Misplaced Pages

Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:24, 9 September 2008 editTundrabuggy (talk | contribs)2,973 edits →Restrictions followup: not an editorial← Previous edit Revision as of 18:38, 9 September 2008 edit undoCanadian Monkey (talk | contribs)3,220 edits →Restrictions followupNext edit →
Line 182: Line 182:
::::::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." ] (]) 01:40, 9 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." ] (]) 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Please folks, let's stick to discussing the article, not the contributors. Thanks, --]]] 01:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC) ::::::: Please folks, let's stick to discussing the article, not the contributors. Thanks, --]]] 01:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)



==Restrictions followup== ==Restrictions followup==
Line 199: Line 200:
:I agree with PalestineRemembered that the Ramallah lynching and the beheading of ] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC) :I agree with PalestineRemembered that the Ramallah lynching and the beheading of ] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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 small handful of authors who 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. ] (]) 18:24, 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 small handful of authors who 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. ] (]) 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 ] article, and the continued incivility by ChrisO on ] and on this Talk page) ] (]) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:38, 9 September 2008

Skip to table of contents
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Template:WikiProject HOP
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Archiving icon
Archives

Additional subpages

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Conditions for editing

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 Misplaced Pages: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

Discussion

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

Related discussion

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: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elonka. --Elonka 18:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Link

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, Jaakobou 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. Jaakobou 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" ) 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. Jaakobou 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? Jaakobou 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. Jaakobou 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.

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[REDACTED] as well.
Cheers, Jaakobou 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
p.s. I agree with ChrisO about the "pronouncing someone dead" issue. Jaakobou 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)


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 believe that having a set of rules for editing one article that are different from the rules for every other Misplaced Pages article for more than a very brief period of time goes against the grain of Misplaced Pages. 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. Jaakobou 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 for no good reason whatsoever. 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 David Pearl), most of which we're currently not covering. PR 11:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PalestineRemembered that the Ramallah lynching and the beheading of David Daniel Pearl 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. Jaakobou 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 small handful of authors who 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)

Categories:
Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah: Difference between revisions Add topic