Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 14

Shahaf has "eccentric obsession" says Gideon Levy of Haaretz

It would seem that Shahaf's credibility is poor, because this is the second "Israel is innocent" theory that he's been pushing. And the first theory is incompatible with this one since, back then in 2002, the boy was killed right in front of the camera (by Palestinians who couldn't have missed).

Furthermore, some considerable portion (likely most?) of Israeli society has no respect for Shahaf, as Haaretz says: "In an eccentric obsession, Shahaf has devoted the past years to this affair, after previously having also obtained "amazing material" on the murder of Yitzhak Rabin." Our article is damaged by weasel words giving a quite different impression: "leaving his other work to concentrate full-time".

On top of these and other weasel words in the article, we can see a great deal of original research on these TalkPages - "It was the facts of the case as they leaked out that convinced people" - nobody except the usual suspects is convinced. We're seeing "It was the fact that there was no autopsy, no bullets recovered" when Gaza was being raked by 300,000 bullets in those first few days of the Al-Aqsa intifada (that's what Maariv apparently says) and the Israelis bull-dozed the wall where al-Durrah was almost certainly killed.

Finally, we've now got firm evidence of disruptive behavior, a report written in 2005 made to appear (and defended) as if it's talking about the 2000 investigation. Behavior like this has to stop, otherwise we're looking at yet another article that makes the whole project look ridiculous. The fuss being made here is a disruptive waste of the time of good-faith editors in order to push a dubious piece of denial.

I abandoned trying to improve this article at the end of last year when edit-warriors insisted on re-inserting a hate-blog called "pajamas media" which hosts comments from raving Islamophobes with such claims as "Silly Allah :I'm not surprised given the Islamic culture of dishonesty:" We don't tolerate antisemitic sources, it's ludicrous we use Islamophobic sources. The entire project is being dragged through the dirt by the kind of reckless editing we're seeing here. PRtalk 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point to this? The fact that Shahaf's investigation was controversial and was treated with skepticism in Israel is already mentioned in the article, as are the allegations with regards to his role in alternate theories in the Rabin assassination. Is there a change you'd like to suggest to the current article contents? If so, why don't you actually make a suggestion? If not, kindly refrain from using this Talk page as yet another one of your endless soapboxes. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
OK Palestine Remembered -- I get your point. Let me just add that Gideon Levy is not "Ha'aretz" -- he is Gideon Levy and he is entitled to his opinions. He may well represent a portion and even a considerable portion of Israeli public opinion but you really don't know, nor do I. However, if your read a little about the man you will see that he seems to have some fair ability and aside from his opinions on other matters (and even this one) he seems to be quite apt at a number of things and to paint him as an unqualified looney is not really fair. --I am willing to be convinced of your ideas if you have some accurate and valid sources (not "that's what Maariv apparently says") to put forward. In regard to the 2000 investigation re the 2005 summary: I think it is clear that the even though the article may have been written in 2005, it was a summary of the 2000 investigation. They were the same points that were used to describe their methodology in other articles. I will try to find evidence of that, if you want. I am sorry that you ran into "Islamophobic" edit warriors at this article, and that you quit the article on those grounds. But think what you like, I am not one. I just believe the article should tell the (unfolding)story in the most neutral and balanced way possible. I recognize that it is difficult because there are a lot of feelings and beliefs on both sides of the aisle. But if we stay intellectually honest and remain civil to one another we can go a long 'way. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If we read even "a little" about Nahum Shahaf on the link you have provided, we shall of course discover that you wrote most of the Wikipedia article you are proudly pointing people to as if it were some sort of bold and unbiased narrative. Hence why I complained about what was going on there. Intellectual honesty indeed. --Nickhh (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to hide the fact that I started and wrote most of it. However, I did not make any of the material up. The fact is that you can't disprove what I have written and can't support the POV contention that he is "unqualified" or pathologically looney, as ChrisO has tried to suggest in his edits. Since you cannot, you attack me as intellectually dishonest. Tundrabuggy (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Well you are directing people to the page, without mentioning it. A lot of readers will not go to the history page and make the connection. Nor have I suggested you have simply made content on the page up - you have however undoubtedly selectively chosen material, a lot of which is sourced to his own claims in interviews and/or to fringe organisations, to write a seemingly neutral article which paints him as some sort of uncontroversial expert and polymath who just happened to apply his expertise to the al-Durrah issue. This is what people will link to, whether you direct them there or not, and I am sure you were not unaware of that when you started the page. Furthermore, his reported lack of qualifications is not, as you have repeatedly been reminded, a POV issue. It is what has been reported in a source that clearly meets WP:RS and which has not been specifically contradicted by any alternative RS, nor even by Shahaf himself (despite his broader claims about his own general expertise). Oh, and you raised the "intellectual honesty" issue, so don't lay that one on me. --Nickhh (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"I think it is clear". Precisely. You think it is clear. That's the definition of original research - presenting your own personal interpretation as fact. We simply don't do that. The abstract makes no claims to be the results of the 2000 investigation; it's altogether silent on that point. It might be, but based on what it says, we can't say that it is. All we can say definitively is that it's a presentation Shahaf gave in 2005, and leave it at that. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I still believe it is clear. The results and conclusions in the article correspond to the results and conclusions of the original report, even if the article was written in 2005. It is also directly about this event, so it is certainly relevant enough. Nor did I pretend that the article was written in 2000. Nevertheless, your point on original research could easily have been dealt with without striking the material completely. I can think of any number of ways that you could have rewritten it to address your immediate issues, and then brought up your concerns on this talk page. Particularly since the article was under 0RR. You could even have changed it and moved it as you finally did, and then deleted the original material. Isn't that what you would have expected of others? Tundrabuggy (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Not commenting on actual content, but Gideon Levy is not exactly a neutral reporter on I-P issues and certainly not a quality neutral source for making judgments on people within the conflict. If anyone wants to use his op-eds, they are usually accurate and reliable in explaining and describing Palestinian perspectives of events.[1],[2] With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC) clarify with ex. refs 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Zionist racist propaganda intoxications"

I have reverted the alteration that removed a citation and put in "Zionist racist propaganda intoxications", which is quite inappropriate language for an article. I've encouraged the user to try again. After doing the revert, I thought that it is borderline "vandalism". My apologies if anyone thinks it doesnt meet the criteria for a revert, and I wont contest a page ban. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Old sandbox page

