Talk:Vittorio Arrigoni

Notability missing from lead

The reason for the existance of this page is not mentioned in the lead. Chesdovi (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Where should be put the notability note (lead?)? What is missing that is instead in a page like, say, Fabrizio Quattrocchi? Media coverage and references are not enough? What should be added exactly and where? I am not an expert, but now the page looks better than other "bio" pages. --Ittakezou0 (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:People murdered in the Palestinian territories

Why was this category removed here:[1] ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder that too. I suggest re-adding it.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't see a reason for its removal. Actually, it's a very appropriate category and I re-added it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

as a palestinian, i would like this page to emphasize how the people who murdered him were tiny tiny tiny tiny group of the palestinian people

the content could be misleading, and could cause people to interpret his murder as a Palestinian deed, the Palestinian authority plan to convict the murderers of treason, one of the murderers was not of Palestinian origin, and all true and sane Palestinians condemned the murder and would have risked their lives to save his life. i for one would have.

emphasize how its an insignificant group, al qaida linked, and not related to any significant palestinian faction. emphasize the fact that he was given a palestinian passport as a symbol that he was one of us.

thank you for the assistance, id do it myself, but im not that great at copywriting, and not too familiar with wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raid85 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We say no to revisionism here. Whatever was reported in the papers is what will be repeated here. -- Y not? 15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Y. I'm Palestinian too. Anyway, thanks to info detailed in the papers we already say it was a Salafist group (not sure if they're linked to al-Qaeda though, there not even a known salafist group) and we have provided all the reactions from the major and minor Palestinian groups, including the accusation of "treason." It is interesting that he had a Palestinian passport, I'll be sure to look into that and add it to the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

i appreciate and respect that you require sources for the facts, all i mentioned above i know from news paper articles, sorry i cant give the sources, since i didnt save them, my main point was regarding: "Cause of death Executed by hanging by a Palestinian militant group" is there not a way to clarify that this militant group is not the "usual resistance" that all the media has mentioned over the years. all militant groups unanimously condemned the act. say a random person opens this page and speed reads it, he would get the wrong idea before reaching the condemnation part at the bottom.

keep up the good work, wikipedia <3 :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raid85 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

regarding my comment above, i found the source (and photo) for Vittorio receiving the Palestinian passport. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/world/middleeast/16gaza.html Raid85 (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's still not added into article, if you had wished it to be added you should've done it yourself rather than expecting someone else doing that work for yourself. ChaChing! (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation of the sources

The referenced sources do not confirm informations from the following sentences:

"Arrigoni was kidnapped on April 15, 2011, by suspected members of a Salafist militant group operating in Gaza known as Tawhid and Jihad." - In the referenced source there is no mention of Tawhid and Jihad.

"For uncertain reasons, before the deadline expired, the captors executed Arrigoni by hanging in an empty house in the Mareh Amer area in northern Gaza." - In the referenced source there is no mention of captors executing Arrigoni.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the group's official name. The source uses a shortened version of their name which is many words long, there common name is Tawhid and Jihad so for the sake of simplicity let it be.

94.170.94.249 (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that "Suspicions of Israeli involvement" section is based on the statements of Hamas spokesman and Inge Höger. I think that Hamas is not neutral source and Inge Hoger is not credible source because she is nor witness or expert in this matter.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Political Views section

