Israel and criticising Aftonbladet have focused on antisemitism. Neither of these topics satisfy WP:NPOV. As for my own view, I try to treat the matter in a neutral way. That's why I moved the English article from the former title mentioning only antisemitism and why I moved the Swedish article from a title mentioning only organ harvesting in Israel. I know that both sides can make claims as to why the main topic is "Aftonbladet's antisemitism" or why it is "Israel's organ harvesting", but both of those titles reflect only the view of one side in the conflict, making them guiltu of POV.Jeppiz (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"However, those who defend Aftonbladet and criticize Israel have focused on organ harvesting". Incorrect. Anyone in the mainstream that has defended Aftonbladet has defended them on the grounds of free press. There's no mainstream view that there's anything valid about the claims. WP must be in the mainstream as well and ensure that the correct frame of reference is presented. The consensus-less change to "Aftonbladet-Israel controversy" does not do enough to show that there's zero basis to any "organ harvesting" claims. It gives the impression that there's sort of debate between the paper and Israel whether organ harvesting took place. We don't want WP to come off as fringe-esque by representing these claims as somewhat valid. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"There's no mainstream view that there's anything valid about the claims." Absolutely correct, and that is why I moved the Swedish version of this article from "Organ harvesting controversy in Israel". However, I fail to see how you go from that very valid point to claiming that the title "gives the impression that there's sort of debate between the paper and Israel whether organ harvesting took place". That is your own interpretation. Having said that, we could of course discuss other alternatives for the title, but the previous title was only marginally less POV than the Swedish title. The title should be as neutral as possible, not taking sides on the issue. Arguments for different views should be made in the article, not in the title itself.Jeppiz (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"There's no mainstream view that there's anything valid about the claims." Dear Folks, in thirties there was also no mainstream view concerning the controversy between Nazis and Israel (as a nation). So let's hope this so called "controversy" would be less bloody then the last one. So far nothing suggests that. Not even this place. 23:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not that organ havesting is unknown.[2][3] There have also been simmilar stories about organ harvesting in China (we even have Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China), but I don't remember anyone calling it racism. // Liftarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

antisemitism templates

I am sceptic of trying to link antisemitism to this article. We can discuss it in the article, but having it in the title or in categories is, in my view, quite strong. I am not saying that we cannot discuss having it there as well, but that it precisely what we should do. Discuss whether the controversy is antisemitic or not, not having one user decide that it is so. Even most critics of Aftonbladet have stated explicitly that it is not antisemitic, no matter how ill-adviced they consider the publication. If users want to present arguments for this view they are most welcome to do so, but please stop doing this without prior discussions.Jeppiz (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As it's not possible to change one's edit summary, I'd like to state that my last edit summary at this article was very unfortunate and I apologize to Brewcrewer for it. Although I stand by my view that we should discuss before making claims that will be felt to be insulting by those at which we direct them, I should not get personal like I unfortunately did. I do not agree with Brewcrewer on this issue, but he is of course as entitled to his view as I am to mine.Jeppiz (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Aftonbladet writer is an antisemite before adding the antisemitism template. The main criteria of template inclusion is whether antisemitism is discussed in this context. It clearly is.[4] The templates do not decide that this was an antisemitic incident they only represent the fact that there is antisemitic discussion surrounding this incident. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very unfortunate praxis of using the category and template. As soon as someone pops out and shouts "Antisemitism!" we slap it on. // Liftarn (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If by "someone" you mean reliable sources, then yes, that's the way things work around here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Err... No. It's enough that a reliable source says that someone have called something antisemitic. It doesn't matter if the person making the original statement is a total nutcase as long as the source reporting it is reliable. // Liftarn (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is unclear. Have reliable sources mentioned antisemitism (whether comparing, denying, questioning, etc.) within this context? If the response is in the affirmative, there's no good reason to delete to elide the antisemitism templates from this article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is short and clear;anti semitisn by any definition.Examine any blood libel in history and I am sure you will see clear similarities. Of course many called is a blood libel including prominant Israeli figures. Aftonbladet article =Blood libel= anti Semitism. Read farther:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews#Contemporary --Rm125 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In the article there were no words saying that it was JEWISH soldiers that carried out the oragan harvesting, it said it was ISRAELI soldiers. The Israelian army is nowise a jewish army, it is the army of the nation Israel, which inhabitanta are not only Jews, but also bigger minorieties of e.g. Arabs and non-jewish immigrants. Even if there has been false accusations about blood libel in the history, you must still be allowed to write critical articles about the israeli army, about the occupation of Gaza, and so on, without beeing accused to be antisemetic. The history is no excuse to do wrongdoings today!

Also see Posner-Korosi, leader of Sweden's Jewish community in this article claiming it is anti semitism.--Rm125 (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the problem here that are two different opinions whether the newspaper article constitutes antisemitism? One group of people think it is antisemitism, another group think it isn't? How should we decide whether to use that category or not? Ulner (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RS

Brewcrewer has twice removed external links [5] from this article claiming they do not meet WP:RS. The articles are by Khalid Amayreh and Alison Weir, published in Al-Ahram and Middle East Online. Would others mind commenting on whether or not these meet RS? Tiamut^talk 16:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Both articles are Op-Eds, written by well known partisans, and published in outlets with a known bias. They are obviously not WP:RS for anything other than the opinion of their authors. I don't object to their inclusion as external links, though, so long as that inclusion does not violate this. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are both op-eds, but there are other op-eds cited in the external links section as well, by Bernie Farber and Gideon Levy (I added them as well - I tried to make sure I included a variety of views to avoid POV).

Yes, Levy's is an op-ed. Weir's is not. It is a long news report. People need to learn the difference. It contains significant, footnoted information. In addition, it is being posted all over the internet including on international sites and has received considerable response because of the information it adds to the discussion. Zionists like Brewcrewer need to stop removing it. Truthfully, Wikipedia is losing its credibility to many people because it can't seem to keep Israelists from taking over and destroying the integrity of this project.Flawfixer (talk)

The two articles Brewcrewer is removing are these:

• Israeli Organ Harvesting by Alison Weir, executive director of If Americans Knew, was published by CounterPunch.
• Horrid beyond words by Khalid Amayreh, published in Al-Ahram

This limits the viewpoints represented in the external links section in a way that seems rather arbitrary. Tiamut^talk 17:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both LoveOfTheRussianQueen and Tiamut. It's true that both articles are very partisan, but so are a few of the other links as well. Personally I'd be glad to remove all four of them, but to remove only two, regardless of which "side" we remove, is not NPOV.Jeppiz (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the articles by Weir and Amayreh are not partisan. Just because the facts of an article are significant does not make it partisan. The information in Weir's article comes largely from the Israeli press and the Jewish press, with the Economist, ISP, and a few others thrown in.

All of the links are partisan. There are no objective sources on this issue or any other. The only relevant considerations are WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I think including a wide variety of links helps interested readers to determine for themselves what they think of what has been said. Our job is not to proscribe information but to disseminate it. Tiamut^talk 18:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. For external links, the relevant guideline is WP:EL. Applicable elements of the guideline are WP:ELNO, specifically #1 (which these links almost certainly violate), and possibly #2. Another relevant section is Wikipedia:ELNO#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view. The majority view is that the allegations have not been supported with any credible evidence (this includes the viewpoint of the author of the article himself, who states he has no idea if the allegations are true) - so care must be taken not to include links that give the allegations credence at the same proportion of those decrying the claims as baseless.LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a remarkably illogical argument. Besides, it is much more likely that the majority view worldwide supports the allegations and the call for an investigation.Flawfixer (talk)

If the opinion piece is notable, it can be included in the main text with a short summary (and linking to the article in a Footnote using the reference system)? Also added a template concerning the external links. Ulner (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal is totally justified; both are extreme partisans --Rm125 (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not justified, as discussed above. The impetus to remove it is simply that it contains so much factual information.

Rm125

This user seems to be very new to Wikipedia and not knowing the principles. Looking at the edit history of the user, it mostly consists of removing sourced content that the user objects in rather clear violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While it is possible that it's a troll, I suspect it's just an over-zealous user who still doesn't know the rule and doesn't understand the disctinction between not agreeing with a claim and not respecting it. As long as claims are sourced, we try to respect them and if we want them removed, we argue the case for removing them rather than just deleting them.Jeppiz (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This user seems to be very new to Wikipedia and not knowing the principles. Looking at the edit history of the user, it mostly consists of removing sourced content that the user objects in rather clear violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.<< Not legitimate criticism.This is NOT a matter of new or "old"s, smart- or-stupid issue. I would suggest to you to be more careful with labels and personal evaluations>>> While it is possible that it's a troll, I suspect it's just an over-zealous user who still doesn't know the rule and doesn't understand the disctinction between not agreeing with a claim and not respecting it.<<<Once again I don't understand your patronising attitude Thanks, judge but I respectfully deny your verdict and ask the jury to comment here...>>> As long as claims are sourced, we try to respect them and if we want them removed, we argue the case for removing them rather than just deleting them.<<< All my claims are justified but if His Majesty the Judge will kindly talk to the point He might get a "pointed" answer.Please talk to the point, Your Honor>>> --Rm125 (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have reported you for vandalism. I've never seen a user muster up such an amount of warning for blatant vandalism in less than a month. While you've been reasonably well-behaved here compared to your rampant vandalism of other articles, your edit-history says it all.Jeppiz (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reactions

Some users seem very eager to fill the article with reactions from various people, the juicer the better. I suggest we remove comments from people who are not speaking on behalf of organisations, countries or similar. The chairman of the Jewish community in Sweden is of course very relevant, some American lawyer without a direct connection is not, neither is a rabbi without a Wikipedia article. It's not the lack of a Wikipedia article that make him not-notable, it's the lack of connection to the case. We don't need a host of people stating their opinion on the issue, especially not as Rm125, true to form, is not looking for people with an opinion but for people who have express THE right opinion.Jeppiz (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the suggestion that we "remove comments from people who are not speaking on behalf of organisations, countries or similar" is excellent. otherwise the article becomes a mishmash of hearsay.Supercarpenter (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We should also keep comments from people who are experts in the field they are commenting, i.e. doctors saying something about the feasibility of making organ transplants under such conditions. // Liftarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