A sandbox page was created in early June, Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Sandbox, to allow work on a draft copy of the article. However, it appears that no one is interested in using it, and it is extremely out-of-date at this point. Shall I go ahead and delete it, or would anyone still like to make use of it? --Elonka 19:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK by me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Are the rules for editing this article still in place? I have been editing it quite a bit, mostly shifting things around to get a less scattered article, changing a word or two to bring it into more NPOV (according to my own understanding, of course) but trying to adhere to the rules. However, I would like to delete two sections Muhammad_al-Durrah#Injuries_and_treatment & Muhammad_al-Durrah#Other_footage_shot_at_Netzarim_junction. Some of the material from there I merged elsewhere but most of it doesn't really add much, esp the other footage section. We are not trying to re-try the case here, so this 'other footage' isn't really particularly relevant. The injuries and treatment part could be merged with other things or entirely deleted. There is so much stuff here that I think getting rid of some will help to clarify the real issues. Can I go ahead and do that or will it be considered "getting rid of sourced material" ? Thanks for any clarification. And would appreciate some of the other editors weighing in. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with any such deletions, and I would consider them to be POV deletions given that the content of those sections provides context that goes against the conspiracy theories. We're supposed to present a neutral overview here, not suppress material that is inconvenient for one POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well perhaps you could be more specific. I didn't think we were trying the case here, ie presenting material we consider important...rather putting up material that was put up by others, in journals, in court, on TV etc with the weight actually given to the material. I am not trying to suppress anything, but I would like to see especially good sources for contentious or inciting material. As for suppressing material that is inconvenient for one POV, I am against that as well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Now what do you mean by "contentious or inciting material"? I hope you realize that the sourcing requirement is universally applicable - especially where conspiracy theories are involved. Don't forget that I'm still working on rewriting the last third of this article - it would be done by now but for Elonka - so there will be more material to come, to improve the presentation of both POVs and give proper weight to the non-conspiracy viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Chris, perhaps you would like to create a draft version of the article in your userspace? You are also welcome to edit the sandbox version at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Sandbox. No one else seems to be using it, so you could update it to the current version of the live article, and then continue editing from there. In fact, Tundrabuggy (or any other editor) would then be welcome to review your changes and incorporate them into the live article if they agreed with them, and the changes complied with the #Conditions for editing. --Elonka 15:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The conditions are still in place, yes, though if the article has stabilized, meaning that the edit wars have stopped, there are no glaring policy violations, and the primary editors who are actually working on the article feel that the conditions are no longer needed, we can definitely shut down the conditions, as they will have served their purpose.
As for deleting sections with sources, talkpage consensus is key. If other editors agree (or if no one objects in a reasonable amount of time), then yes, it's okay to be bold and delete things. I'd give it at least a couple days to let other people weigh in though, and even then proceed slowly. If at all possible, it's usually best to keep the citations, and just find a better place to put them. --Elonka 03:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Well, as you can see, the article is far from stabilized as of yet. I will honor the rules then. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your work, we now have some reference to the fact that 100s of other Palestinian children definitely have died at the hands of the IDF. However, we're still only only linking that concern to Enderlin (defending his position and job) and to Osama bin Laden - which smacks of well-poisoning. We have nothing to indicate that this concern is likely a significant strand of Israel opinion, which claims there should be a "tempest" focussed on the issue "[w]hy is the IDF continuing to kill children at such a frightening pace" and asking about compensation for them. The same article says "As far as we can remember, there has been no other case in which Palestinians fired at the IDF and hit a Palestinian child." We've manage to produce an article that doesn't even represent mainstream Israeli opinion properly.
Nor is there any discussion on the significant effect the apparent death of Al-Durrah had on other events, particularly the lynching of two soldiers in Ramallah and the beheading of Daniel Pearl. (I abandoned trying to produce a more rounded article a long time ago, I couldn't see the article ever meeting any acceptable standard. My last edit was the end of last year, trying to stop the use of "PajamasMedia", a likely hate-site).
We have a huge amount on two "controversies" - but nothing to indicate (as I'm sure has been noticed in the RS), that Shahaf is behind both theories - and they're contradictory. If the kid was shot at by a Palestinian gunman next to the cameraman (as Shahaf at first thought he'd "proved"), then he's dead, and Enderlin was perfectly correct to say so, whether the film shows it or not. (Shahaf, like Karetsky, is said to be an "obsessive" - and by an Israeli newspaper - we've not mentioned that either).
Perhaps the best idea would be to have this article overseen by an administrator who actually knows something about this particular story and can make sure that all the significant parts are included. Alternatively, perhaps you'd care to find an editor in good standing to "write for the enemy" and put each of these missing aspects into the article.
There are probably other significant elements I've missed, it seems to me that the work is far from over. PRtalk 16:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
PS - Karsenty tells us himself that there is a petition, launched by Le Nouvel Observateur and signed by prominent signatories including Hubert Vardin, former French Foreign Minister, and Theo Klein, former president of CRIF, the major French Jewish organization claiming which not only protests the Karsenty campaign ("For seven years a despicable campaign of hate has been trying to stain the professional honour of Charles Enderlin") but backs the claim that Israelis shot the boy dead. PRtalk 20:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, PR, my thought was that there seems to be enough material with just this one boy to make a very large article. I would guess that if you wanted to start an article about all the Palestinian children that were killed by Israelis, I imagine you could do it, though it might be (more than) a mite contentious. I also agree that there should be more about Pearl and the lynchings, and probably less in the media war section, most of which seems like a waste of time to me. Even if it were true that Shahaf is "behind it all," that doesn't explain how Karsenty convinced an independent 20-year ballistics "expert" of it. It has since taken on a life of its own. Even obsessive people can be right sometimes. Charles Darwin, Beethoven, Michelangelo are all said to have been obsessive [3] - it doesn't tell us anything about well, about anything. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we can safely assume the people who describe Shahaf (and perhaps Karsenty - whose one, French, blog seems wafer-thin) as "obsessives" don't have a high opinion of either their results or their methods. Your mileage may vary - when these people reach WP:NOTABILITY please tell me.

PRtalk 20:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Shahaf is not described by media-ratings unless I'm missing something. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Media -Ratings is Karsenty's site. You may not like his site but it was Karsenty who was sued by France 2, so they helped give K some notability. Surprisingly, France 2 lost round 2, making the little guy the real winner. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, PR. Though actually, it would not be a good idea for an administrator to make those kinds of decisions, because administrators are supposed to stay uninvolved from those kinds of content issues. We are here to ensure a civil editing environment, and that policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are upheld, but the actual editing of the article is up to other people. In short, PalestineRemembered, if you think that more information needs to go into the article, you are free to add it, as far as I am concerned. Or are you under conditions to not work on these articles? I checked the ArbCom case and other sanctions pages and didn't see anything, but if I missed something, please let me know. --Elonka 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to plunge into some edit-warring battle trying to turn this into a good article - there are far too many editors insisting that this story be written as a two-dimensional propaganda exercise, a painting on a flat canvas. I look to administrators to either guide editors towards the parameters of a good article, or alternatively to stamp on illiterates and the obtuse who seem unable to understand and work to policy. If it's all too difficult and complicated, then I'll stand back and simply state that there's a lot more work to be done, along with a (necessarily incomplete) synopsis of what I think is missing.
As I see it, the important policies that have been breached (not to say trampled and trashed) are WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The entire Enderlin thing is not and never will be settled (unless he's sacked, as high-powered political opponents he never knew he had are trying to do) and even that's not especially important to the story of Al-Durrah.
If you want my opinion, the article needs a run-up (eg the Al-Aqsa intifada and both versions of how it started), followed by the incident more-or-less how it was reported at the time, followed by the consequences (eg the lynching in Ramallah and beheading of Daniel Pearl).
Lastly some breaking news And a separate article on the long partisan wrangle over whether Al-Durrah was really killed by the IDF (or perhaps even killed atall) and the consequences for Enderlin (which we're not ready to write yet). A "Breaking News" effort on the law-suit, bitterly fought by freshly arrived editors seeking to sack Enderlin will prove to be a play-pen for attack-dogs and budding propagandists for one party or the other. It's simply guaranteed to waste your time and everyone elses. I'm sorry, I'll do you proud in this article and dozens of others, but I can't work under these conditions, and nor can editors much better than me. PRtalk 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Conditions for editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These restrictions expired on October 1, 2008

I have requested that page protection be lifted for now, and I encourage people to resume editing. However, in my authority as an uninvolved administrator, I am placing some restrictions:

  • No reverts, except for obvious vandalism.
  • Keep comments and edit summaries very neutral and civil.
  • Ensure that any new material that is added, has a reliable source
  • If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't revert it, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.
  • If you see something added with a source, that you do not think is a reliable source, add a {{verify credibility}} tag next to it.
  • If you see a sentence that you don't think properly reflects what is in a source, change it so that it does. Or, add a {{verify source}} tag to it
  • If you see something that's added that is unsourced, but it's plausible, don't just remove it. Instead, add a {{fact}} tag to it. Then, if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be removed.
  • Do not remove reliable sources
  • If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot. Please use a clear edit summary such as "removing unsourced information, see talkpage"). If there is a source though, then use one of the other above steps instead.
  • Don't worry about sections, or the article, getting too long (for now). First I'd like to give everyone a chance to add the information that they think needs to be added, and then we can take a look later at putting things in the proper proportion, per WP:UNDUE

Bottom line: Stay civil. Don't revert other editors. If you disagree with an addition, don't delete it, change it.

Good luck, Elonka 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes

This section is for the use of uninvolved administrators in managing the dispute on this page.

Uninvolved admins

Editors under ArbCom restrictions

The following active editors on this page have been notified of restrictions, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Inactive:

Other frequent editors on this page

Note: Being listed here does not imply that these editors were disruptive. It is simply for reference, a list of those editors who have recently been actively engaged with this article.

Inactive:


Admin log

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

Anyone, admin or editor, who has questions or comments on any of the above, may post here.

ChrisO has filed a Request for Comment concerning my administrative conduct, as regards my judgment in imposing editing conditions and managing articles in a state of dispute, especially this one. Anyone who wishes to offer an opinion, is welcome to do so: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. --Elonka 18:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this publication by the now infamous Nahum Shahaf and figured some of the people on this page might be interested in tracking this information down.

Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 20:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(personal comment:) I see this report as supporting the Three Bullets and a Dead Child documentary more than anything else. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

fascinating for sure. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it's junk. Three obvious points: WTF is "MiddleEast.org" and why is it considered remotely credible? (The domain doesn't resolve and the kooky tag line and bad spelling don't inspire confidence.) Second, this is something we already know - it was reported at the time that al-Durrah was still alive when he was loaded into the ambulance (see under Muhammad al-Durrah#Injuries and treatment). Third, the spin put on it by Shahaf ("not a word about a dead boy, only injered" [sic]) is quite dishonest: the report doesn't say anywhere that al-Durrah didn't subsequently die from his critical injuries. In fact, some of the very first press reports from the scene - by agencies other than France 2, I might add - said the same thing, that he was critically injured; it was only a bit later than the information was released that al-Durrah had died by the time he reached the hospital. This is just Shahaf cherry-picking and misrepresenting an early report to support his conspiracy theory, -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Question: First off, I tend to agree with ChrisO here; but I am interested if Talal had made any statement regarding his shouting "the boy is dead" when the boy was not dead. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Not that I know of - perhaps that was just his impression of the situation at that moment? As far as we know, he didn't have any interaction with the boy immediately after the shooting, so he would presumably not have known that al-Durrah was still (barely) alive. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the above was ChrisO(?) My comment is: It was not as if he was the only one. You can hear some kind of chanting altogether of "the boy is dead" almost as if someone had given a signal to start it. And wasn't the chanting in English, come to think of it? Does that make sense under the circumstances? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Where do you get that information from, particularly the bit about "in English"? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Question 2: I just noticed that the driver who was shot dead is giving a statement. How is this possible? could there have been an error? JaakobouChalk Talk 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I know, it's confusing isn't it? The man shot dead was first named by Reuters as Bassam al-Bilbeisi in a report of 30 September 2000 (incidentally, this was one of the very first reports of the shooting, before France 2 reported). He was the driver of the first ambulance to reach the al-Durrahs. A volunteer aboard the second ambulance, named Bassam al-Bilbays, was interviewed by Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian on 3 October 2000. The names are strikingly similar. I don't think we can draw any firm conclusions from it; perhaps Goldenberg got the name wrong, using the name of the dead ambulance driver for the live volunteer. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought too, that perhaps Goldenberg got the name wrong. But if so, doesn't it make one wonder what else she got wrong? And who tells us who died and who didn't? I notice that the article uses the Daily Mirror to make the claim that the boy was dead upon arrival at the hospital. Yet the Daily Mirror is known as a tabloid. Should we be using their information for such claims in such a disputed article? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Who knows what she got wrong (or right, for that matter)? We're hardly in a position to fact-check every statement made by the media. All we can do is present what's being said. As for the Daily Mirror, the format of the newspaper isn't a determining factor. (Even The Times is now a tabloid.) WP:V#Reliable sources sets out four criteria: (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published sources with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Mirror meets all four criteria; it has a generally good reputation, certainly more so than some other British tabloids. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think TB is reffering to the format of the Daily Mirror, but rather to "tabloid" as in "a newspaper that tends to emphasize sensational crime stories, gossip columns repeating scandalous innuendos about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and other so-called "junk food news"". I don't know much about the DM, but tabloids (in the meaning above, regardless of the format), are generally not very reliable. Perhaps this needs to be discussed at WP:RSNCanadian Monkey (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest Bassam al-Bilbays to be a reporter's error. Open for suggestions on how to handle the issue of Goldenberg's (fairly) clear error. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't mention the apparent error in the article itself, even as a footnote, as that would be based purely on our own views - a clear case of original research. The simplest and most wiki-friendly way of dealing with this would be just to delete the volunteer's given name from our article: "When the ambulance arrived, according to one of the volunteers, ..." That way we wouldn't perpetuate the apparent error and wouldn't get into the tricky waters of trying to correct it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should be "corrected"...it shows the very real confusion surrounding the issue; it may jar to leave it in -- but it is there, and there is no real reason to take it out except to pretend to some consensus over what happened that we really don't have. I think it should stay. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

I put up two questions at the RSN in relation to this article. One regarding the Jordan Times and the other regarding the Daily Mirror. Please feel free to weigh in there or here as well.

RSN: Jordan Times

RSN: Daily Mirror Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to sign the above and your RSN post. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
must be preoccupied...forgot to sign. Thanks for the reminder. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue with regard to the Daily Mirror was elucidating, though consensus was not reached. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous - you were told by multiple uninvolved editors that the Mirror was perfectly fine as a source but you chose to ignore the feedback you received. As Tyrenius said, "You came here for independent feedback. You got it. It wasn't what you wanted, so you're ignoring it, insisting on your own rhetorical and highly selective condemnation of the Mirror. The plain fact is that nothing you have said in order to try to undermine the paper shows that its standard serious news reporting should not be considered reliable." -- ChrisO (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
My answer to you Chris is to urge people to read the noticeboard themselves RSN: Daily Mirror and decide if Tyrenius' statement is an accurate reflection of all that was written there. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah was "pronounced dead"

The reason I question the reliability of the Daily Mirror was because of this sentence in the article:

  • An ambulance took the boy and his father to the nearby Shifa hospital in Gaza, where Muhammad was pronounced dead on arrival.[42]

where the DM is the single source we have for that. I am more than ever convinced that the DM is not a RS and certainly not for something that goes to the heart of this article such as the pronouncement of his death. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So that's what all this tedious nonsense was about? For the record the relevant sentence from the story is: "Jamal and Mohammed were rushed to the nearby Shifa Hospital in Gaza, where the boy was pronounced dead on arrival." It's not the only source that says he was pronounced dead at the hospital. The New York Times of October 2, 2000 ("A Young Symbol of Mideast Violence"), says the same thing: "Muhammad was buried soon after he was pronounced dead at the hospital last night", and the Daily Telegraph of October 01, 2001 ("Anniversary vigil for boy killed on camera") refers to "the doctor who pronounced him dead". I don't know why you regard this as in any way controversial. It's a doctor's job to pronounce someone dead. That has no bearing on where or when a person actually died - the doctor simply confirms the fact of the death. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
My two cents on this are that it might be good to add another one/two from the existing source(s). Would help quiet concerns both by currently involved editors and future editors of wikipedia as well.
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
p.s. I agree with ChrisO about the "pronouncing someone dead" issue. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to adding another citation but really, if that's all Tundrabuggy was looking for, what was the point of putting everyone at the RSN through such a tedious and ill-informed discussion? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there no end to your incivility, Chris? 6SJ7 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It's hardly incivil to wish that Tundrabuggy had taken the simple route of asking for corroborating sources rather than trying to disqualify the third largest-selling newspaper in the UK on the basis of a very poor understanding of the difference between UK redtops and US supermarket tabloids. For everyone's sake, could you please take the simple route in future? I'm happy to provide citations, but I don't enjoy wasting time with pointless arguments. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
That's almost funny Chris. The last time I asked for corroborating sources you made much noise about how it was unnecessary and I was wrong-headed and dull for asking, lol. I am glad that you say you are willing to add a collaborating source this time, though. You are a fine one, however, to talk about taking the simple route and wasting people's time with pointless argument. The simple route would have been to quietly sit out your ban with grace and dignity rather than attempt to launch a thousand ships to attack the moderator. As we here in The States say, "That dog don't hunt." Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Please folks, let's stick to discussing the article, not the contributors. Thanks, --Elonka 01:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The Daily Mirror article says he was "dead on arrival at the hospital." The New York Times article says "Muhammad was buried soon after he was pronounced dead at the hospital last night." Considering that the boy supposedly arrived at the hospital in the afternoon, how can both statements be true? Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions followup

