Talk:Nahum Shahaf/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Issues

I'm not going to make any edits or (hopefully) spread the Al-Durrah debate to here, and I know it's only just been created, but there are some issues with this article -

• A lot of the information is sourced ultimately to Shahaf himself. See WP:SPS
• "World wide notability" is a bit strong surely? He's really not known outside the world of those obsessed with the al-Durrah "staged" theories
• I'm not asking for a "criticism" section (Wikipedia never benefits from them, even if plenty of critics of Israeli policies seem to have developed rather large ones over the years) but it should at least mention the debates around his work on the al-Durrah and Rabin cases.
• Once glance at his website reveals he pretty clearly has a political agenda. Regardless of whether one agrees with that agenda or not, this basic fact is not clear from the text of the Wiki article.

At the moment it reads like he's simply a well regarded and high profile scientist, as well as some sort of mainstream investigative journalist. --Nickhh (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the reference section (w/o adding any new ones), and it currently lists 3 independent sources, none of which are sourced to Shahaf or his website. Regardless, Self-publsihed sources are prefectly good to use about themsleves, so I don't see how WP:SPS applies, in any case. The lead sentence clearly says that the notability is due to his involvement in the Al-Durrah case. In that context, his name features prominently in mainstream media in the US, Europe and Australia, so I don't think "worldwide" is too strong. Our policy against original research does not allow you to scan in web site in order to reveal an alleged "political agenda". Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that he meets the notability criteria for people. I've had the opportunity to check his notability on Factiva - he's mentioned in a number of articles but only ever in relation to the al-Durrah case. I've not come across anything that mentions him in any other context. I'm minded to nominate this article for deletion, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can identify a notability criterion that he satisfies. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

He easily satisfies the basic criteria - the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. There are more than a dozen such sources listed on the Al-Durah talk page, at least one of which you have been using extensively as a source on that article.Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my main concern is really that he appears to have absolutely no notability apart from the al-Durrah controversy. My Factiva search found no mentions of him before 2000 and every single mention of him after then has been in relation to the case. He's never mentioned in relation to anything else or on his own merits. If you take a look at a comparable example, the list of 9/11 conspiracy theorists in the sidebar of 9/11 conspiracy theories, you'll notice that they were all notable before they became known for their views on 9/11. Shahaf, in contrast, appears to have been a thoroughly obscure figure before 2000, and there's no sign from any of the coverage that he's done anything significant since then except propagate al-Durrah conspiracy theories. We have a long-standing rule that "notability is not inherited" from another topic. I don't think it works to say "he's notable because of al-Durrah" if that's the only thing for which he's known. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no requirement that a person's notability be related to more than one thing (as, ironically enough - the Muhammad al-Durrah article clearly demonstrates with respect to the article's namesake). Check out the long list of people whose only notability is as winners (or even losers) of reality TV shows. As I wrote above, Shahaf easily satisfies the basic criteria - the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject - and you know this because you have been using several of these sources as part of your attempt to portray him in as negative a light as possible. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by dragging this through a frivolous AfD. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of OK with him having a page, but I do think it needs more mainstream media or specialist sources about him, describing who he is and giving more detail on his achievements and areas of expertise; as well as more about what he actually says about the Rabin and al Durrah cases, since this is what he is known for, and his views on these topics are controversial and disputed. For example I can't see the direct source for a lot of the claims that are there currently about his career (I may be missing something). The SPS point is relevant because, as the policy says, "anyone can claim to be an expert" - obviously we can include what people say about themselves in articles about that person, but the material should not be "unduly self-serving" and surely needs to be backed up by a reliable third party source? As to his political agenda, I merely noted it on this talk page. I never suggested we should simply dump my observation into the article without any reliable reference to back it up. --Nickhh (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add any such 3rd party sources, or tag claims in the article which you think are not sufficiently sourced. I will add a 3rd party source regarding his career shortly. Canadian Monkey (talk)

This is getting silly now. We have four fringe sources/references here, including (in order as of today) - the website of an organisation apparently run by Dore Gold; a primary source which names Shahaf as having applied for a patent for a see-through wall (I'm no expert on patent applications, but if it was a serious application, wouldn't it have been done in the name of a company?); an interview given by Shahaf to a partisan pro-Israeli news agency; and two links about the award he was given by a right-wing pressure group. As I said, I do not wish to edit here, nor would I dispute that this guy might deserve a (balanced) article here, but can someone please provide some serious sources for this hagiography? --Nickhh (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And look, we can see Israel's Media Watch at their annual meeting, all 10 of them! Is someone playing some kind of joke, referencing this lot and their awards? --Nickhh (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed getting silly - first you falsely complain that the article is sourced to Shahaf's own site. When it's pointed out to you that that's incorrect, you complain about the 3rd party sources provided, falsely claiming that some are "fringe", and inventing ludicrous reason to doubt others in areas you know nothing about (i.e. that a patent is not serious if not done in the name of a company) - all the while stating you're not interested enough in the article to edit it. If you don't want to edit - fine, there's more than 2 million other articles for you to work on. But don't sit here on the sidelines lecturing editors about non-existent issues. This article reads like a fairly mundane biography to me, far removed from anything resembling a hagiography. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make stuff up and misrepresent what I said, or my reasons for not actually editing the article.

• I did not say the article is sourced to Shahaf's website. The very first point I made was actually that "a lot of the information is sourced ultimately to Shahaf", which is a very different point in case you still don't understand it. And just above I gave a list of the references, none of which I identified as being Shahaf's website (and that wasn't because I'd been corrected in some way)
• I'm fairly sure most people would take the view that an organisation that appears to consist of 10-20 people sitting in some tacky hotel meeting room, and has appointed itself as some sort of media watchdog, is indeed pretty fringe.
• I admitted I did not know a lot about the patent process, that's why I phrased my point as a question, which I hoped someone more knowledgeable than me (or apparently you) might answer with factual information one way or the other, rather than cheap abuse. However I stand by the assertion that an individual who has submitted a patent application in their own name is not necessarily a genius inventor or expert, simply by virtue of having submitted that application.
• I have not edited here, not because I am not interested as you claim, but for exactly the reason I suggested - because I did not want to transfer the al-Durrah spat here, and also because I thought I would be polite enough to allow the editor who started the article (or indeed anyone else) to improve what was here by adding the sort of mainstream sourcing that is expected in other Wikipedia articles, rather than starting to hack it apart myself or support calls for it to be put up for AfD.
• The questions and issues I have raised are of course entirely legitimate, relating ultimately as they do to fundamental policies here about verifiability and neutral point of view. It may read as a mundane biography, but that's exactly the point - he is not a mundane individual toiling quietly away in a research lab somewhere, by contrast he is a key figure in a minority viewpoint conspiracy theory (which in turn is the only thing his notability, such as it is, seems to turn on). And the issues I raised have not been addressed, either in your comments above or in the recent edits to the article. If you can't provide the serious sources for the content here, perhaps someone else will. --Nickhh (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added two good sources, will keep looking. Hope that helps. IronDuke 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's got us a quote from him. But what this page still really needs is decent secondary sources which analyse or report on him as an individual and on his work - something such as a profile of him in a major media outlet, some record of his scientific achievement or expertise in a specialist journal etc. As I say, this is a standard Wikipedia policy requirement, not some obscure and ever-shifting personal demand of mine. Plus it needs to be clear that what notability he has is primarily down to his views on the al-Durrah and Rabin killings - and that his views on these issues are disputed and controversial (and arguably part of fringe conspiracy theories, but let's not have that debate again). --Nickhh (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We have him in The Atlantic Monthly, CBS, and now the book I cited. This article exceeds the vast majority of WP articles in terms of notability, so I hope that's settled. As for noting why he is noted, if you find a good source saying his notability is tied specifically to al-Dura and Rabin, please include it. IronDuke 18:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The point you raised was a WP:SPS concern – which implies Shahaf’s personal web site, otherwise, it’s not “self-published”. I corrected you on two aspects, by noting that (1) the sources beig used were not self published; and (2) even if it was self-published, it would not be an issue on this article, as self-published sources are ok to use in articles about the subject.
  • Your claim that Israel's Media Watch’s membership is 10 people appears to be based on some very primitive and faulty original research, consisting of looking at a few pictures taken at one of their meetings, and miscounting the number of people seen in those pictures. I will take you, step by step, through the numerous logical fallacies and violations of Wikipedia polices involved in this, if you insist. Otherwise, please drop this foolish line of argumentation.
  • If you know very little about the patent process, kindly refrain from making baseless assumptions about it, especially those designed to denigrate the inventors. Don’t do it even if you’re using the rhetorical device of phrasing it as a question. (There is very little difference, in this respect, between ‘X isn’t a serious inventor’ and “I’d say, based on what little I know of the patent process, that X isn’t a serious inventor. Is he?” If you’d like to learn more about the patent process, and the relationship between inventor and assignee, ask someone who is knowledgeable, like me. I’d be happy to educate you. It goes without saying that submitting a patent or two, or even having them granted, does not make one a ‘genius inventor’ – and unsurprisingly, no such claim is made in the article. The relevant logical fallacy is Straw man, if you want to look that up.
  • If you don’t want to transfer the al-Durrah spat here, don’t. That means finding something else to do, not sitting on the sidelines and inventing non-existent issues, which is exactly transferring the al-Durrah spat here, albeit by transforming the Talk page into a Soapbox from which you attack the likes of Israel Media Watch or Dore Gold, rather than a direct disruption in the article itself. I will caution you, as I have cautioned ChrisO, that dragging this to a frivolous AfD (after you’ve already acknowledged that you think the subject is notable enough for an article) in order to make a point will not be looked upon favorably.
  • The questions and issues you have raised here have been addressed – the article does not rely on self-published sources, there is nothing fringy about the 3rd party sources provided, and the article does not read anything like a self-serving hagiography. If you want to add material you believe is missing form the article – go right ahead, this is, after all, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. But don’t sit on the sidelines finding imaginary faults with what is currently there. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I really can't go through all that patronising sh#t and respond to it point by point. Find some reliable, mainstream sources that tell us more about Shahaf (good or bad), and while you're at it stop accusing me of saying things I haven't said and employing arguments or rhetorical devices I haven't used. It's that simple. Talk pages are where you discuss and debate editing, sourcing etc and that's what I've tried to do, without - for reasons I've explained - actually making any direct edits myself. --Nickhh (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You patronize me ("a very different point in case you still don't understand it"; "I hoped someone more knowledgeable than me (or apparently you)) - and I will galdly return the favor, it is as simple as that. Your concerns have been addressed. Go find something else to do if you don;t wnat to transfer other spats into this article. Canadian Monkey (talk)`