Bias

I'd like to remind all users that an article can be perfectly well sourced and still be 100% POV and I fear this article is heading in that direction. It is true that much criticism has been directed at Aftonbladet, not without reason, and that should of course be covered just as it already is in the article. However, at least as much criticism has been directed at Liberman, I've seen many papers in many countries, including Israel, accusing him of blowing the whole thing out of proportion for personal political gains, for not understanding how free media works in a democracy and for isolating Israel. I know that sources can be found for very harsh criticism of Aftonbladet, and a few users are very eager at seeking out an including every such source they can find. I don't mind including it as long as it's sourced, but it does make the article very one-sided and biased towards one view-point rather than presenting a more neutral and balanced view.Jeppiz (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to add such criticism .I personally don't mind --Rm125 (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, and I don't blame anyone for adding sources to criticize Aftonbladet. Nobody has done anything wrong here, but it's a fact that the article leans quite heavily to one side.Jeppiz (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I added criticism of Avigdor Lieberman as you suggested as well as Palestinian doctor and created a Palestinian section with PA reaction and also Palestinian family from the article. let me know what you think. --Rm125 (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with the POV tag, but for the opposite reasons set forth above. The lede currently does a bad job reflecting the real controversy. The lede gives the impression that the controversy is regarding the truthfullness of the claims. The real controversy is about Aftonbladet's decision to publish a hoax remnant of ancient blood libels that in historic times killed thousands of Jews, Aftonbladet's refusal to repudiate the article, and the Swedish governments refusal to denounce the publication of the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

By the lede you mean these two sentences "The Aftonbladet-Israel controversy refers to an article in Sweden's largest tabloid, implying that the Israeli Defense Force stole organs from dead Palestinians. This evolved into a diplomatic controversy between Israel and Sweden."? Ulner (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You take words out of my mouth. This is precisely was my feeling and I thought about adding a section about this point. I thought a lot why Swedes and Jews- while being sincere -can not understand each other's mentality. For a Swede it is an issue of "freedom of speech and quality of journalism" Foe a Jew-his relatives and family were slaughtered because this kind "freedom of speech" for thousands of years. So yes it is not a theoretic exercise- it is engraved deep in the soul. Jews carry all their history on their shoulders for better of for worse. It is strange for some to understand because we don't share the same experiences. So yes there is a need to answer a simple question: "What this controversy is all about"? Freedom of speech, national pride, religion, quality of journalism, I/P conflict or is it about bloody history, pogroms, thousands of years of rape, expulsions, murder, Christian anti Semitism Inquisitions, blood libels, Holocaust, subconscious deep fear, phobia and more. --Rm125 (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's two issues. 1) freedom of speech and quality of journalism 2) parallels to antisemitism (or should we just use the old "they hate freedom"?). The current header is just two sentences and it actually does a good job of summarising the issue. // Liftarn (talk)

Not sure what you mean since the current header makes no mention of the two issues you mention.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is not possible to agree about what this controversy is about (that can perhaps depend upon your point of view), is it possible to rename this article? One idea is "Reactions to Boström article". I guess everyone can agree that this article describes different reactions to the article by Boström. Perhaps one can describe the reactions according to two sides: one side thinks the publication of the article was justified, and the other side thinks the publication wasn't justified. Ulner (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I deleted the see also link to Race card - if someone wants to make that connection I think it is appropriate to cite an opinion article in the text instead of using the "See also" section. Ulner (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mattias Gardell, link in foreign language

The link in not in English. We can not read it I would like to ask you to provide a translation. BTW what is the policy in Wikipedia regarding foreign language references? --Rm125 (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:NONENG "sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available". The key part of the article is "Det är välbekant att israeliska talespersoner och de självutnämnda Israelvänner som agerar den militära övermaktens apologeter rutinmässigt försöker dribbla bort berättigad kritik mot israelisk kolonialpolitik genom att spela ut antisemitismkortet." and that roughly translates to "It is well known that Israeli spokespersons and the self appointed Israel friends who acts as the military superiority's apologists routinely tries to obuscate (dribble away) justified criticism against Israeli colonial politics by playing the antisemitism card.". Google translate does a quite good job, but you have to past the text yourself. // Liftarn (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,Liftarn. Great news. I just realized that I just waste another 3 perfectly good European languages to "spice up" this Wikipedia with.--Rm125 (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mathias Gardell is an admirer of Islam and commited anarchist, whose introductory work was a fawning study of the Lous Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. He has also written a fawning book on Osama bin Laden, titled "Osama i våra hjärtan" which might be translated as Osama in our hearts, and is finally a well-known and sympathizer of the Palestinians. He's about as partisan as you can get in Swedish society, possibly excepting the openly Saddamite Jan Guillou. Allowing him to opine on Israel as an 'expert on extreme religions' is rather POV IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.200.116 (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there's much truth in what you're saying, but even if it were all true I still don't see how it's relevant. What you're trying to say is that we should not include opinions from people who don't hold the same opinions as you do. You don't see to have a problem with people the many people in the article who are "well-known sympathizes of Israel", so it's not that you object to POV being included, you just want to get out all POV that isn't yours. Very mature.Jeppiz (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The article chapter

I think there are too many quotes and descriptions. I provided a English translation of the article. so now it can be shortened out.It can present the article since you can read it yourself in the link provided. Also the a palestinian family responses has been put on the separate section respecting the original structure of this article.--Rm125 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Jeppiz (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

External links

If no-one objects, I plan to remove all external links (except for the video), because there is no reason to include a newspaper article describing this issue as an external link (it can better be published in a footnote to an appropriate section of the article). A big number of opinion pieces in the external links section is confusing for the readers in my opinion. What do other think about my suggestion? Ulner (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand what is your suggestion. If you can give a specific example-problem-solution I will be happy to form an opinion. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean for example the first external link "Bernie Farber: Sweden's embrace of the blood libel" should be moved to somewhere inside the main article, explained in a context and with a footnote where the link is given. Ulner (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I moved this external link into the main part of the article with a footnote. Perhaps it is possible to move all external links which are notable and delete all the other? Ulner (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC

I don't mind if I understood you correctly. --Rm125 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed Al Aharam link- this is a mouthpiece of the government of Egypt-dictatorship with no free press --Rm125 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, once again. You really need to stop removing sources based on what you think of them. You have already been blocked once for it. Freedom of speech is certainly very restricted in Egypt, but that is not a reason to disqualify everything that is published in Egypt.Jeppiz (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I base my opinion on sourses like this: [[6]] and this:[[7]] and this:[[8]] It took about 30 seconds of my time. You on the other hand decided to slander and defame me without any justification. All the best. --Rm125 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That isnt how we decide whether or not a source is reliable. Here on Wikipedia a "reliable source" means it meets the requirements of WP:RS. Al-Ahram meets those requirements (specifically WP:RS#News organizations). Al-Ahram is a major news source in the Arab world and you cannot just disregard whatever they write. nableezy - 21:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is relevant and who is not?

I would like to repeat my question, who should we include here. There are, in my opinion at least, far too many people with little or no relevance to the case. I don't think the editor of Electronic Intifada is particularly relevant to this case, and I don't think reactions of individual congressmen in the US are relevant either. Reactions from inside Sweden and Israel may be relevant, likewise persons representing organizations that are relevant. I do not think, however, that just because a person is relevant enough to have a page on Wikipedia, such as the congressmen, Alan Dershowitz and others, their personal opinions are of much relevance here. Please discuss.Jeppiz (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Electronic Intifada thing because it is not RS, however this opinion is legitimate in my view. If you want to remove-there no protest from me. Members of Congress are important for following reasons:(a) US is a major authority on issues related to freedom of speech in the world (b) The article connected American citizens to this story, claiming that they some how connected.(c) Look what commities they belong to-the name says it all (d)This is a mojor international story- not limited to Sweden and Israel.(e) I am not sure if some members of parlament of South America or Africa are that important. When America talks-the world listens.And this is the difference. Google it out and you see the amount of articles in all major and minor publications. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should treat American reactions (in general) as more important than say South American. The fact that the article talks about American citizens is a good argument why american reactions matter a bit more for this case, though. Ulner (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to offend anyone, but the claim that the US is a "major authority" on freedom of speech would cause a laughter in many countries. Of course it's better than many countries, but according to the latest Worldwide Press Freedom Index, the US shares place 36-41, so there are at least 35 countries where members of parliament would be better suited to comment if we went by your "reason (a)". As for reason b, it is more valid but the link was very weak and the congressmen doesn't seem to even acknowledge it. "Reason c" is the same claim as "reason a", that the US somehow is better placed than other countries to comment on world affairs. That is not the case, certainly not in stories in which the US isn't involved. "Reason d" is the same one once again, and so is "reason e". So in short, you have given two reasons. One is that Bodström made a completely unfounded claim in which an American citizen was involved. All your other claims are focused on the reasoning that the US would have a higher authority than any other country in the world. That is perhaps your personal opinion, but there's nothing to support it. Once again, the US is behind many other countries in rankings of Freedom of Press and certainly doesn't hold any special authority.Jeppiz (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

American importance influence and "weight" for better or for worse is a fact.This is what I meant. Of course this or that issue is a matter of interpretetion.The author of the article connected certain American Jews cought in organ trafficing to the IDF conduct. This is the connection to America. Plus, look- if some African parlament would issue a letter on the subject I would be glad to unclude it here- no discrinination. Generally, Jeppiz I think the more information the better provided it is relevant and educating. I don't nassesarily think that being short for shortness sake-there is a value there. People want to be educated so why be stingy? In a book the amount of space is limited so this is the reason there is limitation there. In wikipedia case we are not limited and it is good. All the best. --Rm125 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these are good points, much better than the earlier. However, most of the people here have been speaking as individuals. Let me take some examples. Some Palestinian doctor called Mazen Arafah is included. Who is Mazen Arafah and why is his personal opinion notable? I think any doctor could have said that. Same thing with Alan Dershowitz. I have the highest respect for his brilliant intellect and he is of course a notable person, but his personal opinion is of no interest. Same thing with Matthew Cassel, he is not notable himself and neither is his personal opinion on this issue. Abraham Foxman is a different story, he was clearly speaking on the ADL's behalf. I think the paragraph can be shortened, as the only relevant information is the complaint, but that could well be considered relevant so I wouldn't remove it, just shorten it. Same thing with Dror Feiler, he is also a spokesperson who made a statement, and that paragraph is already quite short. I would definitely remove Bernie Farber, there is no connection at all to Canada in this case.

