Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

RfC: Is this article being owned?

There are a couple sentences in this lede that multiple editors have called contentious and have asked to be excluded or reworked. Several editors have chosen to maintain the sentences without serious consideration for objections. Moreover, I attempted to identify these sentences as contentious through tags, and these same editors removed the tags through what I see as edit warring. Is this page being OWNed? If so, anyone into dispute resolution have suggestions? NickCT (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• The sentences are well-sourced and an appropriate application of WP:LEAD, which requires notable controversies to be discussed in the lead; there is zero basis for their removal, and zero basis to claim that they are contentious. Given that the article has been judged by the community to have featured-article status, the burden of editors challenging the stable version of the article is much higher, especially when their proposed edits would make a neutral article less neutral. The RFC is misformed and a violation of WP:NPA. THF (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"zero basis to claim that they are contentious" Respectfully, isn't this a fairly wild assertion as the sentences in question have led to so much debate on this very talk page? NickCT (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is existing consensus that the sentence is appropriate, and WP:IDHT seems to apply to the objections, which are not policy-based. THF (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, clearly we disargee about "existing consensus". And clearly we disagree about about whether our objections are policy based. You'll note from reading the talk page above that WP:MOS,WP:POINT,WP:NPOV & WP:NOTABILITY have all been called into questions regarding the sentence(s). Anyway, let's let other editors weigh in. I for one will respect majority opinion. I feel though that the current set of editors controlling this page (the one I think you're calling "consensus") lacks NPOV.NickCT (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• In response to the original RfC question: As somebody who has written a Featured Article, I can tell you that yes, editors have a sense of ownership over an article they spent hundreds of hours writing and sourcing. In addition, Featured Articles generally are changed conservatively, after much deliberation; this process may reinforce a perception that the article's main editor "owns" the article.

To break the deadlock in the preceding section, I recommend that the issues be laid out in the simplest terms and addressed one by one. For example, do you agree or disagree with SlimVirgin's view that the lede should summarize both Palestinian and Israeli views of the incident? Why or why not? Do you think the sentences in question accurately summarize Muhammad al-Durrah incident#Personal and political impact? How might they be changed to better summarize that section? etc. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik - I can understand the sense of ownership. I would call it odd if there weren't a sense of ownership. But SlimVirgin has taken it so far that he reverting even minor changes (see Sole's attempt to reorder the "People" section) and basicly ignoring calls from multiple editors to make small changes to certain sections. I would be more understanding with the "sense of ownership" if it was a major revision we were working towards.

I think your suggestion for breaking the deadlock is more or less correct. I'm going to work on creating somekind of post that I will clear with you before I put it up.

More immediately; at the moment it appears to me that we have a "significant minority" of editors objecting to the language (see comments from NickCT,Tiamut,Soledad,Coppertwig). Doesn't this justify the debated material being tagged as at least "under discussion" if not "NPOV"? NickCT (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First, SlimVirgin is a woman. Second, I think a more focused discussion of the perceived problems with the lede (or the rest of the article) will help us ascertain whether there is a consensus and what it is. Finally, my personal view is that Featured Articles shouldn't have tags such as {{fact}} or {{POV}}. I'm just not sure what the benefit is of having a POV tag on the article. Does it indicate a problem with one sentence or the whole article? I think POV tags sometimes are added for the benefit of editors, not readers. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding Slim. My apologies if I caused offence. What about POV-Statement tags? At the moment I and others think the sentences do a diservice to readers by misinforming/misleading them. Tagging might mitigate that. NickCT (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Attention all Following Malik's comment, I've created a post to try and measure consensus among editors. This post can be seen here. The post summarizes arguments for and against the sentences in question and asks editors to weigh in. Malik suggested in the interest of fairness that I ask whether any editors take issue with the way I have summarized the two arguements. I will do my best to incorporate any comments. I plan to post in approx ~6 hours from now. NickCT (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick apology. I messed that initial link up. I put Sandbox#Rfc_-_Blood_Libel_.2F_Israel.27s_Brutality instead of the intended User:NickCT/Sandbox#Rfc_-_Blood_Libel_.2F_Israel.27s_Brutality NickCT (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rfc - Blood Libel / Israel's Brutality

Regarding the following two sentences in the lede

"For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them. For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, the centuries-old antisemitic association of Jews with child sacrifice."

