Talk:Ahmed Jabari

message: I would say this source  is too biased to be used as an RS in this article. Definitely on the extreme side. Any objections to its removal? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the correct link -- The Times of Israel. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: and on preliminary inspection it does not look any worse than Al-Jazeera or Al Arabiya, that are both used throughout the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and the article does not appear to make any controversial claims. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Actually, I must confess that I did not thoroughly study the source, I mostly noticed the title of the article. They are certainly not on par with Al Jazeera English or Al Arabiya though. The Times of Israel sources calls him a "ruthless terrorist." Al Jazeera and Arabiya might have their biases but neither describe Jabari with degrading or praiseworthy adjectives or call him "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" or commander of the "resistance." They're articles simply state the facts and provide some attributable context with the use of minimal bias. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that term is not something we would like to see in a reliable source, but note that it is in the headline only, not in the main part of the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one that (reluctantly) added this source to substantiate Jabari's reported involvement in the Kfar Darom bus attack, which at a glance didn't seem to be too controversial of a claim. The headline is undoubtedly sensationalistic — but otherwise the article's content appears to be of relatively decent quality. I'm open to seeing it replaced if/when someone incorporates an article that chronicles Jabari's past in comparable detail.   — C M B J   07:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I used this source too to cite that it was Islamic Jihad and not Hamas who fired the Fajr-5 in Fajr-5, whoever it was changed without any referencing. I didn't find that claim any controversial either. So I don't know what's with this reluctance. Doesn't seem more biased than al-Jazeera or Haaretz to me. Fernando A. Gimenez (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Times of Israel]] 

message: Right now the article states: "It is widely believed[by whom?] that Jaabari played the leading role in Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip from the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in June 2007" I'd like to remove "it is widely believed" since this doesn't seem to be a point of dispute. The cited NYTimes article says: "Mr. Jabari led Hamas forces when they took control of Gaza in 2007, ousting the rival Palestinian faction Fatah..." and the cited AFP article on Al-Arabiya's website says: "He is also credited with playing a leading role in the Islamist movement's forcible takeover of Gaza in summer 2007, which saw its militants expelling Fatah forces after a week of bloody fighting." I don't see a need for us to make a wishy-washy statement for something that credible media sources treat as fact.GabrielF (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is widely believed is unnecessary "wishy-washy" editorializing. Ryan Vesey 19:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The media has its biases and is not the the same neutral (Even if it has editorial oversight) perspective that an encyclopaedia is. Agreeto remove "widely believed" but to add a caveat that he was accused/blamed (by isael id imagine)Lihaas (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "it is widely believed" 

message: Why is his son's death mentioned in the lead and not the death section?  In order to be mentioned in the lead it should be added to the body. Ryan Vesey 19:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we get extra verification that his son died with him? The Al Jazeera and BBC sources said his bodyguard, Mohammed al-Hams (or al-Hums) was killed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, we'll need need further verification before we add that. I read somewhere that in addition to his bodyguard, two other people were in the vehicle. Didn't say if one of them was his son though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of his son 

message: The source included in the article  specifically says Baskin "helped mediate between Israel and Hamas". Nishidani, who apparently thinks he knows what the RS meant and his opinion on that is stronger than what they actually said, changed it to the ridiculous "helped mediate via Hamas with Jabari". This is not what the source says. It's complete OR. I fixed it and then Lihaas changed it back.
Could someone kindly explain why we should use an interpretation by an editor over the exact 6 words the RS used? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No response here so I but back the wording the source actually uses. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  helped mediate with whom? 

message: A bit about an Egyptian draft truce proposal was put in the lead. This information comes from one interview with Gershon Baskin. It should not be stated as fact. Also, I don't think it belongs in the lead, so I removed it. Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Clearly not enough basis of reliability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we find more sources, I agree. Either way it shouldn't be in the lead. There's some other stuff that doesn't really belong in the lead either, mostly about his early life. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt draft truce proposal 

message: Could we get further verification for the statement that Jabari directed several attacks (including suicide bombings) against Israel resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilians? The info comes from the Telegraph but I haven't seen that information in other sources, including Israeli and Palestinian ones. There's no dispute he was the effective head of Hamas's armed wing, but that doesn't mean he necessarily directed the attacks himself. Either we get further verification or we attribute the info to the source i.e. "according to ...". --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another source . No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

text: If he was second in command of a militant organization we can probably safely assume he directed several attacks. What else exactly would a second in command of a militant organization do ? This is not a controversial claim whatsoever (as opposed to say he was reviewing peace proposals) and multiple sources are probably not necessary. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't make those assumptions. We need to rely on what reliable sources say. That being said, the additional source NMMNG provided should suffice for the claim. I'll restore the bit shortly. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telegraph claim 

message: I believe that the correct term for such elaborated actions performed by States resulting in the death of a person is "Execution". 
A "kill" is more like to a manslaughter, somthing akin to a side-effect.  This case was definetely not like that. Sperxios (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Execution implies physical control of the subject. The term commonly used in the American context is Targeted killing. Hcobb (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should use the word "execution" instead of "killing" 

message: Hi. What is the rationale of using the term "militant" instead of "freedom fighter"? I mean this is a hot issue. Shouldnt a more neutral term be used? Although i agree militant does not have too much of a negative connotation but isnt it still negative? would "fighter" be a better term instead of "militant"? Thanx for anyone's thoughts.Sohebbasharat (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Militant" is a neutral term, a compromise between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". “WarKosign” 04:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, i am not saying to write "freedom fighter", but merely "fighter". Like Palestinian "fighter". Although it might not be very conventional, i agree. "Militant" gives negative connotation. In fact, i think there is no need to write "was a Palestinian militant". It would be fairly clear even if just "was a member and second in command of Hamas" is written. People can deduce whatever they want from "member of Hamas", they can think "freedom fighter" if they like and they can think "terrorist" if they like. In fact, the the first paragraph of the lead is quite one sided, IMO, it is just mentioning particular aspects like for example, when it says "played a role in the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit", it can also be said something on the lines of "Jabari was also Israel's partner in the negotiations for the release of Gilad Shalit; it was he who ensured the captive soldier's welfare and safety, and it was he who saw to Shalit's return home last fall." as was mentioned in Haaretz.  Sohebbasharat (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "militant" or "freedom fighter" 

message: 69.159.70.54 (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020