As for the congressmen, the question is whether the letter they have sent have been sent by them personally (not notable) or whether they sent them as statement of their committees. In the latter case, I could see a case for notability, just as I do with ADL.

In short, yes, we can definitely have other reactions, but reactions from individuals who give their personal opinions and are not connecter are hardly relevant.Jeppiz (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at the link I provided --Rm125 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian doctor is important because he is the only doctor fro Palestinian side of the issue It is not a "private" opinion.This is an opinion of an expert- MD and is based on his expertize as a doctor. --Rm125 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is a private opinion, even if it comes from an MD. Being a doctor is very far from enough for being notable and he has no connection to the case. Once again, who of these people I mentioned have been publishing their opinions as the official opinions of an organization or committee. The ADL is a clear case, that should definitely stay in. Same thing with Dror Feiler. As for all the rest that I mentioned, please provide links that establishes that their statements were on behalf of their organizations/committees. If that is the case, they should stay. If not, they should be taken out. As for Matthew Cassel, Bernie Farber and Masen Arafah, neither of them belong here by any stretch of imagination. Two of them are neither notable nor related to the topic, the third is notable but with no connection to the controversy.Jeppiz (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the personal opinions of people who are not involved in the case, most of whom are not even notable. I didn't remove the congressmen yet, but if no link can be provided that they spoke on behalf of their committees, their statements are also just personal opinions that aren't really relevant here as they are not involved in any way.Jeppiz (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Look about this Palestinian doctor issue. Personally I agree with you that it is his personal opinion and as such it is not very important. Notice! 100% agree. However, I read somewhere on Wikipedia that in some cases when there ios no other opinion and to create some balance it is OK to include it to create some perspective. May be I am mistaken here, but this is how I ubderstood it.If there are different opinions from Palestinian side it should be considered for balance. Unfortunately so far there is nothing I can find.This is THE ONLY my consideration. If we remove this link people will say that Palestinians don't have a take here and therir side is not presented. If you find this consideration non valid then by all means remove it and I hope we can find another from palestinian side. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to the Palestinian doctor - we still have the reference to the Palestinian authority and also to Arafat? Ulner (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi all! I have now made some major changes where I deleted sentences which describe the opinion of persons not representing organizations. I do not think these opinions are relevant enough for this Wikipedia article. In addition, this will keep the article shorter, and also help us avoid undue weight to some perspective. If someone disagrees, you can just put the old version back - I am open to discussion. I tried to be bold making these edits, so I don't mind if you disagree. Ulner (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about your edit, I let others decide in that matter. But there is one thing: There are more people then the Palestinian doctor who have stated that it is medically improbable that Bilal was taken for organ harvesting. [9] [10] However, non of the doctors who states that opinion does represent anything other then themselves as professionals. But, this subject is somewhat different, so I think that it would be nice if the medical improbability argument where to be discussed in its own section. Steinberger (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC) PS. You forgot Mårten Schultz in your bold attempt, he is not representing any organization either.

I'm going to reinsert Mattias Gardell as it is well within his field of research. // Liftarn (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand - he's an expert on "religious racism". This problem of deciding who's comments/arguments/opinions to include is getting harder and harder unfortuantely. Ulner (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Several different "reactions" sections

As it looks right now we have some different "reaction" headings.I think we need to clarify this issue because others will add more headings like separate "IDF reaction"for example.The way it looks right now- we have separation to media and government and "other reactions" Now I see an edditional heading with 'edditional Swedish reaction" I think we need to establish a certain structure and stick to it. Ideas? --Rm125 (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps main heading "Swedish reaction, Israeli reaction, Palestinian reaction, European reaction, American reaction"? If needed we use subsections for each region/country? Ulner (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mhm, and once again, why would we need European reactions (the majority of which are from other Nordic countries and which have been focusing on Liberman's lack of respect for democracy) and American reactions (the majority of which are from American Jews and have been focusing on Aftonbladet's lack of respect for Jewish sufferings). Do not get me wrong, I agree with those reactions. Aftonbladet published an increadibly stupid story and Liberman reacted to in in an increadibly stupid way. All that is already found in the Swedish and Israeli reactions, so why do we need a lot more reactions. Especially from private individuals in countries that aren't even involved?Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the inportant point for inclusion is if a person represent an organization of some kind of weight and/or writes articles and opinon pieces in major newspapers. If a person is a politician especially not a local one and has a connection to this is one of consideration.Regarding too many divisions( european,sweedish, israeli, american etc) I think the reasonable thing to leave 3 sections for responses since it involves their citizens ( Israel and Jews, Sweden and the author, Palestinia Authority and the family and US) and "other" section for responces of Arabs, Muslims, Europeans and others)

How does it look? --Rm125 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

See my response above. Most of the people here have been speaking as individuals. A Palestinian doctor called Mazen Arafah is included. Who is Mazen Arafah and why is his personal opinion notable? I think any doctor could have said that. Same thing with Alan Dershowitz. I have the highest respect for his brilliant intellect and he is of course a notable person, but his personal opinion is of no interest. Same thing with Matthew Cassel, he is not notable himself and neither is his personal opinion on this issue. Abraham Foxman is a different story, he was clearly speaking on the ADL's behalf. I think the paragraph can be shortened, as the only relevant information is the complaint, but that could well be considered relevant so I wouldn't remove it, just shorten it. Same thing with Dror Feiler, he is also a spokesperson who made a statement, and that paragraph is already quite short. I would definitely remove Bernie Farber, there is no connection at all to Canada in this case.

As for the congressmen, the question is whether the letter they have sent have been sent by them personally (not notable) or whether they sent them as statement of their committees. In the latter case, I could see a case for notability, just as I do with ADL.

In short, yes, we can definitely have other reactions, but reactions from individuals who give their personal opinions and are not connecter are hardly relevant.Jeppiz (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at the link-it is official --Rm125 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose to move a chepter: other Swedish opinios to "other opinions. Otherwise we need to create " other Israeli opinions" and other Palestinian opinions here. --Rm125 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I an trying to create some kind of situation when all different opinions arer presented in a balanced way.--Rm125 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments please

It seems Rm125 and I don't agree on whom to include here. Both of us have made our cases, so rather than resorting to an edit war, I'd ask other users to comment. In my opinion, personal opinions of individual persons outside Sweden and Israel are not very relevant. At present, we have a reported statement by a completely unknown Palestinian doctor who has not studied the deceased person and isn't involved in any way. We also have the personal opinions of an American intellectual. He is at least a notable person, but he is not involved in this controversy in any way and has just presented his personal view. In my view, neither of these reactions, nor reactions from other individuals just expressing their personal opinion, belong in the article. I know what Rm125 thinks, but I welcome input from others!Jeppiz (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dershovitz is not "just an intellectual' he is a famous jurist specialising in "freedom of speech issues".He wrote books about Middle east and Israel. he debated Carter on these issues. He appeared many times on major american and international TV and is recognized as an authority on ME issues. --Rm125 (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Al Aharam is not RS

He writes mainly for Iranians Egyptian Al Aharam and Al Jeezira. He is a propaganda writer and falsifies facts. This type of writer is considered non RS on Wikipedia. No major newspaper would publish him. Jeepiz, frankly I am puzzled why this sourse is important to you. This is not even news, just opinion in a mauthpiece of dictatorial regime of Egypt. As you know Egypt doesn't have freedom of press. I assume that you live in a free country and this is clear to you. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at the quote of his in Al Aharam: "During an interview with Al-Jazeera in 2002, late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat accused Israel of murdering Palestinian children and harvesting their organs for transplant operations. "They murder our kids and use their organs as spare parts. Why is the whole world silent? Israel takes advantage of this silence to escalate its oppression and terror against our people," said an angry Arafat"

In Arab "newspapers" they spread the same blood libels we are discussing here. In those contries with oppressive and restrictive press they manipulate our freedoms and USE us to spread their evil conspiracy theories. Please reconsider your revert. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

His article at Khalid Amayreh says nothing about him being an extremist. Do you have any sources to back up that claim? // Liftarn (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, please read WP:BLP. You are making a series of unfounded accusations against Amayreh and you should stop, unless you have evidence from WP:RS to support what you are saying. Tiamut^talk 09:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Strike extremist, This is my private opinion. The reason I object is (1) Al Aharam is not a free newspaper- it is a mouthpiece of Egyptian regime (2) No western major newspaper publishes his "articles" (3) The quote in the Alharam that I provided constitutes a blood libel by definition-even worse that the swedish newspaper.(4) RS As mentioned there is no free press in Egypt= no such thing.--Rm125 (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that there are no sources calling Amayreh as an extremist, and for striking your comments to that effect. 1) Do you have reliable sources saying that Al Ahram is a mouthpiece of the Egyptian regime? 2) I don't care if western people have never heard of them; this is the world's encyclopedia, not the West's. 3) That's your opinion, unsourced. 4) It doesn't matter what the state of press freedoms in Egypt is, for Wikipedia purposes, Al-Ahram is a reliable source. Tiamut^talk 11:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiamit, I must give you a compliment. I don't agree with you but you have a good point. I will try to scratch my head a little. I might come out with something for you --Rm125 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiamit, can you back up your (4) point for me, please ?--Rm125 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rm125 for your thoughtfulness. I am basing my comments re: Al-Ahram consituting a reliable source for Wikipedia articles on this. To be safe, you will notice that I directly attributed the material presented to Khalid Amayreh (this is because even though I think its a news piece, others may view it as a opinion piece). If you have any questions about whether a source is reliable or not, there is a reliable sources noticeboard linked at the top of the page I linked you to where you can ask and other editors will offer their opinions. I hope I answered your question. Tiamut^talk 13:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

First off the link you provided talk about reliable sourse-right but it does not gives an indication about Al Aharam. Second if you go to Al Haram in Wikipedia you will see it says it is controlled by Ministry of Information. Third. Look - forget Wikipedia for a moment and look deep inside yourself and answer yourself- Is Al Ahram r-e-a-l-l-y free newspaper independent of the government? You and I know the answer. And finally let me shoot straight, Tiamut. I think Palestinians shoot themselves in the foot when they touch all those conspiracy theories. They loose lots of good will from some good people.And more. Palestinians have pretty good arguments to advance their case. Why then they need to go so low? As I says they shoot themselves in the foot.Their leaders( Arafat too) have been deceiving them too long time.That;s righttoo long time.--Rm125 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, the guideline outlined in the link I provided you does not mention newspapers names specifically, except by way of example. The fact that Al-Ahram is not listed though, does not mean we cannot use it. It fits the description provided there to a tee.

