Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Recent edits

There has been a series of small edits recently to the article, some of which are very disagreeable. I would WP:BRD, but given the history of this article, I fear that would degenerate into an edit-war quite rapidly. I would therefore like to discuss this here first. The editor who made these edits might want to give his/her opinion on the following:

here the type of bullets (live and rubber-coated) is deleted and Reuters downgraded to "a Reuters reporter". This is removal of information and somewhat WP:WEASELy wording. How is this justified?
here, if in the previous edit verbosity was an issue, this one goes the other way. Can you explain? Also, whereas throughout the article every reference to the boy's death is padded in qualifiers and hypotheticals, the boy-lifting-head thing is presented as fact, and not, as per the previous edit, as "a Haaretz reporter claimed". Why?
here the source [1] is used to state that Jamal Al-Durrah a) received a palace and b) plans to live there. The source, however, says:

DEBORAH CAMPBELL: [..] Rumors spread of Jamal al-Durrah's instant wealth, but while other funds were collected throughout the Arab world, he says none ever reached him or any Palestinian. His boxlike home in the Bourij refugee camp is furnished with white plastic chairs and a child's bed as a sofa. But social workers told him he no longer qualifies for aid because, apparently, King Abdullah of Jordan has given him a palace. Jamal is angered by these accusations.

[JAMAL AL-DURRAH SPEAKING IN ARABIC] TRANSLATOR: Of course I will leave my home and live in the palace. I wouldn't live in the house that fills up with water in the winter.

So whereas the interviewer, Mrs. Campbell, treats the claim as a myth ("apparently", "accusations") and Jamal Al-Durrah answers sarcastically, this is taken as rock-solid evidence that he indeed received a palace and will move there soon? I'm sure that if this is indeed true, you can surely find a better, less ambiguous source than this...

here you inadvertently change the year of the interview from 2001 to 2000.

I am looking forward to your, and others', comments regarding these edits.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.11.2008 07:42

Thanks for the forensic analysis rather than my "it's all awful" efforts above (and below). I noticed the "A Reuters reporter .." switch last night and almost reverted it on sight, but backed off because at the end of the day it seemed like one issue among thousands, and if anything it would look like approval of the rest of it (as well, as you say, as leading to edit-warring). The later "Jamal's palace" addition is an especially brilliant piece of work. Overall the edits themselves, and the fact that 90% of the edits to this article over the past 3 months have come from the same editor, sum up what the problems are here. --Nickhh (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In general see the sensible advice in Ravpapa's essay. He comments on this article here. While he says the page is a 'fine article', he then says that an independent assessment would come away with the clear impression the incident was a hoax. This from one of the least controversial editors in the I/P area. When a page exists that so unilaterally dissatisfies one party to a dispute, who see it as tilted one way despite months of effort, one should set up a twin page, and make the two pages compete for the best NPOV version, without any reciprocal inference. For one thing, this mechanism would allow rapid drafting towards quality, and compel either side to handle POV problems among themselves rather than against adversaries. This would require some administrative decision perhaps, since it is a creative innovation to test an experiment that may prove useful, or fail: but it merits a trial. In lieu of this, we will just have years of gamesmanship.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a very interesting essay. I suspect that his impressions have been shaped by the last third of the article (the section at Muhammad al-Durrah#Main issues of controversy). This is the only part of the article which I hadn't got around to systematically revising; it's still largely based on a text that was written by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) a year or two ago. Frankly it wasn't great to begin with, being very slanted towards the conspiracy theory POV and omitting a lot of material of which SlimVirgin may not have been aware. I was in the process of rewriting that section offline at the point that Elonka decided to stage her little intervention a few months ago. It's still sitting on my hard disk, probably 80% done, but since Tundrabuggy seems to have been given ownership of the article I'm not sure there's much point in persisting with it. Perhaps the article should serve as a monument to the effects of unrestrained POV-pushing and misguided administrative interventions. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, again, I am not sure where you are getting this from. There are no current ArbCom restrictions on the article, and have not been for some time. If you would like to edit the article, please do so. Or, create a draft version in your userspace. No one is preventing you from doing this. Speaking for myself, as an administrator here, I have no preference on article content, and my only goal is to try and assist in providing a stable environment for everyone to edit. I simply want everyone to abide by Wikipedia policies: Stay civil, use good sources, make sure everything added is verifiable, do your best to create a quality article which is neutral, and does not give undue weight to any significant theories. Where there are disputes, work through dispute resolution. Also, for best results, please try to comment on content, and not the contributors; and lastly, remember that it is not our job on Wikipedia to decide disputes, it is instead our job to describe disputes in a neutral manner. That's the best way that we can provide a quality article, which best serves our readers. --El on ka 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

'a quality article which is neutral, and does not give undue weight to any significant theories.' I was expecting, 'does not give undue weight to any insignificant theories.' and therein lies the gravamen of our differences, if I may speak, rather presumptuously, for many.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the advantages of Ravpapa's approach, in special cases such as this where an intractable disagreement on what constitutes NPOV persists, and where administrators otherwise neutral to the subject might themselves differ among themselves precisely on how to read the text in pure NPOV terms, would be this. By creating two pages, respectively edited by either side, administrative oversight is rendered unnecessary, since either party would be constrained to monitor itself, while glancing continually at the other page to see if 'they' are doing a more impressive job, in a kind of intertextual competition that prioritizes internal self-restraint in order to beat the other side on quality (judged by GA status before a non I/P improvised committee). The intrinsic antagonism of POVs and subjective differences on what reads as NPOV translates into sheer market-style competition to produce a better product. I disagree with Ravpapa only on the idea both should be compelled to use the same sources. From Elonka's perspective, it would also eliminate the endemic problem of tagteam suspicions (since only those who had worked on the mother page would be entitled to work the competitive versions). There is something for everything in the proposal. Perhaps it should be formally raised in some appropriate wiki forum. as an experiment limited to one or two intractable pages? Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. It would be very easy to "police" - each "side" can list the faults they see in the other sides version - saving huge amounts of effort analysing which one to use.

Another important advantage is that some articles are locked into a "shape" that is misleading - comparison of two article with all the major "points" arranged differently is intrinsically easier than deciding whether previous work needs tearing up.

Would this article be a good place to start the experiment? PR^talk 13:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

$\leftarrow$ Ok, User:Tundrabuggy has been online since I first posted this and has not bothered to answer, so I'm going ahead and reverting said edits.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 05.11.2008 15:36

Hi, yes, I just noticed this discussion. Not sure how I missed it since it is on my watchlist, but your characterisation of "not bothering to answer" is incorrect. It would have been nice if you had posted a heads-up on my talk page. At any rate I will look at this closely now, since every change I made carefully reflects the references that are given and the known fact. Thank you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

1. On the Reuter's reporter--- that reporter was a Palestinian stringer who had also worked freelance for other companies. That is one reason why I differentiated. See below for a much more concerning issue. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC) revised Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Your second comment re verbosity is a cover. The terribly important point that the boy lifted his head at the end of the film was removed as part of your edit claimed as verbose. That is the very crux of the issue and why the boy's death is "padded in qualifiers" as you put it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Dropping the palace issue is Ok with me. I didn't take it as sarcasm and I had heard (somewhere, I don't have a reference) that Jamal had moved to Jordan.
4. The error on the date was in fact inadvertent as you suggested.