The section on political views describing Arrigoni as an anti-semite is highly problematic, if somewhat predictable. This is why I've added the POV template. The second through fourth paragraphs, although they seem to marshal many different sources to give their claims validity, all link to the same article from the Jerusalem Post. This publication itself is pretty far to the right, but even if it weren't, the JPost article itself is a travesty. It deploys misleading implications of causality (the ISM played "a major role" in the Mavi Marmara incident, as if they were to blame), ad hominem attacks and guilt by association (Arrigoni was friends with prominent critics of Israel, some Jewish, which is enough evidence for the JPost to editorialize them as "noted Israel-haters") quotations taken out of context, and misleading inferences (the ISM supports terrorism). I submit that this is not an adequate source for claims of this gravity, and basically amounts to slander. Furthermore, the sources quoted on this page from the JPost article - Fiamma Nirenstein, the Emergency Committee for Israel, NGO Monitor, and Steven Plaut - are all identifiably rightwing Zionists and/or groups that explicitly lobby for Israel, and their contribution to Wikipedia's picture of Arrigoni is more slanderous than useful. This is not because their political views invalidates whatever they might have to say, but because a few minutes' research shows that they're predisposed to reject any critical stance vis-a-vis the Israeli occupation, from pacifist to militant, as extremism, terrorism, and anti-Semitism. Quoting them in this way does not help the quality of this article. I would suggest adding more information: helpful, thorough information on Arrigoni's political views from neutral, and plural, sources, and contextualizing the claims of these three paragraphs - which at the moment dominate the section - by introducing them along the lines of "prominent Zionist criticism of Arrigoni's views includes...", or even "conservative criticism of Arrigoni's views includes...". For a reader, whatever their politics, who might not know much about the context, this would be the fairest way to contextualize the different views and criticisms. Please note that I'm not advocating a hagiography or calling to restrict criticism - it just needs to be clear for all readers that these views are coming from a particular, well-defined position. Sindinero (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sindinero. I don't think that the new added information should be in the "Political views" section. It's more the opinions about Arrigoni than the opinions of Arrigoni. I've researched other public figures in Wikipedia and I think I found the proper platform to put this information in - "A praise and criticism" section. In this kind of section we could also put all the information from more favorable sources. As for the "Political views" section I doubt if we will find "neutral sources" about Arrigoni's views, as Sindinero suggested. I suggest using primary sources such as the writings and various other publications by Arrigoni himself to fairly describe his political views. Three main sources come to mind, Arrigoni's Guerrilla Radio, his Facebook page and Youtube videos of him. Unfortunately, one should know Italian to use this sources. M. Scribe (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the most outstanding problem in the section in terms of WP:NPOV is the Guardian article, which is simply a eulogy of Arrigoni by a personal friend and which doesn't attempt to dispassionately assess his political views. The suggestion of prefacing the critical assessments of his views with "prominent Zionist criticism of Arrigoni's views includes..." is absurd, but I believe in a case like this the institutional affiliation of every commentator should be noted, which is why I did so. There is no dispute that Arrigoni was affiliated with designated terrorist organizations, so it should not be surprising that his political stances are seen critically by many. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The other commentators quoted are also incapable of dispassionately assessing anything whatsoever to do with the Israel-Paelstine conflict so I don't think there is a rational and dispassionate basis to regard the Guardian as the the most outstanding problem. Having said that, I agree that the institutional affiliation of every journalist/commentator/polemicist/propagandist should be noted. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a "praise and criticism" section would be a good solution. It's just misleading for the section on Arrigoni's political views to come largely from figures all pretty far to the right. Agree w/ M. Scribe that one good place to go for Arrigoni's own views would be his writings. I also think that, in a praise and criticism section, we should consider noting that the three paragraphs in question are all from the same JPost article (which, again, is a very conservative publication that tends to lump any anti-occupation work under the banner of terrorism, and is perhaps not the most nuanced source to be using here) until other sources can be provided. Readers can click the citations, to be sure, but many never do, and the impression one might get from these three paragraphs would be of a barrage of opinion from all quarters directed against Arrigoni, rather than the result of one problematic article that assembles a loose collection of criticism in a way that blurs the lines between editorial voice and the voice of its sources. Just a couple ideas. And to clarify, right, "neutral" was the wrong word - probably meant "balanced." Finally, could you elaborate, Jalapenos do exist, why identifying these commentators as "Zionists" is absurd? That seems like a pretty non-controversial statement from their own (sometimes fairly extreme) positions and self-identifications. (Check out Nirenstein's quotable quotes, for example.) But if people think that Zionists would be a controversial label, why not "conservative"? At least that would provide the reader with useful orientation, without passing judgment. Sindinero (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Jalapenos do exist, if you say something like "There is no dispute that Arriogoni was affiliated with designated terrorist organizations," this is exactly the kind of claim that needs substantiation. Are you saying there is no doubt that he was affiliated with organizations that have been designated 'terrorist' by motivated stakeholders who might not have the most neutral view of what constitutes 'terrorism', or that there is no doubt that these (yet unnamed) organizations are terrorist? I don't mean to impute bad intentions on your part, but this is the kind of formulation that is dangerously close to slander. Who has no dispute, who designates what organizations as terrorist? If this is a charge that amounts to something like, "Certain parties who condemn Arrigoni's work do so because he works with groups they don't like, and which they describe as 'terrorist organizations,'" then it becomes much clearer that this is a claim with POV problems. Incidentally, I don't think Arrigoni's wp article is a place where we should, can, or want to come to a final assessment of what counts as 'terror' - rather, in sections like "Political Views" and "praise and criticism" we should present the reader with exactly that, in the most balanced, well-sourced way. Sindinero (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is somebody (Plaut) who has been convicted of libel quoted on this page? There are many other positive quotes that could be included, such as anything from this piece by Ramzy Baroud, or any number of other articles. But instead of that we include Stephen Plaut (Plaut!!!!) as though his views deserve to be quoted anywhere besides a libel case. nableezy - 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact the someone was convicted of liber, doesn't automatically rule him of as a source. I've checked Plaut and he is provocative, but also a legitimate source. Besides, I don't think a "positive" source is better than a negative one. As Sindinero defined it - a balanced source is usually the best one. The example you gave is far from balanced - but again, that doesn't disqualify it. I didn't fully understand the policy of using online sources - but if it is considered a legitimate source I'll include it (or you can do it yourself, since I'm working on Arrigoni's own writings). M. Scribe (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Legitimate how? I dont think either source should be used, my point was that somebody could just as easily assemble a number of quotes that are the opposite of what largely fills the section now. That is not how it should be done. Plaut should not be quoted on anything in an "encyclopedia", he makes these outrageous and unsupported comments about anybody who dare criticizes the justness and righteousness of Zionism or its effects on the natives. But if such garbage is to be included I will assemble other comments made by those on the other side of the spectrum of Mr. Plaut or the other two fine, upstanding, authoritative, unbiased "sources" currently used. nableezy - 15:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It it legitimate in the way that when someone is quoted in a recognized newspaper - it can be quoted in Wikipedia. At least, this is how I understand the rules. For example, I've quoted Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar and German politician Inge Höger blaming Israel for the murder. This is of course a ridiculous claim since the perpetrators are salafist Palestinians - a fact claimed by Hamas itself. Nevertheless, I've used these mendacious quotes, or "garbage" to use your words, since they appear in recognized newspapers. Furthermore, I'm in the process of checking Arrigoni's Facebook page and Blog and I've found at least one of Plaut's statements to be true (Arrigoni's approval of the sign denying entrance for dogs and Israelis). M. Scribe (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're fact-checking, though, what is the procedure for qualifying quotations without it being OR? Plaut's other statement about blood libel is clearly ridiculous and, in a strict sense, nonsensical. Medieval blood libel claims didn't tend to feature 'Zionists', and Plaut is conflating an anti-Semitic claim (the Jews killed Jesus) with a very different discourse (Jesus would have a hard time of it if he were born in occupied Palestine today) in order to suggest - but not demonstrate - that Arrigoni was anti-Semitic. Any ideas on how we could tease apart Plaut's muddled slander without it being OR? Sindinero (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Arrigoni did not "approve" of the sign on facebook. He wrote the following comment in a comment on the photo of the sign: Sarò eccessivo, ma se i palestinesi non possono uscire, perchè agli israeliani deve essere concesso entrare???. Translation: I will be excessive, but if the Palestinians cannot get out [of Gaza], why should Israelis be allowed to enter [this shop in Jordan]???. nableezy - 13:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Then we should add this following Plaut's claim. Are you willing to do this, Nableezy? Sindinero (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That isnt the answer, the answer is removing such nonsense from the article. Not everybody who is quoted in a newspaper should be quoted in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 15:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." (taken from Wikipedia:Verifiability). M. Scribe (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability is a minimum requirement. It does not mean that anything that you can verify should be in an article. nableezy - 14:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (taken from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). M. Scribe (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Plaut does not present a "significant view", he only gives malicious and outright untruths about people who criticize Israel. Both quotes included in the article are outright falsehoods. It is not a "blood libel" to say that if Jesus were born today in the occupied territories he would have a difficult time, and it is plainly absurd for it to be called that. Arrigoni did not say he found the picture "delightful", and it is simply a malicious falsehood to say that he did, or that he "approved" it. An encyclopedia article is more than a collection of the most ridiculous things you can find in a newspaper. nableezy - 14:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we read again: «editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views». That's the point I guess. There are a lot of "supposed notable" opinions on Arrigoni around the world, but if we want to be «fair» and «proportionate» we have to give a honest relief to them. Most of all we have to present "facts" about the life (and death) and not "opinions" about the life. Currently the article is pretty nNPOV, in his structure first of all: there are a lot of opinions and just a few fact. Arrigoni wasnt "agaisnt Israel", he was simply against violence and war: actually he was kwnon and he described himself as an utopist. Arrigoni was against Hamas too when Hamas use violence (there are a lot of references and proof about that, first of all his autobiography and his blog). Before Gaza, he worked in Eastern Europe, Africa (and so on) as a pacifist, therefore minimizing his political view in «Arrigoni was an adamant supporter of the Palestinian cause. Arrigoni was also an outspoken critic of Israel» is simply a partial and unfair description. Second: put some partial, personal and unnotable point of view about his life is again not neutral. --Lucas (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