A debate has occurred surrounding whether these sentences are appropriate.

A quick summary of the arguments for & against the sentences

Against

• Mention of Blood Libel and/or anti-Semitism in effect "poisons the well" and is irrelevant to the topic
• The way the sentence(s) is/are phrased violates WP:UNDUE
• The sentence(s) is/are essentially inflammatory and add little context to the article

For

• The material is well sourced and based on WP:RS
• The material is WP:NOTABLE and is inline with WP:LEAD
• WP:CONSENSUS has been reached on keeping the sentences
• Removing the sentence(s) would violate WP:NPOV

If we could get some editors to take a look at it with fresh eyes, we'd be happy for the input.

To get some sense on whether consensus is developing, if editors could phrase their responses in the following format

• No Issue/Maintain Current Wording - Reasoning...
• Revise (one or both sentences) - Reasoning...
• Delete (one or both sentences) - Reasoning...
• Comment - Comment...

Many thanks in advance for your carefully considered comments. NickCT (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Maintain Current Wording. The sentences are well-sourced and an appropriate application of WP:LEAD, which requires notable controversies to be discussed in the lead; there is zero basis for their removal, and no legitimate basis to claim that they are contentious. (The claim that "blood libel" is irrelevant is belied by the neutral journalism that has noted the connection between the false accusation against Israel and the history of the blood libel.) Given that the article has been judged by the community to have featured-article status, the burden of editors challenging the stable version of the article is much higher, especially when their proposed edits would make a neutral article less neutral. If anything, the antisemitism behind the falsified video and resulting accusations is not given enough weight in the lead, though I would defer to the consensus that the existing version is featured rather than seek a change. Separately, I express concern that this is now the third time the challenging editor is seeking to overturn consensus, and worry that we'll see a fourth time and a fifth time until the editor gets the result he prefers simply by outlasting any other discussion (NickCT has made 28 edits to this talk page in the last 24 hours). WP:IDHT should be invoked after this time around. THF (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm generally okay with the current wording. I don't think it's perfect, or as good as it could be, but it's generally okay. I will say that I'm rather on the fence with regards to defining the term blood libel, as I understand both sides of the argument - it's not a common term, but defining it may give that opinion added, unnecessary weight. But I think both options are fine. I'm slightly more concerned with the "apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality" statement in the first sentence, but again, it's probably fine. No version of this article will ever appease every concern of every editor, and the article likely has bigger issues than these two sentences, but I'm pretty much fine with either version - the current, or the revisions that have been suggested. ← George ^talk 05:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey George, thanks for the comment. Would I be correct in saying that you see how these sentences could create concern among editors? Let me ask you then, do they add enough value to the article to be worth the controversy. Why not delete both? NickCT (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see how the current version could concern some editors, but like I said, no version of an article on this topic will ever not concern someone. And material isn't added or removed from articles based on whether or not it creates controversy among editors, which would be a terrible benchmark for inclusion of material. Frankly, I don't care if a statement in the article is controversial among editors, as long as it's neutrally written, well sourced, and properly weighted; inline with Wikipedia policies. As I said above, I'm okay with the two sentences being deleted, and I'm okay with them being retained. I don't draw any great distinction between those two options, and editor squabbling doesn't change my policy-oriented perspective on the subject. ← George ^talk 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok fine. Don't say I didn't try to change your mind! =) But I wonder, if there is wording in an article that creates allot of discord between groups of editors but adds little to the article, you think it's worth keeping? Remember that "neutrally written, well sourced, and properly weighted" are always going to be POV. NickCT (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen many things that editors haven't liked - sometimes justifiably, sometimes not - so in general it doesn't sway my opinion on keeping material much one way or the other. I think these two sentences were quite a bit worse before SV's latest change, because I felt they didn't properly reflect the reliable sources. I think after her change the second sentence now accurately reflects the reliable sources it cites (I've expressed my concerns with the first sentence, but don't care to push the issue during a firestorm). One could say that the placement, level of depth, or juxtaposition of these two statements gives undue weight to one view or the other, and that's what I'm on the fence about. But it's a more nuanced question, better solved with a scalpel than a hatchet. ← George ^talk 18:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete (preferably both, definitely blood libel). I just can't understand how saying "Palestinians thought Israeli's were really mean", and "Israelis thought the world was anti-Semitic for believing the video" adds any context to the article. The former seems sorta self evident and pointless (akin to saying "black people were upset over the Rodney King beating"), the latter seems to make the article a mouthpiece for pundits in an attempt to "poison the well". These sentences are simply unencyclopedic. Would you find this in Britannica? As to THC's claim about WP:LEAD requiring all notable controversies be discussed in the lead; if we were really going to follow that guideline with this particular article, the lead would stretch into eternity. Expressing POVs such as these with such a controversial subject can't be wise. Let's delete and stick to the facts! NickCT (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