- I have "issues" with the first reverts for the reasons stated above. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It was this quote "He sees it as his mission to have the world see the despair of the Palestinian people," at his photography page, that made me suspect Ahmed Jadallah was not a objective Reuters reporter (ie speaking for Reuters), though I did leave the reference in. [2][3]Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets take this point for point again:

It doesn't matter if the reporter was an intern, a "stringer" or the company hot-shot. Reuters ran the story which means they also stand behind it.
Sorry, saying the boy raised his head without any qualifiers, as if it was fact, when no WP:RS states it as fact is wrong. Furthemore, the boy-lifting-head theme is mentioned twice before. I have reverted you. Please make an effort to stick to WP:BRD and discuss this here before reverting again.
Things you "heard somewhere" are just not good enough for WP:V. Please don't insert that kind of material until you have a WP:RS.
This assertion of yours is somewhat at odds with the "every change I made carefully reflects the references that are given and the known fact" statement above. Please be more careful with your edits.

Furthermore, there is no need for me to give you a "heads-up". You know this is a contested article and you should have seen this on your watchlist.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.11.2008 07:55

OK, let's:

Just because Reuters stands behind something doesn't mean it is true, anymore than when France #2 stands behind something. As a member of I-P collab group, I would think you would appreciate that a reporter/cameraman who tells the world that "his mission is to have the world see the despair of the Palestinian people" should not be a source of a quote to the effect "the dead and the wounded were lying in the street for a long time" in such a highly disputed story. Such vague generalities are meant to give a certain impression -- the one that is Jadallah's "mission in life." In fact there is no reason not to get rid of the sentence altogether. It tells us nothing we don't already know.
No RS says he lifted his head? I think you are mistaken. And if it has been made twice before without a reliable source why did you choose to revert this one? In fact, everyone who has seen the unedited footage has said the exact same thing, and there is plenty of RS that says so. The footage that was not shown to the world at the time showed that the last sequence was of the boy lifting his head.
What I said I heard "somewhere" was corroboration that Jamal had indeed moved to Jordan. The implication in the article/interview was that he was saying that he would move to his new "palace". You chose to take it as sarcasm and I did not. As I said, I was willing to leave it out on the grounds that you may have been right, and that it wasn't "sarcasm".
Nothing I put in the article was not referenced by a RS. Please be more careful with your accusations.
You are right that there was no need for a "heads-up." It would simply have been a courtesy. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tundrabuggy,

You might be getting a bit off-track on the Reuters issue. It's not about the truth, but about attribution. In this case, Reuters reported that "protesters took cover as bullets flew around them, lying flat and in the gutter or behind any semblance of cover from the gunfire. At one point an Israeli helicopter hovered overhead, but did not open fire." If Reuters thought it was fit to print, then it is attributed to Reuters. The only case in which the author of an article is relevant is if he/she is quoted directly or if it's an opinion piece, which is not the case here.

Regarding the boy-lifting-head issue, there are some things that need sorting out. I removed your addition because the boy-lifting-head (BLH as of here) is already mentioned in the previous paragraph. The whole BLH thing shouldn't even be part of this description here anyway, as it is the kind of analysis that fills the sections on the subsequent investigations and controversies. Do all the BLH stuff you want there. There is no reason to plaster this across the description of the incident itself.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.11.2008 15:35

Sorry to intrude, but this really is extraordinary. Many things leave me flabbergasted because they pass unnoticed, but this remark is just too much.

' a reporter/cameraman who tells the world that "his mission is to have the world see the despair of the Palestinian people" should not be a source of a quote to the effect "the dead and the wounded were lying in the street for a long time"'

Do you mean by that, Tundrabuggy, that the huge literature from Martin Buber (1938) to Jean-Paul Sartre, to Celan and Elie Wiesel, from Simone Weil etc., that tells us a writer, poet, theologian, journalist should feel a mission to testify to suffering, simply does not apply, as it does to all humanity, if the victim happens to be a Palestinian? Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, you're obviously approaching this the wrong way! Let me put forward a modest proposal - you should be looking at it from a conspiracy theorist's perspective:

1) It's necessary to emphasize the ethnicity of reporters because, as everyone knows, Palestinians (and Arabs in general) are at best untrustworthy and habitual liars at worst. They're only "pallies", after all. A Palestinian reporter who was present at the scene of the shooting is especially suspect, as he clearly must have been part of the conspiracy.

2) Everyone knows from the movies that if you're hit by a bullet, you drop dead instantly. Therefore the point that the boy's head moved after he was allegedly shot is vitally important. If his head moved, he couldn't have been dead, therefore he couldn't have been shot. This point needs to be emphasized as much as possible.

3) "We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." - Lionel Hutz, The Simpsons

Hope this helps. It's really so much simpler when you look at it from a conspiracy theorist's POV! -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha. One has to laugh. But here you have a "story" that is controversial and an issue of contention between two peoples. I would ask you to imagine if one of the "reporters" for Reuters claimed that his life's mission was to show everyone the suffering of the Israelis were experiencing at the hands of the Palestinians. I find it difficult to believe that you all would accept such a reporter's view without some outside corroboration! As it is, CAMERA & Honest Reporting & MEMRI & Arutz7 & or horrors! the Israeli "government" & those who work for them are all dissed as being pro-Israel and inherently & totally unreliable. Re the idea of "stressing the ethnicity" of the reporters -- that is not the case, and I object to the characterisation. I object to the implied suggestion that I am a racist. This does not demonstrate AGF - which I would expect from you. See this article from "The Committee to Protect Journalists" of October 20, 2000 [4], just a month after this (Al-Durrah) incident.

In the nearly seven years since the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) assumed control over parts of the West Bank and Gaza, Chairman Yasser Arafat and his multi-layered security apparatus have muzzled local press critics via arbitrary arrests, threats, physical abuse, and the closure of media outlets.
.....The actual repression is informal, but effective: local journalists can expect swift retribution if they criticize Arafat, his cronies, or the shadowy Palestinian state security apparatus.
Over the years, the Arafat regime has managed to frighten most Palestinian journalists into self-censorship....
There is an opposition Palestinian press that includes a few small-circulation Islamist weeklies in Gaza. There are also several private TV and radio stations. ... And they exercise the utmost care when covering political arrests, torture, and other human-rights abuses, along with official corruption and security cooperation between the PNA and the Israeli armed forces.

Journalists and photographers should toe the line in Gaza and West Bank, such as those who taped the lynching of the two IDF'ers in Ramallah shortly after this incident, whose tapes were confiscated and who were beaten. Even as recently as June 2008, there is this story of an imprisoned AP journalist [5]. There is clearly a Palestinian "party line" that most Palestinians adhere to under fear of being accused of collaborating with the enemy. And I would remind you what the penalty is for that in the territories. In July of 2005 the Jerusalem Post reported:

The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday instructed local reporters and photographers to refrain from covering the clashes between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority security forces. In a statement, the syndicate, which is controlled by members of the ruling Fatah party said that “pictures that some journalists are conveying to the international and local public opinion don’t benefit the struggle of the Palestinian people for liberation and independence.” It warned the journalists against continuing to cover the “unfortunate clashes for fear that that they would add fuel to the fire.”

The syndicate warned that anyone who violates its instructions would have to bear the personal and legal consequences of his or her deeds.

and see:

:Palestinian Journalist Syndicate slams attack against Palestinian Newspaper -- Thursday June 19, 2008
The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate issued a statement on Thursday slamming the attack which targeted Palestine Newspaper when gunmen opened fire at the papers building and wounded its editor-in-chief, Mustafa Al Sarraf.
The Syndicate demanded protection to all reporters and their facilities regardless of their political affiliations and added that this attack was aimed at inflaming tension among the Palestinians.