I made the first point because you repeatedly kept up the lie on this talk page that I had claimed material here was being cited or sourced to his website. On the second point I added the "or apparently you" because you chose to criticise me for supposedly "knowing nothing" about patent law while failing to answer the perfectly civil and factual question I had raised in respect of it. Subsequently you then claimed you do know all about the patent process, which makes your original response seem even more unhelpful. I did not start an argument here - I raised some questions about the article as it stood, then got accused of "original research" and eventually "soapboxing" among other sins. This article still seems to suggest that he is a disinterested scientist and expert in several fields, that he is also an "investigative journalist" and "media critic", and completely underplays the controversial nature of the role he is playing in the coverage of the al-Durrah incident. There are admittedly better sources here now than there were, but if he's as notable as the lead claims him to be, there should be more details about him and his work sourced to both specialist scientific journals and the mainstream media. Anyway, I have plenty else to do, and will get on with that. My points are clear, and I agree with you that there's only so long you can stay on a talk page without actually editing. --Nickhh (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, I'm surprised that you would allow yourself to say as you did "I'm fairly sure most people would take the view that an organisation that appears to consist of 10-20 people sitting in some tacky hotel meeting room, and has appointed itself as some sort of media watchdog, is indeed pretty fringe." Perhaps you know something the rest of us don't? To help you and others, I took a few words off their site:

IMW has a regular column in the "B'sheva" newspaper - a weekly column that appears in the Shabat magazine of the [Hazife daily newspaper. ... IMW’s activities were featured in “ Ha’aretz”, “Yedioth Ahronoth”, “Ma’ariv”, “Makor Rishon”, “ B’sheva” and “Hazofe” as well as on the Internet sites: NRG, YNET, NFC, ICE, ARUTZ 7 and “Omedia”. IMW’s representatives participated in numerous radio programs on Kol Yisrael’s Reshet B’ (second program), Radio Kol Hai and other stations. ...Over the past year, IMW lectures were delivered in various places and Institutions, including the Lifshitz College (Jerusalem), Safed, Alon Shvut, Jerusalem , Maale Adumim, Rishon Lezion, P’duel, Petach Tikva and Ofra. ...A particularly significant development this year has been the addition of a Russian language version of our website. ... Of course, IMW’s website also functions in Hebrew and English. [1]

The group's President: Dr. Uzi Landau, Chairman: Prof. Eli Pollak - A past president was a member of the Knesset, another an Ambassador. What they call the "Presidium" comprises 12 members, 2 are listed as Dr.'s 3 as Professors and another is a General. Of the 12 members of the Board, one is listed as a Dr, and 2 as professors. Not being Israeli I have no idea about the others who may be quite notable in Israel. [2] Since you seem sure that these are simply people meeting in "some tacky hotel meeting room" and are "fringe," perhaps you will either enlighten us or strike the remarks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It still seems a pretty small gathering (I know that's not conclusive, but I'm going on the photos they use themselves on their website, which you would have thought would be the ones they think show them in the best light). Anyone can set up a pressure group or website and get themselves some media attention, and sometimes those groups have some high profile members. However they remain small groups, usually with specific agendas. Having said that it's fine of course to note that they gave Shahaf an award (especially if there's a secondary source for it, ie not simply IMW themselves), but we have to be careful of making it seem more significant than it is, and it has to be balanced with more mainstream coverage and comment. Anyway, as above I'm off now. --Nickhh (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted for ....

In regard to this sentence: "He is known in particular for promoting the controversial theory that the incident was staged" , this reference was given: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909972.html. Aside from the Levy article being an opinion piece, it simply does not say this! I would say OR and/or POV... Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that wording was a broad paraphrase of elements of the piece - but was accurate nonetheless, in that a) he is known in particular for his campaigning over the al-Dura incident; and b) the hoax/staged theory is by any objective measure, controversial, whatever you happen to think about it personally. And the Haaretz article (yes, an opinion piece) makes these general points, even if not with the precise wording I put in. Perhaps the phrasing I used, which in part was a bid to avoid simple cut & pasting from a copyrighted source, could have been amended. It was not appropriate, as another editor did, to remove the source altogether. I'll put it back in, taking some more specific wording this time. --Nickhh (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove your edit when you put it up, giving you some time to correct it. I'm not sure what the appropriate WP policy is (BLP?) but it strikes me as entirely inappropriate to have a statement that someone is an "eccentric obsessive" in the first 3 sentences of his article. I would not call Enderlin a liar in the first paragraph of his article either, even if I could find an RS to suggest it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree... it's a passing mention. Not sure it belongs at all, but certainly not in the lead. IronDuke 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

You are going to use an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post to characterize an individual as a "conspiracy theorist?" I am not sure that this is proper. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but he IS a conspiracy theorist, as is anyone who tries to shoehorn any suggestion that al-durrah is still alive and well and living in Rafah into articles here. How about he's been "described" as one? --Nickhh (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd take more than one reliable source, and more than an opinion piece, to characterize him as that in a WP:BLP. IronDuke 00:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just re-reading the BLP guidelines.

It says:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]

"When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Nickhh - Please avoid making edits that violate WP:BLP, by making sure every contentious edit about a living person is sourced to impeccable sources, and that your edits reflect precisely what the source says. As other editors have noted, and as you yourself concede above, an Op-Ed by extreme-left partisan opponent of Shahaf is questionable at best. This source (the JP piece) mentions Shahaf only in passing, and does not call him a "conspiracy theorist" - please avoid paraphrasing questionable sources like that in a WP:BLP. In addition, the edit summary for this change is extremely uncivil. Don't do it again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that one source, an opinion column with the title "Rattling the Cage: Al-Dura and the conspiracy freaks",[3] is not sufficient sourcing per WP:BLP to label someone a conspiracy theorist in a Wikipedia article. Unless additional sources can be used to verify the label, the information should be removed, or at least heavily reworked to better comply with BLP. It might also be a good idea to start a thread at the BLP noticeboard. --Elonka 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. May I weigh in here briefly. Thru a Nexis search, I noticed that the columnist, Larry Derfner, was given two chances to float his criticism of Shahaf. First, May 29th. Then again, June 19th. There he addresses "rebuttals by Philippe Karsenty and Richard Landes...(June 12), Jonathan Rosenblum (...June 13)." So there seems to have been quite a debate in the Israeli press about the conspiracy theorist claims. In addition, two newspapers in Australia (Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne The Age) carried an article by Ed O'Loughlin 10-6-2007, who also seems to consider Shahaf a conspiracy theorist.

