Tundrabuggy (talk | contribs) →Recent edits: response to Pedrito's issues |
Tundrabuggy (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
:- I have "issues" with the first reverts for the reasons stated above. [[User:Tundrabuggy|Tundrabuggy]] ([[User talk:Tundrabuggy|talk]]) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
:- I have "issues" with the first reverts for the reasons stated above. [[User:Tundrabuggy|Tundrabuggy]] ([[User talk: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. [http://www.noorderlicht.com/eng/fest04/friesmuseum/jadallah/index.html][[User:Tundrabuggy|Tundrabuggy]] ([[User talk:Tundrabuggy|talk]]) 15:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:56, 16 November 2008
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Additional subpages
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Clearing up BLP issues
Dear Elonka - are you in a position to encourage and perhaps help a proper treatment of the BLP at this article? I abandoned editing here months ago for reasons you know about (I see nothing to indicate that things have changed, but that's a different issue).
As detailed here, I'm concerned that the article has BLP issues, many of them based on sources that are unverifiable, and other that is unwarranted use of the sources available.
Would I have your support to start removing some of the clear examples? Judging by what you've said about an article on one of the parties, I take it you would eventually want BLP policy appled fairly strictly. Do I have that right? PRtalk 11:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- At this time, no one is banned from editing the article. Anyone who wishes to make changes is welcome to do so, as long as they stay in accordance with the #Conditions for editing. If you do remove anything which you feel is a BLP violation, please be careful to make that clear in the edit summary, and follow it up with an explanation here at the talkpage. --Elonka 03:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I need your support to strip out nearly everything that refers to the "hoax" allegations. I will likely need to use the the words "blogosphere" and "blog" around 4 times as often as I use the word "hoax" or "fraud" etc. (That's the ratio I spotted in one of the Israeli articles I looked at - hoax as a quote, "blog" as a statement). I won't call Shahaf an "eccentric obsessive" or "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania" (cited to the Israeli newspaper) but, if we're to include mention of hoax or fraud, I may need to call him a "conspiracy theorist". Claims of "conspiracy freaks" about Karsenty and Landes, again from an Israeli report, can probably be left out. I will have to somehow juggle the abandoned 1st conspiracy theory (which may have had legs before it was abandoned) with the second, contradictory, conspiracy theory. I will need to describe Sharon as a controversial figure (which is actually rather mild) and his visit to Al-Aqsa surrounded by 100s of police in full riot gear as highly provocative.
- Once the article is policy-compliant it will likely be necessary to make further small adjustments to the wording and the references - some of which are fringe and/or unverifiable and/or wrongly quoted. (And of course it's likely I'll make mistakes). I will be reluctant to engage in any TalkPage explanation with anyone who rejects the Daily Mirror as an RS - I may need your assistance to re-present comments yourself, sorry about that.
- After that, the Ramallah Lynching and the Daniel Pearl beheading will need to go in, and in some even-handed fashion that treats them as part of a conflict. There are some very tricky parts relating to the communities from which some of the French and German media personnel come from, my heart sinks. I'll treat everyone as ethnically equal, someone else can deal with those issues. PRtalk 11:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- The "Hoax" allegation is notable, and has been covered by numerous reliable sources - please refer to the "sources" sub-page. Please do not 'strip out nearly everything that refers to the "hoax" allegations' without a clear consensus on this Talk page first. Statements like "I will be reluctant to engage in any TalkPage explanation with anyone who rejects the Daily Mirror as an RS" are not very helpful. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- PR, since it sounds like you're suggesting some rather drastic changes, what might be best is if instead of editing the live article, you instead create a proposed new version in your userspace. Then you can edit it the way you want it, and let us know when you're done. If other editors agree with your changes, we can then move your version in place of the live article. Let me know if you'd like help in setting up a draft page? --Elonka 18:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Another suggestion would be for PR to discuss his proposed edits with his mentor prior to making them. I am still waiting to hear who that mentor is, since I belive Ryan P has given up. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would like, and I think this article deserves, proper administrative protection.
- We're just being shovelled more abuse of sources, claiming notability from a "list" that indicates quite the opposite. Here's the first item: Akerman, Piers. "Mohammed al-Durra footage may have been a hoax", The Daily Telegraph, May 29, 2008. ... "there has been almost no coverage of the court’s finding in France over the past six days, though it has received international attention from The Wall Street Journal and a number of other publications. Nor does a search of the files reveal that it has been reported in any major Australian newspaper, including those like The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, which carried close to 20 stories and references, most of them sympathetic, to al-Durra".