Also, the Syndicate accused collaborators with the Israeli army of carrying the attack. [6]

Major newsmedia are apparently reluctant to put Westerners into Gaza and West Bank and perhaps with reason -- consider Steve Centanni and Olaf Wigg of Fox News, and so rely on Palestinian stringers instead. More often as not, as in the case of Talal Abu Rahma, the word of the one reporter is relied upon entirely by the mainstream media. But only those reporters whose views correspond with the prevailing authority and that "benefit the struggle of the Palestinian people for liberation and independence" are allowed to operate freely there. It is an unfortunate fact of life which is quietly covered up by most of the media, since otherwise readers might consider their content suspect. It reminds me of Soviet control of the press and speech. "'In our state, naturally, there can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism,' wrote Andrei Vishinsky in The Law of the Soviet State. The test in a totalitarian state was not whether the publication was treasonable or seditious, but whether it tended to advance official ideology." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 5, page 164) Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How many citations of the extensive literature on censorship in Israel do you require to understand that this is not an exclusively Palestinian problem. Any IDF action in the territories comes under a general ruling regarding State Security. In the past hundreds of incidents like the expropriation of land for 'security' reasons (then turned over to settlers) fell under State secrecy acts. Israel has one of the most severe laws in any democracy for reporting events in the Territories. There is a substantial literature on this, explainjing how difficult access to IDF materials is, how self-censorship works, how reporters are subject to license withdrawal (as in this case), how information of a 'delicate' kind must be vetted by the military before it is passed on to the public, how 'image' is paramount in reporting from the Territories. In the al-Durrah case, the IDF has never published its video, audio and communication logs for the incident, though we know it is standard practice in the highly technological IDF to have such direct field feedback. This doesn't arouse your suspicion, but rumours by fringe groups about palace compensation for the boy's father does.

‘Legal documents defining the powers of the military censorship committee, . .were published for the first time ever by Haaretz on last 26 November. They are based on the British ‘Defence Regulations’ of 1945, originally devised to suppress Jewish underground organizations. Advocate Dov Yoseph, subsequently the Israel Justice Minister from Labor, defined them in 1946 . .They empower the censor to ban any publication considered as ‘possibly jeopardizing the defence of Israel, or public peace and order’ without providing any reasons for the ban. This applies to any printed matter, from books to crosswords, including reprints of what has been already published. . .The censor can close newspapers and confiscate printing machines, faxes and duplicating machines, as was done in the Gaza Strip at the onset of the Intifada. An amendment adopted in 1988 commands that ‘anything authored by anyone which may possibly affect the state’s security in any way’ be submitted to preventive censorship. And there are additional stipulations, still in force, which bestow on the censor further powers that know virtually no limits. Israel Shahak, Open Secrets, Israeli Foreign and Nuclear Policies, Pluto Press, 1997 p.16

‘regardless of their political affiliations, all the news media in Israel have a self-imposed constraint on their autonomy: state security. Throughout the state period, security and foreign affairs remained such sensitive matters that there was widespread agreement that the news media should be restricted in these matters. Thus, most newspapers operated within the boundary of the national consensus, especially in security affairs.

In this context, Peri (1993) noted that “the history of the Jewish people and the Zionist movement have left a deep imprint on Israeli perception of security. Israeli views on the subject rest on a deep foundation of beliefs and fundamental presuppositions regarding basic issues of Jewish collective existence: Is the world essentially hostile or not? . .Is national existence guaranteed . .or does the threat of annihilation constantly hover over us”(346)?’

Secrecy and publicity laws in Israel prescribe everything official to be secret unless disclosure is specifically permitted. The widely shared agreement about the necessity to withhold information concerning security and foreign policy contributes to general government control of information. According to Karl (1983), there are three kinds of censorship in Israel: Censorship at the source, where the journalists are not given correct information, or they know half of the truth, but the other half may be much more important; military censorship, top which all domestic and foreign despatches on military matters are subject; and voluntary censorship, where the reports themselves abstain from criticizing the government or directly unpleasant questions to the official sources.’ Muḥammad ibn ʻAbd al-Ghanī Nawāwī, Mohammed El-Nawawy, The Israeli-Egyptian Peace Process in the Reporting of Western Journalists,Greenwood, 2002 p.116

‘In legal reality a state of emergency has existed since the establishment of the State, without any connection to the relative periods of quiet between the wars. The security tension and external and internal dangers to State security cause the Knesset and the Government to continue the legal state of emergency. Such a state of emergency makes possible the enactment of legislation granting wide powers of detention and search, and the establishment of economic order by administrative orders within the framework of general laws

‘This is an extremely broad authority granting the censor absolute discretion. Despite this provision and the importance of censorship in the eyes of the security agencies of the State of Israel, usage has developed whereby censorship of the daily newspapers which are members of the Editors’ Committee is based upon a customary and voluntary agreement'.Shimon Shetreet (ed.), Free Speech and National Security, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990 pp.42-3

‘Today there are many people, not only within the army or the government, who advocate the imposition of a ban or restriction of media coverage of the disturbances in the territories. They argue that such media coverage encourages hostile elements and action in the territories, serves the interests of the enemies of Israel and undermines support by friends of Israel.Itzhak Zamir, ‘Reporting Military Activities by the Media: Legal Analaysis of the Israeli Practice,' in Shimon Shetreet (ed.), Free Speech and National Security, pp.160ff.p.161

‘In 1977, the year of Israel’s political upheaval, when the Likud rose to power, it also marked an upheaval in Israel Television’s freedom of activity. During the year, the Board of Governors of the Broadcasting Authority was replaced with more right-wing elements which made certain to curtail reports from the Territories. The majority of the Board of Governors comprised Likud and Greater-Israel supporters, while the Labour Alignment, which believed in territorial compromise, remained in the minority. The Government appointed a Director General who agreed to reduce television reports on the Palestinian problem,. Reports and programmes dealing with the Territories were shelved and employees suspected of left-wing tendencies were removed from key positions.' p.174

‘Many people say reports from the Territories serve to fan the flames of conflict. To a certain extent, I would answer in the affirmative, as such is the nature of all news reports. The presence of a camera at a demonstration arouses tempers. Realising this, we and the American network teams voluntarily imposed a severe restriction on ourselves several years ago: camera crew will not enter a potentially explosive area before disturbances occur. They wait patiently, entering and photographing only when and if something happens.’p.177

Etc etc etc. Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said there weren't issues with Israel's press, either. However we weren't discussing an Israeli reporter, but a Palestinian one. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)That's all quite beyond the point. Reuters reported it, Reuters stood by the story, Reuters has not retracted any part of it. None of what is attributed to Reuters is controversial or exceptional. You have yet to give one policy-based reason why the article should use the reporter's name and not Reuters.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.11.2008 11:08

Actually I said one whole sentence by him should be scrapped as it adds nothing not already said in the article, merely vague generalities. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually Tundrabuggy has given a reason why it should not be trusted. Because Reuters used a Palestinian. Translation of the exchange above: Tundrabuggy's editing assumes that there is something peculiarly untrustworthy about any source coming from an Arab Palestinian, esp. if, as all over the world, he or she may simply declare in standard terms characteristic of quality reporters and historians that his function is that of bearing witness to suffering. The prejudice is as patent as the recent declaration by a new administrator that firing a million bullets at Palestinians over 5 days is not really that much in terms of firepower.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this assesment as this is not a race based argument but rather an issue of freedom of the press in the Gaza strip as well as notable violations of journalistic standards. Nishidani, it be best if you avoid violating WP:NPA: Focus on content rather than editors. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I focused on the content of Tundrabuggy's remarks, which bear a clear distinction between Palestinian and Israelis on the issue of reliability. I cited one of several dozen sources which show that the Israeli press is subject to censorship and self-censorship in covering IDF actions, one of which is covered in this article. So, analyse content and don't make boring remarks about a personal attack, esp. to someone who is merely noting what loooks like a personal and ethnic attack on a source because he happens to be Palestinian. As Pedrito says, Reuters is the source, and the rest is irrelevant, unless ethnic suspicions about Palestinian sources are to prevail here.Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I said nothing at all about Israeli sources, and in fact I have criticized a number of Israeli sources myself, in regard to Al-Durrah as well as other things. So please refrain from these allegations, as they are not becoming to you in the least. They remind me of the very criticisms you often make complaining that others accuse others of antisemitism when in fact they are just making a legitimate criticism of Israel. What exactly is the difference-- except in regard to who is the target of that criticism? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think analogically and subtextually. It generally means looking for what is not said, or implied, or assumed. When I first read,