For eg check this interview too, he says: "Personally, as a human rights activst, I don't like Hamas at all. I have something to say to them too: they have deeply limited the human rights since they have won the elections. But I am nobody and I dont have the right to impose my point of view and my lifestyle to the civilians of Gaza. They have chosen Hamas". --Lucas (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I think the article gives as many fact as one can find online (if you can find more factual sources - write them in the article). As you can see I've updated the murder method three times already, as scraps of facts are being revealed in the newspapers (most of them just copy the facts from one another). "Opinions" are also part of the game. Arrigoni was an involved member in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. As such, his life and death attracts the typical crossfire between supporters of both sides. When it's a "significant view", printed in a "recognizable newspaper" - it should be in the article. Check every other politically involved figure and you'll find the same structure. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the factual aspect of the article is far from satisfactory. I've read the English portion of Arrigoni's Facebook page, but unfortunately I don't know Italian so I couldn't understand the Italian portion of it, nor his website. I thought about putting it all in Google Translate, but I'm not sure if an automathical translation will accurately reflect the nuances of Arrigoni's writing. It seems that you know Italian, so why not using it to enrich the article yourself. If you choose not to use this knowledge in expanding the article - give me more quotes and other data from the Italian sources, in my talk page or in this arena, and I promise you I'll add it to the article. M. Scribe (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I used part of the quote you've mentioned, because the last part of it differed significantly enough from the Google Translation solution (your translation is probably better, but I can't really know for sure). Furthermore, I'm not sure if the Peacereporter is as an acceptable source for Wikipedia, but since they interviewed Arrigoni, I've used it in this case as a primary source. M. Scribe (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to address the second of Plaut's accusations, that a photo that Arrigoni included – and thought was just delightful – is a sign in a store that announces that dogs and Israelis may not enter. The actual facebook page is here. The page consists of one comment by Arrigoni and the reproduction of this story from Adnkronos. Arrigoni's comment is Sarò eccessivo, ma se i palestinesi non possono uscire, perchè agli israeliani deve essere concesso entrare???. Translation: I will be excessive, but if the Palestinians cannot get out, why should Israelis be allowed to enter??? The actual news story is about the picture. The picture shows a notice, in English, that has the words Sorry. We do not receive dogs and Israelies (sic). Next to the words are two pictures. I'll quote the news report's description:

Nel volantino, fotocopiato in bianco e nero, appare anche la foto di una donna palestinese che viene attaccata al braccio da un cane al fianco di un soldato israeliano.
Una seconda foto, invece, mostra un militare dello Stato ebraico che aggredisce una donna palestinese.

Translation:

In the flyer, photocopied in white and black, there is also the photo of a Palestinian woman. A dog, accompanied by an Israeli soldier, is attacking her arm.
A second photo, instead, shows a member of the IDF assaulting a Palestinian woman.

The story goes on to say that these flyers began to be printed around the time of Israel's "Cast Lead" operation in Gaza (Gaza War). Now, from the reproduction of this news story and the single comment that if the Palestinians cannot get out, why should Israelis be allowed to enter? we include an accusation that this person found this flyer "just delightful"? How exactly is it that a Wikipedia article includes such an inflammatory claim that is both malicious and patently false? Yes, a newspaper quoted somebody saying this. So what? How does that it make such a view "significant"? nableezy - 00:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/ Nableezy's removal of Plaut's 'delightful' claim on the grounds given. Sindinero (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

@ 174.143.205.51 - Since you deleted it on your talk page, I'm posting my comment here since it's germane to this discussion and concerns your evident counterproductive attempt to continually revise this article in questionable ways without giving adequate reasons:

Hi, I noticed you reverted a change to the article on Vittorio Arrigoni twice without giving reasons on the talk page. It might be helpful for you to consult the substantial discussion of this issue that's already taking place on that page, and justify your reasons there in more detail. Unless you give plausible grounds for your reverts, you might give other editors the impression you're making changes that are nNPOV. You state that the claim in question 'points to worldview' but this has been found problematic (whose worldview?) by a number of editors, since Plaut's claim is easily disprovable by reference to the original source he cites. Why don't you explain your reasoning in a little more detail on the talk page so that we can come to a solution that's acceptable to all the editors working on this article? Sindinero (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Image

I've replaced the free-use caricature with a fair-use image, as I think that this person's appearance is certainly encyclopedic, an image represents the appearance better than a caricature, and since he is deceased, a fair use claim is acceptable. As the caricature is free use, it can be added anywhere in the article if desired, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible vandalism by 174.143.205.51

A user with the IP of 174.143.205.51 has been mechanically reverting a deletion that had been discussed in good detail on the talk page. Can this be considered vandalism? The user so far has failed to give detailed grounds for the reversion or to engage with other editors on the talk page - I posted a comment on 174.143.205.51's user talk page about this, but it was promptly deleted. This is not a registered user but just an IP address, and a look at the history shows that it's a fairly recent account dedicated almost exclusively to vandalizing this page. I also notice that my comment on the article talk page has just been deleted. We could a) simply mechanically revert this change, but with a broader consensus, b) include a citation of the facebook page in question in Plaut's disputed claim, or c) seek some sort of arbitration and/or page protection. What, assuming this comment isn't deleted straightaway, do people think?

Sindinero (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Praise and Criticism section

Re: Savasorda's recent edit: The three figures cited by the JPost article are all identifiably conservatives, and identifiably Zionist. I don't think it's nNPOV to contextualize them as such, since a quick look at the various wikilinks verifies this. But rather than revert, I'd like to see if we could build some sort of consenseus - should these figures be politically contextualized as conservative or in some other way? My fear is that the uninformed reader will get the impression that these are just three public figures who happen to view Arrigoni as an antisemite, rather than three highly problematic figures who seem to view any criticism of the occupation as antisemitic. It seems pretty descriptive to call them 'conservative.' If reliable sources can be found for this label, is this something we can include? Sindinero (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also, since this is probably the appropriate thread to use, I would suggest we expand the "praise" part a little more. He was certainly praised more than he was condemned, but currently the section looks unbalanced in the favor of criticism. Of course, that might be a little assumptive on my part. Any views available by human rights groups? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have just removed all the references to this after I saw another editors replacing "conservative figures" by "people". Please, feel free to go back and to modify this point the way you think the more appropriated without taking our action into account. Noisetier (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded that section to characterize the figures as conservative, for the reasons discussed and agreed upon on this talk page. I still think that the section gives undue weight to (identifiably slanderous) criticisms from conservative, Zionist figures. What are others' thoughts? Does wikipedia policy have guidelines for distinguishing criticism from slander? Sindinero (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

International work before Gaza

Please give a look to the italian version of this article: there are a lot of relevant information about the international work of Arrigoni as a human right activist around the world. --Lucas (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Role of Israel

I've removed some text from this section, copied below:

Mahmoud al-Zahar, a member of the Hamas leadership, indirectly accused Israel of engineering the killing of Arrigoni in an attempt to scare off international activists from coming to Gaza.

Why? Because the source no longer exists. If someone would like to put this section back up, please find a source.

Hamas identified the perpetrators with a Palestinian group affiliated with al-Qaeda, but Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said he suspected Israel might be responsible since the death appeared to be timed to deter foreign activists from joining a flotilla due to sail to Gaza in May to break Israel's naval blockade of the area.

Why? Because the source cited makes no reference to Barhoum. If someone would like to put this section back up, please find a source.

208.118.163.99 (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The LA Times piece is still available via Google cache here. I fixed the link. The Independent source says "Mr Barhoum condemned the killing as "shameful" and said he suspected Israel might be responsible since the death appeared to be timed to deter foreign activists from joining a flotilla due to sail to Gaza in May to break Israel's naval blockade of the area." I have restored the material...although it could probably be summarized a bit more if anyone wants to try. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)