"But the central thrust of the conspiracy theory is drawn from a semi-official military probe that seven years ago was seen as so dubious that even the Israeli army and Government declined to adopt its findings. The two Israelis appointed to conduct the probe, physicist Nahum Shahaf and engineer Yosef Duriel, were private civilians with no forensic or ballistic qualifications. They met through their roles in a campaign to prove the innocence of Yigal Amir, the settler arrested on the spot for the 1995 assassination of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. Instead, they blamed a conspiracy headed by Shimon Peres, now Israel's President. ...A report published in the liberal daily Haaretz on November 8, 2000, concluded that the investigation was so shaky the Israeli public would never accept its findings."

Well, I'm afraid I haven't looked into the article. But the claim that he's a conspiracy theorist does seem to be a point of contention in reliable media sources. Let me know what you think. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 21:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG.  :) My main participation here is just as an uninvolved admin, so I have no strong preference on what does or doesn't go into the article. But where there is a borderline case of whether something does or doesn't violate WP:BLP, I think it is better to err on the side of removing the information first, and then discussing it second. If there is debate in the press about Shahaf, then we can definitely include mention of that debate, but we should stick closely to what the sources actually say, and we should be careful not to give undue weight to the negative commentary. In the source that was being discussed,[4] it was an obvious opinion column, there was only one line mentioning Shahaf, and even allowing for those two criteria, it still did not ever call him a "conspiracy theorist". So it was not an appropriate source for such a claim, on multiple levels. However, if someone would like to put information back into the article that is a better reflection of what the sources do say (and especially if more and better sources can be located), and if the information does not run afoul of WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE, I would have no objection to further changes. --Elonka 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This is a BLP, and as such, contentious information sould be kept to a minimum, and be impeccably sourced. We are not at liberty to paraphrase or draw inferences - so unless a high-quality source (not a partisan OpEd) says, explictly, "Shahaf is a conspiracy theorist" we can't say that ourselves. We can say that Shahaf is a proponent of the "staged theory", which some comentators condsider to be a conspircay theory, but we can't use that derogatory description of the man directly, without a high quality source. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with and appreciate Elonka's explanation, which would allow info as long as its a good reflection of the sources. By the way, the Haaretz article cited below (11-7-00) is a straight news piece (no byline) which is critical of Shahaf, but doesn't use the same conspiracy language:

The IDF has to decide when and how it will release the investigation's results. The army tried to stir some interest among some American journalists in the findings, but the attempt backfired - the professionals were not impressed by what they heard and decided not to use it. In choosing Shahaf and Duriel as partners in the al Dura inquiry, the IDF has again shot itself in the foot. Even if the investigation and its conclusions should pass muster on scientific and professional grounds, they simply won't be accepted by the public. That might make little scientific sense - but it's a hard public-relations fact. Duriel's ill-conceived "60 Minutes" interview was a case in point. The police officer, Yossi Almog, put it best: "If you want to release some conclusion that carries weight, it is important that the investigation be carried out by the most professional staff the state can put together." Why, then, did the IDF decide to involve Shahaf in its professional review? The IDF spokesman just refuses to relate to questions of this sort.

This kind of statement (and all the info in this piece) might also help frame the critique of Shahaf. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Rabin assassination

Again, sorry for not having deeper knowledge on this topic, but shouldn't his role w/studying the Rabin case be mentioned in the article? Both Derfner and O'Loughlin (cites above) consider this important. Did they get it wrong? Thanks. HG | Talk 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, O'Loughlin got it wrong. No one else, to the best pof my knowledge, has claimed that Shahaf accused Peres of being behind the Rabin assassination. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See next item, probably CM missed due to ec. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha'aretz published an article (November 7, 2000 "IDF keeps shooting itself in the foot") that links Shahaf in both the M. al Dura and the Rabin case. Here's an excerpt:

Two days after the {al Dura --HG}incident, Duriel wrote in Ha'aretz: "The IDF spokesman deserves a prize for stupidity ... Ten minutes after the incident a normal spokesman for a normal army would have released a categorically formulated statement saying that provocateurs opened fire against IDF soldiers, behind the back of a child, and made sure he would be killed in front of cameras; and after the boy, they killed the ambulance driver who tried to save him. All this was done to score propaganda points by depicting murderous behavior on the part of IDF soldiers." After Ha'aretz published these remarks, Shahaf phoned Duriel and suggested they investigate whether it was necessarily true that IDF soldiers shot the boy. The two were acquainted - they met when they jointly reviewed Shahaf's findings on an altogether different matter, the Rabin assassination. Shahaf claims to have in his possession "dramatic photographs which change the picture with respect to Yigal Amir's involvement in the murder." Shahaf and Duriel discussed ways of disseminating these Rabin assassination materials.

I hope this is useful information for the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not miss this. I am quite familiar with the O'Loughlin article, and have commented about it extensively over at Muhammad al-Durrah. You asked if O'loughlin got it wrong, and the answer to that is "yes". O'Loughin makes the following claim - "they [Duriel & shahaf] blamed a conspiracy headed by Shimon Peres, now Israel's President.". This is simply wrong, and quite indicative (IMHO) of the shoddy quality of that article, which is little more than a hit piece masquerading as news. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Ha'aretz investigative piece makes the same statement. Do you have a source that undermines the Ha'aretz article? Thanks. (Bit later:) Ok, yes, I see that Muhammad al-Durrah article has more sources and it does use this Ha'aretz article, too. So we may want to look at how sources there have been used by editors. Thanks again, CM. HG | Talk 23:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the Ha'aretz piece does not make the same statement ("they [Duriel & shahaf] blamed a conspiracy headed by Shimon Peres, now Israel's President.") Ha'aretz says Shahaf disputes the offcial version that Rabin was assassinated by Amir, but does not make the claim that this was a conspiracy headed by Peres. O'Loughlin is the only one to make thta claimm, AFAIK. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a little digging and it appears the Peres related conspiracy theory was raised by Barry Hamish and/or David Rothshtein and it is not supported by Shahaf at all. I can see where someone outside Israel could make the mistake of connecting them with Shahaf, but it is a mistake non-the-less. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, regardless of the Peres aspect, do any sources mention whether Shahaf somehow reviewed or disputed the usual account of the Rabin assassination? Thanks. HG | Talk 22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw something that makes me question my initial comment but I don't have the time/patience to go over it at the moment. Give me another day or two to look into the sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I checked my concerns and it seems Shahaf does not blame Peres as been claimed. However, he does not count it out completely as he cites to circumstantial issues that raise his brows a bit -- i.e. Peres giving a high profile job to the fired head of security services and also the known animosity among the two which has even taken form with a very nasty quote Rabin made about Peres -- i.e. "unfailing, weariless underminer" Hebrew: חתרן בלתי נלאה. But no, he does not blame Peres. 100%. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your perseverance. So, it sounds like Shahaf has gotten some press or similar coverage for having an alternative view of the Rabin assassination? I'd be interested a link to your best Hebrew source. In any case, this deserves a sentence or 2 in the article, with qualifications as appropriate based on the quality of the info. Ok? thanks. HG | Talk 22:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Another mention of his ideas about Rabin, from Haaretz. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Basic human dignity

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

I do not think that an opinion piece qualifies as a high-quality source, and that the characterization is at the very least "questionable". Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gideon Levy's criticism