We are coming up on the 90-day mark since #Conditions for editing were placed on this article, per WP:ARBPIA. Many of the editors who were involved with the article at that time have moved on, and overall things seem much more stable now. So I would ask those editors who are still actively involved here: Do you think that the conditions are still needed? Or would you like to see them lifted or changed? --Elonka 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, the article is seemingly stable because only one person has really made any edits here in the last month. Most other editors haven't simply "moved on", they've been driven off the article due to either your banning them, or due to their frustration at how the editing restrictions have given a particular viewpoint - which you have favoured, and whose supporters you have mentored and allied yourself with - licence to walk all over it. Hadn't you noticed? --Nickhh (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there are currently no active bans on this article. The last one expired on August 28, which means that all editors are allowed to edit, in accordance with the current #Conditions for editing. --Elonka 01:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is more that you have laid a minefield for editors and it's completely unclear what will trigger your arbitrary conditions - no wonder people are deterred from editing (except Tundrabuggy of course, as you seem to have given him immunity to do whatever he wants). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think if you scan the history of Tundrabuggy's talkpage, you'll see that I've been supervising his edits closely, and have issued him plenty of cautions.[12][13] As for "laying a minefield," well, different admins impose sanctions in different ways, and I can understand that some editors might be nervous that if they so much as tweak the grammar of a sentence, that an admin is going to swoop in and impose a ban without warning. It's a valid concern with some admins, but I don't think anyone needs to worry about me doing such a thing, because I always always give nudges and warnings first. If I'm gearing up to ban someone, I do my best to make this very clear to someone beforehand: I post to their talkpage, I give them diffs of specific concern, I explain what behavior needs to change, and I try to explain what consequences (such as a ban) may occur if the behavior doesn't change. My personal philosophy, is that even disruptive editors have the capacity to change, if they receive clear communication about what they're doing wrong. However, not all admins agree with that philosophy, and I have indeed seen cases where admins have issued bans or blocks without warning. I disagree strongly with this approach, and feel that it's a violation of WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings. To be clear: no one who is acting in good faith needs to worry that I will insta-ban them. I promise that I will always do my best to first give a clear "warning shot across the bow", except for extremely obvious, blatant, and urgent situations. For example, I may act more quickly when dealing with anons, or obvious sockpuppet/throwaway accounts. But for established editors, don't worry, if I'm inching towards the ban-hammer, you'll know about it ahead of time.  :) --Elonka 19:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that having a set of rules for editing one article that are different from the rules for every other Wikipedia article for more than a very brief period of time goes against the grain of Wikipedia. There's no emergency now—the conditions should be lifted altogether. Sanguinalis (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I disagree with both Nickhh and Sanguinalis. There's still many personal commentaries (rather than towards content) and still an ongoing ignoring the purpose of the encyclopedia. Editors which disrespect a well cited POV they reject while promoting the narrative POV they support while looking to escalate the conflict is improper and this atmosphere can easily turn to shit if uncontrolled/unsupervised. I believe it's too soon to remove the restrictions and/or supervision. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - this article (and, perhaps even more, its TalkPage) urgently need administrative action against those who have disrupted it. Only when that happens can the processes of the project operate and start producing a reasonable article again. If this page had not been archived (ANI is currently trimmed to 389K, AN is 333K, RSN is 206K - this page is 1/10th the size) people could see what was going on. People may agree or disagree with my addition last month "Shahaf has eccentric obsession" says Haaretz", but the concept discussed and the subsequent commentary is highly relevant to further editing of the article. The premature archiving has had a secondary (perhaps minor) effect in that it tends to conceal (even from me until this moment) the fact that my words and intent were modified, apparently to undermine the professional integrity of another journalist. This highly partisan and damaging conduct is going on all over the project - while Shahaf is having his reputation assiduously protected. See how "conspiracy theorist" (referring to Shahaf) was removed as a BLP - even though the Jerusalem Post (hardly pro-Palestinian!) speaks of "engaged two confirmed conspiracy freaks, neither of them a ballistics expert" and "Karsenty, Richard Landes and the rest of the conspiracy theorists" and (in the headline) "conspiracy freaks". It's as if readers of this article must be protected even from Israeli opinion, let alone what the rest of the world believes. The opinion of both Israelis and the world is generally good towards the journalist and generally poor towards the "ballistics investigator" in this story. There is no chance of balanced articles while this is going on - serious editors need to be encouraged to participate, and the very opposite is happening. Serious editors would be largely ignoring Shahaf and the entire Enderlin thing (which is not and never will be settled anyway) - and write this story on the basis of the important parts (including but not limited to the Ramallah lynching and the beheading of Daniel Pearl), most of which we're currently not covering. PRtalk 11:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PalestineRemembered that the Ramallah lynching and the beheading of David Daniel Pearl[14] should be better formulated on the article. As for his assertion regarding "immediate administrative action", I'm actually thinking it has been a bit harsh at times -- though probably within the bounds of reason. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I would just comment to PR that the Jerusalem Post article that you cite is an opinion piece by one of a [very] small handful of authors who [still] believe that Shahaf, Karsenty and Landes are conspiracy theorists, and not an editorial by the JP as is implied the way the it is written. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the special editing conditions were helpful in reducing the edit warring on this page, and would recommend they stay in place for an additional 90 days. Contrary to what Nickhh claims, there have been several editors, in addition to TB, who have been active on this page in the last month (Liftarn, Jayvdb,Rich Farmbrough, and a number of IP editors) - and there's nothing to stop other interested parties from editing if they so choose. It is true that such editing will have to be done carefully, given the restirictions - but that is a good thing, not a bad one. If you discuss any potentially controversial edits on the talk page before making them - the "minefield" that ChrisO refers to disappears. The editing I've seen on other articles by the editors who were problematic on this page before the restrictions were put into place does not inspire confidence that they will not go right back into their old ways, if the restrictions were lifted. (I am thinking specifically of the BLP violations that got Nickhh banned from the Nahum Shahaf article, and the continued incivility by ChrisO on WP:RSN and on this Talk page) Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing restrictions of any sort are only intended to be used as short term measures to deal with specific problems. The fundamental principle of WP is that anyone can edit it, and that must be the default position. Page protection for example is nearly always lifted once any edit war dies down, it should be no different here. Only one editor (to repeat) has really made any edits here in the last month (around 80 edits, with only around 10 coming from anyone else, most of those being minor formatting or minor vandalism/vandalism reversion). It is simply not acceptable to keep editing restrictions in place for another 90 days (which would become a total of half a year) based on the individual decision of one admin, backed up by editors whose world-view has benefited from those actions. And for the record, I was not banned from the Shahaf page for "BLP violations". It was a no-warning ban supposedly for edit warring, although oddly those who I - by definition - must have been edit warring with escaped unscathed. And please lay off the pompous accusations that I or anyone else who happens to disagree with your viewpoint and edits accordingly is a "problematic" editor, who might "go right back into their old ways". There's been some less than perfect behaviour by several people here at times. No-one is in any position to claim the moral high ground. --Nickhh (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment to Nickhh: No offense Nickhh, but I was thinking it to be reasonable that incivility, "exasperation" (congrats on the award btw) and ignoring the ongoing discussion while edit warring may have had something to do with a sanction being imposed on you alone and not on anyone else. Besides that tough, I do have to agree with you that there hasn't been much more than that incident (best I'm aware of) and certainly Wikipedia needs to remain open for everyone to contribute as the encyclopedia flourishes from IPs as well as from established editors. However, recent interaction between ChrisO and Tundrabuggy on top disrespect to well cited content makes me agree with both PalestineRemembered and Canadian Monkey that the page should still remain under close, pro-active observation (not sure about 90-days though) -- such as Elonka reminding editors of WP:NPA -- to keep from editors lapsing back to disruption, misconduct, and edit warring. I don't believe the page situation -- where editors are sanctioned for edit-warring and are reminded when breaking policy -- necessarily bars people from editing as it only makes sure that people discuss the viewpoints and work for consensus building rather than enforce their perspective into the page without discussion, a prolonged issue with this heated blood-libel/conspiracy-theory subject matter.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As for me, I would like to see some oversight. Unfortunately ChrisO has made my opinion appear self-serving with his accusations of favoritism. But, there it is, it's my opinion -- but I will happily respect any decision made. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I abandoned attempting to edit this article last year in the face of tendacious OWNERSHIP and highly POV editing. The reference to the Ramallah Lynching and Daniel Pearl were damaged and removed. When I replaced this important link it was re-titled "Trivia" and the link was damaged - leading to a good-faith complete removal with summary "rm section; trivia sections are discouraged per WP:TRIVIA and source is questionable anyway (opinion piece from obscure online news source?)", when the "obscure online news service" is central to the article and something we're using 9 times elsewhere! Something very similar was happening at the linked articles, with the threat of hammer-blow blockings for reverting such vandalism (or even calling it vandalism).