- I believe this article should be written to the sources, and that's the only thing I'm offering to do. PRtalk 19:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please note both the headline of the source you are quoting - "Mohammed al-Durra footage may have been a hoax" - as well as the subheading of the same, which reads "Court judgment supports view it was a hoax". This is from a mainstream, reliable source, just one of many who covered the trial, and reported on the results. Let me reiterate for you: The "Hoax" allegation is notable, and has been covered by numerous reliable sources - as your comment above just reinforces. Please do not 'strip out nearly everything that refers to the "hoax" allegations' without a clear consensus on this Talk page first. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka is acting as an uninvolved admin; I don't think she's intending to "support" any particular version of the article. However, she's suggested a way forward for you to implement the changes you propose, insh consensus. It's up to you whether you wish to pursue that course of action. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- PR, since it sounds like you're suggesting some rather drastic changes, what might be best is if instead of editing the live article, you instead create a proposed new version in your userspace. Then you can edit it the way you want it, and let us know when you're done. If other editors agree with your changes, we can then move your version in place of the live article. Let me know if you'd like help in setting up a draft page? --Elonka 18:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at all the English-language sources that I could easily access that are listed in the "with byline" section of the sources page, and counted the number of times the words "hoax" and "blog" (or "blogsites" etc.) were used. Results: ("hoax"/"blog") Total (30.5/11); Akerman (4/0); Beckerman (0/1); Carvajal (0/1); Chesler (2/2); Denenberg (4/0); Derfner (3/0); Fallows (1/0); Gelernter (0/0); Gross (0/0); Halkin (2/0); Hartley (0/1); Juffa (0/0); Juffa2 (1/0); Lord (0/0); Nizza (2/0); Lungen (2/2); Moshelian (1/0); Oakland (3.5/0); Philips (1/1); Poller, French ... (0/0); Poller A Hoax ... (2/1); Poller, The Tide ... (1/1); Ravid (0/0); Rohan (0/0); Rosenblum (0/0); Schwartz (0/0); Seaman (0/1); Silver (1/0); Yemeni (0/0). I did this quickly without double-checking; I apologize for any errors. I realize that these articles may have been collected with a particular purpose rather than being a random sample of articles about the topic; still, it shows that the word "hoax" in this context is notable. In this article, the word "hoax" appears 5 times in the body of the article and 3 times in the titles of references etc.; that doesn't seem excessive to me. Reading the article (but without checking the sources) I have the impression that it's a well-written NPOV article. Clearly a lot of work has gone into writing it.
- There is some unnecessary repetition: essentially the same sentence as this appears twice, and the previous sentence is also somewhat repetitive: "France 2 provided the footage free of charge to the world's media, saying it did not want to profit from the incident." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- As you say, this "sources list" was created to be skewed, perhaps by doing a Google search on the words "hoax" and "al-Durrah". A "sources list" based on Googling "blog" and "al-Durrah" would almost certainly produce the opposite result. We should really do a list for "Enderlin" and "hoax", that's the linkage which is being fought through the courts, and is the link that our article is making - a BLP, and a bad one (quite unlike the Shahaf case). I would do this research if I thought it would produce a better article - but it won't.
- Why would such a further search of sources not improve the article? Because we're still wrongly concentrating on "hoax", the evidence for which is a side show to the article and needs only a passing mention. Once Israel destroyed the evidence, the die was cast and the truth would never be known. (We know all about this kind of thing, we've seen Holocaust Denial. China has the same problem denying Tiananmen Square - bring in the gun and the tank and you lose the argument).
- As far as the world is concerned, the important part of this story is that 100s of Palestinian children were (are) being killed, and this is the one killing so far that's been caught on camera. As far as the world (and even some proportion of Israeli opinion) is concerned, Palestinians never shoot their own children, and (other than this case, the importance of which is artistic), nobody has ever accused them of anything so ridiculous.
- As should be reasonably obvious, this article makes us look like propagandists for Israel. The writing may be a credit to us, but it's concentrating on a conspiracy theory of which only die-hard supporters of Israel are interested. Our article doesn't deal with the story, which is based on one universally recognised "fact" (killings) and a secondary, lesser, "fact" (picture). Our article is Soap-boxing, avoiding the larger "fact" by trying to cast doubt on the smaller "fact".