Levy is a controversial left-wing advocate and, as a person who's often criticised for losing sight of objectivity to ideology, is not exactly the best neutral person to use for describing anyone as a person with an "eccentric obsession", at least not in an encyclopedia. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We know you don't like Levy. That doesn't mean we can't use his comments here, or anywhere else for that matter - he is a well-known journalist/commentator who writes in a mainstream Israeli newspaper. His comments are as notable as any of the others cited here (whether favourable to or critical of Shahaf). In fact they are probably more notable - he is better known here at least than Derfner, Fallows or that advocacy group. On the broader point, and also in response to TB's comments above, the hoax theory is controversial and has attracted criticism and, in another context, court proceedings. To try to excise that criticism smacks more of whitewashing rather genuine BLP protection. As long the comments are attributed to Levy, and are noted as being his opinion, I don't see the problem. BLP issues arise more when we start using poor and unverifiable sources to make claims about supposed facts against someone, or use minor fringe comment sources in a way that gives undue weight to some alleged controversy. Also note that I removed the header because criticism is always better mixed in with the relevant topic rather than being given a standalone section. --Nickhh (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nickhh,

When you say that my editing "smacks more of whitewashing rather genuine BLP protection", isn't that violating your promise not "will never make any genuinely offensive or irrelevant comment"? How am I whitewashing? Why do you think I'm whitewashing?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to your first apparent point, no. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to look over this, and from looking at edits to both this talk page, and the article, I can see that people seem to be getting worked up about something simple. My advice here is for everyone involved to try to see other people's points of view, take them into consideration, and think this over from the very beginning. Then establish a civil discussion here, and you should be able to figure out what to do next, which sources and information to include, remembering that we are trying to build a neutral encyclopedia, with no unreferenced controversial information, and as little other unreferenced information as possible. I'll also ask everyone to take a deep breath, and read through what you write/change before you save it, make sure that you are not incivil, or anything like that. I hope I am not sounding too "do this, do that", but I'm just trying to help, and I hope you don't mind me commenting on this here. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

<refactored> I'd appreciate Gideon Levy criticism from Haaretz be omitted due to his highly controversial nature. I have no qualms in regards to the Jpost article though, it is a perspective that I expanded upon before this article became a war zone.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliability vs. Levy's op-eds: I have no major qualms about Haaretz's reliability. I don't, however, believe Levy's op-eds should be used to criticize people he disagrees with (the majority of Israel, Haaretz staff inclded) on an encyclopedia. Btw, you gave no links to the articles, so it was impossible to make note of whether or not their content was written by Mr. Levy and thus, I've made a comment to make sure that my concern is duly noted.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

<refactored from below> There's a major misconception here about our sourcing policies. We don't consider the reliability of the writer but only of the publication - in this case Haaretz. So it's irrelevant that some people have political objections to Levy's views. If they are published by a reliable source, in this case Haaretz, then that meets our criteria for inclusion. However, we also don't present opinion pieces as statements of fact (see WP:RS) so any citation of Levy's views should be prefixed with something like "Gideon Levy argues that..." <snip> -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chris,

In the case of Levy, your suggestion would in my opinion leave too much room for weasel introduction to Levy. Best to avoid controversial commentators and stick with ones that are not hailed as 'radicals', For example, Mahmoud al-Zahar was published once or twice at the LA-Times but we're not going to cite his criticism against the US on George Bush's article just because he was published on a reliable publication. Anyways, if this argument doesn't persuade you, then I don't mind taking this issue to BLPN for community examination. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite the same thing, Jaakobou. You have to consider the proportionality involved. There's a vast amount of commentary about GWB - Levy would only be a drop in the ocean and absent any other factors, reliance on his views would be putting undue weight on them. However, there's only a limited amount of mainstream published commentary about the al+Durrah case. The vast majority of commentators have not actually touched the case at all; the relatively small number who have appear mostly to be partisan advocates of the conspiracy theory. Levy's views gain significance because such a small number of people have published opinion pieces on the issue (I don't have the figures to hand, but it's probably not more than a couple of dozen writers at the most). It's important that we should present both sides of the argument, to avoid giving the impression that there is some sort of consensus in the commentariat. Mentioning Levy's views would enable us to provide a degree of balance, "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", as WP:NPOV requires. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your argument but it seems, and forgive me if I misunderstood, that you've yet to get down to the bottom of my concern. I have absolutely no problem with people placing criticism towards the theory that the event was, to some extent, staged. There's various levels of conspiracism here and certainly a few of them are quite a stretch to the point of being comparable with 9.11 theories - and hence deserve a counter perspective or criticism being presented. However, I find the "partisan advocates of the conspiracy theory" claim a bit too conclusive, especially considering the volume of people promoting the insidious blood libel version. Anyways, such conclusive claims seem to me as erosive towards critical thinking as I'm sure a reasonable number of the people who touched the subject, such as Larry Derfner of Jpost and Shai Hazkani of Channel 10 news, are not as partisan as you suggest and to remind, a journalist who writes his opinion in a column is still just a journalist and not a specialist. Levy is not a good source for criticism on his ideological opponents because of the conclusive nature of his world view where he claims "Jews got their justice and now, I believe, it's the turn of the Palestinians". His approach to the issues is from a "blame Israel" angle to the point where his view on Marwan Barghouti has been compared with 9.11 conspiracies as well. So, regardless of the publication, it would be dishonest to cite him as "an Israeli journalist from Haaretz" without making the weasely note that he's been described as a shabby journalist and a radical on his own right. As far as compromising goes, I'm 'willing to live with' using him in the current fashion, where he's cited along another source to prove that criticism was published on more than a single source. Anything beyond that would be, in my opinion, just like citing al-Zahar and would require a clear identification of the individual's ideological bias. Clarfication: The possibility that there haven't been many people who made harsh criticism of Shahaf does not persuade me to believe we should look for extra problematic sources just so we can beef up the criticism section. In fact, I believe that use of Levy only detracts from the validity of the criticism. Anyways, I'm open to some form of community input on this if you insist... I was thinking BLPN is the best place.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Clarify, 21:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies but I've only just found this part of the talk page. J you are merely reiterating your political disagreement with Levy. This is not interesting, seriously. Furthermore if you don't understand the difference between a paper publishing op-eds by journalists and regular writers (whatever their known opinions), and occasional pieces by engaged politicians, then all is lost (both need to be treated with scepticism btw, in differing ways). With respect etc. And less WP:SOAP and WP:IRONYGIVENTHATYOUALWAYSACCUSEOTHERSOFSOAPING along the way please? --Nickhh (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As far a wikipedia requirements regarding reliable sources, an OpEd is an OpEd - there's no difference between an OpEd by a columnist or a politician. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent fact tag

per the following diff: [5]

The information is cited in the given source but perhaps the phrasing is the cause for concern? I'm open to suggestions and even some form of omission to resolve this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What, the Hebrew source? I and most other people here can't check that one I'm afraid. And the problem as far as I'm concerned is that if someone was indead a leader in their field, you would expect a lot more coverage of them and their achievements in mainstream or specialist sources. These simply don't appear to exist for Shahaf. The wider problem is that this article is being used as a booster for content in the al-Durrah article. Shahaf is cited there as a major proponent of the hoax/staged theory; readers may then come here to find out more about him, and discover that he is supposedly a well-known and high-profile scientist and general expert on everything, who turned that expert and dispassionate gaze to the al-Durrah issue and has now exposed the truth about that sordid little episode in Palestinian mendacity. It is really not clear that this is the case in the real world. --Nickhh (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Specialist sources: Personally, I don't have access to the air-force unmanned crafts industry files but if you've gone over them and vouch that they indeed have nothing suggesting he was a leader in the industry, then I will accept your testimonial. If your statement was not based on review of the sources, however, then I suggest this argument be either explored or dropped.

al-Durrah issue: Would a translation in the reference satisfy your source related concern or would you prefer we omit this information because it somehow affects the al-Durrah case? I'm not sure there is support for the latter in Wikipedia policies.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Missed the point. Show me, as I've asked, other, secondary sources which establish his notability and authority to discuss the issue at hand. Or his status as a "leader" in any specific field. Simple really. --Nickhh (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been through newspaper databases in English, French, German, Spanish and Italian and found nothing about Shahaf except in reference to the al-Durrah case. That seems to be his only international claim to fame. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

Topic of current thread: I opened this subsection because of Nickhh's concerns and fact tagging of the mention that Shahaf is "a leading figure in the Israeli unmanned aircraft development industry" (see the provided diff above). This has very little to do with international claims to fame and was already cited in the Hebrew reference which I proposed to translate to alleviate his concerns. I'm fairly certain that the al-Durrah issue is irrelevant for the "Israeli unmanned aircrafts industry"-related fact tag and I made note of this to Nickhh.