A sloppy reversion putting back information cited to "Pajamas Media" ("sending the MSM down the river") convinced me that attempting to edit this article was impossible until administrators protected careful editors and took action against the disruptive. PRtalk 12:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah. The core problem with Wikipedia, in a nutshell...except that the nutshell itself is "who's to say which are careful editors and which are disruptive?" :-\ Tomertalk 13:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, at a minimum, one would expect careful editors to follow our core content policies - WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR - and one would likewise expect careful administrators to enforce those policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I would remind PR and ChrisO that most, if not all, of the diffs provided above were edited before Elonka was involved with the article at all. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully concur with the "minefield" observation made above. Personally, I was on vacation for the first half of July, and upon returning had little stomach for diving once again into the cesspool that has surrounded this article. Hopefully the damage done by over-covering conspiracy theories is not irreparable. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, if it sets your mind at ease, no ArbCom restrictions could be imposed on you, unless you were warned first. You would have to get a full formal template {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} notification on your talkpage. My own style is to try even gentler cautions before using the template, such as nudges and reminders to someone's talkpage. Then if and only if those are ignored, would I eventually proceed to the formal template and possible further sanctions. So even with the conditions, my recommendation to you (and everyone else), is to proceed with normal editing. As long as you stick with the #Conditions for editing, you have nothing to worry about, and if you did run afoul of one of them, I would gently let you know if it was becoming a problem, long before you'd have to worry about a ban. I would make sure that you would have plenty of opportunity to adjust your editing accordingly, so as to avoid any possibility of sanctions. --Elonka 17:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the restrictions have had a positive effect on the article. Normally one might say the restrictions have "done their job" and are no longer required. However, some of the responses to Elonka's question lead to the conclusion that if the restrictions were lifted now, all of the positive effects would be wiped out and the article would go right back to the constant-edit-warring state it was in previously. I don't really see a good way to "normalize" this article under the current circumstances. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could be as sanguine about the quality of this article. Anyone reading it would never guess that even sections of Israeli opinion are saying "... even if there is some doubt ... there should be a tempest, a great and mighty one, but one focused on an entirely different issue: Why is the IDF continuing to kill children at such a frightening pace". It's as if a Holocaust Denier were writing an article pointing at the (proven) frauds of The Painted Bird and Fragments in order to conceal the real history of atrocities. What's happened here is actually worse than that, since fraud over al-Durrah is never going to be proved by three "conspiracy freaks" (another Israeli newspaper) and the blogosphere.
Meanwhile, the restrictions have had the effect of driving off virtually every editor except one. With the greatest respect, this editor, who apparently arrived at the project solely in order to edit this article, is so unfamiliar with the processes of the project that he tries to exclude the third biggest newspaper in the UK from RS-status. And rejects the results on the ReliableSsourcesNoticeboard. Until quite recently WP:DE (disruptive editing) was good reason to be blocked.
I've repeatedly offered to "write for the enemy". I've also repeatedly suggested that others offer to do the same - I think everyone knows what good material needs to go in (before or after the bad material is taken out). PRtalk 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, not this nonsense again about "exclude the third biggest newspaper in the UK from RS-status". The #1 paper in the the UK is "News of The World" - an unreliable sensationalist rag if ever there was one. Are you suggesting that the NOTW is a reliable source? If not, enough with this nonsensical conflation of "largest selling" with "reliable". Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(and incidently, since I've seen this bandied about in more than one place recently, The Daily Mirror is #5/#6 in the UK, not #3. Check it out http://www.abc.org.uk/cgi-bin/gen5) Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, still no actual justification from anyone - least of all Elonka - as to why extraordinary restrictions which were imposed by unilateral fiat and which run counter to the fundamental principles on which WP is based should remain in place. All we have is accusations that some editors (myself included I believe) need to be reined in for some reason, some speculation that bad things "might" happen if they are removed etc. Quite apart from the general point that they're pretty weak arguments anyway, being based on assertion and guesswork, in fact of course it's quite clear from comments here and elsewhere that the editors who broadly might be said to be unhappy with the leeway given to the WP:UNDUE input of minority viewpoints as a result of the restrictions, don't really at the moment have much wish to be actively involved here one way or another (and of course even if they did, this should be welcomed of course, not seen as a reason to continue the restrictions as if "one group of editors bad, other group good", which seems dangerously close to what some people are saying). For me at least, it's simply about the principle of how WP works and the role administrators have (which should merely be as editors with extra tools, not authority figures, and even less so authority figures who in effect take sides on content issues to the detriment of key WP policies). I'm not chomping at the bit to engage in another futile effort to edit any semblance of balance to this article as soon as 0RR is set back to 3RR. --Nickhh (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Justifications have been presented. You just don't like them. The justifications are, again, that this page had been the site of continous edit-warring, BLP violations and gross incivility. The restrictions, which BTW, do not run counter to the fundamental principles on which WP is based, solved that problem. If you and other problematic editors were in any way remorseful, recognized your past mistakes and promised not to repeat them - there might be room for trying to see how it works w/o the restrictions. But everything I've seen so far indicates that as soon as those restrictions were lifted, you'd be back to your edit-warring, BLP-violating ways. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I asked you to pull back from making sweeping accusations against good faith editors who do their best to abide by policy that they are "problematic" and "BLP-violating" and need - according to you - to show "remorse". Not only fundamentally inaccurate, but also incredibly self-regarding, and jaw-droppingly ironic given that you then proceed to complain about "gross incivility". Anyway, enough of all this childishness. There is no justification for the restrictions, as I have said, other than speculation about what might happen, based now it seems on your personal abilities as some sort of clairvoyant. Just so we do not forget what actually happened here - this article has long lingered here with about 50% of its material consisting of coverage of an obscure conspiracy theory which claims the whole event was staged and that the child is not dead. This theory has no serious purchase in any mainstream reliable source. I read pretty widely in the media and on international affairs and had never heard of this claim until I found the article on Wikipedia a while ago, and found links to the tiny number of blogs, forums and right-wing US op-eds where it was even mentioned, let alone endorsed. Then, in June, a related French court case gave a slight boost to one of the proponents of the theory, by confirming he had not libelled France 2 with his accusations against them over their footage, since he had the right to criticise. Immediately a whole slew of new SPA and IP editors descended from nowehere on this article, demanding inter alia that it say a French court had definitively ruled the incident was a hoax; that we remove al-Durrah's date of death; that every second sentence here be qualified with "allegedly"; that we remove references to the contemporary reports that covered his death; that even more space be given over to the theory etc etc. These editors of course were not "problematic" or "BLP-violating". Ahem. Other editors, myself included, tried to stem this assault as a blatant breach of everything from WP:NPOV & WP:RECENT to WP:UNDUE & WP:RS. Inevitably this led to something of an edit war and we ended up with the restrictions. Most of those editors - on either side of that debate - have long gone. The court decision has now receded into the relatively recent past. The article is now stable (whether it's balanced is a separate, and irrelevant, debate for the purposes of the issue at hand). It should be open for editing in the same way as any other article is rather than being subject to endless, arbitary, blanket restrictions. If genuine problems come up, they can be dealt with as they arise and using remedies tailored to deal with them. --Nickhh (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nick - I have tried to deal with each of the same issues below, and did so minutes before you posted this. I think it would be preferable if you struck the above (and this note). PRtalk 08:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment to Nickhh: I tend to agree with the 'remorse' issue raised by Canadian Monkey. For an outsider, and pardon me for the bad faith but your edit-war related ban was very recent,[15] it feels as though you are looking to have leverage to once again edit-war over content -- rather than conduct dispute resolution over it -- without any sanctions being applicable. Incivility, such as calling fellow editors "slew of new SPA and IP editors [which] descended from nowehere", is another concern to be frank when you dismiss the points and sources raised by these editors.
General note: I do agree with Nickhh regarding 'sweeping accusations' though. Calling someone 'disruptive' should be referred to a certain event where that editor acted disruptively and not as a general 'rule of thumb'.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 09:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC) clarify 09:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Remorse is a pretty strong thing to demand about a brief edit war on a different page I'm afraid. I have acknowledged I was involved in that edit war on several occasions, which I think is more than enough. My only query has been as to why I was singled out (it take more than one to have a "war" of course). As you know as well, I have had no other blocks or bans in all my editing history. And I have also made clear that I have no wish to edit at all here or at Shahaf, so given all the above, I don't understand your claim that I am looking for "leverage to once again edit war" - for the fourth time, I am making a general point about inappropriate restrictions being maintained when they are no longer needed. And the comment about a slew of SPAs is, unfortunately, entirely accurate. Go and check the article history from about June. --Nickhh (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Nobody examining the recent history of this article can doubt that it has been targetted by new editors, some with practically no grasp of editing principles. I've commented on the need for administrative attention to this article in a number of areas - and this is another one. If we're told there's a problem at this article (edit-warring, incivility, BLP whatever), then it seems strange indeed that new editors are editing without problem, while experienced editors are expressing fear of admin retaliation (even those like me who have never been warned, having stopped editing of our own accord a long time ago!). PRtalk 10:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary break