- Perhaps I should start a new section, pointing out the obvious escape route. Those who think that the "controversy" around the secondary "fact" (picture) is notable should take their material to a sub-article (the BLP problem would remain, but perhaps more manageable). Meanwhile, this article needs a wholesale re-write, probably with the changes I have in mind, taking out most of the references to "hoax". PRtalk 09:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- The "Hoax" allegation is notable, and has been covered by numerous reliable sources - please refer to the "sources" sub-page. Please do not 'strip out nearly everything that refers to the "hoax" allegations' without a clear consensus on this Talk page first. Statements like "I will be reluctant to engage in any TalkPage explanation with anyone who rejects the Daily Mirror as an RS" are not very helpful. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Page move
An account accused of sockpuppetry just tried to move this article to the title of Muhammad al-Durrah affair. I have reverted the page move, both because there was no consensus for it, and because the account was questionable for multiple other reasons: YYOOYY (talk · contribs). That said, if anyone does want the page moved to that title, please feel free to discuss it here. If other editors agree, we can move the page. But I'd like to ensure that there's a consensus first. --Elonka 17:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support re-name and page split - main article Muhammad al-Durrah affair. We don't do articles on persons notable for only one incident, and this article would have been entitled "Netzarim Junction incident" if it was simply one death, and not an icon of one/two occupations. PRtalk 18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- At least at first glance, adding "affair" would seem to be appropriate, because this is not really a biography. I will reserve my actual opinion pending further discussion. I do not understand the reference to a split; what would be the split, and what would be the two titles? My inclination is that we probably don't need two articles about this subject. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I could go either way as well, though I do think we have articles on people esentially famous for only one thing, eg, Leo Frank. 6S7J, I believe PR, in talking of a split, is expanding on his last point in the section above. If so, I'll just say I think that's a pretty bad idea. POV forks are definitely not okay. IronDuke 19:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- The "Muhammad al-Durrah story" is firmly entrenched in the minds of approaching two billion Muslims, along with nearly everyone else in the world (even France, where I think I'm right saying that the two Karsenty cases have been either studiously ignored or treated as passé). This is the story that lead to lynchings and beheadings and intifada (and perhaps the evacuation of the Gaza settlers 5 years later?). The Muhammad al-Durrah affair undoubtedly deserves a substantial article.
- Then we have the "hoax theory" which, in its way, is pretty significant too. Unfortunately for its proponents, the spot where this incident occurred was bulldozed the following day - furthermore, Shahaf produced two conspiracy theories, the first of which (I suspect) was substantially better than the second. The two theories contradict each other - which is another reason the truth will almost certainly never be known. PRtalk 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouls support splitting out the conspiracy theories to a separate article and let this article deal with the facts. // Liftarn (talk)
- Isn't that the epitome of a POV fork? This article has never been about the kid any more than the properly-named Elián González affair article was just about a 6 yr old Cuba boy. Each is about the hoo-ha surrounding the respective subjects. Call it the Muhammad al-Durrah affair and keep it all in one article. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think I tend to agree about the "affair" spirit for writing the article, but I'm not so certain the move is necessary. The "affair" is still evolving and we can improve the article by looking at it from the outside rather than with a "hoax/blood-libel" pretext/presences. The initial report was clear, the inspired global reactions were clear as well, the current arguments against the initial report are also clear - results pending the new claims are not yet clear. This is, I believe the way the "affair" (read: article) should be reported/written. However, I'm not sure the title "affair" gives us a better starting point than we currently have with the known title for the incident and it's follow-up. There seems to be advantages and disadvantages for either title, IMHO. One clarifies the prolonging issue, and the other is more notable yet causes conflict among editors who focus on initial (unverified) reports or recent (un-ratified) arguments. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- p.s. I agree with Tarc and others who mentioned it about the POV-fork concerns. Splitting the article is a bad suggestion. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Splitting the article in "The Muhammad al-Durrah killing" and "Muhammad al-Durrah conspiracy theories" is no more a POV fork than it is to have both Apollo program and Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories. Both are valid subjects. // Liftarn (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can you tone down the soapboxing please? Talal Abu-Rahmeh and his 52 seconds of shouting "the boy is dead" is not exactly in the proximity of reliability as the likes of NASA. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The two subjects are not even remotely connected. It is a bit alarming that someone who is actively editing this article could draw such a comparison. IronDuke 19:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. One is about space exploration and one is about civilians killed in war. However the relationship between the facts and the conspiracy theories is simmilar. Anyway, if we move out the conspiracy theories to a separate article we get rid of all the WP:UNDUE problems. // Liftarn (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, the relationship is dissimilar in virtually every imaginable particular. This POV fork is not a useful idea. IronDuke 21:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. One is about space exploration and one is about civilians killed in war. However the relationship between the facts and the conspiracy theories is simmilar. Anyway, if we move out the conspiracy theories to a separate article we get rid of all the WP:UNDUE problems. // Liftarn (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- My two cents after consideration is leave as is, per Jaakabou and IronDuke and Jaakobou. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- The general consensus as I'm seeing it, is that there's no strong preference either way, but most people would be okay with moving the article to "Muhammad al-Durrah affair". Are there any strong objections to this? If so, we can do a more formal WP:RM request. If not, I'll go ahead and move the article. --Elonka 17:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. He has, as an individual, become something of an icon given what happened and hence you can justify keeping the article under his name. While I'm kind of undecided about the suggestion that it should be re-named, I'm really not sure about "Muhammad al-Durrah affair". I mean come on, the boy was killed (no, really, he was to the best of the current evidence). I know we need to avoid being over-emotive on WP, but that just seems a bit too anodyne. It also seems to me to pander somewhat to the conspiracy theories, as if there's some kind of mystery to be uncovered, as with The Affair of the Diamond Necklace or The Mysterious Affair at Styles for example. If we do move the page, "The Muhammad al-Durrah shooting" or something would be better in my view. I would add as well that there are other pages about other victims of the conflict which are simply here under their names (although I say this more to flag this up as a problem rather than to justify necessarily keeping this page the same way). --Nickhh (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Very subtle, Nickhh. I'm not persuaded either way, though I have only been a kibitzer here, and my judgement should not count. The OED gives for 'affair' (3)'Vaguely and with intentional indefiniteness, of an proceeding which it is not wished to name or characterize closely', which hardly fits the article as it has developed. Au contraire. 'Shooting' would be more appropriate, neutral and, what happened. My own feel for this is that 'The Death of Muhammad al-Durrah' might suit the case, if an alteration were to be made (it has literary precedents, implying by flagging death, the one great and conclusive event in the kid's life, that what will be described are the circumstances attending his demise). Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh baby. On two separate pages I agree with your ideas(the shooting title, not death as I will explain below). Although I believe there is questionable evidence for the fact that the Israeli bullets killed him, the poor kid was killed in the middle of a horrible gun fight (and it really makes no difference which set of bullets killed him as both sides were culpable). The article (and all these articles about people killed in battles) really are not about the person, but more about making them martyrs (regardless of the cause), rightly or wrongly. I like "The Muhammad al-Durrah Shooting" idea. I have no time for conspiracy theories either, whether it is the Palestinians or the Israelis pushing them. If it was a hoax, somebody needs to provide real proof. I disagree with the Death idea, simply because so much the article cover the possibility the whole thing was staged (I am not saying it was, just repeating what is in the article). If the article spends all this space talking about that possibility, using "Death" in the title is illogical.Sposer (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- For now, my position on the page name is neutral, but here are some suggestions people might want to consider along with the other suggestions above: Muhammad al-Durrah incident; or Muhammad al-Durrah occurrence; or Muhammad al-Durrah matter. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh baby. On two separate pages I agree with your ideas(the shooting title, not death as I will explain below). Although I believe there is questionable evidence for the fact that the Israeli bullets killed him, the poor kid was killed in the middle of a horrible gun fight (and it really makes no difference which set of bullets killed him as both sides were culpable). The article (and all these articles about people killed in battles) really are not about the person, but more about making them martyrs (regardless of the cause), rightly or wrongly. I like "The Muhammad al-Durrah Shooting" idea. I have no time for conspiracy theories either, whether it is the Palestinians or the Israelis pushing them. If it was a hoax, somebody needs to provide real proof. I disagree with the Death idea, simply because so much the article cover the possibility the whole thing was staged (I am not saying it was, just repeating what is in the article). If the article spends all this space talking about that possibility, using "Death" in the title is illogical.Sposer (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the current name is probably the best one and a one everyone can agree on. Muhammad al-Durrah killing will probably be opposed by the pro-conspiracy editors and just adding incident adds no extra information and article names should be kept short. // Liftarn (talk)
Audio tapes
It is standard procedure, isn't it?, for the IDF to have audio records of communications in any firefight. Were they available, they would surely clarify much of the mystery? Just a thought.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality tag