Extra verification: If I understand correctly, Nickhh notes that "[specialist sources] simply don't appear to exist for Shahaf." and requested extra sources for corroboration of the currently cited Hebrew source -- which he is unable to read -- despite my suggestion for translation. In my reply I explained that, I'd be willing to further explore the claim that specialist sources exist/don't exist, but if Nickhh has indeed made a conclusive search in the specialist sources, then I am willing to take his word on it as it would be a waste of time to repeat the search and come up empty as well.

Nickhh, have you made a concerted effort going over specialist/mainstream sources and came up with no mention of his pilotless aircraft design work? I feel obligated to repeat that this is mentioned in the Hebrew source, but I'd be interested in your response non-the-less.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced the tagged statement to Amnonm Lord's JCPA article, which describes Shahaf as a leading figure in IAI's pilotless aircraft project. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved from lower section to proper chronological location Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, ridicule by Gideon Levy (which is a recent issue due to his controversial journalistic standing) is not exactly official newspaper opinion. He has, in fact, professed in an interview that his opinions are at a minority at Haaretz.

• Source: סיכום המפגש עם העיתונאי גדעון לוי, מתאריך 26.2.2002
  • Translation: - Is it correct that you are left alone at Haaretz with these opinions of yours?
    - I'm not alone at Haaretz but I am at a minority, but it is ok. Original:
    - אם נכון שבהארץ נותרת בודד במערכת בדעותיך אלו?
    - אני לא בודד בעיתון הארץ, אם כי אני במיעוט, אבל זה בסדר.

With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

End moved section.

Well done. One journalist says something in one article sourced to a fanatical nationalist site, and it becomes authoratitive fact in a Wikipedia lead. Mainstream media criticism, specifically referenced as being such, is removed from the body of an article on the basis of BLP concerns. Welcome to Wikipedia and the world of balance. --Nickhh (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Which reliable source has described the Jerusalem Center as "fanatical"? If you don't understand thew difference between an OpEd and an investigative journalism report, as it pertains to contentious material about living persons, ask, and I will be happy to explain. In any case, please refrain from re-inserting material which an uninvolved admin has determined is a BLP violation into the article. If you persist, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1) I never said one had described it as such - it's merely how I chose to describe, on a talk page, an organisation which says its aim is to "present [fill in country name here]'s case" and work for that nation's "growth and survival"; 2) I do understand the difference between op-eds and investigative pieces, and never said or implied that I did not; 3) Please stop inventing things I have supposedly said, and then patronising me - it gets more boring each time you do it. See you around. --Nickhh (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1)In thre future, kindly keep your personal opinions out of Talk pages, which are for the improvement of articles, not for soapboxing. 2) You were asking why one item (sourced to an investigative news report) was presented in the article as fact, while another item (sourced to a partisan OpEd) was removed. This suggests you don't really understand the difference between the two. 3) I don't believe I've invented anything - I'm replying to your posted comments. I you are bored - please find something else to do. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

Folks, please remember that this article falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. As such, uninvolved administrators are empowered to place discretionary sanctions on the article and/or editors here: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. So please ensure that discussions remain civil, and that article additions are carefully sourced. Thanks, --Elonka 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You are no longer an uninvolved admin, Elonka - not after the recent RfC - so please do not assume that you can intervene here. If you think there is a persistent issue, raise it at AN/I - no more unilateral interventions, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PS to my comment below -- Elonka has only issued a reminder so far. Let's see if we can get a conversation going before we react to strongly to the reminder. HG | Talk 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, hi. I've been observing her RfC (and even tried my hand, albeit unsuccessfully, at trying to find a middle ground). I do have the impression that a substantial number of users (e.g., via Ramdrake, MastCell) have supported your concerns about Elonka's methodology in interventions and, perhaps to a lesser degree, her responsiveness. However, not that much has been said in the RfC to support your assertion here that she is an "uninvolved admin" here (or elsewhere). In any case, the RfC is somewhat difficult to interpret, since it doesn't seem to be emerging toward consensus and it hasn't been closed. As I think you know, I respect your work in Wikipedia. I'm open to trying to open a conversation w/you and Elonka about the (discretionary) groundrules for this page, if that would be helpful. What do you think? Thanks, HG | Talk 12:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to seem uncooperative, but I don't want her involved in this article, period - particularly as a so-called "uninvolved" admin. After an RfC (which I initiated), a recall request (which I didn't initiate or support, but for which she has blamed me) and an RfA request (ditto), I think it's unrealistic to expect her to be objective or neutral about any matters in which I'm involved. She doesn't need to be involved here. If she has concerns, as I've already said, she should find a genuinely uninvolved admin - ideally, someone who hasn't participated in the RfC, recall or RfA - to look at the matter. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ChrisO, we realize you don't like Elonka. But you don't get to decide which editors particpate on which pages, and you don't get to decide who is uninvolved. The fact that Elonka has sanctioned you in the past does not get you an exemption here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no prerequisite for Elonka to participate here even if the page is some type of extension of the al-Durrah page; something Nickhh clarified earlier. However, I don't see nothing wrong with the reminder considering some clear incivility infractions as well as the recent edit-warring. I'm not sure on where I stand with the involved/uninvolved issue, but I'm thinking that Elonka should avoid administrative action on this page at this point in time (unless there is something very clear) and that other editors should stop violating the purpose of the encyclopedia. Is this proposition agreed on the people involved and uninvolved? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no prerequisite for Elonka to participate here, but there is equally no problem with such participation, if she so chooses. The fact that one of the editors here does not like her and has decided to try and wikilawyer her off of articles he's involved with is not a factor worthy of serious consideration. I, for one, welcome her involvemt, as she seems to be the only one willing to stand up to said editor's POV-pushing and bullying. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, gentlemen, sit tight and let's hear Elonka's response, when she has a chance. Thanks. HG | Talk

I have quite a bit to say about this... but I will honor HG's request. I think my self-control is admirable. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Chris, you don't get to designate Elonka as an "involved administrator" simply because you start an RFC on her in reaction to her administrative actions regarding you. Wouldn't that be nice, any time an admin blocks someone, the blockee just opens an RFC on the blocker and Presto!, the admin is "involved" and can never take admin action against them again. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling defines involvement as content disputes on articles in the area of conflict, so I concur with Jayjg about Elonka still being uninvolved, although I don't agree with his other comments. PhilKnight (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the more exasperated parts of my post. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

PhilKnight and Jayjg seem to have said anything necessary. I am still an uninvolved admin in this topic area. Just because an editor starts an RfC on an admin, does not make the admin "involved" and incapable of taking further actions with regard to that editor. See WP:UNINVOLVED. Also, I'd like to be clear that I'm not "claiming" this page in anyway. Indeed, any uninvolved admin is welcome to participate here. If I took an administrative action that another (uninvolved) admin found questionable, I would encourage them to bring their concerns to my talkpage. I would do the same for them. In my experience, the best way to handle these highly contentious topic areas, is to have admins working in tandem. However, it's often difficult to get more than one admin's attention on a single page. So in that respect, I welcome PhilKnight's participation here, and encourage him to stick around. :) --Elonka 02:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As an administrative note, Nickhh (talk · contribs) has been banned by administrator Coren (talk · contribs) from editing this article for 60 days (see User talk:Nickhh#Nahum Shahaf). Nickhh is still allowed to participate at the talkpage. --Elonka 09:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional reliable sources

Greetings. In threads above, I've quoted from an Australian newspaper article (10-6-08) and Haaretz (11-7-00) regarding Shahaf with the Rabin and al Dura cases. Here are two other sources that could help provide info for the article. First, a brief follow-up in Haaretz the next day (11-8-00) which concludes in a very critical tone:

Mofaz fielded questions about the investigation into the death of al Dura after Ha'aretz reported yesterday that the IDF had staged re-enactments of the Netzarim shootout. These re-enactments, Ha'aretz reported, were initiated by two civilians, physicist Nahum Shahaf and engineer Yosef Duriel, who contacted Samia and argued that it is implausible that the boy was shot by IDF bullets. Samia appointed Shahaf to head the committee despite the fact that the physicist lacks experience in areas critical to the inquiry. Questioning Mofaz about the committee's report, MK Ophir Pines-Paz (One Israel) said, "One gets the impression that instead of genuinely confronting this incident, the IDF has chosen to stage a fictitious re-enactment and cover up the incident by means of an inquiry with foregone conclusions and the sole purpose of which is to clear the IDF of responsibility for al Dura's death. ("MOFAZ: AL DURA PROBE WAS INITIATED BY SOUTHERN COMMAND" no byline)

Second, there's an 11-11-00 article in The Times (London: " Palestinians shot boy, disputed report says" by Sam Kiley) that deals w/the Haaretz info, including: " A nominally independent investigation by the Israeli Army into the death of Muhammad Dura, the 12-year-old Gazan whose killing was captured by a film crew and broadcast around the world, is expected to conclude this week that he was not killed by Israelis but by Palestinians. The conclusion, which comes as a result of an investigation by Nahum Shahaf, a civilian physicist appointed by Brigadier Yomtov Samia, the Israeli military commander in Gaza, has already been ridiculed as "absurd" and "obscene" by military officials and Israel's most prestigious newspaper, Haaretz."

Also, Ha'aretz again ("Stupidity Marches On" 11-10-00, it sound like editorial but not marked that way in Nexis) states: "It is hard to describe in mild terms the stupidity of this bizarre investigation. ...The fact that an organized body like the IDF, with its vast resources, undertook such an amateurish investigation - almost a pirate endeavor - on such a sensitive issue, is shocking and worrying. " Granted, this criticizes the IDF more than Shahaf, who w/Duriel is said to have "had their own preconceived idea" going into their investigation.

Also, Jerusalem Post (March 17, 2008. "STILL NOT AT REST" by Bernard Edinger, Eetta Prince-Gibson): "The investigation by Shahaf and Doriel was widely ridiculed in the Israeli media, since neither are ballistics experts, they did not have access to film footage from any known news agency and, by that time, the actual site of the shooting had been razed so their investigation was based on a reconstruction of the scene."

Surely I do not mean to imply that each source needs to be quoted in our article. But there does seem to be some useful info here about the criticisms of Shahaf's work, which may improve the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, HG. I would be careful here, though: virtually all the sources that are most critical of Shahaf are from very early on (or refer to that time). If you look at the 2008 article you reference, it has this line:

"...now, seven and a half years after Enderlin's veteran cameraman, Palestinian Talal Abu Rahmeh, filmed some of the most recognizable news footage ever recorded, the question of who killed Mohammed a-Dura - or whether he was actually killed - has not been convincingly resolved. In fact, as time passes, the controversy has become more heated and the questions surrounding the event and its aftermath have become even more troubling." (Emphasis added, Extract is here)

What does this tell us? That what seemed farcically absurd in 2000 is less far-fetched in 2008. We shouldn't make it seem as though these criticisms are still being leveled at Shahaf, unless they in fact are. IronDuke 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the time context can be noted. But is there recent (countervailing) praise for his work? I'd be wary of inferring too much: doubts could continue to be raised about al-Dura for various reasons, even as Shahaf's work itself werre still be deemed low quality. Do you know what I mean? HG | Talk 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think I know. As for countervailing praise, there's quite a bit (in the article already), and it's also quite a bit more recent. In fact, it seems like the majority of the criticism is old, and the praise generally much newer. IronDuke 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Ok, looking it over, what praise are you referring to? The Israel media watch award? Also, I just looked at the al-Durrah article and I don't quite see how Shahaf is vindicated. Instead, it seems to go back and forth about whether accusations can be made public, not about their validity. Is that right? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying anything about vindication... am I reading something wrong? There is the Israel media watch award, but I think more important than that is his being quoted by Fallows in a highly-influential piece, on 60 minutes, and in a book by a reasonably well-known author. AFAIK, none of these people refer to his theories in the negative manner some were cast very early on. They do not say "Shahaf is the greatest physicist who ever lived," but they do seem to rely on him as a worthy source promoting an intriguing hypothosis -- not as a crank in any way. IronDuke 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I just assumed that the praise would serve to vindicate him. But I see what you mean, he is treat in a legit manner, and from this our readers can infer a certain kind of praise or at least acceptance of him. That's fair enough. But the negative response to him (and Samia) probably should be added to the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Long as we put it in the context of "initial reactions." IronDuke 03:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I wasn't aware that Haaretz was Israel's most prestigious newspaper(?) On this article they are placed in two surveys at numbers 12 and 14, in both surveys, between TheMarker and Sports5(!).

<snip moved to Levy>

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, Jaakobou, I don't believe I cited the Levy opinion piece, so maybe your comment should go in that thread, above? Also, Haretz is a reliable source and used extensively. You could try objecting to its WP use at the RS noticeboard, though I don't think it'd be worth your time. Thank you for your and your comment on the JPost. W/respect back at ya, HG | Talk 00:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Extra input from Haaretz: I made a quick look into one of the articles, written by Adi Schwartz (i.e. not Levy), and it makes note of the removed investigator but neglects to mention he was not a leading figure in the investigation and was removed because he couldn't perform the needed tasks. Regardless, "Meir Danino, who holds a doctorate in physics and is the chief scientist at Elisra Systems" is noted in the article to agree with Shahaf's proposition regarding the al-Durrah incident. <snip moved to Levy>

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, J, it's just that Nexis requires a subscription and I don't have other links (but I do mention if byline is given). There are various comments about Shahaf's work in that Schwartz article you cite, thanks, and I'd think that they may be germane to this article, as you suggest. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

<snip, moved to Levy above> As for IronDuke's comments above, the only thing that has really changed in the last few years is that the conspiracy theory has gained wider exposure due to its supporters' campaigning. That doesn't mean to say it has any more credibility than it had before. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement "the only thing that has really changed in the last few years is that the conspiracy theory has gained wider exposure due to its supporters' campaigning. That doesn't mean to say it has any more credibility than it had before." is simply not true. First of all, the major change in the last few years is that the original claims by France 2 ("The Israelis shot Al-Durrah deliberatley") have been almost universally rejected, and the mainstream opinion these days is that it is physically impossible for an Israeli bullet shot from the Israeli position to have hit the boy, and that he was likely shot by Palestinians (this is the conclusion of both Shapira and Fallows). As far as the "staged theory", it has certainly gained more exposure due to its supporters' campaigning, but also due to France 2's decision to try and shut up its critics through the use of defamation lawsuits - a tactic which has backfired. More importantly, though, the theory most certainly has more credibility today than it had before. For one thing, it has many more supporters. And whereas it was originally rejected by official Israeli government organs, we now have the head of Israel's Government Press Office, statinmg the event was "essentially staged". And we have the recent French court ruling, which says that Karsenty (another proponent of the "staged" theory) has put together a credible case, which can't be dismissed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, the above is bollocks. Bear in mind that I've done the legwork on this using Lexis-Nexis to review literally thousands of articles in multiple languages. The original claims were very widely reported. I'm not aware of any newspaper or broadcaster publishing a retraction and saying "we got it wrong". Certainly no newspaper that I've found has done any sort of re+investigation in its news pages. A limited number of op-ed columnists in a limited number of mostly decidedly right-wing newspapers (Canada Post, Jerusalem Post, Wall Street Journal etc) have written strongly-worded opinion pieces arguing for the conspiracy theory - but as you should know, we are not allowed to use opinion pieces as statements of fact (see WP:RS#News organizations). The vast majority of publications that ran the original story have not even mentioned the conspiracy theory. Those that have have mostly reported neutrally on it in the context of the France 2 lawsuits. Very few have actually endorsed the conspiracy theory in their news (as opposed to opinion or editorial) pages.

You're right that the France 2 lawsuits have backfired - that's the problem with suing for libel, you just end up giving free publicity to your opponents. However, controversy does not equate credibility. Intelligent design and global warming denial did not become more credible when more people started promoting them, any more than 9/11 conspiracy theories did - I daresay more people support the latter now than a few years ago, but that makes no difference to the credibility of an idea. The bottom line is that this is a political campaign by people with a particular political objective. There seems to be no "mainstream view" as such. All we can say is that out of all of the media sources that have ever commented on the case, the vast majority reported the original version, a smaller number reported the conspiracy theory and the lawsuits, and a very small number have endorsed the conspiracy theory, but even then almost entirely in op-eds, not in news reporting.

