Talk:2000 Ramallah lynching

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


'Coy' editing[edit]

2000 Ramallah lynching‎; Let's not be coy. This was displayed to the crowd through the window. The window frame was after the corpse was hurled through the window.

Icewhiz. You removed +972 magazine recently as not RS. Now you add 4 sources that have even less credibility to uphold an edit that is, even in its own terms, contradictory. Your edit has the two soldiers being disemboweled and having their eyes gouged out inside the Ramallah police station, and yet at least one of your poor sources says this occurred outside the policestation, etc.

When something produced as a fact cannot be found in the vast mainstream reportage on an incident, you require exceptionally good sources to document it. So far no one can find the NYT, Haaretz,Jerrusalem Posdt, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal etc.etc.etc etc., mentioning this detail. The following therefore are unacceptable for asserting a contested or controversial 'fact'.

This concerns a completely different incident in 2016 from the Ramallah lynching (2000) which is only alluded to later in the article with standard ‘cite wikipedia’ reference that runs: 'The crowd stormed the building, then beat, stabbed, disemboweled and gouged the eyes out of the two men.'
Again this reports on a trial of one of those who was convicted of beating one of the two soldiers. It reports a decision made in 2010 and reproduces the usual ‘cite wikipedia’ meme : ‘The soldiers were beaten, stabbed, had their eyes gouged out, and were disemboweled,’ (utterly unreliable for facts)
The link doesn’t show what source is being reported, and is not verifiable as thus linked.
Totally unreliable source, with details nowhere I can see in the mainstream press. Your own (useless) source contradicts the timeline you insist on in your edit, since for Coopersmith the crowd outside disemboweled them, not the mob inside.

'One of the attackers returned to the window to proudly show the jubilant crowd his blood-soaked hands. Moments later, the body of one of the soldiers came flying out of the window, smashing into the ground below, where the mad crowd danced, beat it some more and celebrated before parading the corpse through the streets. Palestinian police handed over the other soldier, badly mutilated, to a nearby Jewish settlement just before he died.' Lisa Beyer, 'Breaking Point,' CNN October 16, 2000

My grounds for removing that passage until strong RS can be found to support it remain. The sources above are way below the minimal RS bar for facts, esp. contested 'facts' and you ought to know that by now. To pretend otherwise is to edit 'coyly'. Nishidani (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Algemeiner has an editorial board and is a RS. Multiple outlets report mutilation - e.g. - [[1]], CNN you just cited. Most do not go into the gruesome details of what mutilation specifically occurred. Events inside the police station are mainly known from confessions or other testimonials of the people who remained alive and that were inside.Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not insist on the timeline itself - given the inconsistencies on timing of exact elements between sources. The state of the corpses themselves is known. We could expound on the specifics of mutilation (disembowelment and eye gouging) without specifying an exact timeline which isn't all that important either way (though possibly can be sourced).Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you did is revert back an assertion with spurious sources, without looking at them. I.e. you cite a source which says one Israeli soldier was disemboweled by the crowd outside, to support a text which states they were both disemboweled inside the police station. That is why you have to be reverted, because if you fail to understand the (a) contradiction in your sources (b) the conflict over the timeline per sources (c) the contradiction in sources between stating both were disemboweled and only one was disemboweled, or (per silence of sources) perhaps neither were disemboweled (as distinct from suffering numerous savage stabbings. There's a difference: a Japanese friend of mine disemboweled himself ritually, and the coroner's report makes the diff clear).
In short, you are not paying attention to the numerous problems here. Then timeline is fundamental, the distinction between the respective ends of both soldiers made in sources, and finally, all of those sources aren't worth a nob of goat shit. They are uncannily repetitive of what some wiki editor, without a source at hand, wrote.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arrests of lynching suspects[edit]

"Mohamed Abu Ida, a former member of the Palestinian police force in Ramallah, was arrested by Shin Bet in 2005. During the investigation, he admitted to having had led the two Israeli soldiers to the Ramallah police station after which he joined the other rioters."
" … he admitted to having had led … " is poor: either " … he admitted he had led … " or " … he admitted having led … "
I can't edit it. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Prisoner of Zenda:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Aqsa Intifada[edit]

Please change the reference in the first line to the neutral "Second Intifada", instead of the terror-promoting "Al-Aqsa Intifada". The way it is currently presented disrespects the lives of the victims in the terror attacks that made up the Second Intifada. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.136.155 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2022[edit]

This wasn’t an incident, but an attack. Moreover, the writer of this page seems to have an opinion and not just telling facts about the attack but trying to justify the attack. instead of explaining the Ramallah lynching it tells what happened before, which is not the subject. Happy to see it fixed thank you. 2001:4DF4:8BA0:2:A56F:4616:593B:588A (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link[edit]

References 19, 20, 23, 24 are broken links. Reference 19 have a right archived version this. References 20 and 23 have an archived version this and this. Reference 24 is a Google Translate link, but the correct archived version is this. I can't make edits due to the page's protection. --Vgg5465 (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 done: Thanks! मल्ल (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artists4Ceasefire[edit]

See Artists4Ceasefire PIN DESIGN AND SYMBOLISM - "Artists4Ceasefire enamel pin is composed of a red background to symbolize the urgency of the call to save lives. The orange hand conveys the beautiful community of people from all backgrounds that have come together in support of centering our shared humanity. The heart being cradled in the center of the hand is an invitation for us to lead with our hearts, always, to lead with love. When we lead with love, we understand that all of our fellow beings deserve to be loved and protected." This is inconsistent with this content written using Wikipedia's editorial voice, no less. That is a very obvious problem that any competent editor should be able to understand and avoid. And let me take this opportunity again to remind people that there is a Universal Code of Conduct. Section 3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, prohibits "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". In other words, willfully biased editing is not allowed. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]