Before this discussion is dragged into really gross (yet mysteriously unpunished) infringements of CIVIL, let's remember there is an important BLP issue at the core of the article as it's currently written. It concerns a top French journalist who has already been to court once over this affair. The fact that claims of tape-doctoring were found not to be libellous of him (on appeal) doesn't mean we abandon policy and side with his accusers, three non-qualified "conspiracy freaks" (quote from both body and headline of an op-ed in a normally right-wing Israeli newspaper). The attack on Enderlin is backed by a highly partisan body (prone to extremist language) which wants him sacked - and this body is heavily implicated in a plot to subvert the work of this project (faux creation of admins). We're in grave danger of siding with abusers and even supporting their campaign.

With the factual issues never going to be settled, the original version "is the most reasonable one" (a different Israeli newspaper, perhaps swayed by the killing of a nearby ambulance-man and the bull-dozing of the evidence). Yet we have an article that almost completely ignores the iconic significance and historical importance of this event in favour of "controversy" - that's what the edit-warring has produced as editors like myself long ago abandoned trying to do useful work on it. (Perhaps it's too much to ask to include material that might use the word murder - and I don't mean well-poisoning quotes from OBL, ref #132, either).

The ReliableSources "dispute" is thoroughly settled as people can see at the very drawn-out discussion on the RSN - we will continue to use what appears in major newspapers as our source material. Commentary Magazine is free to claim that "no sound of gunfire nor any other evidence of combat activity near the al-Durrahs" - but that's no excuse for us using it as reference #105. We need administrative action to protect RS, another core policy of the project which is being trampled. PRtalk 08:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on whether to continue the restrictions, but in reply to Nickhh: editors are still very free to discuss edits on the talk page. If anyone believes that a proposed edit has rough consensus on the talk page and is afraid to edit it into the article because of not being sure how the editing conditions will be applied, feel free to ask me on my talk page and if I agree that it has rough consensus and doesn't seem to violate the editing conditions I may be willing to put it into the article. I believe the editing conditions are not intended to prevent edits which have consensus. I haven't followed everything happening here but I'm not aware of any edits that had consensus but were prevented by the editing conditions from getting into the article. You can also copy sections of the article to the talk page and edit them more freely here, to be returned to the article when a new version gains consensus. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a kind offer indeed, and I would urge other editors to take it up if they feel they can do so. However, I'm not sure I want to come back in and try to work the article into something reasonable, making sense of the story's historical place in the burgeoning al-Aqsa intifada of late 2000, while avoiding going overboard on "context". The latter has only been abused in Paras 1,2,3 and 4 of the lead and everywhere else throughout the article at the moment - and it would be tricky to do a proper narrative under almost any circumstances.
First of all, I would have to strip out nearly everything about the quite trivial "controversy" (especially because of the BLP issues), along with many of the terrible sources being used. Only then might the remainder be useful as the basis of an article that would do justice to the project. The article has got to have the firm application of policy first with Haaretz and JPost and the Daily Mirror in, Commentary Magazine and OBL out.
I suppose we have to have Karsenty and the "hoax theory" mentioned somewhere - lets confine it to proper, encyclopaedic use of the actual French RS, translation here. (Remember, he's been convicted of defamation, so this is his second bite of the cherry, and he gets lucky). In French, the nearest Karsenty gets to any support is "«l’examen des rushes ne permet plus d’écarter les avis des professionnels entendus au cours de la procédure»" - that his views cannot be set aside on the basis of the film. That is ludicrously different from support for the "hoax theory". (Which in any case is very much a side-show to this story). Have a look - the French report of the court case mentions two points raised by Karsenty right at the end, and very nearly brushes them off as quibbles.
I'd be fairly sure that everything from Shahaf can come out, he doesn't need mentioning. If we have to have anything from him atall I (provisionally) propose the early theory that was on German television, that a Palestinian (standing?) next to the cameraman shot al-Durrah dead from the other side of the street. I don't know why Shahaf abandoned a semi-credible theory for the contradictory "he wasn't shot and isn't dead" hoax theory, which is what he has desperately been trying to persuade us of ever since. PRtalk 14:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding the Restrictions

The restrictions appear to be having a remarkably positive effect so far; edit-warring has ended, as has article ownership, and the article has been improved. The Talk: page rhetoric has, unfortunately, still often taken on a shrill and histrionic (and all too personal) tone, but it may be too much to try to ameliorate that. If I can make a suggestion, you might want to change the 0RR restriction into a 1RR restriction, and see how that goes. If the edit-warring breaks out again, you can always re-impose the 0RR restriction. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What would be the scope of the 1RR? One revert per editor per day? Per week? Or one revert per article section per day? --Elonka 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Well for a start it would allow the simple and instant removal of additions like this, rather than having to have it fact tagged or having someone spend hours trying to work out what on earth it means and then rewrite it. This is the problem I have raised before - good editing (in the most general sense, as well as on WP) sometimes does sometimes involve the outright removal or reversion of material, even if that content is not obvious vandalism or obviously false as such. 0RR and even 1RR basically permit the creeping addition of more and more poor content. As I also note above, the circumstances which led to the flurry of activity here have long passed (and would have passed naturally, with or without any restrictions) and it is not acceptable to retain another 3 months of those restrictions. Why not lift the restrictions in their entirety, as would happen with page protection after a while? If everything flares up again, that can be looked at and dealt with separately, as it should be. I'm a little bemused as to why we're even discussing keeping them in place - I thought we tried to assume good faith here, and that WP was the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". And as to the "positive effects" so far - 1) of course any edit warring stopped (and the relevant issue is now anyway whether it would start again or not); 2) actually the restrictions led to article ownership, with a single editor making 80 out of the 100 edits last month after others were barred or simply walked away; and 3) whether they have improved the article in terms of balance, quality and NPOV is a moot point, but I suppose we're all entitled to our opinions. --Nickhh (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
In dealing with revert restrictions, the thing to remember is that they're not used on 99%+ of the articles on Wikipedia. Instead, they are only used in very rare cases where an article has been the target of so much disruption, that there are concerns that the normal "healthy" cycle of continual changes has broken down, and the article is suffering as a result. The upside of restrictions is that it usually does stabilize the article, without requiring the protection toggle. On the downside, you're absolutely right that some changes may slow down a bit. As for the specific text you're talking about, it's been a few days and no source has been provided, so anyone who wishes to delete it is welcome to do so. Simply use an edit summary of "removing unsourced information". --Elonka 17:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest trying 1 revert per person per day, and see if the edit-warring resumes. Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious problems with this article began on the 21st May, the day of the 2nd Karsenty verdict, with the insertion and re-insertion of: "French court ruled that his 'death' may have been staged, and was in any case unlikely to have been caused by IDF soldiers" from Jpost[16] 22nd May. This was not a simple mistake, and it's a great shame that robust administration, protective of the project, didn't deal with the clearly disruptive nature of the editing then. (Examine the short contribution record of this new editor and wonder what's going on).

Examining all the changes since shows how the article has been hi-jacked into propaganda. "Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was filmed crouched behind his father during a violent clash between Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip." becomes -> "Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada.[1] Some investigations have suggested that he might have been killed by Palestinian gunfire, and some people believe that the entire incident was staged.[2]"

And the same thing has happened everywhere else eg "The father and son were filmed sheltering during a crossfire between troops at an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) outpost and Palestinian police and gunmen shooting from a number of locations.[3] After a burst of gunfire, the two slumped into prone positions. Al-Durrah was reported to have been killed and his father severely injured by Israeli gunfire. The footage, which was filmed by the French television station France 2, was re-broadcast around the world and produced international outrage against the Israeli army and the government.[4] Images from the footage became an iconic symbol of the Palestinian cause and al-Durrah himself was portrayed as an emblem of martyrdom; the footage was shown repeatedly on Arabic television channels and al-Durrah was publicly commemorated in a number of Arab countries.[5]" becomes -> "The original reports stemmed from footage recorded by a Palestinian cameraman filming for the French public television network France 2.[6][7] The footage shows al-Durrah and his father taking cover from crossfire behind a concrete cylinder, then apparently being hit. The scenes were broadcast with a voice-over from Charles Enderlin, the channel's bureau chief in Israel, who was not present during the incident; he told viewers that the father and son had been the "target of fire coming from the Israeli position."[8] France 2 made three minutes of the tape available without charge to other television stations, and the scenes were aired around the world. The boy quickly became a martyr in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel."

However, all is not lost - I propose a new tag "Please do not trust this article". And a link to these statements from an ArbCom earlier this year where a huge mound of evidence was dismissed with: "It's hard to think that there will be any other result to this case ... than article probation ... I'm not sure analyzing everybody's behavior won't be a complete waste of time."[17] and "The decision is not going to have any effect on the balance of views present in articles about the Israel/Palestine conflict".[18]. PRtalk 08:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the article appears to have stabilized, the #Conditions for editing are no longer needed, so I am setting an expiration date of October 1, after which the article will be restriction-free.  :) If for some reason things head south again, I or some other uninvolved admin can place new restrictions easily enough. Based on the discussions here, what would probably be most helpful would be a 1RR restriction for at least 30 days. But hopefully things have improved enough, that no further restrictions will be necessary. :) --Elonka 23:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Clearing up BLP issues

Dear Elonka - are you in a position to encourage and perhaps help a proper treatment of the BLP at this article? I abandoned editing here months ago for reasons you know about (I see nothing to indicate that things have changed, but that's a different issue).

As detailed here, I'm concerned that the article has BLP issues, many of them based on sources that are unverifiable, and other that is unwarranted use of the sources available.

Would I have your support to start removing some of the clear examples? Judging by what you've said about an article on one of the parties, I take it you would eventually want BLP policy appled fairly strictly. Do I have that right? PRtalk 11:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