As for the French court judgment, you're just repeating the spin put on it by Karsenty's chums: as the French media made clear at the time, the court was merely required to rule on whether Karsenty's claims met the requirements of the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881, not whether his claims had any truth. The Israeli press officer's comments were also disowned by the Israeli government, which said that he had made them in a personal, not professional capacity. The official Israeli government view appears to be "no comment". -- ChrisO (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this, at length, at the Al-Dura article. You are repeating your assertions which have been refuted many times over. I don't intend to repeat that exchange over here - I will just mentions a few main points: The French court, while not required to rule on the veracity of Kersanty's claims, did state clearly and unequivocaly that he put together a coherent body of evidence which can't be dismissed - which is exactly calling it credible. The conclusion that Al-Dura was likely shot by Palestinians was reported by Shapira's well-researched ARD documentary - not in an Oped. Fallows' simialr conclusion was also not an OpEd. And multiple recent news sources, not OpEds, that called the story a hoax or a likely hoax, were presented in the Al-Dura article. None of this is directly relevant to this article, which is a BLP - and I am going to warn you that repeated violations of WP:BLP wll lead to you being blocked. If you can't edit neutrally on this topic, please don't edit here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering your own dismal record in this matter, I would have thought a BLP warning would be far more appropriate for you. But in any case, you're committing original research again, just as you did in the al-Durrah article. The French court did not at any point comment on the credibility of Karsenty's claims. As International Libel and Privacy Handbook: A Global Reference for Journalists states, a defendant can be acquitted "if the court is satisfied that the defendant has carried out at least a basic verification of the source of the information on which the defamatory statement is based." That is precisely what the court did in this case + hence the relevance of the "coherent body of evidence". The French press, which one would imagine knows the terms of the law under which it operates, has made it clear what the judgment meant in practice. Karsenty and his chums have a more self+serving view, naturally.

The status of Shapira's documentary and Fallows' piece is a bit fuzzy, admittedly; they both fall in the cracks between original reporting (which they do) and presentation of the author's personal impressions (which they also do). Fallows' piece is probably more categorizable as an opinion piece, given that its publisher, The Atlantic Monthly, is primarily an outlet for commentary. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My 'dismal record'? What on Earth are you on about? Have you decided to add violations of WP:NPA to your already lenghtly list of wikipedia policy violations? I strongly urge you to strike that out. You may spin all you want , but the French verdict speaks for itself - it says Karsenty's evidence can't be dismissed. If you don't see how that speaks to its credibilty, too bad. There is nothing "fuzzy" about a television documentary by ARD, nor about a piece of investigative journalism in the Atlantic Monthly -they are both news reports in reliable sources, which completely debunk the shoddy piece of "journalism" that France 2 produced and dissimenated, and which was severly criticized by the French court verdict, as well. As I said - this is not the place to rehash the debate from the Al-Dura article. This article is about a living person, and editors who can't edit in accordance with WP:BLP should not be editing here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(Refactored here w/ok from ChrisO and Jaakobou. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

@Canadian Monkey - BLP means we don't make a big song and dance about one story a journalist did 8 years ago and try to make out he's a liar - particularly not in league with those (such as CAMERA) who have told us they're trying to get him sacked over it. Enderlin's public profile is 100s to 1 that he's reliable and honest.

Nor does BLP mean we treat with kid gloves an unqualified publicist who has raised himself from total obscurity with what RSs have described as an obsession. This man's public profile is 1 to 100s that he's <BLP violation removed> (and probably FRINGE to the nth degree). He would remain that way even if he were (impossibly) proved right in this case. The denial that has taken over his life is unsavoury - or worse. PR^talk 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not "one story a journalist did 8 years ago" - it was a major media event, which caused very notable reactions and resulted in a major ocntroversy, which has lasted more than 8 years. Enderlin is not even mentioned in this article, so I don't know what you're on about. BLP applies to every article and evry page on WP - including talk pages. accordingly, I have struck out your BLP violation, and hope you will not repeat it. BLP requires that contentious information be impeccably sourced - and that is what I am striving for in this article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel Media Watch award

Resolved

Hi. I'm having trouble confirms the praise/info on this award. The link to the website didn't disclose the info nor did my google search. If it's a notable award, why isn't it covered better? How good is the IMW and does it need some qualifier? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite a number of links can be found through here and here.

• ICE News
• NFC news
• Omedia
• Haaretz

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Those work really well for me. Why don't you pick a couple of the them as footnotes? Perhaps people will complain about the language, but it's better than a non-working English link. Thanks very much, Jaakobou. HG | Talk 04:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. No-one doubts he won said award. But where is the notability (yes, I am still complaining)? Secondary sources please, in English, in significant sources, for the benefit of English Wikipedia? This is pretty basic stuff according to WP rules. --Nickhh (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't recall the policy about English vs foreign language sources. Can you pls give me a link? Thanks. HG | Talk 22:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, English language sources are not strictly required. But they would help, no, for most users? And translations should be available? And that doesn't avoid the requirement on sources to be notable does it? --Nickhh (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for asking, but is there really an issue with the notability of Haaretz and Omedia? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Sure, the sources have to be notable but, as Jaakobou points out, they are sufficient. Unfortunately, so far we don't have an English version or translation. However, reading the policy, I personally don't think we need to translate the text -- because there's really no need to challenge the info. Editors may doubt that it's worth including, but the fact itself is hardly worth disputing. (If need be, somebody like Jaakobou can translate a key sentence and somebody like me can check it.) Thanks, HG | Talk 22:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz is fine in principle of course (although on this specific point I have no idea what the cited article says), Omedia I've never heard of. Not that this necessarily means anything of course, but I do know quite a lot about world media sources generally. WP:RSN is a better place to ask that question surely? Still not sure we have genuine notability as to the fundamental point --Nickhh (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following you. What is "the fundamental point" that makes you believe this text should not be cited? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a similar question as Jaakobou. Nickhh, it is extremely common to include awards in bios. So the notability or relevance of awards, within bios, is well established. WP "notability" applies mainly to articles; for a specific fact (e.g., the award), a single reliable source is usually sufficient. Other uninvolved parties can chime in here, but the Haaretz cite should be adequate to place this award in the article. So, is there some other policy or other aspect involved here? Thanks. HG | Talk 09:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never doubted that he got this award, and that it is possibly worth a mention. But as you acknowledge we have to accept that some awards (eg a Nobel Prize) carry more value and are more notable than others. In any event I've only raised questions about this issue because it seems some editors are keen to stuff this article with praise even from fairly marginal political groups, but exclude any specific criticism that has been voiced in the mainstream media. It was the contrast as much as anything that I was trying to flag up. Anyway, I'm gone (nearly) --Nickhh (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In the future, if you don't mind my saying, please do not question one edit in order to make a point about the overall balance. Just question the balance directly. Take care. HG | Talk 16:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

HG, you started this thread and asked for sources to confirm/establish notability. I never questioned the edit per se or the inclusion of the award in the article, here or elsewhere. When I've discussed the broader issue about balance elsewhere on the talk page - as I have - I have in fact noted that the award itself was probably "worth mentioning". Cheers, --Nickhh (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a misunderstood your previous comment, or your 1st (But where is the notability (yes, I am still complaining)?) and I apologize for prolonging this. No hard feelings, be well, HG | Talk 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this issue seems to be resolved and the award has at least one reliable sources. If English sources are found, please add. The thread can be archived. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear HG - there is a serious problem at a number of articles with premature archiving of material that is a) quite recent and b) of long-term significance to editing of this article (and many others).

For instance, if the project has abandoned VERIFIABILITY (as would appear from this discussion), then everyone here needs to know about it (and it would be nice to see a full explanation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration).