' a reporter/cameraman who tells the world that "his mission is to have the world see the despair of the Palestinian people" should not be a source of a quote to the effect "the dead and the wounded were lying in the street for a long time,'

I did my usual exercise and translated into Israeli terms:

'a reporter (Gideon Levy) who tells the world that "his mission is to have the world see the despair of the Palestinianj people" should not be source of a quote to the effect that "the dead and the wounded were lying in the street for a long time",

You see, Levy's column 'The Twilight Zone' in Haaretz illustrates his passionate mission as a journalist to bear witness to the effects of Israeli rule in the Occupied Territories. He often writes things like 'the dead and the wounded were lying in the street for a long time', which is a wholly innocuous, objective mode of statement. Now, by analogy, it should be clear that no one would say that of Gideon Levy. You say it of a stringer for Reuters, not known for employing nincompoops, who happens to be Palestinian. In the contrast, your assumption is evidenced, that his being Palestinian makes the statement invalid. At least that's how I read prose. Nothing personal: the prose of everyday life is full of thoughtlessness. Being like everyone else,I suffer from it myself. I just take to heart the otherwise worthless Heidegger's remark about das Ungedachte, als das zu DenkendeNishidani (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right that Gideon Levy is on a "passionate mission to bear witness" against the Israelis and for the Palestinian people. Most of his stuff is full of it, ie totally non-objective biased opinion and hyperbole, with a (possible) smattering of facts. Just because he is a Haaretz writer should not lend his material any credibility whatsoever. He is blinded by his own prejudices, and when and unless there is corroboration, he should not be considered a RS. But at least Israel has a relatively free press, and except for things military, writers like Levy and Amira Hass are at perfect liberty to write what garbage they like. It is not as if their lives are endangered unless they write for the benefit of the struggle of the Israeli people to maintain their homeland in the face of constant threats and attacks from their Arab neighbors, unlike the Palestinians, required to "benefit the struggle of the Palestinian people for liberation and independence” on fear of death. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not say GL bears witness against the Israelis. He is an Israeli critical of his country. Want a list of several hundred distinguished Israelis, Zionists included, who are critical of their country's abuses? Do we have to keep up this theory of Israel as in a state of exemption, when it is the fundamental mark of distinction of democracies that they allow, and indeed encourage dissent, profound dissent, from their country's official policies when those policies are seen to threaten the fabric of universal principles of justice underpinning democratic modernity. You implicitly affirm Israel is to enjoy a state of exemption. That you may dismiss criticism of this order as subversive garbage is telling. They think Israel's security lies in reaching an accommodation with their neighbours, rather than occupying them and carpetbagging their resources. This is an eminently respectable view, shared by people like Henry Siegman, or Nahum Goldmann or thousands of others who think or thought, work and worked within the mainstream of their Jewish communities. On the issue of style, GL's Twilight Zone articles are noted for their close attention to registering details in a flat, unemotive style, and their refusal to expostulate rhetorically about what are extremely distressing incidents. Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

@Tundrabuggy - all of your points might be perfectly valid - but two things render them pointless as regards applying them here:

1) This article is in a terrible POV state right now, and it's being modified to make it even worse. (another example I've only just noticed - MaD seems to be the first of 84 consecutive killings of Palestinian children before a single Israeli child died. We have an article almost totally devoted to discussing a deeply partisan claim that critics of Israel are liars and cheats and should lose their jobs - and almost nothing in the article that speaks to a widely believed "version" by which, even after apparently being "caught" killing one Palestinian child, Israel then proceeded to start killing quite large numbers of them).

2) The use of sources at this article is terrible. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but we use a source that speaks of "Palestinian duplicity" the day we use sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity".

If I had to comment on any of the rest of it, it would be the misleading nature of your complaint about intimidation of journalists by Palestinians. The article must not be written with ethno-specific weasel-words, and I shouldn't have to be telling you that. Admins rightly protect these pages from the antisemitic - so why the glaring discrepancy over finger-pointing at Palestinians? PR^talk 12:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2)re your assertion that Al-Durrah was the "first of 84 consecutive killings of Palestinian children before a single Israeli child died." I am not sure of the accuracy of your numbers since they aren't referenced anywhere, nor do you explain what counts as a "child" & you are arbitrarily choosing a start-date. Perhaps that is to avoid acknowledging some earlier killings of Israeli children? In 1970 in Avivim, Israel, Palestinians attacked a schoolbus killing 9 children. In May of 1974, Palestinians killed 21 children in a school in Ma'alot. There were killed Israeli children well before Mohammed Al-Durrah and the Second Intifada. But I am sure I am not telling you something you don't know. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

@Tundrabuggy - what are you doing editing this article when you're so ignorant of, and woefully dismissive of, another of the major horrors of the Intifada? The figures on the killings of Palestinian children are here. "Project Censored 2005" p. 291 "In the first three-and-a-half months ... Israeli forces killed 84 Palestinian children. The largest single cause of their deaths was gunfire to the head.[7]. During this period, not one Israeli child was killed. Not one suicide bombing against Israelis occurred.[8]."

If you behaved like this towards the number of victims of the Holocaust, you'd be rightly indef-blocked from the project. PR^talk 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And so from the other side one will mention hundreds of incidents before those two dates when Palestinians were killed by Israeli government actions (24 massacres in 48), etc. The point is, in these incidents, 'Palestinians' did not kill Israelis. Specific factions of Palestinian militant movements conducted terrorist operations, just as specific units of the IDF did likewise. In both cases one does not generalize operational choices by a state, or by a non-state actor as an Israeli or a Palestinian slaughter. Israelis are no more culpable of Ariel Sharon's massacres than are Palestinians culpable for George Habash's terrorism. The truth lies in details, not in ethno-labelling everything as Israeli/Jewish or Arab/Palestinian, which is language that lends itself to antisemitism, or anti-Semitism (anti-Arab racism). Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to TB (and everyone) - shall we back down a bit from the soapboxing? Also TB, please do not try to rewrite WP rules on what constitutes an RS based on your own views on individuals. You are now claiming that Gideon Levy cannot be used unless what he says is corroborated. I recall you tried the same trick with Ed O'Loughlin; others have tried it with Levy (and even Haaretz as a whole) in the past. This kind of McCarthyite behaviour is truly inappropriate, but seems to be a consistent pattern on I-P pages. The point is simple - mainstream news media are generally reliable sources, whether it's the Daily Telegraph or The Guardian, the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz. So long as comment is idenitified as being exactly that (when appropriate) rather than straight news reporting, there is no problem. --Nickhh (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest Edits

OK, two more ....

1) I cannot believe that Arutz Sheva is now being pushed as reliable source, per this edit, especially in light of the comments about Haaretz' Gideon Levy above. I'll back off from my reluctance to edit here myself to restore the fact tag and to remove the "it is important to note ..." weaselly and pompous nonsense while I'm at it.