This article has been tagged since May. Since there is no longer any discussion going on at the talkpage, is it time to remove the tag? Or if anyone has objections, could you please either clarify what they are, or simply edit the article to address them? Thanks, --Elonka 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please re-read the talk page archives! None of the serious problems raised there have been dealt with, and everyone - myself included - gave up pointing them out. The key problem, put simply, is that 50% of this article is devoted to coverage of a fringe conspiracy theory, rampant in the blogosphere and occasionally noted in a few right-wing op-eds, which attempts to suggest that this was some sort of staged hoax, and that the boy may not even be dead. This minor controversy should be noted, but with due weight and without suggesting that there's something in the theory. Editing the page to remove all the more random theorising would involve gutting the article and would naturally re-spark an edit war. To be honest I don't know what the solution is here. But the article as it stand is certainly not neutral by any normal definition of the term. --Nickhh (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- There are multiple ways to proceed:
- Provide a detailed list of things which must be changed; or
- Write a new draft. Copy the entire article to a subpage in your userspace, or to a sandbox version, and gut it to your heart's content. Once you've got it "done", announce it here at the talkpage, and ask if others agree that your version is better. If people agree (or no one disagrees), then copy in the new version. If there is disagreement, then the burden is on those who disagree to give specific change requests for the new version. Meanwhile, any sections that no one disagrees on, we can just copy into the live article. Or, another option is:
- Work on one section at a time, either:
- "Best to worst": Pick the section that needs the least amount of work, and edit it accordingly. If no one objects, then proceed to the next section, and so forth; or
- "Worst to best": Pick a section of the article that you think just needs to be completely deleted, then suggest it at talk: "Hi, I think section <name> is not helpful to the article, and should be completely deleted, does anyone object?" If no one objects, delete the section. If someone does object, then try to engage in good faith discussion towards finding a consensus, and/or proceed through one of the steps in dispute resolution.
- There are other methods too, such as WP:BRD. The point is, we shouldn't just tag an article as "never fixable". Either there should be a specific list of things to be fixed, or there should be active discussion and/or editing on the article, or the tag should be removed. But if no one is working on the article, and no one is talking about the article, then the assumption is that consensus has been achieved. --Elonka 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Really, what is the point? You've effectively given Tundrabuggy WP:OWNership of this article. Nobody else is working on this article, because they've all effectively been driven away from it, and nobody is talking about it because there's nothing new to say. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- There are multiple ways to proceed:
Comment: I don't think the issue is of a rewrite. Nickhh, if I understand correctly, believes that the story is notable for it's original 2001 report alone while others believe there is equal value to it's more recent reports, which Nichh (again, if I understand correctly) considers to be non notable and fringe. Regardless of the truth (which will probably never be known), enough notability was given for the recent reportings to be given more notability than a fringe view would - it has created a few notable web-films, documentaries and a plethora of investigative reports (and an ongoing law suit) by reliable and neutral sources who place doubt on the "blame Israel" narrative of the 2001 reports. As the recent reports are clearly differnt in tone than past ones, it is up to current wiki-reliable reportings rather than the old ones to tell the story of the article (thoough it should also be clearly noted of how the story was reported in 2001).
p.s. has anyone seen Mabat II report from 2008? I remember a mention of an independant French ballistics expert called Jean-Claude Schlinger. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the whole point is that I seriously dispute the notability of the wackier of the "hoax" theories. Ones that suggest he is alive really are at the fringe end of things by WP and all normal standards, and are simply not covered seriously in mainstream sources. However currently the article is written to give them an enormous amount of space, and to suggest that their version of events is plausible (often quite subtly, see the section below). Yes there have been investigations into what happened by more mainstream sources many of which have concluded there is no certainty about whose bullets killed him, but that's a different point. As for doing a whole rewrite myself, I don't have the will or the time - and even if I managed to do a good job of it, I know it will never be accepted. Any rephrasing or removal of material will be simply reverted, and if those reversions get frantic enough we'll just end up back with restrictions that will freeze the article and/or stop any editing by removal. --Nickhh (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
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. --Elonka 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)
- 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. --Elonka 18:34, 4 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? PRtalk 13:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
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 that also worked freelance for other companies. That is why I differentiated and I think it is important to maintain the distinction that he was independent. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:18, 16 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]Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)