I don't think the Egyptian government interfered in any way in the publishing of the article by Khalid Amayreh. And whether or not they interfere with what is published there is really irrelevant to this discussion. The material is sourced, cited and attributed to its author. People can decide for themselves what weight to accord it.

About Palestinians shooting themselves in the foot ... your opinion is shared by some. Some others think that the people actually shooting them in the feet should be held to account sometimes too. But I don't really want to get into that discussion, because its not related to the article. So thank for sharing, but no thanks. Tiamut^talk 13:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at what I mean when I say they shooting themselves in the foot. Let me demonstrate that lies will not hold and are exposed. Eventually Palestinians are not benefiting from it:

“Israel is well known for its harsh and cruel treatment of Palestinians. Hence, the notion of Israeli authorities extricating organs from the bodies of Palestinians for transplant or sale is credible.<<< Look at this deception. So Israelis are cruel and this is the reason they kill Palestinians and steal their organs! Amazing piece of propaganda . Indeed a reliable source>>>Indeed, in January 2002 an Israeli cabinet minister tacitly admitted that certain organs from the bodies of Palestinians might have been used for Jewish transplant patients without the knowledge of the victims' families.<<< This is a total lie from a sick brain of “reliable source: from “democratic” Egypt>>> The minister, Nessim Dahan, said he couldn't confirm or deny that organs taken from Palestinian victims were used for transplant or in scientific research.<<< Well, I can not confirm or deny that I don’t rape neighborhoods girls every day, what a pity>>>

Look- you can believe this crap if you want ( I am sure you don‘t) but not everybody are so easily fooled, my friend, Tiamut”--Rm125 (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should be so fast to judge, when you seem to be misinformed about some basic facts. Yehuda Hiss, the chief pathologist and former director of Abu Kabir institute, the only autopsy institute in Israel, has twice been investigated for removing body parts from people's bodies (Palestinians and Israelis alike) without permission for sale to medical schools in the last 10 years. (See But did it happen? and Illicit Body-Part Sales Present Widespread Problem.) It was the families of Israeli soldiers who first complained about it. It seems that when Israelis complain, the government is quick to put on the appearance of having done something about it, though I should note that Hiss is still the chief pathologist at Abu Kabir, he only lost his position as director. When Palestinians complain of the same thing, they're just anti-Semitic liars. No surprise there. Being a Palestinian that lives in Nazareth I've gotten used to the double standards. Tiamut^talk 14:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember that we should try to discuss how this Wikipedia article should be written (and not the truth/relevance/bias of Donald Boström's article). It would be really good if someone posted a question about whether Al-Ahram is a reliable source on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and we can get input from more Wikipedia contributors. Best regards Ulner (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry about the diversion. I will post a request at RS noticeboards now. Thanks for the reminder Ulner. Tiamut^talk 14:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ulner, good point. I have a lot to say in responce but you are right. We discuss if AlAharam is RS or not. It is not of course. Here is the link to Freedim of speech in Egypt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Egypt#Freedom_of_speech_and_freedom_of_the_press

You can do even better research if you don't know already. Rgypts jails are full of journalists no questions about it.

As to Noticeboard it is a great idea. If you or somebody else can arrange it I appriciate it. Unfortunately i need to leave nowbut there is lots of info already . It just needed to be organized in a logical way for outsider to make it easy to get. I can do it but now I have to go, see, you guys. --Rm125 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The link to the posting at WP:RS board is here. See you around Rm125.Tiamut^talk 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, Tiamut in this post you say that Mr Hiss got accused of certain thing( he can be guilty or not it doesn’t matter ) You claim that if an Israeli complains things get done but when a Palestinian complain-they are accused of being anti Semites? I understand your accusation but we can not connect Mr Hiss ( without getting into his specific deed) to this issue. This is two different issues. One is an accusation of discrimination and another a specific accusation against an individual. Another issue you rase is your difficulty as a Palestinian in Israel ( since Nazareth is a city in Israel). First of you are an Israeli citizen and live in democracy. Like in any democracy you can and should fight for your rights in court and ballot box.. You claim that you are a Palestinian. I don’t have a problem with you identifying yourself this way. But you know that before 1948 the term Palestinian meant a Jew. Arabs never called themselves “Palestinians” They called themselves Arabs or South Syrians but never Palestinians. This terminology or identity only was created mainly after 1967. By no means I want to hart your feelings but we are talking facts here. I don’t think that if you make a reasonable argument somebody will call you an anti Semite. True, Jews are sensitive to anti Semitism because our history but this is real, Tiamut, Most of my family were wiped out during the Holocaust. During 1905 many of my family died in Russia during pogroms. I am not giving you this info in order to compare who suffered the most - I am sure you’ve got your share-but to show you that there is a valid reason for this sensitivity.

Let me tell you a story. Here in LA a couple of years ago I noticed a black guy touching stuff outside my house. I asked him what he is doing on my property. He got very upset and started accusing me of racism. I was surprised at his allegations. I didn‘t care if he is black, white or yellow- he was trespassing my property. Anyway ,I realized he works for a phone company but for some reason he didn‘t wore an uniform with a name tag. He thought I am a racist because I was upset. Why do I tell you the story? Because we can understand his perspective. The guy has lots of history related to discrimination. He heard all the stories from his family and relatives He experienced it himself. Can we blame him for seeing a racist on every street corner? The point is we all sensitive and everybody has his own sensitive buttons. But guess what; if you try to put yourself in the other guys shoes it becomes easier to understand. Nobody will understand your pain the way you feel it, but if you realize that everybody has a different baggage to carry- life becomes easier. --Rm125 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns Rm125, but we should try to only discuss the Wikipedia article here. The question is whether "Al-Ahram is a RS". Perhaps we can wait for input from other users, and continue with some new perspective. Best regards Ulner (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with much of what you (Rm125) said, but I fully understand the need to vent sometimes. My bad, for straying into off-topic conversation above, but let's try to keep the discussion focused from now on, as Ulner is suggesting. Tiamut^talk 18:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers needed

The reference section can be inproved if somebody not as lazy as me can take on himself to make it look like it belongs to encyclopedia. Thanks. --Rm125 (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#References —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede expansion

The lede is basically bare and I've expanded it according to WP:LEAD by incorporating the major points of the topic. It could still use some work and there will probably be some editors that disagree with some of the wording. I beseech those editors not to pull off blanket reverts, but to collaborate in a constructive manner to create a lede in accordance with WP:LEAD.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you plus as we discussed here [11]

Are you ready to try? I am all for it. The thing it is one of the most important parts and this is the reason I am sure you can help here. I am at your disposal, maestro. --Rm125 (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn has already made some changes, and I added a couple of sentences too. I still think its premature to write a lead, which is why I initially reverted the additions by Brewcrewer. (Plus they were one-sided). I think its too hard to avoid OR and POV in the framing of this controversy at such an early stage (Deciding who is involved and how to describe them). But hey, I'll go with the flow. Tiamut^talk 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rm 125. You deleted this. Would you care to explain why? That information is in our article. Its strange to me that we would mention all the players in this controversy in the introduction, but ignore what Palestinians have to say. Is there any particular reason for excluding their views from the introduction? Tiamut^talk 18:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent

ATTENTION:CONTERPOUNCH IS NOR

[[12]] WP:NOR --Rm125 (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Halid from Al Aharam- this is a issue of WP:NOR--Rm125 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Counterpunch is no good, but not exactly for the reasons that you describe. In general, if something is claimed by a reliable source we don't question how they got that information - whether its their original research or based on something more valid. Reliable sources can basically say what they want. However, Counterpunch, which describes itself as as "muckraking with a radical attitude", is in no way considered a reliable source per WP:RS. Their "muckrackings" don't deserve entry into an encyclopedia, especially when its furthering their anti-Israel agenda, and especially when its perpetuating nonsense.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree 110% with you. This is just ONE of the reasons WP:NOR. It is overriding reason and I agree with you. Look, if you have a toolbox with a hammer but you need to kill a bug...you know the rest..  :) --Rm125 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW the same thing with Al Aharam newspaper. The claim is it is WP:RS however it is mess to prove it. So WP:NOR is the tool for the task in hand. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Brewscrewer. another consideration for mr here. I went to arguments and fights with people here in the past. Some people don't have prior knowledge about the sourse and for them it is RS. Sometimes- Ithink_ it is better to be patient with them and present your argument in a mild way. People don't have the same backround and this can be a problem. I admit that I myself sometimes overreact. I see it this way: If you drive your car and you know you are right you have 2 options: euther to craxh your car and still be right or to let the other driver be right but come home to your kids in one piece. Why can't we just get along?