2) We seem rather desperate to prove the claim that there was no autopsy, as if this were a significant hint of some kind of cover-up. A little time spent on finding out a bit more about common Islamic custom might be fruitful here. Having said that, the fact that none was undertaken is probably worth noting, but I suspect some people think it is more important and suspicious that it almost certainly is in reality. --Nickhh (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes:

I'm not sure on what content was inserted through Arutz Sheva, but they are not an entirely bad source, and they do clarify as a wiki-reliable source when when attributed by name and not used to push an exceptional claim. Criticism of Gideon Levi, btw, is a good example of a fairly mainstream perspective and he's admittedly on a minority view even among people who, in general, support a similar left-wing ideology. Regardless, I would not use them alone if the issue was criticism of Levi.
Personal perspective are rather unimportant for the issue of the autopsy. What matters is what reliable sources note - and the lack of autopsy was noted in the 'Three Bullets and a Dead Child' documentary as a highly problematic issue.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is repeated so often by you Jaakobou, that I would appreciate some source for the view that Levy is a 'left-wing ideologist'. I just thought he was an Israeli reporter doing his job, reporting directly on what he sees and hears in the Occupied territories. I say this because in my own country, the most severely critical reporter of the right-wing, who is published only in left-wing sources, happens to be a right-winger (Marco Travaglio), and he gets upset at being labelled a 'left-wing'er or 'ideologist' . Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Levy embraces the terminology and self admittedly suggests that he's (a) at a minority viewpoint even at Haaretz which is already occasionally criticised for anti-Zionism, and (b) that he believes Israel has had its justice and he sees his purpose to make justice™ happen for the Palestinians. There's also a few other issues which culminate with several notable occasions of widespread criticism against his approach to publicistic journalism.

Sample 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.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is not what I asked for clarification on. I asked why you keep branding Levy as a 'leftwing ideologist', not whether he was 'left' alone at Haaretz. 'Left' in the sense of 'abandoned, on one's own, isolated' is derived from the verb 'leave'. 'Left' in the political sense derives from a ME adjective which, you'll be absolutely delighted to hear, originally meant 'lame, weak'. They are two distinct words. I think someone else here likes calling such remarks 'strawman' arguments. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that the nature of Haaretz would be clear but feel free to review the article about them. The above reference places Gideon as a fringe voice among an already politically identifiable (left-wing) paper. Do explain to me why you'd suggest a completely different issue than what the source explains. I'd assume no one would suggest that the source mention spolitical affiliation as it only deals with the position of fringe vs. mainstream. Was it not clear that Haaretz is politically affiliated with the Left-wing camp?

Sincerely, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

More news to me. No more leftwing than the New York Times, Le Monde, el pais, FAZ, or Pravda, Mainichi Shinbun or the Beijing Times. In short, you like to think of GL, a writer who thinks for himself, as a leftwinger and an ideologist because he is critical of Israel. As long as that is cleared up, fine. We're getting off the track, and should close it at that.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's not even remotely close to being a matter of my personal viewing of Gideon Levy, not at all. This is an issue of mainstream perspective and you are more than welcome to review some relevant content or ask for further clarifications of someone to help you understand if something is unclear. Anyways, if it was not clear that Haaretz is politically affiliated with the Left-wing camp, then a review of their article should clear this point up quickly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Lord Keynes said today's commonsense is yesterday's radical minoritarian view. Time domesticates scandalous insight into 'mainstream' commonsense. David Grossman, interviewed by Bianca Berlinguer last night here, said it was odd how even the Israeli right wing was now saying things that just a few Israelis, accused at the time for 'extremism' were saying in the 80s. You're young. These things are more apparent to the old, to otherwise demented fogies like myself, who don't fear dissent in communities, because they tolerate dissent in themselves as a sign of vitality. End of soapbox.Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Being old and/or young has absolutely nothing to do with fear of dissent in communities (no intention to take a dig at the "vitality theory" but it's statistically false). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have used another citation Wall Street Journal Europe and maintained the Arutz 7 as it has been cited over 200 times on wiki already [9] thus demonstrating a general acceptance of its validity. I also re-inserted it with slightly different wording where it was originally near the top regarding Abu-Rahma's testimony. It is necessary there rather than at the end of all his testimony since if a reader decides that he has indeed retracted his testimony, he may not want to read it all. To leave it out or put in in the end would itself be "weasel-ly." Now regarding the indignation around my comments about Levy, let me just add that I have never removed a Levy quote unless it was clearly an opinion being quoted as a fact. I may not like some sources, but if they are legit I have to put up with them, just like every other editor here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Arutz Sheva:

Those are not "cites" to its news content, those are references to it in other articles. That's very different thing
Even if they were, that would prove zilch about whether it's actually an RS or not. It would merely suggest there are large numbers of cavalier pov editors here, happy to see material sourced to it. This would not be news to me
WP:RSN is the forum where reliability of sources is considered, not number of mentions elsewhere

As to sources generally:

WP rules are quite clear that mainstream news media (and therefore of course the journalists who publish under their editorial control) are reliable sources for issues of reported "fact" - even when sourced to bylined comment pieces, since they are mostly subject to editorial oversight as well (pure comment or conjecture should though, as you suggest, be properly described as such).
By contrast self-appointed "news" organisations, blogs, partisan online magazines, campaign groups etc either are not, or at least have to be treated with due caution (and following WP:UNDUE, WP:SELFPUB etc); and, when their content is used, it has to be at the very least properly attributed.

And a final point - surely when you do find Levy's "opinion" supposedly "quoted as fact" in articles, the better edit would be to correct that purported error rather than remove the content altogether? It would also be interesting to see where you draw the distinction between what you see as being his "opinion" and what is "fact". --Nickhh (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Levy's views are quite fringe and he doesn't report anything but rather writes opinion pieces. His opinions should be removed on many occasions, certainly when they are used for exceptional claims and/or political ramming. As for Arutz Sheva, they are a wiki-reliable regardless of their right-wing affiliation. To the point, what is the content issue that is objected? maybe we can resolve this as we would with other cases and without wiki-lawyering over it? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The great voices of the OT prophetic tradition were also quite fringe, all critical of the kingdom, and its majorities. That is where people, from Spinoza to GL are coming from, in terms of their own tradition. They are far more 'Jewish' in their witness to the unpalatable realities than you realize. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Nishidani,

I'm not sure what your comment is meant for, and to be frank it would seem like a bit of offtopic soapboxing. Just to clarify the sentiments you shared though, are you suggesting Gideon Levy is a great man of the levels of Spinoza just because he objects any form of Zionism (but promotes Arab nationalism)? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To compare is not to conflate. We are, in Bible writ, made in the image (tselem) of God, there is a spark of divinity in all of us, it would follow. Not for that are we God8s). CheersNishidani (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you understand how silly the comparison was. Good to see you're taking a step back from it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And Jaakobou, this is an important general point about reliable media sources. If Levy - or anyone else - reports or refers to matters of apparent fact within their pieces, then this will (presumably) have been subject to fact-checking and editorial oversight as much as anything else published in Haaretz, which makes it fine as an RS. To the extent that they analyse or comment on those matters, that can still be used - when appropriate and if with due weight - but with the qualifier Gideon Levy "says", "accuses", whatever. The fact that TB can now claim that they'll (unhappily) tolerate some material sourced to Levy, even if they will occasionally "remove" other parts when they so choose is bad enough; but of course this is not what they were saying three or four paragraphs previously. In fact they said, to remind us all, far less equivocally - "Just because he is a Haaretz writer should not lend his material any credibility whatsoever. He is blinded by his own prejudices, and when and unless there is corroboration, he should not be considered a RS". That statement about a writer in the mainstream media is as blind to both reality and to WP policy as yours is about Arutz Sheva being "wiki-reliable". Please feel free to take either point to RSN. At the end of the day, all we are discussing again is whether you and TB like or dislike the views of Gideon Levy/Haaretz and Arutz Sheva respectively, as opposed to what controls and processes apply to each of them. This is not interesting. --Nickhh (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Nickhh,

Levy is not exactly on the same level of other Harretz writers. I'd place him in the whereabouts of Robert Fisk who published claims that Israel used Depleted Uranium when there wasn't a shred of viable evidence and, off course, a Lebanese team of investigators found nothing to support this story. He has been publicly condemned for exactly what Tundrabuggy says here (i.e. "blinded by his own prejudices") and as a fringe perspective, he should be avoided as a source as one would make an effort to avoid the likes of CAMERA. I don't see a need to bring Arutz Sheva to RSN since I currently don't even know what the issue is about as you've missed my question. I don't blame you considering the kibitzing of fellow editor about Haaretz being like other papers regardless of the content on their article. However, it wouldn't hurt to know what the content dispute is about so the argument is better understood (this is not the RSN after-all). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Fisk? Another on the list. I don't know what circles you move in, but if you repeat that remark to any major journalist, or even ME area specialist in the world, they'd probably laugh at you. Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much to laugh at. Fisk made a very serious allegation sans evidence and his very serious allegation was deemed false by a reliable reviewer. You'd expect a decent paper to at least publish a retraction, let alone an apology but, best I'm aware, no such thing has occurred. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a particularly wanton case of BLP - Fisk reported lab results alleging that DU ammunition was used by Israel in Lebanon in 2006 (or rather, reactor waste, not DU). The UN results failed to confirm this claim (one headline says it's untru) and there may be worries about the lab result.