@THF - I must object to your characterization "that this is now the third time the challenging editor is seeking to overturn consensus". I think reading the talk page above will reveal that a number of editors have questioned this language for quite a while. Additionally, I'm a little concerned with your "the antisemitism behind the falsified video". That seems to lack NPOV, and also seems to be a little FRINGE.

Regardless, thanks for the comment. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep both sentences in some form, though I'm open to suggestions for rewording—but blood libel does have to be explained if mentioned, because it's an unusual term. The lead must summarize the contents of the article, per WP:LEAD and for featured-article status. The first three paragraphs of the lead are about what happened. The last paragraph is about the response to what happened, and it broadly reflects the final section of the article, which is also a "meta" section. That this was a blood libel is a dominant view, and not only among people who think the footage was fraudulent. We're not required to share that view, or even to understand it, but we are required to reflect it.

  I think what is going on here is very unfortunate. A huge amount of work went into this article—work carried out in good faith—and it was recently given FA status by entirely uninvolved editors, all of them experienced reviewers, in its current form. The only reviewer to oppose did so, ironically, because he felt it was too pro-Palestinian. And now two sporadically used accounts with strong anti-Israel views feel it is too pro-Israeli, and have reverted 20 times between them in 12 days against multiple experienced editors in an effort to destabilize it. This is a very disruptive thing to do with an FA, where changes made really do have to be clear improvements. An article about a contentious I/P issue is never going to please everyone. All we can hope to do is more or less satisfy reasonable people in the middle. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re "two sporadically used accounts with strong anti-Israel views feel it is too pro-Israeli, and have reverted 20 times between them in 12 days against multiple experienced editors in an effort to destabilize it. " - Needless to say, I think this is a gross mischaracterization and fails to assume good-faith. NickCT (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're asking me to assume good faith of an account that has made just 214 edits to articles in two years, among them British National Party; The Jew of Malta; Template:Neo-fascism; [1] Ashkenazi intelligence; removed that "international Jewry" were scapegoats on Adolf Hitler; [2] attempted to downplay the proportion of Polish Jews killed at The Holocaust; [3] added something about anti-Christian bigotry among Jews at The Merchant of Venice (2004 film), [4] (and that's just a selection), and who then arrives here objecting to the mention of blood libel in the lead, and adding for good measure that there are too many photographs of Israelis and Jews in the article. AGF doesn't mean I have to lobotomize myself. You're also asking me to assume good faith of you (163 edits to articles in nearly three years) that you haven't noticed any of this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I've found a lot of your comments throughout this discussion (above as well) to be frankly unhelpful and off-topic. Instead of trying to tarnish the image of people objecting to the current wording used in the article, claiming they are socks (they were not), calling them anti-Israel (not clear that's true and frnakly irrelevant), or implying now, that they are anti-Semites, why don't you focus on the article content discussion? I've raised a number of issues I feel have been sidelined by you, via your invocations to the article's FAC status (so what, doesn't mean its perfect and can never ever be changed again), or by your not so subtle insinuations that my problem with the text derives from my failure to be NPOV. Please stop evading the issues. Tiamut^talk 18:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I really do not think you are in the right position to blame SlimVirgin for "tarnishing the image of people". SlimVirgin, I understand and share the concerns you stated about some editors. To say that the contributions of Soledad22 are disgusting means to say nothing, yet any accusation in socking is hurting way too much as I have learned from my own experience, and IMO it might be better to miss on one, two socks than to accuse an innocent user. Otherwise I am voting to keep by SlimVirgin. It is a blood libel.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, please discuss the article content, not me. The fact that you personally think the killing of Palestinian boy and its attribution to Israel is blood libel is not an argument for keeping the text at it is. Tiamut^talk 18:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, would it be too much to ask for that you would discuss the article and not SlimVirgin?
It is not what I personally think about the incident, it is what is proven beyond the reasonable doubts: Israel has nothing to do with the killing of this Palestinian boy. I hope you are not going to deprive me the right to vote? --Mbz1 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, I can't deprive you of your right to "vote". But please note, there are no "votes" at Wikipedia and there is no such thing as "the majority rules". We convene discussions to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS on how to proceed. There's always give and take involved in that process.