People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the Wikipedians and the Wikipediasses?...It’s just not right. It’s not right. It’s not, it’s not going to change anything. We’ll, we’ll get our justice....Please, we can get along here on Wikipedia. We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to work it out! :) --Rm125 (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

More edit comments

Please make even more comments in the edit summary - this makes it easier to follow your arguments. (People here are generally good but even more comments would be nice). Ulner (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This article and how Wikipedia should function

This article exists in two languages, English and Swedish. Reading the two articles, you cannot but notice that they are very different. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, because they are both very bad, but for very different reasons. It might be an idea to try to bring them somewhat more in line with each other and to improve them in the process. The worst things with this page (a heapload of redundant and irrelevant information, such as reactions from American congressmen and a looney lawsuit) is missing from the Swedish page. The excessive reporting on how Aftonbladet itself perceive the controversy and the redudant information from just about every Swedish newspaper is luckily missing from this page.Jeppiz (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article needs lots of work still. When you talking about English/Swedish versions you mean the translation or Wikipedia versions? If the translation is bad the it can be corrected by someone who is knolegeble. I don't speak Swedish ( just 2 words and all of them bad) so I have nothing to say. Generally let's stick to what we know. I can contribute with Hebrew or Russian versions in which I am equaly fluent, but Swedish?-nada.All the best--Rm125 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

More and more, this article starts to incorporate everything that has been written about this controversy. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and an article should not try to include everything. I have already pointed out that personal opinions on non-involved individuals are not relevant. I've just removed text about a law-suit. It's not new, it appeared in the news about two weeks ago. However, it is an individual who has filed the claim for himself in the US, and it has no chance of succeeding nor even appear before a judge. While a court process would be notable, rumours about such a process or a looney claim that has no chance of being dealt with simply are not notable. Once again, the challenge we face in this article is to select what we should remove, not add.Jeppiz (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jeppiz; personal opinions on non-involved individuals should be removed. Ulner (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is not a newspaper however it is helpful to reason why this or that piece belongs or doesn't belong here. So in any perticular case when objections are rased the criteria upon which they are based upon needs to be presented. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede once again please read carefully

I just want to clarify couple of points here.

lede is supposed to present the controversy and thats it. It supposed to btiefly present the essense of an argument and to answer the question" what;s all this about" After all we have the whole article to dedicate to various other points and arguments. Generally guys we have to cool down and to think WP:NPOV here.

Some people like Steiberger I tried to answer here [[13]]but looks like Tiamut wants to go with the same line.

Tiamut, you can also see the previous reasons and WP:CS and WP:NOR,WP:SOURCES and also the other point already mentioned inside the article. Generally guys we need to struggle here with our natural tendency to persue our personal point of view. Let's try to rise above it and present the story from WP:NPOV as much as possible.

Let's leave the lede as is. Revert it please.All the best --Rm125 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you click on the link I provided in my reversion of your edit. It goes to a section within the very article that we are discussing here. In that section you can read about the things you deleted but spelled out in greater detail and with sources. So what you deleted could impossibly be OR and if you try to make the point of CS, well, why didn't you delete the whole lead as nothing in it has adequate sources right there? When it comes to "the essence" of this controversy, we do yet don't know what that will be. The controversy is still ongoing. And, to me, if some of the top officials of the PA are to head an investigation into organ harvesting because of this article, I think that would be relevant. Take it back! Steinberger (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Lead sections do not need inline citations if the material is cited in the body of the article (see WP:LEAD), but so there is no confusion I reinstated the material with the citation from the body. Lead sections are meant to summarize the article and the response from the PA is certainly a relevant part of both the article and the lead. nableezy - 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Steinberger, just because you linked to another badly written article doesn't proove your point. The article you mentioned is a big mess. The same argument is applicable to the other one, hovever I don't have time to correct all sins of humanity now. All the best. --Rm125 (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What other article? Steinberger (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"I suggest you click on the link I provided in my reversion of your edit"

--Rm125 (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Is it you? Marhabbah, I am happy you follow me and even make same sense.. --Rm125 (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I got here from the RS/N where some people were oddly trying to say al-Ahram is not a reliable source. Aint no following so please do not suggest that I am. nableezy - 21:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Aftonbladet-Israel controversy#Palestinian Authority is a link to this article. "#" in wikilinks is used to refer to a certain section within an article, in this case where what you deleted as lacking sources had sources... if you follow. Steinberger (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Al Aharam dispute

Some claim that Al-Ahram is a reliable sourse-it is not for this reason Nableezy and I updated Al Ahram. I hope you are satisfied. I hope to put this issue to rest. all the best --Rm125 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, being state owned does not mean it is not reliable. There are other venues for such a discussion, in fact one has already taken place, and most uninvolved editors say al-Ahram does meet the requirements of WP:RS. Al-Ahram is a major news source and you cannot just disregard whatever they publish. nableezy - 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing things cited to al-Ahram just because you do not like it. Your last edit summary cited WP:SPS. The article at Al-Ahram is not a self-published source. It cited WP:BURDEN. The material is cited to a secondary reliable source with an inline citation. It cited WP:PSTS. Al-Arham is a secondary source. Please stop trying to remove a major news source because you dont like what they have to say. The RS/N discussion seems pretty lopsided with the argument that it does meet WP:RS. nableezy - 23:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy it. Find me one instance when this newspaper critisized Mubbarak-there is non.

You can claim that Pravda and Izvestia used to be reliable sourse during soviet times since they used to be state owned... It used to be a joke in Russia; In 'Pravda'(truth} there is no "Izvestia"(information) and in Isvestia (information) there is no "Pravda"( truth)

How sad and pathetic that in 21 century and in 'encyclopedia' from all placed I need to explain the gentelman from Saudi Arabia what a realfree speech means

What i am saying here is that AlAharam is not a reliable sourse-period. You connect to this something that relates specifically to that porsion. You mix things up. Reread first. This is ONLY about Al Aharam and if it is a reliable sourse. Look at the title.All the best to the confused. --Rm125 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As a comment on what is written above, and knowing of that it is an unfair comparison: One of the most reliable and well-thought of newspapers in Sweden is Riksdag & Deparement. Few in Sweden would even question a comma in it, even though it is state owned. I might be naive, but that a paper is state owed is in itself not enough to call it off as unreliable. Neither is apparent bias. That might be your opinion, RM125, but neither is enough for me. Steinberger (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I dont really care what you buy, and I am not from Saudi Arabia. You do not make these determinations on your own and there are a number of editors, more experienced than you or me, who have said that al-Ahram meets the requirements of WP:RS. This is not your decision to make on your own so please stop trying to do so. nableezy - 23:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

To genterlman from Saudi. look I don't know this or tht newspaper from Sweden or Poland . I don't know who claims that it is a RS. frankly I don't care. What I care though you try to vandalize my contribution to Al Aharam Look you are not going to make it a " bacon of democracy" like in Saudi. I don't know why you came here to follow me. At least follow wiki rules. I am familiat with the way of the west-not some questionable regimes. Please justify your behaviour( I am referring to Al Aharam as appropriate. Don't just claim that 'some say "whatever' it doesn't work her.

Let's build discussion-not destroy is like you did in Haaretz --Rm125 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, I am not from Saudi. Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Can you see where I say "I am not from Saudi Arabia"? Issues about your inane behavior at Al-Ahram belong at Talk:Al-Ahram, issues with your inane behavior at Haaretz belong at Talk:Haaretz and issue about your inane behavior here belong here. Keep it up, it will be very easy to get you topic-banned in the not so distant future. nableezy - 00:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Al Aharam is reliable for some stuff, like the weather in Cairo. They are not reliable for other stuff, like Israel. They have a history of perpetuating Holocaust-denialism and other antisemitic conspiracy theories, like the Protocols of Zion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your belief is disputed by a number of people at the reliable sources noticeboard, so just saying it does not make it so. Al-Ahram meets the requirements of WP:RS. That is the view of most of the uninvolved editors at the noticeboard. nableezy - 01:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy I already left you a massage on your talk page regarding your threats. [14] You can not threaten people here all the time You already threatenrd me 12 times in the past and I start documenting it right now so beware. As to your revertions on Al Ahram article. this is outrageous. The documentation I provided is excect and to the point. You try to change it according to your personal vires not NPOV. Please stop. This is America-not Saudi here. --Rm125 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the al-Ahram page and there, as here, you have no clue what you are talking about. And I told you a number of times I am not Saudi. I take that as a personal insult so stop implying that I am. nableezy - 01:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Look I thought you are OK with being Saudi. I never sought that this is an insult. I am a Jew and proud of it.I assumed you are proud of yourself too. I am sorry you take it as an insult. I didn't mean it. I apologise then and will never do it again. I wonder why you find it offensive. If somebody calls me an American I am full of pride. In any case, don't mention it.For example I was born in the former USSR. If somebody calls me Russian, I don't mind because it is true in a way. In any case every one is different and I will honor your request.--Rm125 (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not Saudi, what is wrong with you? nableezy - 05:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Any newspaper that publishes things like this is not RS: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/arabpress1100.html : "Aadel Hamuda wrote an article in the 28 October edition of 'Al-Aharam' which is unusual in its severity and revives the traditional blood libels. Entitled, 'Jewish Matzo Which Is Made from Arab Blood', it says: 'Every time I see the stone children in Palestine bleeding, I recall my grandfather who used to gather the neighbourhood children in the garden of his home in Alexandria and tell them the story of the Jew who slaughtered a child and prepared from his blood the Passover matzo and afterwards ate it with great appetite. At the time I thought that this story was just a fairy tale but when I grew up I discovered that the story of the Jewish matzo made of blood was a true story which actually happened and it is documented in the Sharia' court in Aleppo, Hamat and Damascus from 1840. The amazing thing is that the rabbis who committed this terrible crime felt no remorse and the explanation for this is in the Talmud which describes the souls of non-Jews as satanic souls similar to those of animals. They believe that non-Jews are compared to dogs and donkeys and their lives have no value and it is therefore permitted to slaughter them, rape their women and despise them and their possessions are even public property. All this explains the scenes we see on television where soldiers of the Israeli occupation kill children without mercy and chew gum at the same time, as if they were on an excursion. The reason for this is that deep in their heart they believe that, according to what it says in the Talmud, they are not killing human beings but animals. He continues and says that the police reports in many of the Palestinian territories have documented the disappearance of Arab children whose bodies were later found dismembered and without a single drop of blood in them. It is quite likely that their blood was mixed with flour of the Jewish radicals. This is how the dough is made from which they bake the matzos that they eat on the Passover holiday." Sposer (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Focus of the lede

Just wanted to confirm here how we are approaching the focus of the lede. Its clear at this point that the actual allegations are not to be taken seriously, at the very least. Nor has any mainstream sources taken the allegations seriously. Thus, the controversy is not so much about the actual allegations of organ harvesting, but about the decision to publish, the protests of Jewish organizations, the right to free speech, etc. As as result, the lede should not include any discussion regarding the truthfullness of the allegations because that's just fringe nonsense. See WP:FRINGE,WP:UNDUE, and WP:LEAD. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What can you do when you have to drill to the kid mind the same thing over and over. This is frustrating at times, but we need to be patient. Not everybody had a chance to get a good education and manners. Look at the entitlement, demands pushing around. Me, mine.. I deserve it! I know better then everybody! me, me, me, give me, I am right, I have an excuse- I was abused as a child- I -am -gonna -kick -your -cereal -ball,-because -I -am better -then- you- attitude. Amazing!--Rm125 (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead is meant to summarize the article. You are violating both WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD by removing parts of that summary you dislike. nableezy - 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