Meanwhile, the article claims (presumably correctly?) that Israel has already been caught lying over questionable weapons it's used in Lebanon (white phosphorus, implied to be a chemical weapon when used by Saddam). The "known" lies of Israel are much, much more notable than the correct reporting of (maybe) questionable lab-results. PR^talk 11:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest Nishi: The word "Jewish" has been used on this talk page six times, five of them by you, and one by PR to make a reference to what he calls "Jewish duplicity." I really am not clear how this article bears on "Jewish" in the least. Are you by some chance equating "Jewish" with "Israeli" or "Zionist"? I am sure you must be clear that there are Muslim and Christian and secular Israelis, as well as Christian and secular Zionists? (I am not sure about Muslim Zionists -- I know there are one or two).Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm sure you are aware that you are quoting PR's comment out of context there, are you not? As for Nishidani's comments, as far as I've ever noticed his quotes of or references to "Jewish" thinkers and philosophy are by and large very positive, unless I've been missing something. And of course the point sometimes is precisely that there are rather obvious differences between Jews, Judaism, Israel and Zionism. Finally, as far as I can recall, you are the one who first raised nationality/ethnicity here, with your - to be honest - rather transparent (even if you subsequently denied it) slurs about Palestinian journalists and their alleged "missions", which you tried to rationalise by prattling on about the individual in question's freelance status and the - often real, for various reasons - travails of working in the Occupied Territories. --Nickhh (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, regarding your comment that there are "rather obvious differences between Jews, Judaism, Israel and Zionism" ... that is like saying that there are rather obvious differences between Muslims, Islam, the Arab nations, and Pan-Arabism. .....um, yeah. My point is -- this article has zip all to do with "Jewish." Here are Nishi's Jewish comments on this page. Perhaps you want to take a stab at explaining their relevancy to this article? I look forward to your fisking:

"‘Legal documents defining the powers of the military censorship committee, . .were published for the first time ever by Haaretz on last 26 November. They are based on the British ‘Defence Regulations’ of 1945, originally devised to suppress Jewish underground organizations."

"In this context, Peri (1993) noted that “the history of the Jewish people and the Zionist movement have left a deep imprint on Israeli perception of security. Israeli views on the subject rest on a deep foundation of beliefs and fundamental presuppositions regarding basic issues of Jewish collective existence: Is the world essentially hostile or not? . .Is national existence guaranteed . .or does the threat of annihilation constantly hover over us”(346)?’"

"This is an eminently respectable view, shared by people like Henry Siegman, or Nahum Goldmann or thousands of others who think or thought, work and worked within the mainstream of their Jewish communities."

"The truth lies in details, not in ethno-labelling everything as Israeli/Jewish or Arab/Palestinian, which is language that lends itself to antisemitism, or anti-Semitism (anti-Arab racism)."

"They are far more 'Jewish' in their witness to the unpalatable realities than you realize."

As for my comment regarding "Jewish duplicity" ...that was as out-of-context as the original PR comment. If PR has a problem with a source, that's what this talk page is about. I for one have no idea whatever at to what he is referring. Perhaps you can enlighten me there as well. Best wishes, Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What's so difficult to understand about the statement "... we use a source that speaks of "Palestinian duplicity" the day we use sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity"."? I take this to be a defense (indeed, championing) of using a propaganda-cum-attack-source that does no investigation whatsoever.

Worse is to follow - there were other deeply unpleasant sources in that mini-list, including the publishers of this: Little terrorists-in-training and Palestinian spokespersons ... practiced liar if ever there was one.

This comes on top of your treatment of Palestinian employees of Reuters - editors will be puzzled at the freedom you have to edit this article - and in particular, your freedom to waste the time of careful and scholarly editors. PR^talk 12:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No one has put such comments up in this article and I would be the first to reject them if the they did. While the facts related might be true, I would expect another source to reference them (the facts), not one that is so obviously biased -- unless of course one is speaking of the reaction of one side. There is no doubt you are going to be able to find equivalent statements on both sides. That is why, although some of the biased sources may be used, if they are the only ones making a particular (contentious) claim, I believe they should not be used, or cited specifically as an individual connected with an agency or group, eg Ahmed Jadallah above. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you fishing for, TB? Are you saying there is something suspicious about my citing texts that use the adjective 'Jewish', or that a gentle remonstrance with an editor who appears to underwrite Rashi's doctine Kol Yisrael areivim zeh lazeh as a political statement,by reminding that 'Israel' has a great tradition of prophetic dissent, smacks of anti-semitism? The voice crying in a wilderness (Isaiah) against the consensus of regal or centralized power is one of the great ornaments of our Western tradition: you don't find it in Greece, where my cultural and intellectual bias lies, but in, yes, 'Jewish' tradition, which, by its example, gave democracy an indispensable figure of minority witness. All democratic dissent, in this sense, is an echo of our immense debt to what is 'Jewish' in Western civilization. I acknowledge my debts. If you find something problematical in that, well, as they say in the Antipodes old chum, 'stiff cheddar'. Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking Tundrabuggy is certainly not "fishing", but rather making a note that your use of Jewish sources or the word "Jewish" is not relevant much. This brings to mind old memories when I was offended when you used the reasoning "he's Jewish" to try and persuade me to change the death toll of the 1929 Hebron Massacre. Just a suggestion, but perhaps if you should try just avoiding (or cut back on) random quotes then these issues won't have much reason to re-surface. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come now, Jaak. If I were English and you were (like me ethnically Irish) and I cited Tom Reilly as a RS on Cromwell, a figure hated in Ireland, and you refused it as an RS because you didn't know who Reilly was, and I answered, 'After all, Reilly is Irish' aside from a dozen other considerations (translation: you may suspect my edits because I'm English, given our centuries' long enmity, but you shouldn't suspect a source written by an Irish historian as though it were untenable simply because an English editor refers to it), I doubt whether my use of 'Irish' in this way would 'offend'. I really do not understand this readiness to parade a sense of offense. You could, knowing my ethnic background, remind me that the Irish are like mushrooms, raised on bullshit and thriving in darkness, and I'd smile knowingly. I said Sir Martin Gilbert was 'Jewish' because at that time editors were chucking out reliable sources like Walter Laqueur, Benny Morris, Lenni Brenner, and, at that point, Sir Martin because they wanted me to 'prove' these were RS, and actually, as with Sir Martin, simply did not look up the books to discover that I was inserting information from impeccable, and distinguished sources (well Lenni's a ratbag like myself, but his book on Zionism is of recognized quality). Exasperated I noted he was 'Jewish'. The message was = 'If you suspect I am posting anti-semitic information, or suspect I have it in for the Jewish people, please note what you are unaware of, i.e. I am using only sources written by eminent Jewish scholars, several of whom happen indeed to be Zionists, so drop the air of paranoia, and let's get on with it'. This was all donkey's years ago, and there was no offense there, nor here. Nishidani (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was a very real offense. To remind, the offense was that Martin's notes were misunderstood/misrepresented and a factual error was being promoted with "he's Jewish" as some sorts of argument, supposedly to persuade an editor to lower a death toll of a massacre of Jews. I'm thinking we've discussed this enough as I'm getting peeved again reminiscing the old edit war on the death toll count and how the numbers were lowered from 67 to 58 repeatedly. I don't think there's too much paranoia going around since selective thinking/reading and soapboxing for The Victimised™ could irritate even the best of us. As a side note, I'm thinking that making Gideon Levy into some type of martyr or a great philosopher is an example of editorial carelessness and something which should be avoided -- it's certainly refreshing though when a notice for these issues are received with a level of seriousness. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. Sir Martin made no factual error. His error was not to give the overall figure as calculated two weeks later, but only the figure published in the Palestine Post on the day after the massacre. Give a link to the original discussion and let the bored browser of this off-point interlude decide for herself, if so interested. The number 67/8 is wrong, and yet stands, simply because at least 2 people in that figure were not massacred, but died of heart attacks from the shock of having witnessed that carnage, one of them in Jerusalem, several days afterwards. Keep 'massacre' or murdered with that number as subject and the text will be wrong. Most RS say 67, some 68, a good many vary 64-65. St Martin correctly stated the number of dead buried in a mass funeral on the day, 59, a figure which excluded, as I have noted, those who died of wounds in the aftermath, who should be included. I own to a sense of being offended when an obligation to honour the facts, irrespective of whatever party may be seen as advantaged by them, is not fulfilled. Can we drop this? The page requires editing on topic Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On discussions