The idea that "Israel has nothing to do with the killing of this Palestinian boy," is a bald overstatement not borne out by the facts in the article. Even if one were to accept the position that Israeli bullets didn't kill al-Durrah, the presence of the Netzarim settlement, and the soldiers that were there to defend it had a lot to do with why he died. In any case, its clear that your support for keeping the text has less to do with whether it is in line with Wiki policy or style guidelines and more to do with the fact that you believe Israel didn't kill the boy and that the claim it did was therefore a blood libel. Good for you, but that's not an argument to keep the text as it is. Tiamut^talk 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I believe I have the right to state my opinion by voting only without providing any explanation at all. If there was no Second Intifada, there would not have been Israeli soldiers in Netzarim settlement in the first place, and, if in 1948 Arabs accepted UN resolution on partition instead of starting war on Israel, or, if Jordan and Egypt created Palestinian state in West Bank and Gaza (they had plenty of time to do it from 1948 to 1967) by now there would have been two states and two peoples living side by side in peace and friendship in Palestine. My heart is going out to Palestinian kids, who are no doubt suffering, but Palestinians are looking in the wrong direction to find the guilty ones. In other words as Golda Meir said "Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us"--Mbz1 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, you even wanted to remove from the lead recently that the news manager of France 2 had reversed the network's position, and had acknowledged that no one could say who fired the shots. Had the Palestinians been accused of this death by one freelance Israeli cameraman, and had a France 2 boss two years later acknowledged the accusation might not have been correct, you'd have screamed blue murder (rightly so) had anyone suggesting removing that from the lead.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue about it. It's clear that there's an attempt to destabilize the article after an off-wiki post about it. It's the first such attempt since it got FA status, but it won't be the last. It's just disappointing, that's all. I was hoping we could show it was possible to produce an I/P FA without the usual hysteria. It's also disappointing that you're pretending not to notice the issues with the Soledad account just because he supports your position. I'm sorry to say that to you, I really am, but I find this somewhat discouraging, especially as you've been the target of this kind of thing yourself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Slim - I was asking you to assume good faith on my part, and you pointed to edits that questioned Soledad's POV. Could you just verify that you aren't making accusations of anti-Semitism against me personally (because less forgiving editors might construe your comments that way)? And furthermore, your assertion that someone elses' views aren't important because thier accounts are "sporadicly used" is wrong. While I acknowledge you've put allot of work into this article (much of it good work!), your sense of entitlement over editing the article is also wrong (see WP:OWN). NickCT (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SV, you just did it again. You are implying that my POV is preventing me from seeing the rightness of your position. I immediately retracted my rewrite to remove Chabot's position once you pointed out how significant it was (I simply though it a restatement of other info already there without considering that as head of France 2 it was important to keep). A mistaken suggestion I quickly retracted is no proof of POV and I resent you bringing it up as it if were.