At this time, no one is banned from editing the article. Anyone who wishes to make changes is welcome to do so, as long as they stay in accordance with the #Conditions for editing. If you do remove anything which you feel is a BLP violation, please be careful to make that clear in the edit summary, and follow it up with an explanation here at the talkpage. --Elonka 03:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I need your support to strip out nearly everything that refers to the "hoax" allegations. I will likely need to use the the words "blogosphere" and "blog" around 4 times as often as I use the word "hoax" or "fraud" etc. (That's the ratio I spotted in one of the Israeli articles I looked at - hoax as a quote, "blog" as a statement). I won't call Shahaf an "eccentric obsessive" or "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania" (cited to the Israeli newspaper) but, if we're to include mention of hoax or fraud, I may need to call him a "conspiracy theorist". Claims of "conspiracy freaks" about Karsenty and Landes, again from an Israeli report, can probably be left out. I will have to somehow juggle the abandoned 1st conspiracy theory (which may have had legs before it was abandoned) with the second, contradictory, conspiracy theory. I will need to describe Sharon as a controversial figure (which is actually rather mild) and his visit to Al-Aqsa surrounded by 100s of police in full riot gear as highly provocative.
Once the article is policy-compliant it will likely be necessary to make further small adjustments to the wording and the references - some of which are fringe and/or unverifiable and/or wrongly quoted. (And of course it's likely I'll make mistakes). I will be reluctant to engage in any TalkPage explanation with anyone who rejects the Daily Mirror as an RS - I may need your assistance to re-present comments yourself, sorry about that.
After that, the Ramallah Lynching and the Daniel Pearl beheading will need to go in, and in some even-handed fashion that treats them as part of a conflict. There are some very tricky parts relating to the communities from which some of the French and German media personnel come from, my heart sinks. I'll treat everyone as ethnically equal, someone else can deal with those issues. PRtalk 11:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The "Hoax" allegation is notable, and has been covered by numerous reliable sources - please refer to the "sources" sub-page. Please do not 'strip out nearly everything that refers to the "hoax" allegations' without a clear consensus on this Talk page first. Statements like "I will be reluctant to engage in any TalkPage explanation with anyone who rejects the Daily Mirror as an RS" are not very helpful. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
PR, since it sounds like you're suggesting some rather drastic changes, what might be best is if instead of editing the live article, you instead create a proposed new version in your userspace. Then you can edit it the way you want it, and let us know when you're done. If other editors agree with your changes, we can then move your version in place of the live article. Let me know if you'd like help in setting up a draft page? --Elonka 18:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Another suggestion would be for PR to discuss his proposed edits with his mentor prior to making them. I am still waiting to hear who that mentor is, since I belive Ryan P has given up. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like, and I think this article deserves, proper administrative protection.
We're just being shovelled more abuse of sources, claiming notability from a "list" that indicates quite the opposite. Here's the first item: Akerman, Piers. "Mohammed al-Durra footage may have been a hoax", The Daily Telegraph, May 29, 2008. ... "there has been almost no coverage of the court’s finding in France over the past six days, though it has received international attention from The Wall Street Journal and a number of other publications. Nor does a search of the files reveal that it has been reported in any major Australian newspaper, including those like The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, which carried close to 20 stories and references, most of them sympathetic, to al-Durra".
I believe this article should be written to the sources, and that's the only thing I'm offering to do. PRtalk 19:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note both the headline of the source you are quoting - "Mohammed al-Durra footage may have been a hoax" - as well as the subheading of the same, which reads "Court judgment supports view it was a hoax". This is from a mainstream, reliable source, just one of many who covered the trial, and reported on the results. Let me reiterate for you: The "Hoax" allegation is notable, and has been covered by numerous reliable sources - as your comment above just reinforces. Please do not 'strip out nearly everything that refers to the "hoax" allegations' without a clear consensus on this Talk page first. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Elonka is acting as an uninvolved admin; I don't think she's intending to "support" any particular version of the article. However, she's suggested a way forward for you to implement the changes you propose, insh consensus. It's up to you whether you wish to pursue that course of action. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I looked at all the English-language sources that I could easily access that are listed in the "with byline" section of the sources page, and counted the number of times the words "hoax" and "blog" (or "blogsites" etc.) were used. Results: ("hoax"/"blog") Total (30.5/11); Akerman (4/0); Beckerman (0/1); Carvajal (0/1); Chesler (2/2); Denenberg (4/0); Derfner (3/0); Fallows (1/0); Gelernter (0/0); Gross (0/0); Halkin (2/0); Hartley (0/1); Juffa (0/0); Juffa2 (1/0); Lord (0/0); Nizza (2/0); Lungen (2/2); Moshelian (1/0); Oakland (3.5/0); Philips (1/1); Poller, French ... (0/0); Poller A Hoax ... (2/1); Poller, The Tide ... (1/1); Ravid (0/0); Rohan (0/0); Rosenblum (0/0); Schwartz (0/0); Seaman (0/1); Silver (1/0); Yemeni (0/0). I did this quickly without double-checking; I apologize for any errors. I realize that these articles may have been collected with a particular purpose rather than being a random sample of articles about the topic; still, it shows that the word "hoax" in this context is notable. In this article, the word "hoax" appears 5 times in the body of the article and 3 times in the titles of references etc.; that doesn't seem excessive to me. Reading the article (but without checking the sources) I have the impression that it's a well-written NPOV article. Clearly a lot of work has gone into writing it.
There is some unnecessary repetition: essentially the same sentence as this appears twice, and the previous sentence is also somewhat repetitive: "France 2 provided the footage free of charge to the world's media, saying it did not want to profit from the incident." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
As you say, this "sources list" was created to be skewed, perhaps by doing a Google search on the words "hoax" and "al-Durrah". A "sources list" based on Googling "blog" and "al-Durrah" would almost certainly produce the opposite result. We should really do a list for "Enderlin" and "hoax", that's the linkage which is being fought through the courts, and is the link that our article is making - a BLP, and a bad one (quite unlike the Shahaf case). I would do this research if I thought it would produce a better article - but it won't.
Why would such a further search of sources not improve the article? Because we're still wrongly concentrating on "hoax", the evidence for which is a side show to the article and needs only a passing mention. Once Israel destroyed the evidence, the die was cast and the truth would never be known. (We know all about this kind of thing, we've seen Holocaust Denial. China has the same problem denying Tiananmen Square - bring in the gun and the tank and you lose the argument).
As far as the world is concerned, the important part of this story is that 100s of Palestinian children were (are) being killed, and this is the one killing so far that's been caught on camera. As far as the world (and even some proportion of Israeli opinion) is concerned, Palestinians never shoot their own children, and (other than this case, the importance of which is artistic), nobody has ever accused them of anything so ridiculous.
As should be reasonably obvious, this article makes us look like propagandists for Israel. The writing may be a credit to us, but it's concentrating on a conspiracy theory of which only die-hard supporters of Israel are interested. Our article doesn't deal with the story, which is based on one universally recognised "fact" (killings) and a secondary, lesser, "fact" (picture). Our article is Soap-boxing, avoiding the larger "fact" by trying to cast doubt on the smaller "fact".
Perhaps I should start a new section, pointing out the obvious escape route. Those who think that the "controversy" around the secondary "fact" (picture) is notable should take their material to a sub-article (the BLP problem would remain, but perhaps more manageable). Meanwhile, this article needs a wholesale re-write, probably with the changes I have in mind, taking out most of the references to "hoax". PRtalk 09:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Page move

An account accused of sockpuppetry just tried to move this article to the title of Muhammad al-Durrah affair. I have reverted the page move, both because there was no consensus for it, and because the account was questionable for multiple other reasons: YYOOYY (talk · contribs). That said, if anyone does want the page moved to that title, please feel free to discuss it here. If other editors agree, we can move the page. But I'd like to ensure that there's a consensus first. --Elonka 17:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Support re-name and page split - main article Muhammad al-Durrah affair. We don't do articles on persons notable for only one incident, and this article would have been entitled "Netzarim Junction incident" if it was simply one death, and not an icon of one/two occupations. PRtalk 18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
At least at first glance, adding "affair" would seem to be appropriate, because this is not really a biography. I will reserve my actual opinion pending further discussion. I do not understand the reference to a split; what would be the split, and what would be the two titles? My inclination is that we probably don't need two articles about this subject. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I could go either way as well, though I do think we have articles on people esentially famous for only one thing, eg, Leo Frank. 6S7J, I believe PR, in talking of a split, is expanding on his last point in the section above. If so, I'll just say I think that's a pretty bad idea. POV forks are definitely not okay. IronDuke 19:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The "Muhammad al-Durrah story" is firmly entrenched in the minds of approaching two billion Muslims, along with nearly everyone else in the world (even France, where I think I'm right saying that the two Karsenty cases have been either studiously ignored or treated as passé). This is the story that lead to lynchings and beheadings and intifada (and perhaps the evacuation of the Gaza settlers 5 years later?). The Muhammad al-Durrah affair undoubtedly deserves a substantial article.
Then we have the "hoax theory" which, in its way, is pretty significant too. Unfortunately for its proponents, the spot where this incident occurred was bulldozed the following day - furthermore, Shahaf produced two conspiracy theories, the first of which (I suspect) was substantially better than the second. The two theories contradict each other - which is another reason the truth will almost certainly never be known. PRtalk 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouls support splitting out the conspiracy theories to a separate article and let this article deal with the facts. // Liftarn (talk)