Hi, just as a suggestion on how to make discussions easier to follow, I recommend starting new sections on any specific points of disagreement. This makes it easier for other editors to comment, because they can see related threads in one section, rather than having to wade through a wall of text with an ambiguous section header. The new sections could be started "fresh", or could be started with subsection headers in the above thread if there are any clear points where a header would fit. Or, if everyone feels that the discussions are productive without section headers, carry on, I won't complain. :) --El on ka 18:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please do something about edits like this one, editing my post in a way to mess up the discussion page, and (apparently, through the muddle) demanding the freedom to use fact-free and hate-inciting sources? This comes after the patently false claim that I've called something "Jewish duplicity". PR^talk 14:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Small note: CAMERA is a biased but mostly wiki-reliable source. I would definitely advocate avoiding it where possible, but after long efforts on the Battle of Jenin article, we've established that about 46 of the 50 quotes made there were reliable... the other four we didn't check. There is a sense of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT every time I see someone who was involved on those long discussions and acts as though they had not existed and that there was no compromise reached. Anyways (to the point), if my memory serves, the term "Jewish duplicity" did pop up when CAMERA was in discussion but I'm not sure if it were intended to smear the Jewish people or not considering the people involved and the situation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

PR said this:I shouldn't have to tell you this, but we use a source that speaks of "Palestinian duplicity" the day we use sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity". This is another one of sentences that seems to say that "Palestinian" is equivalent to "Jew." It would be "Muslim duplicity" that would be equivalent to "Jewish duplicity" -- and "Israeli duplicity" to "Palestinian duplicity." I was not aware of a source that referred to Palestinian duplicity and I am not even sure that it was used as a reference in this article. I feel confident that I did not put use it at any rate, although to read PR's comments it would sound as if I were somehow personally responsible for every negative thing said about Palestinians by anyone at all at any time. As I said, I would not use a CAMERA source for a contentious article unless there was some other supporting source for the fact. Fortunately CAMERA invariably has impeccable references for its articles. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a conclusion at the beginning

State whether the consensus of Muhammad Al-dura is that it was fabricated or true by whichever sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanTervel (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you demonstrate by example? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Query: Are the contents of the following YNET piece - 'Israel's Prime Minister's office: The report on Al-Durrah's death was staged' - listed in the article? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No Hebrew here. Can you find it in English or get a translation? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Found it - link - linked inside the article about the Father's response. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Some people believe..."

"...and some people believe that the entire incident was staged.[2]"

Does this really belong in the opening paragraph of this article? 'Some people' believe all sorts of things. I don't see how that is relevant to an encyclopedic article. Considering that both the IDF and the Palestinians, both poles of the conflict, consider it fact that the child was shot, this staged claim is too far from fact to be in the introduction.--Trefalcon (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah is still alive

German television ARD broadcasted a one hour investigation about the murder of muhammad al-durrah "Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit" (the child, the death and the truth) and there was no evidence found that wether muhammad al-doura died nor that his father had been seriously wounded. They showed that after ballistic investigations the shot would have come from the hamas members and not from the israelis and that there was no blood to see when France 2 showed the place the two persons where sitting after the shooting. The boy who has been buried that day was not muhammad al-durah as the personal into the hospital told the press. it was another member of the al-durrah family who had been killed earlier this day. Even specialists from France and Germany could prove that the boy who was on the photos during the burial was not muhammad but another boy. Also the hospital in jordania made a medical report about muhammads father which is a lie as several medicines told the press. his former doctor told the press the wounds you could see on muhammads fathers leg and arm were operation scars and not from a shooting. so far so good. --Vicente2782 (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also seeing that they reported that the boy's father was giving instructions to the France 2 cameramen (they read his lips, apparently). True? False? Anyone seen it? IronDuke 06:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, Iranian TV has broadcast allegations that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job. That doesn't give such claims any greater degree of credibility; the endorsement of fringe conspiracy theories says more about the intellectual degeneracy of their proponents than it does about the validity of such theories. There are no new facts in this case, just more speculation. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, though wouldn't it be fair to say ARD is a better source than Iranian TV? I'm wondering who made the lip-reading claim, and if they are in any way trustworthy/reliable. Do you have any ideas on that? IronDuke 17:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen any mention of who made the claim. To be honest, I think it's very dubious. I can lip-read, but at the distance and resolution that footage was shot at, I don't see how anyone could make out what was being said by lip-reading it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Alleged death

This has, as Pedrito notes, been discussed at great length on the talk page. The current wording, using the word "reported", was a compromise formula which has been stable for a long time. Contrary to Guy's claim, the "alleged" has not "been there for ages" - it was added by an IP editor on the 26th of March. And of course, even if it had been there for ages, that wouldn't of itself matter - vandalism and joke edits for example can sit around for ages unnoticed. They should still be reverted. All sort of things are "alleged", including Elvis Presley's death and that the US government had something to do with 9/11, but per both common sense andWP:WEASEL I believe we would tend to avoid using the phrase unless there are good reasons for doing so. Wishing to use Wikipedia's narrative voice to cast doubt on someone's death when no hard evidence is out there to suggest he is not dead, such as him resurfacing as a young man now living happily in New York - regardless of the controversy about who shot him, and about France 2's reporting or "Pallywood" or whatever - is not a good reason. I am also removing the "alleged". If you really think it is worth debating this all over again, feel free to use this talk page to do so. --Nickhh (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about common sense and the al-Dura incident, but I've made an edit that I hope will quiet the recent rumblings.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Jaakobou. (I wouldn't disclaim your knowledge of common sense if I were you! ;-) I've modified it a bit to improve the wording and remove some redundancy with the first line. Unfortunately the "recent rumblings" are probably going to continue for a while - the recent ARD documentary mentioned in the section above seems to have woken up the conspiracy theorists again. Nickhh is right to point out that the "alleged" wording was a very recent addition and that it was rejected a long time ago as undue weight on a fringe view. Let's not forget that both the Israeli and Palestinian governments have stated the boy's death as a fact, and neither government has recanted that or given any credence to the conspiracy theory that he's still alive. They disagree on who caused his death but not on the basic fact of his death. Stating his death to be "alleged" is like stating that Barack Obama is "alleged" to have been born in Hawaii. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the note, though I feel "boy's dying circumstances" would be more helpful to the rumblings than "cause of his death is" would be. To be honest, I don't see much movement in the text between "cause of his death" and the other version which the rumblers are rejecting.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Dying circumstances" is... I just don't know, it doesn't read right to me. It's a rather awkward phraseology. It's certainly not a common phrase (compare "cause of death" to "dying circumstances.") I don't know if you're a native English speaker, but "cause of death" would be a more conventional form of words in that sentence. I'm also fairly sure that the conspiracy theorists wouldn't like your "dying circumstances" any more than my "cause of death", as both are predicated on the mainstream view that the boy is dead, which they reject. Note also that your version took out the fringe "alleged", which is what they've been trying to stick into the lead. I think we're both approaching this from the same angle; we just differ a little on the exact form of words. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