As to the rest of what you said, I'm simply not going to respond. I never read the post off-wiki and my concerns were what they were before they were raised here. I'm pretty ssure George didn't either, nor is Steve is part of this "conspiracy". We see a problem with the text. Its not a big deal unless you make it one. And you are, by kicking up drama instead of dealing with the article content discussions. Tiamut^talk 18:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The conversation above, while interesting has got slightly off-base. I plan collapse it at some point unless there is objection. NickCT (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't collapse it, please. In fact, I'd appreciate it if we could just leave people's posts as they posted them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well. No collapse. Re "just leave people's posts as they posted them"; I've been trying to organize with the permission of the actual poster themselves. If you object I will cease, but it seems as though you are being intentionly obstructive. NickCT (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete or revise both sentences. They are both somewhat hyperbolic and slightly misrepresent the sources they cite, as well as broadly generalizing the views of Palestinians/Arabs and Israelis/Jews. While I think deleting them would be better, if they are kept, the definition of blood libel should be discarded (we do have wikilinks for a reason). The phrasing for the Palestinian part should follow closely that of the secondary sources cited, and the phrasing for the Israeli/Jewish part (which is synthesized summary of views expressed in a number of articles by Israelis and Jews) should reflect that these are views of the commentators cited. A possible revision for example, might combine the two positions together as follows: Cited by Arabs as the ultimate example of Israel's military brutality, a number of Israeli/Jewish commentators said attributing blame to Israel for the boy's death constituted a modern blood libel. Tiamut^talk 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. there are some cases where it is appropriate for Wikipedia to reflect two sides of an issue, a conflict or a debate. this fits none of those. this is simply reflecting a hyped picture of emotion on both sides. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, and Maintain current wording. I think the context and the nature of the complexity of the terrible conflict described by the article is enhanced by both the mention of blood libel, it's description and the multiple sources (which IMO are adequately characterized), and which underscore its notability...I am commenting here - now - but this whole thing is a sham and I think this rfc is a disgrace and insulting to our intelligence, this is the last time I will comment, on these sour grapes refusal to accept consensus and other peoples feelings and opinions...Modernist (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? When there is a dispute, people are encouraged to pursue dispute resolution. One way to do that is open an RfC. How is characterizing the views of multiple editors who disagree with you "sour grapes" helpful here? I could parrot your last sentence right back at you, but would that be helpful? I've offered a suggested revision with an explanation as to why I believe its an improrvement, if the sentences are indeed to be retained. You are free to disagree of course, but at least try to be respectful. Tiamut^talk 18:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I am voting to keep by SlimVirgin. It is a blood libel. I would have rewritten it like this:"For the Palestinians,whom their propaganda machine made to believe that the boy was really killed by Israeli soldiers, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them. For the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, the centuries-old antisemitic association of Jews with child sacrifice."--Mbz1 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Maintain current wording. Per Modernist. In addition, this is the language used in the featured article status which means it was quite acceptable and reasonable as deemed by Wikipedia administrators. There could be slight tweaks, but overall, it should clearly what represent what is already written. Another possible revision: "For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them. For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, suggesting that Jews derive pleasure in killing gentiles." I'm not convinced that we need to restate what the historical blood libel is, moreso how it is being used in the current context. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Yes it is sourced to the Israeli government press office and Engage et al., but regard inclusion of the "blood libel" accusation as well-poisoning which seriously degrades the article's neutral presentation of information. Consider: MECA (the Middle East Children's Alliance) is planning a mental health care center for traumatized children in Gaza; Save the Children notes that 70 percent of Gazan nine-month-olds are anemic; on the one-year anniversary of the Israeli attacks on Gaza, candlelight vigils were held in Palestine and internationally in memory of the hundreds of Palestinian children killed. Would we also want "blood libel" accusations in Wiki articles related to these events? Maybe some editors would, and I think most of us who have been here awhile know that with patience, dedication and a selection bias, editors can find positions and sources for about any edit they want to advance (a government/group/academic makes a claim, media reports it, and voilà). This is my concern here. Have sources been presented for the "blood libel" accusation? Yes. Does the "blood libel" accusation improve the article? No. It does the article more harm than good. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Totally inappropriate. Keep Islamophobia, philo-semitism, and anti-semitism on the sidelines. Let's keep things neutral, and this "blood libel" reference is not neutral, it's a totally one-sided item talked about by Israeli/Jewish pundits only pushing a controversial term that advocates for the Israeli/Jewish POV. There are no Arabs/Muslims saying this killing was a "Blood Libel". The analogy is concocted by Israeli/Jewish pundits!! Not worthy of being in the lead. Soledad22 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