An article by Jonothan Cook (who is only published in fringe sources) is not the main point of the article. The lede should represent what maintream sources find notable, not articles by unknown freelancers.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about. Jonathan Cook has been published in The Times, Le Monde diplomatique, International Herald Tribune, Al Jazeera, Al Ahram, The Guardian, The Observer, and other sources. Please dont continue making inane arguments. nableezy - 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article, and more importantly the lede, should not use the Aftonbladet as a source per WP:PRIMARY. The paper is the controversy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Cook has also been published in NY Times, see [15]. This is an argument in strong favour that Jonathan Cook is an acceptable reference. Ulner (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Aftonbladet is not cited as a source for the lead. Tiamut^talk 20:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Its one op-ed write-in. And if you scroll to the bottom of the article you'll see that he's correctly described as a "freelance journalist". We can't just find stuff that we like and add them to the article, we have to use mainstream sources. If no mainstream sources find it important to discuss the underlying allegation we, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, can't decide that we like it, and add it into the lede. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And you do not get to determine that mainstream means American, European, and Israeli press only. Al-Ahram is a mainstream source whether you like it or not. nableezy - 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with Brewcrewer that "Its clear at this point that the actual allegations are not to be taken seriously, at the very least.". If the actual allegations are taken seriously by some notable part (i.e. Palestinian authority etc) this should be mentioned in the article. We do not need to make any judgement about the allegations ourselves - we only summarize what notable people/organisations/countries around the world say about these allegations. However, I think that, at least from my viewpoint from Sweden, by putting the reply from the Palestinian Authority in the lead, we risk violating WP:UNDUE. The comments from the Palestinian Authority doesn't seem to be well-known in Arab press nor western press, and hence this view should not be given in the lede, or? Ulner (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree, Ulner. I'm not saying that the PA's pronouncements don't deserve inclusion into the article. If there response is sourced reliably, it belongs. The issue is only with its inclusion into the lede. Per WP:LEAD, the lede should summarize the main points of the article. Its the mainstream reliable sources that decide what the main points of the subject are. The fact is that the mainstream sources don't find it that interesting that the PA has decided to "open an investigation" nor that they think there really was organ harvesting going on. Why? Don't know and don't care (but it might have to do with the predictability of them responding that way) because its not our business. Our business as editors is to emphasize what RS's emphasize and de-emphasize what RS's do not emphasize, not to add stuff that we like and remove stuff that don't like. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that Tiamut found a reference to the PA's prononucement from some Israeli newspaper. I welcome any more input about how widely circulated PA's pronouncements are are in media (western and non-western) around the world. I still think that it gives undue weight to include those in the lead, but I'm not 100% certain. Ulner (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides the two Al-Ahram articles, and the Ynet source, I've been able to find this by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (citing Ynet) and this by United Press International (also citing Ynet). There are other reports in Palestinian and Israeli newspapers too. Tiamut^talk 21:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about. Jonathan Cook has been published in The Times, Le Monde diplomatique, International Herald Tribune, Al Jazeera, Al Ahram, The Guardian, The Observer, and other sources. Please dont continue making inane arguments. nableezy - <<< I don't buy he did the Western papers -may be Guardian?_-but Press TV- fer sure>>>--Rm125 (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Why you continue to push this thing?

In the lede:

“Suspicions that organs have been taken from Palestinians in IDF custody first emerged during the First Intifada, but have never been investigated. Following the publication of the Aftonbladet article, the Palestinian Authority announced it would establish an inquiry commission to investigate the claims.“

Should be removed for 3 reasons

1) the lede is short introduction to a essence of a dispute. “Suspicions” from first intifada are dealt or can be dealt in the body of the article

2) First intifada and everything in the above chapter is NOT in the link provided, therefore it is an “original research issue” Here I want to notice that people who revert don’t care to look at the previous discussions that were presented. If it is not a mistake or misunderstanding it shows no class. After all we want to act here in truthful manner.It is of course easier to revert push and force your point without regards to civility ( like they do in ‘democracies” like Saudi Arabia. Although we welcome people from Saudi here- no discrimination- but please be honorable and civilized.

3)No source. Since the source he provided is doesn’t describe this particular chapter- it is not sourced

4) The situation during first intifada is not covered by the article. Remember the issue is A/I controversy. It is not even A/I/P controversy. Aiwah? Shukrunm ahui(Yes?Thank you friend-sorry for my broken Arabic)

I wrote it especially for our Saudi friend. I hope he can read and reflect. Please take at least 5 minutes. If you have any remarks or questions please go to discussions page. You can debate it here. Please don’t run and revert right away without thinking like you always do. This is the essence of democracy . You have to consider ALL opinions- not just yours all the best. --Rm125 (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is sourced, both in the lead and in the body, and a source in the lead is not required so long as it is an accurate summary of the sourced text in the body. nableezy - 05:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Its sourced with unreliable WP:FRINGE sources and in any case does not represent the main aspect of the controversy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, Electronic intifada exposed what you were doing before. Please stop advocating for Israeli by censoring information out of Wikipedia. People come to this site to get information, not to be deprived of it. Stop removing the Weir and Amayreh articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flawfixer (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy to see that someone acknowledges the hard work I put into this encyclopedia. Can I get me a barnstar from them?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

KGB too is watching? How about UFOs? Scary stuff --Rm125 (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So now we a facing "electronic" intifada? You guys gonna send viruses or junk mail or what? MY computer is frotected by Arrox 3 antiVirus Bullistic Musiles don't even try I'll tell my mama--Rm125 (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No. He's referring to this Electronic Intifada.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

On the "essence argument": Is this conflict over yet? Do we know what it is confined to? I would say that it isn't, and that we don't. And on the sources: The mainstream is not confined to the western world, and if something is the most circulated in the a country of 80 million it is not fringe. Steinberger (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Der Stürmer and The Pravda also has healthy circulations. Please don't respond "Are you comparing them to the Nazis!? You're crazy! No. My point is that readership means nothing. The world is full of idiots and we're writing an encyclopedia not a social site for everyone to feel welcome. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What makes a source fringe? Can the biggest paper in the largest country in the Middle East, perhaps the most influential newspaper in the Arab world over the past 80 years, be called fringe? How so? Unless your argument is that Arabs are by definition unreliable I dont see how you can continue to argue this. Al-Jazeera is funded by the Qatari government, are they also an unreliable fringe source? nableezy - 19:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the comment that you responded to? not responding to the strawman racist-baiting--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I usually do. But that does not answer my question. What makes this, or any, source fringe? You are saying that the circulation has no impact on whether or not it is fringe, but you havent actually been able to show how it is fringe. nableezy - 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You could just say that is not your argument and actually lay one out. So far you have not done so, only shown people that your objection is to including information you do not like. nableezy - 20:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the sentence in the lead: "Suspicions that organs have been taken from Palestinians in IDF custody first emerged during the First Intifada, but have never been investigated". This sentence has not been emphasized in Western media, and is perhaps not the core issue of the "Aftonbladet-Israel controversy". However, I think it is misleading to say that the opinion in this matter voiced earlier by Arafat is a fringe theory. Even if it would be a fringe theory, it would be notable if it is expressed by a person as well-known as Arafat. It is important that whether Arafat's statements are true or false is of no relevance; the criteria that should be fulfilled is that they have actually been given by Arafat (reliability that this is indeed opinions/claims made by him) and notability. Ulner (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all a little guilty of privileging mainstream Western media perspectives in our framing of the nature of this controversy (myself included). There is a third party involved here: Palestinians, whose bodies have been autopsied without familial consent or notification. Their suspicions about what happened over the course of the autopsies is relevant to this controversy. They are not just passive subjects of discussion here, but also agents. I know you recognize that, as evidenced by your favouring of the inclusion of Arafat's statements. But there are living Palestinians, families who still have not recovered the bodies of their loved ones, to whom this subject remains an issue of concern and an open question to which they would like answers. I think a sentence or two reflecting their viewpoint in the introduction is warranted. But I could be wrong. Tiamut^talk 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a valid basis for inclusion. It ismainstream reliable sources decide that decide what is encyclopedia worthy. There are plenty of those that cover the Middle East, and plenty of them are even reputed to have an anti-Israel bias. Nevertheless, not one of the so called mainstream source has taken the allegations seriously. Thus, actual analysis of the cause of the controversy is violative of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The same arguments seem to go round and round here, and to no avail as it seems. The newspaper got trough RS/N with a majority who thought that it is fine for usage as in this article. Here a majority also thinks that it brings relevant information. So, BC, read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and just stop. Steinberger (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is amazing that people even don't bother to look at the points I provided. The level of discussion here is very low. Something like I like/don't like. This is not worthy of adults. Shame. --Rm125 (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the US lawsuit? Jerusalem Post, also reaction from the Economist, NYT column

I can't find any mention in this article at all, even though this is a pretty unusual suit and it was in all the papers.

From the Jerusalem Post, Israeli lawyer sues 'Aftonbladet' in NY Court.[16]

Some more reaction pieces: An article appeared in the Economist, Blog Wars suggesting a political motive behind Israeli outrage.[17]

And in a New York Times column, Why the Israeli Organ-Harvesting Story Is Probably False, explains why this is medically unlikely.[18]

Any chance we can get these into the article? Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Whole article ways too wordy, needs cutting

I think the whole article is ways too long and would like to start systematically cutting it back by 50% or more. The quotes are often repetitious and many of them can be simply and economically paraphrased rather than being presented in stultifying length, as at present.