'Cause of death' is the official terminology for Police and Medical personnel, sure. I felt that "Dying circumstances" put more focus on the (video) report, though, than the actual dying part and allowed the rest of the sentence flow better in its elaborating on the arguments/claims. I still feel like it would appease the rumblers better (just a hunch that might turn out wrong) than the original phrasing. I do have another thought/suggestion, that "cause of death circumstances are disputed/controversial" seem to keep the more common 'cause of death' and might work as well, though I must admit, that I felt the 'dying circumstances' was a non-common phraseology but a better fit.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Were you thinking of "The circumstances of the boy's death are disputed..."? I prefer that. shellac (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should find a phrasing that works around "boy's death" and/or "his death" since it would help focus on the 'report'/'claims'/'fringe thoughts'. I'm fairly open to suggestions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to be careful not to get stuck with a form of words that implies (per the conspiracy theorists) the boy is not dead; as I pointed out above, that would be undue weight on a non-mainstream view. I think Shellac's version would work. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that sentence (either of my re-write suggestions) does. Does it? I just gave a second look to the paragraph as a whole of that version and I can see that it's not great. I'm thinking it would actually be best to remove the first section of that sentence, starting off with:

Initial reports stated that IDF bullets had killed him but several investigations have suggested that he most probably have been killed by Palestinian gunfire, and few among the researchers believe that it is possible that the entire incident was staged.

This way, we avoid the rumbling issues and people popping up to say "he's not dead" and changing the article content.

Just my two cents, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Got it wrong. Guy0307 (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Blood-libel on Palestinians

The claim that Palestinians killed one of their own children amounts to a blood-libel directed at them. Palestinians have never been known to have killed one of their own before for black purposes, adult or child - or been accused of anything like this. (Or done it since). Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers have shot dead large numbers of Palestinian children, making it nastily revisionist to try and clear them of this particular death.

Many years before David Irving was finally discredited in court, British historian Sir David Nicholas Cannadine, director of London's Institute for Historical Research, reviewed the first volume of Irving's 1988 book "Churchill's War" accused him of demanding absolute documentary proof to convict the Germans (as when he sought to show that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust), while relying on circumstantial evidence to condemn the British (as in his account of the Allied bombing of Dresden). Something very similar is going on here, and it's totally unfitting in an encyclopaedic article, people should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.188.168 (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Very biased and OR. No. Guy0307 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent lead issues

Aren't we going into too much detail here with adding names of mostly unimportant people (researchers and analysts) to the lead of the article? I suggest, per WP:LEAD that we go back to a simple version that mentions that these people exist and if someone wants to know who, they can read further into the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary - not a list. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Summaries are good. Vague statements like "A number of researchers and commentators" aren't. From the sources cited for this statement, it sounds like:

Two German reporters found no evidence that he was killed, and don't believe a video of a boy being buried was the same boy.
An Israeli physicist and and Israeli engineer, both working for the IDF, claim that the event was staged.

In general, this statement is extremely questionable. It's akin to putting a sentence regarding the views of Holocaust-deniers in the lead of the Holocaust article. Heck, the source cited for this sentence says as much:

"[N]o version of truth that is considered believable by all sides will ever emerge. For most of the Arab world, the rights and wrongs of the case are beyond dispute: an innocent boy was murdered, and his blood is on Israel's hands. Mention of contrary evidence or hypotheses only confirms the bottomless dishonesty of the guilty parties—much as Holocaust-denial theories do in the Western world. For the handful of people collecting evidence of a staged event, the truth is also clear, even if the proof is not in hand."

If it does stay in the lead, which I'm not convinced it should per WP:UNDUE, what wording would you propose that isn't as weaselly vague but still summarizes the situation? How about "Two German reporters found no evidence that the boy was killed, and two Israeli investigators, working on behalf of the IDF, suggested that the entire incident was staged."? ← George^[talk] 15:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dynablaster reverted my changes, citing a page of sources in their edit summary. I've requested that the user provide us with a cited list of people or groups that consider this event to be a hoax, rather than a blanket list of sources. A wall of sources isn't useful if all the sources on that page talk about the same people making the same claims. Hopefully once we have a specific list of who exactly considers this to be a hoax, we can pin down what the correct wording and explanation in the lead should be. ← George^[talk] 15:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who believe it's a hoax -- some of that belief stems from the work of Karsenty, Shahaf, ARD -- but that doesn't mean we can only speak of the people who originated this idea. IronDuke 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Though George is raising an important concern, IronDuke is right. Multiple news outlets of repute have allowed themselves to raise the point that several researchers of repute raised the suggestion. I don't believe anyone wants to write it in a manner that gives it the same level of importance as the other perspectives, but it has caught enough attention to merit a minor (read: one liner) mention in the lead. Btw, has anyone seen the new documentary of Shapira, "The Child, the Death and the Truth: The Mystery of the Palestinian Boy Mohammed Al-Dura"? I'd be interested in checking it out if you know of anyone who's broadcasting it.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke wrote: "There are plenty of people who believe it's a hoax" - again, I'll ask who, and what's the source for each? Jaakobou wrote: "Multiple news outlets of repute... raise the point that several researchers of repute raised the suggestion." I don't doubt that news outlets have discussed people who believe that the event was a hoax. However, a news outlet discussing someone's opinion doesn't mean that the news outlet shares that opinion, any more than a news outlet discussing Holocaust deniers denies the Holocaust itself. And yet again, who are these "researchers of repute" you're discussing? Specifically, by name. ← George^[talk] 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

George wrote: "However, a news outlet discussing someone's opinion doesn't mean that the news outlet shares that opinion..." Except, of course, when it does -- and even when it doesn't, it can take cognizance that there is doubt, and to what extent the doubt is widespread. This begins with the very first source on the page you linked to (which seems to be taking the POV that the event was a hoax). There are many, many sources which discuss/support the idea that this was a hoax. I don't want to suggest that it's the mainstream view, but it is a notable one, and held by more than the four people you indicated above. IronDuke 22:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Then, for the third time, and per Wikipedia's policies on citing sources, verifiability, avoiding weasel words, and the burden of evidence for inclusion of material, I'll ask for a list of who, specifically holds this view. ← George^[talk] 23:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll be answered, for at least the third time, that a list already exists. If you're looking for someone to break it down and spoon feed it to you, I doubt that will happen. This cannot be clearer than it already is. IronDuke 05:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A list of sources is not the same as a list of people or groups, with each person or group associated with a source. I reviewed a handful of the sources from that page at random, and find them severely lacking. I'll be filing an RfC on the matter shortly. ← George^[talk] 05:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. As long as you reviewed a few at random, no one can say you haven't done due diligence here. IronDuke 05:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Puts me a few reviewed sources ahead of the pack, I guess. ← George^[talk] 06:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)