If you're puzzled about my statement, I should tell you there is a real danger that the organisation referenced here is vanishingly FRINGE and it's commendation has no place in this article. "Media Watch" groups of this kind are notorious for one-dimensional output indistinguishable from propaganda, and even attempts to subvert the project with faux admins. Even the (normally right-wing) JPost has called Shahaf a "conspiracy theorist", and his helpers Landers and Karsenty "conspiracy freaks", both in the body and headline of an op-ed. It seems hardly possible that a reputable media organisation has a radically different opinion of Shahaf. There is a real danger of serious distortion if we carry on down this path.

One of my former mentors was forced to break the, until-then, fully public nature of her interaction with me in an e-mail warning that a translation I'd been told to get for myself (suggestion - use an uninvolved, randomly chosen, Hebrew speaking editor here), was liable to cause severe offense if I did so. If I'm obligated to have one or more Hebrew-speaking mentors as well in order to continue being an editor, a statement to that effect would be appreciated. PR^talk 10:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

PR, I have warned you before about this, and struck out your previous BLP violation. Since you have now repeated the violation, here and on other pages, falsely citing the Jerusalem Post in your support, you leave me no choice but to report your behaviour. May I ask who is your current mentor, per the restictions placed on your editing by the community?

For future reference, the JP article you cite refers to Shahaf in the folowing place, and only there, in these words: "Referring to Nahum Shahaf, one of Yom Tov Samia's investigators and the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania, Fallows continues: "Shahaf's evidence for this conclusion, based on his videos, is essentially an accumulation of oddities and unanswered questions about the chaotic events of the day." Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, that is the writer quoting the Fallows article. In his own words, the writer describes Shahaf as "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania". Just for future reference. --Nickhh (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, that's right up there in the section I've quoted, do read a little more carefully next time. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people know about this accusation you're making against me, and the fact that you didn't tell me you were making such a complaint.

And that you carelessly told people that Nickhh had been sanctioned for the same offense (begging the question of why you didn't tell me this when I first called Shahaf a conspiracy theorist).

You insisted I take advice before responding to you, which explains the slight tardiness of my full response. But I'd be happy to let sleeping dogs lie and, without prejudice, replace "conspiracy theorist" with "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania". Would that make you feel better? PR^talk 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? I responded to a comment you made here, a few hours after you made it. Do you expect a personal message on your Talk page to let you know I've repsonded to your post? When your participate in dioscussion on a Talk page, your are expected to take an active interest in what people say in response. Of course "Lots of people know about this accusation you're making against me" - it was made publicly, on an open Talk page (unlike your desire to conduct things not in the open, through E-mail or secret off-wiki mailing lists. ANd contrary to what youclaim here, I did warn you about this BLP vioaltion the firs time - its right here on this talk page. I ask you again, who is your current mentor, required by the editing restrictions placed on you? Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the Jpost quote - CM you're the one who seems to have cut & pasted the section without reading it, since you've been going around complaining that people have been saying the piece refers to Shahaf as a "conspiracy theorist", alleging that this is some sort of misquote, when in fact of course it's a rather polite interpretation of what the writer is actually saying. I just wanted to be sure you and everyone else is clear about what Karsenty was saying himself, and the far more measured words that he was quoting from Fallows. --Nickhh (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP

Folks, please remember that per Wikipedia's policy about the biographies of living people, controversial claims about living people should stay off of talkpages, as well as articles. Now, having said that, there's some leeway here, because a certain amount of legitimate fair discussion is allowed, where it may be necessary to refer to the actual claims on the talkpage of an article, even if they come from sources of dubious, unconfirmed, or controversial reliability. This is because sometimes it's near-impossible to talk about "should we include this in the article" unless "this" can be clearly referred to. So, I have added the {{NOINDEX}} template to this page for now, to keep it off the search engines. Please do continue with discussions, and then after they're completed, we may go ahead and courtesy-blank the section. In the meantime, I ask everyone to please be very very mindful of BLP concerns, and keep any potentially controversial terms to a minimum. Thanks, --Elonka 22:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled here - what's controversial about calling Shahaf a "conspiracy theorist"? An Op-ed in an Israeli newspaper calls him "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania" - one might easily suppose that the RS source was actually being more damning than my abreviation of their charge. PR^talk 20:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theorist" is a negative term. In order to use it in a biography of a living person, per Wikipedia's policy on these biographies, we would want multiple reliable sources which used such language. A simple opinion piece in one Israeli newspaper is not sufficient. --Elonka 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The text which was battled over most recently did not state outright that he was a conspiracy theorist. It made the accurate assessment that he had been described as such in the media. While I agree that it is usually used in a perjorative sense, at the same time strictly it simply means that the individual believes that some sort of truth is being hidden by concerted action behind the scenes, which is precisely what Shahaf is claiming. Even when used as a negative term, it is not suggesting that the person pushing the theory is a fraud or a liar (which would raise real BLP concerns) but simply that they are mistaken or wrong, and have come to a conclusion based on speculation. In any event, here are several sources, most of which have been raised before. There aren't a huge amount, but that's to be honest because most of the mainstream media has pretty much ignored the theory and Shahaf altogether -

1) Ed O'Loughlin in Australia's The Age, citing Charles Enderlin as referring to the "conspiracy theory" surrounding the al-Durrah shooting, and also linking Shahaf specifically to allegations that Shimon Peres was behind a "conspiracy" to murder Yitzhak Rabin, here

2) Larry Derfner writing in the Jerusalem Post, describing Shahaf as above as "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania", in an article headlined by the paper "al-Dura and the conspiracy freaks", here

3) Larry Derfner again, using the phrase "conspiracy theory" numerous times, and specifically saying Shahaf "pioneered the field of al-Dura conspiracy theory after cutting his teeth on the Rabin assassination", here

4) Gideon Levy in Haaretz, talking about Shahaf's "eccentric obsession" with the case, here

5) David Langsam discussing the "conspiracy theories" and stating that Shahaf's report is used as supposed proof of them in the Rationalist, here. Possibly a slightly marginal source

6) James Fallows in The Atlantic Monthly avoids using the phrase itself, but does rather pointedly bring up the classic definition when he says "The reasons to doubt that the al-Duras, the cameramen, and hundreds of onlookers were part of a coordinated fraud are obvious. Shahaf's evidence for this conclusion, based on his videos, is essentially an accumulation of oddities and unanswered questions", here

Even sources broadly supportive of Shahaf and others acknowledge the accusations that they are "conspiracy theorists", if only to deny them, eg Richard Landes, here. Again, I can't see the problem with saying that he has been "described as a conspiracy theorist" or "is noted for supporting what has been described as a conspiracy theory". --Nickhh (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The latter formulation ("is noted for supporting what has been described as a conspiracy theory") is supported by numerous sources, and I am ok with it. It is different from applying a pejorative label to the person, which is a BLP violation not supported by the sources. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait: what? Am I missing something? PR is being accused of a BLP violation, apparently because PR said something on this talk page which is already said in one of our articles? The Muhammad al-Durrah article says of Shahaf "...while other reporters dismissed them as ...". There's a reference, but with no online version. By the way, in the link given by Nickhh ("eg Richard Landes here"), I don't find the word "theorist" anywhere in the article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You should know better than this. If there's another BLP violation on another page, that's no excuse for repeating it here, especially after this very statement has been removed from this article by an uninvolved admin who called it a BLP violation. As you have volunteered to perform potentially contentious edits on the Muhammad al-Durrah Talk page, please remove that BLP violation (which you have not been able to verify) from that article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a BLP violation on one page doesn't excuse a BLP violation on another page. Thanks for pointing out the deletion per BLP from this article, which I hadn't been aware of. I don't know whether the bit in the other article is a BLP violation or not. Sources don't have to be available online; although I haven't verified it, I don't know that it isn't verifiable. I suggest that you propose a specific edit on the talk page of the article in question and see if a rough consensus can be achieved. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, sources don't have to be available online in order to be comapliant with WP:V. I wasn't suggetsing otherwise. My suggestion for a specific edit is along the lines of what has been proposed here by Nickhh: "Other reporters have dismissed the investigation's conclusions as a 'conspiracy theory'. " Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to use "theory" than "theorist", partly because I'm under the impression that that's what many of the sources do, and partly because it's less personal and refrains from implying that the person does stuff like this about other topics too. However, if it were to be put in quotation marks like that, then someone would have to check the source to see if it uses those exact words (or use a different source instead; I'm not sure how that would work with the editing conditions, but if we get consensus then we can ask). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)