I've already done an internal reorganization that people appeared to like as it's been left in place. Any reactions to my proposal to start cutting the piece back, starting probably from the top?Supercarpenter (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

50% sounds way too steep. Maybe 20% could be cut, but remember that a lot of the "X said, Y said" verbiage is necessary just because this is an article about a controversy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any value in shortness or longness of an article. I think that this criteria is not very important. Shortness for the sake of shortness is questionable. On the other hand if you suggest to make this article clearer and encyclopedia like-you are wellcome. I agree the article needs some work. Let's see the specifics. --Rm125 (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's too long by far. my judgement of that is that when I first looked at the page I said "This is so darn long I'm never gonna read the whole thing!" Cut away. Joe407 (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I reinserted the POV tag placed by another user because as numerous editors have mentioned on this talk page, the lede does not reflect the mainstream NPOV status of the controversy.

Mainstream sources consider the actual allegations to be a joke and their position is reflected in their coverage of the Jewish organizations' anger and the Swedish newspaper and government refusal to denounce the publication of this allegation. Mainstream sources have ignored the underlying allegations. Although there is in fact an "investigation," this information is the least notable aspect of the controversy. It deserves inclusion in the main body of the article somewhere, but does not deserve inclusion in the lede.

However, there are some editors here that are interested in furthering the prorogation of these allegations and have added to the end of the lede information about an "investigation" of the underlying allegations to make it seem like the underlying allegations are really an issue. This is a fringe POV stance, has been removed by numerous editors, yet continued to appear in the lede. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The article that started this controversy accused the IDF of harvesting Palestinian organs, or at least of conducting unauthorized autopsies. The response of the Palestinian Authority to initiate an investigation into these allegations is absolutely significant. There are three parties involved in this controversy: Sweden, Israel, and the Palestinians. The position of the authorities representing one of those parties cannot be characterized as WP:FRINGE. In fact, per NPOV, we are obliged to include their response, as one of the main parties involved. Tiamut^talk 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Article name (redux)

This issue has been discussed earlier at the formation of this article, but should be revisited now that we see things in the bigger picture. Having Israel in the article name is wrong. Although the issue first became notable when the Israeli FM mentioned the article, the issue has moved way beyond the Israeli FM, and making this about Israel is misleading. Firstly, not all of Israel takes the same position regarding this controversy. There are Israeli leftists and Arab citizens of Israel that welcome these types of articles and most probably side with the position taken by the Swedish government and the Aftonbladet. Secondly, protests over the publication of the article have moved beyond Israel and a number of non-Israeli antisemitism watchdog groups have been at the forefront criticizing the circumstances of this publication.

For these two reasons, the current article name does not correctly characterize the controversy and should be replaced. I'll come up with some ideas shortly.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion and you're entitled to your POV just as much as anyone else, but this has been discussed before and there was no consensus at all to move it, so to just move the page to a name that is strikingly POV without giving others the time to react is not really proper. I would oppose moving it to 2009 Israeli opposition to freedom of speech as well. It would be equally (in)correct and POV. The problem here isn't the name, the problem is that the whole articles is heavily biased towards the Israeli position.Jeppiz (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jeppiz regarding the POV tilt in favor of the Israeli position that permeates this article. I also agree that the page should not be moved without consensus. Any suggestions on alternatives to the present title are welcome. My own would be Israeli Organ Harvesting controversy, but I'm quite sure that it would be as offensive to Brewcrewer as his own suggestion, Aftonbladet Antisemitism Controversy, is to me. So, is the present title so bad? Does anyone have other suggestions that might help bridge the wide divide in perspectives on this issue? Tiamut^talk 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think "Aftonbladet-Israel controversy" is way better then anything containing "freedom of expression", "anti-semitism" or "organ harvesting". However, the most neutral thing I can think of would be to call the article "Our sons is plundered of their organs", but is it easy enough to remember? Steinberger (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

hmmm ... I don't know. The whole naming question is rather important in determining the scope of the article. Naming it after the article might be a good way of keeping it more narrowly focused. But it seems a little strange to me (not to mention, the translation has a sort of garbled English grammar). What do others think? Tiamut^talk 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

While not having the Swedish title in front of me, I got it to "they plunder our son's organs" witch I recalled where wrong to the official translation, so I double-checked before I posted. But I am really not the one to ask about english grammar. However, "Our sons is..." is the title of Aftonbladets official and very litteral translation of the article. Bad grammar or not, I think it would be confusing with some other translation.

Personally, I think we should ask a administrator to move it back all the way "Aftonbladet-Israel controversy" or move it to the title of the Aftonbladet article in question. Eg, "Our sons..." ect Steinberger (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The controversy is clearly not between newspaper and Israel. It is going well beyond it. There is the Swedish side which includes newspaper, government, civil society, the question of freedom of speech. The Israeli side talks about issues of blood libel, condemnation of Swedish government, anti Semitism etc. Palestinian side deals with the claims and investigations and rumors. American Congress issued a statement about blood libels and anti Semitism and even Iranian and Syrians have their say. Then as an aftermath Sweedish FM remained at home instead of coming to Israel.This is clearly not such narrow issue as the name indicates. I would suggest a more general and inclusive name. For example: Aftonbladet “organ harvesting” controversy . This is better name that indicates that this controversy is much broader then just a controversy between Aftonbladet and Israel.Aftonbladet name remains since the newspaper was the source of the controversy and then it has spread out all over the place. Originally it was named A/I controvercy since nobody knew at the time how the story is going to develop. This is my 2 cents--Rm125 (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you general analysis Rm125 and the title is not bad. However, I am not for using scare quotes in the article title. So I would suggest Aftonbladet organ harvesting article or Aftonbladet organ harvesting controversy. But I am also inclined to accept Steinberger's suggestions as well. It would be good to hear from others too about what they think before we make any rash moves. Tiamut^talk 09:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tiamut that quotation marks are not needed and "Aftonbladet organ harvesting controvercy" is OK without them.I don't agree with "Our sons is plundered of their organs", for the following reasons. First it is a bit complicated title so to speak. Not many people remember the title of the article and it is harder to google. Second- this title doesn't speak about controvercy which is the heatt of the matter.Third this is too bombastic and "sensational for the title. Forth there is an accusation inside the title which is not necessary true. Fifth, as somebody already mentioned, the translation is not necessary true.

--Rm125 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see we can find agreement on some things Rm125. But what do others think about Aftonbladet organ harvesting controversy? Or do people want to keep the title as is or consider other options? Tiamut^talk 18:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"If you will it, it is no dream," Theodor Herzl --Rm125 (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again about the lede

The first sentence says: “The Aftonbladet-Israel controversy refers to the article in the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet that implied that the Israeli Defense Force stole organs from dead Palestinians in the late 1980s and early 1990s.”

Than the second from the end says:

“Suspicions that organs were taken from Palestinian bodies held by the IDF first emerged during the First Intifada, but have never been investigated

Those two sentences are basically the same.In fact the first one is even more inclusive then the second.. If you insist on the fragment :never been investigated” then it may be added to the first sentence. The first sentence then will look like:

“The Aftonbladet-Israel controversy refers to the article in the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet that implied that the Israeli Defense Force stole organs from dead Palestinians in the late 1980s and early 1990s.”, claims than haven’t been investigated.

Thus we can eliminate the second sentence since it doesn’t contribute to the lede.

As for the last sentence:

“Following the publication of the Aftonbladet article, the Palestinian Authority announced it would establish an inquiry commission to investigate the claims”

This is a fact that is already dealt inside the article and is a result of the controversy. The lede idea is “to set the stage” to the controversy and to answer a question: What is this controversy is all about”?

If you include the fact of the Palestinian investigation in lede then you need to include more facts as a result of the aftermath developments and this is not the idea of the lede.

Look, this is not the issue of this or that POV. This is an issue of the structure and clarity of the article and the lede as a “headline” of the article.

--Rm125 (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rm125. The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the main points of the article. Our lead currently includes what the article was about, the Israeli reaction, the Swedish reaction and the Palestinian reaction. I am against removing the Palestinian reaction from the lead. I think the lead reads fine as it now. Tiamut^talk 09:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Should it be "the article" or "an article"? // Liftarn (talk)

an. nableezy - 14:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If it supposed to be a summury of the whole article-you are right-the whole lede may need to be rewritten to include all other developments that are lacking currently- not just Palestinian investigation but some summary reactions and the fact that Sweedish FM canselled his visit and such--Rm125 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC).

Liftan, probably "the" article.--Rm125 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

no, it should be "an". This is an article on the controversy over an article in the newspaper. nableezy - 20:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is useful link to look at [[19]]

--Rm125 (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it should be : Here is "the" useful link to look at..

--Rm125 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read the link you would not say that, it is "a" useful link if you think it is useful. nableezy - 15:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Is US connected? Yes!

The story in Aftonbladet connects US Jews to IDF soldiers to Palestinian claims. American connection is as valid as Israeli, Sweedish or Palestinian ones. Otherwise American Congress would not issue an official declaration about the controversy. Read the article. I revert. --Rm125 (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may remind you of the facts here, the US Congress has not issued any declaration, official or non-official, about this issue. Unlike Sweden and Israel, there has been no official reaction from the US, just from individuals in the US, as in many other countries, that is why the topic goes back under "Other reactions".Jeppiz (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Jeppiz. There is an official declaration. I provided the link previously but it was erazed by someone. I will reinstall the link later, or somebody else, please find it. Some jenious erazed it and I haven't noticed. As to Dershovitz he is as relevant as somebody else.He is a very famour American personality.He wrote books on Israel. He debated carter and regularly appears on american TV. You have a link to Jonathan Cook. How this guy compares? Are you being reasonable, Jeppiz?--Rm125 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

'If I may remind you of the facts here, the US Congress has not issued any declaration, official or non-official, about this issue.<<< yOU ARE NOT CORRECT, SEE THE LINK>>> Unlike Sweden and Israel, there has been no official reaction from the US, just from individuals in the US, as in many other countries, that is why the topic goes back under "Other reactions<<<see the the link.>>> --Rm125 (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the link. It does not link to any declaration by congress, neither official or unofficial. It says that three persons have written a letter, that's all.Jeppiz (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by " not official " here. Press release on the "official" Commission website looks pretty "official' to me. Yes?--Rm125 (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read the link, you'll see that it states that "Cardin and Hastings" called on Sweden to act, nowhere does it say that Congress did so. There is no evidence at all that the US Congress has even discussed this issue. Of course it is "official" that Hastings and Cardin wrote that letter, but you said that the US Congress has issued a statement about the controversy. That is simply not the case.Jeppiz (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again about USA...