Isn't that the epitome of a POV fork? This article has never been about the kid any more than the properly-named Elián González affair article was just about a 6 yr old Cuba boy. Each is about the hoo-ha surrounding the respective subjects. Call it the Muhammad al-Durrah affair and keep it all in one article. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I tend to agree about the "affair" spirit for writing the article, but I'm not so certain the move is necessary. The "affair" is still evolving and we can improve the article by looking at it from the outside rather than with a "hoax/blood-libel" pretext/presences. The initial report was clear, the inspired global reactions were clear as well, the current arguments against the initial report are also clear - results pending the new claims are not yet clear. This is, I believe the way the "affair" (read: article) should be reported/written. However, I'm not sure the title "affair" gives us a better starting point than we currently have with the known title for the incident and it's follow-up. There seems to be advantages and disadvantages for either title, IMHO. One clarifies the prolonging issue, and the other is more notable yet causes conflict among editors who focus on initial (unverified) reports or recent (un-ratified) arguments. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
p.s. I agree with Tarc and others who mentioned it about the POV-fork concerns. Splitting the article is a bad suggestion. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Splitting the article in "The Muhammad al-Durrah killing" and "Muhammad al-Durrah conspiracy theories" is no more a POV fork than it is to have both Apollo program and Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories. Both are valid subjects. // Liftarn (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you tone down the soapboxing please? Talal Abu-Rahmeh and his 52 seconds of shouting "the boy is dead" is not exactly in the proximity of reliability as the likes of NASA. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The two subjects are not even remotely connected. It is a bit alarming that someone who is actively editing this article could draw such a comparison. IronDuke 19:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right. One is about space exploration and one is about civilians killed in war. However the relationship between the facts and the conspiracy theories is simmilar. Anyway, if we move out the conspiracy theories to a separate article we get rid of all the WP:UNDUE problems. // Liftarn (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
No, the relationship is dissimilar in virtually every imaginable particular. This POV fork is not a useful idea. IronDuke 21:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
My two cents after consideration is leave as is, per Jaakabou and IronDuke and Jaakobou. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The general consensus as I'm seeing it, is that there's no strong preference either way, but most people would be okay with moving the article to "Muhammad al-Durrah affair". Are there any strong objections to this? If so, we can do a more formal WP:RM request. If not, I'll go ahead and move the article. --Elonka 17:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. He has, as an individual, become something of an icon given what happened and hence you can justify keeping the article under his name. While I'm kind of undecided about the suggestion that it should be re-named, I'm really not sure about "Muhammad al-Durrah affair". I mean come on, the boy was killed (no, really, he was to the best of the current evidence). I know we need to avoid being over-emotive on WP, but that just seems a bit too anodyne. It also seems to me to pander somewhat to the conspiracy theories, as if there's some kind of mystery to be uncovered, as with The Affair of the Diamond Necklace or The Mysterious Affair at Styles for example. If we do move the page, "The Muhammad al-Durrah shooting" or something would be better in my view. I would add as well that there are other pages about other victims of the conflict which are simply here under their names (although I say this more to flag this up as a problem rather than to justify necessarily keeping this page the same way). --Nickhh (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Very subtle, Nickhh. I'm not persuaded either way, though I have only been a kibitzer here, and my judgement should not count. The OED gives for 'affair' (3)'Vaguely and with intentional indefiniteness, of an proceeding which it is not wished to name or characterize closely', which hardly fits the article as it has developed. Au contraire. 'Shooting' would be more appropriate, neutral and, what happened. My own feel for this is that 'The Death of Muhammad al-Durrah' might suit the case, if an alteration were to be made (it has literary precedents, implying by flagging death, the one great and conclusive event in the kid's life, that what will be described are the circumstances attending his demise). Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh baby. On two separate pages I agree with your ideas(the shooting title, not death as I will explain below). Although I believe there is questionable evidence for the fact that the Israeli bullets killed him, the poor kid was killed in the middle of a horrible gun fight (and it really makes no difference which set of bullets killed him as both sides were culpable). The article (and all these articles about people killed in battles) really are not about the person, but more about making them martyrs (regardless of the cause), rightly or wrongly. I like "The Muhammad al-Durrah Shooting" idea. I have no time for conspiracy theories either, whether it is the Palestinians or the Israelis pushing them. If it was a hoax, somebody needs to provide real proof. I disagree with the Death idea, simply because so much the article cover the possibility the whole thing was staged (I am not saying it was, just repeating what is in the article). If the article spends all this space talking about that possibility, using "Death" in the title is illogical.Sposer (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
For now, my position on the page name is neutral, but here are some suggestions people might want to consider along with the other suggestions above: Muhammad al-Durrah incident; or Muhammad al-Durrah occurrence; or Muhammad al-Durrah matter. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the current name is probably the best one and a one everyone can agree on. Muhammad al-Durrah killing will probably be opposed by the pro-conspiracy editors and just adding incident adds no extra information and article names should be kept short. // Liftarn (talk)

Audio tapes

It is standard procedure, isn't it?, for the IDF to have audio records of communications in any firefight. Were they available, they would surely clarify much of the mystery? Just a thought.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This article has been tagged since May. Since there is no longer any discussion going on at the talkpage, is it time to remove the tag? Or if anyone has objections, could you please either clarify what they are, or simply edit the article to address them? Thanks, --Elonka 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the talk page archives! None of the serious problems raised there have been dealt with, and everyone - myself included - gave up pointing them out. The key problem, put simply, is that 50% of this article is devoted to coverage of a fringe conspiracy theory, rampant in the blogosphere and occasionally noted in a few right-wing op-eds, which attempts to suggest that this was some sort of staged hoax, and that the boy may not even be dead. This minor controversy should be noted, but with due weight and without suggesting that there's something in the theory. Editing the page to remove all the more random theorising would involve gutting the article and would naturally re-spark an edit war. To be honest I don't know what the solution is here. But the article as it stand is certainly not neutral by any normal definition of the term. --Nickhh (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
There are multiple ways to proceed:
  1. Provide a detailed list of things which must be changed; or
  2. Write a new draft. Copy the entire article to a subpage in your userspace, or to a sandbox version, and gut it to your heart's content. Once you've got it "done", announce it here at the talkpage, and ask if others agree that your version is better. If people agree (or no one disagrees), then copy in the new version. If there is disagreement, then the burden is on those who disagree to give specific change requests for the new version. Meanwhile, any sections that no one disagrees on, we can just copy into the live article. Or, another option is:
  3. Work on one section at a time, either:
    • "Best to worst": Pick the section that needs the least amount of work, and edit it accordingly. If no one objects, then proceed to the next section, and so forth; or
    • "Worst to best": Pick a section of the article that you think just needs to be completely deleted, then suggest it at talk: "Hi, I think section <name> is not helpful to the article, and should be completely deleted, does anyone object?" If no one objects, delete the section. If someone does object, then try to engage in good faith discussion towards finding a consensus, and/or proceed through one of the steps in dispute resolution.
There are other methods too, such as WP:BRD. The point is, we shouldn't just tag an article as "never fixable". Either there should be a specific list of things to be fixed, or there should be active discussion and/or editing on the article, or the tag should be removed. But if no one is working on the article, and no one is talking about the article, then the assumption is that consensus has been achieved. --Elonka 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Really, what is the point? You've effectively given Tundrabuggy WP:OWNership of this article. Nobody else is working on this article, because they've all effectively been driven away from it, and nobody is talking about it because there's nothing new to say. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're basing this on. There are currently no restrictions on this article, and everyone is free to edit. --Elonka 04:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think the issue is of a rewrite. Nickhh, if I understand correctly, believes that the story is notable for it's original 2001 report alone while others believe there is equal value to it's more recent reports, which Nichh (again, if I understand correctly) considers to be non notable and fringe. Regardless of the truth (which will probably never be known), enough notability was given for the recent reportings to be given more notability than a fringe view would - it has created a few notable web-films, documentaries and a plethora of investigative reports (and an ongoing law suit) by reliable and neutral sources who place doubt on the "blame Israel" narrative of the 2001 reports. As the recent reports are clearly differnt in tone than past ones, it is up to current wiki-reliable reportings rather than the old ones to tell the story of the article (thoough it should also be clearly noted of how the story was reported in 2001).
p.s. has anyone seen Mabat II report from 2008? I remember a mention of an independant French ballistics expert called Jean-Claude Schlinger. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the whole point is that I seriously dispute the notability of the wackier of the "hoax" theories. Ones that suggest he is alive really are at the fringe end of things by WP and all normal standards, and are simply not covered seriously in mainstream sources. However currently the article is written to give them an enormous amount of space, and to suggest that their version of events is plausible (often quite subtly, see the section below). Yes there have been investigations into what happened by more mainstream sources many of which have concluded there is no certainty about whose bullets killed him, but that's a different point. As for doing a whole rewrite myself, I don't have the will or the time - and even if I managed to do a good job of it, I know it will never be accepted. Any rephrasing or removal of material will be simply reverted, and if those reversions get frantic enough we'll just end up back with restrictions that will freeze the article and/or stop any editing by removal. --Nickhh (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Making of a martyr", The Guardian, October 3 2000.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fallows was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Three Bullets and a Dead Child" by Esther Schapira (German TV)
  4. ^ "Eyewitness: Anger and mourning in Gaza", BBC News, October 4 2000.
  5. ^ "Framing the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict", Tamar Liebes & Anat First, in Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government and the Public, eds. Pippa Norris, Montague Kern, Marion R. Just. Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0415947189
  6. ^ ""When Peace Died", BBC News, November 17 2000
  7. ^ "Fierce clashes in Gaza and West Bank", BBC News, October 2 2000
  8. ^ Rosenthal, John. France: The Al-Dura Defamation Case and the End of Free Speech, World Politics Watch, November 3 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Muhammad_al-Durrah/Archive_9&oldid=1136876196"