Nableezy, I see you and somebody else moved the US section with "other" reactions. I already mentioned it but I want to make my position clear; Reactions from USA are in the same cathegory as reactions drom Sweden, Israel and PA for very simple reason; The story connects an American Jew who is connected to the US organ transplant arrest to the IDF.This is the whole point of the disagreement. The reason there are claims of "blood libel is presicely because an American Jew got connected to IDF for no apperant reason other then being a Jew. US are involved in the story as much as Israel does. If there is a disagreement on this point I would like you to post your specific reasons for putting US reactions with "others" The "weight" of the reactions are definately say the opposite. If US wasn't involved with the story I doubt US Congressmen would write a letter to Swedish Prime Minister or US Senators, members of important commitee which feals with US-EU relations would issue a statement on the issue. Nableezy, please give me your reasons or we can ask other boards to see into it. All the best. --Rm125 (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, please put your argument in and tell me what tag you want to put.

I think politics tag will do, but encourage others feedback The following is what I think should be asked. Please post all your comments about the procedure here. The next porsion will go to "the boards"

Thanks --Rm125 (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy between nableezy opinion and Rm125 opinion- yes or no?

Background

An article about alleged organ harvesting has been published in a Sweedish paper. The article connects IDF ( Israeli military) with an American Jew who was arrested in USA on charges of organ harvesting. Once the article was published a controversy developed over time in Israel, Sweden PA and USA. The Wikipedia article structured in the way that separates different countries and entities and also within each category. The question is: Is USA belongs to the same category as Isrtael, Sweden and Palestinian Authoruty in the Wikipedia atricle?

2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy

Rm125 claims

(A)USA belongs to the same category as Israel, Sweden and PA because the article based on allegations against an American citizen as much as an Israeli military.

(B) High ranking US senators who chair an important US-EU commission issues a press release

http://csce.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContentRecords.ViewDetail&ContentRecord_id=803&ContentRecordType=P&ContentType=P&CFID=18960450&CFTOKEN=82376781

(C) Nigh ranking US congressmen wrote a letter to Swedish Prime Minister regarding the issue of the publication [[20]]

(D) Both US Senators and US Congressmen wouldn’t issue their official statement if US citizens wouldn’t be involved

(E) Nableezy wants to put USA reaction in the same category as Iran and Syria. Iranian and Syrian citizens are not involved in the story in any way.

(F) Important American writers and jurists like Alan Dershowitz and others are also marginalized and the claim is they are unimportant to be included in the article because of lack of cathegory for that. Some ather important Americans are not included because there is no “American” category.

Nableezy claims

[[21]]

Comments. [Is US in the main category(agree) or "other " category (disagree)]

• My first comment is that Rm125 has dealt with this in a less than honest way. When inviting others to comment, the proper procedure is to try to present as neutral a situation as one is capable of doing, not to try to bias the discussion in one's own favour. Instead of giving a short and neutral overview of the opinions of both sides, Rm125 has given a very long description of his personal views and only provided a diff for the opposing view. This might be the way to debate in North Korea but not on Wikipedia.
  

My second comment is that most of Rm125's arguments are weak

(A) USA does not belong to the same category. Thisarticle is about the controversy, not about the article in Aftonbladet. Sweden wasn't even mentioned in the article, yet it is involved in the controversy. The PMs and FMs of both Israel and Sweden have commented, not so in the US.

(B) and (C) Two US senators and two congressmen made comments on the story. This is along the same lines as the comments from the spokesperson of the Syrian president, so it's a further argument for putting the US in the category "Others".

(D) This is just Rm125's personal guess. Anyone familiar with US politics will know that it is completely false. It is very common for congressmen and senators to comment on international affairs.

(E) Neither the US nor Syria are involved, but political representatives in both countries have issued statements. In my opinion, the statements from the US are wiser than those from Syria and Iran, but we're not discussing quality here.

(F) Precisely. You have earlier tried to make the point that the US is a special case, that the US have a higher authority in the world than other countries, that the US is the judge of what is moral and what is not and that opinions from the US are more relevant than opinions from other countries. You're entitled to that view, but I definitely don't share it and I find it very chauvinistic.Jeppiz (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverts over Al Aharam

I was not looking for an edit war here. This is so cut and dry though that the article is pure POV and not RS as to be ridiculous that it is even being discussed. For these purposes, this paper has proven that it is not reliable. I read the WP:RSN bit, and see no conclusion at all. Any newspaper that still publishes op eds that say that wow, it is true that Jews use (or did use) the blood of Arab children for baking matzoh cannot be considered RS for an article that furthers the blood libel garbage. So, in this case, Al Ahamr is not RS, period, end of discussion. The quote from Cook is already referenced in another article, and Arafat made a statement. Lots of lies and accusations have been made by both sides in I-P disputes. Bringing up this clear lie is irrelevant and there only because it was posted by an unreliable source, Al Ahamir. Sorry Steinberger and Jeppiz, but honesty and my belief in honoring those who tell the truth and believe in justice, requires me to revert the revert. Obviously, you guys can have your fun, since I won't do three reverts, but hopefully somebody else will understand how ridiculous it is to include this, especially since the lies about this are promulgated elsewhere in the article, when they don't even deserve the light of day.Sposer (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize that your honesty makes it important for you to revert, since it is you who know the WP:TRUTH. And since the Truth is on your side, you can also decide that "Al Ahamr (sic) is not RS, period, end of discussion." It is also because you're a defender of the Truth that you can declare on my talk page that it is you who decide what is RS.

Seriously now, if you ever want to gain people over, try to sound less like a lone crusader of the one and only truth. Your only argument here is that Al Ahram, which you manage to spell in three different ways without ever getting it right, has published a bad op-ed about another topic and therefore we automatically have to disqualify it. By the same logic, we could never trust anything written in Jerusalem Post or New York Post, to mention just two newspapers that have published extremely biased op-eds.Jeppiz (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed in several places, most notably here where uninvolved editors agreed that it is a reliable source per WP:RS#News organizations (it is the largest newspaper in the entire Middle East). WP:NPOV is clear, represent all notable POVs, so to say we should censor this one because of WP:NPOV is silly. nableezy - 18:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I copied the spelling of the newspaper from the talk page after I realized that it didn't match. As for honesty, I am saying that there are lots of lies in war, and outside of conspiracy types and those with great bias, nobody considers this anything but blood libel. And, so this paper is supporting a new blood libel on the IDF. Separately, it is not three reverts. I made what I thought was a valid editorial change based on truth and justice this morning, and not based on prior back and forth. That to me is not a revert. I then reverted twice people reverting my valid edits. I read the RS and saw no final agreement, and none of them considered the evidence that this newspaper promotes the related blood libel lie as well. That makes it totally and completely unreliable for this story, even if the lies about harvesting turned out to be true. If that had been in the RS discussion, I am sure the cite would not stand. I have no problem with the myriad other cites of articles promoting the (wrongful IMO not that my opinion counts here) accusations regarding harvesting, just this one. As for the New York Post, I would not ever consider that RS. The Jerusalem Post though tends to provide all sides a fair shake -- not all the time -- but more often than not. Something this paper apparently doesn't. That said, since I get too emotional when people start in with this stuff, and given I am actually generally a dove on I-P issues, I am going to stand down and let others deal with this.Sposer (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A revert is anything that undos another editors edit. Removing those sources and what they say is a revert the first time. Regarding your last edit, it is both synthesis and uses a source only reliable for its own opinion and a link that does not go anywhere. nableezy - 19:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the source you are trying to use. It is synthesis to use it here as well as being a reprint from the Israeli MfA, a primary source only good for their own opinion. nableezy - 19:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Source on these articles: http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=1515&q=1 (yes, biased in favor of Israel, but reporting a lawsuit in France regarding the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is poisoning the well with synthesis. Not a single source relates that to this. Please read WP:SYNTH. nableezy - 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to self-revert, even though there is no synthesis, given that I am not writing anything but providing info. Somebody beat me to it. It is sad that a biased source that promotes the same blood libel that the Swedish article did is permitted. I have no problem with other sources that are reliable discussing this kind of thing, but using this source to discuss the situation would be like a Ku Klux Klan article suggesting that African Americans brought everything upon themselves for allowing themselves to be captured from Africa in the 1600s. That said, I am unwatching this page so it doesn't give me heartburn. Hopefully, despite all the lies and distortions and nasty biases, G-d will choose to inscribe you all in the Book of Life anyway. Happy New Year, Nableezy, Jeppiz, Steinberg and Liftarn.Sposer (talk)!

You just compared the biggest newspaper in the largest country in the Middle East to the KKK. Thanks for that. nableezy - 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Biggest newspaper" means zilch; Der Strumer and Pravda were both bigger. We don't incorporate the KKK's "reportings" on African Americans in African American, we don't incorporate Der Srumer's "reportings" about Jews in Jew, we don't incorporate Pravda's "reportings" about capitalism in capitalism, and we don't incorporate "Al ahmar "reportings" on Israel in Israel.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That is quite a racist comparison you are making. Thanks for letting your feelings known. nableezy - 04:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please respond on point. Please don't create strawmen. Please stay civil. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

None of this is on point. And let's see what reaction I would get comparing Arutz Sheva, the "news" agency of choice for some users here, much less real sources like the JPost or Haaretz to Der Sturmer or the KKK. nableezy - 04:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not on point again. But once were off point, Arutz Sheva cannot be used as a source when it claims to have interviewed some Israeli politician who told them that they are investigating allegations that some Arabs say..........hate the PA and Hamas, when these allegations are not covered in the mainstream press. When you decide to get back on topic, discuss things more maturely, and be a little less belligerent, please explain why readership alone should decided the reliabelity of a source, when history has proven conclusively that there's no connection between readership and reliability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"Mainstream" is dependent on how large an audience a source speaks to. Not on whether or not it is a "Western" source. But it isn't the readership that matters, it is the fact that this is a major news media source so meets the requirements of WP:RS, namely WP:RS#News organizations. nableezy - 05:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And we just had this discussion at the WP:RS/N, your position did not find any support. So I dont feel the need to rehash the same answered argument every time you feel like it. nableezy - 07:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)