James Fallows is neither Jewish nor Israeli, and is frequently criticized by the pro-Israeli commentariat for his writings on the Middle East conflict. The fact that Fallows is cited for both propositions in the paragraph while you're claiming that it is one-sided suggests you haven't read the sources, and have a different motivation other than the improvement of the article. THF (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you of your earlier "the antisemitism behind the falsified video" statement? Is the pot calling the kettle black? NickCT (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There was antisemitism behind the falsified video and the efforts of several to repeat the claims of the falsified video. This is well-documented, and hardly a fringe view. But I recognize that the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so the false claims of the antisemites get mentioned in the article also, per NPOV. Fortunately, intelligent readers can tell the difference, which is no doubt why some wish to scrub the truth from the article. THF (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

For those invoking Fallows, he does not say that the allegation was a blood libel, rather he writes: "The harshest version of the al-Dura case from the Arab side is that it proves the ancient "blood libel"—Jews want to kill gentile children—and shows that Americans count Arab life so cheap that they will let the Israelis keep on killing." That's vastly different than the phrasing used in the article right now and is in fact a different point altogether. Tiamut^talk 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd prefer we note that for Arabs it "proves the ancient blood libel"? You're actually correct source-wise but I figure that such a phrasing would be objected to by both sides of the discussion. Current phrasing is superior in that respect as both sides get fair presentation of their contention. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said, that's what you are saying. My vote and rationale is clearly outlined above. I'm merely pointing out that for people saying that Fallows is a source supporting the current version, he's clearly not, since he is saying something else entirely. Tiamut^talk 20:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought you wanted us to properly write what Fallows is saying, that Arabs view it as proof of the blood libel. I don't really support that style but I also don't support censorship of mainstream pro-Israeli opinions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

James Fallows opinion DOES NOT belong in the lead. It belongs later-on in the bickering sections where the Islamophobes, philo-semites and anti-semites have crafted an article that never ends, goes back and forth, which is not about Muhammad al-Durrah and the shooting itself but all the bickering over who gets exculpated and blamed. Disgusting.Soledad22 (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ASF explicitly says we're supposed to report facts about opinions. This topic is mostly about controversy, so that's what we're reporting on. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and maintain current wording—it's a small sentence describing facts attributed to multiple reliable sources. There's nothing problematic about it, and I don't see how it "poisons the well". It's simply a case of calling a spade a spade. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ynhockey, I have no problem with sources supporting "facts" but here we are talking about opinions/interpretations ascribing underlying motivations. We have a firefight, a dead child, and a resulting controversy. Including a "blood libel" accusation in the lead poisons the well because it adds the loaded antisemitism card. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as is - both perspectives deserve merit per the concept behind this encyclopedic project (i.e. writing down of notable perspectives). THF, btw, is right in noting that Fallows is not an Israeli. Schapira isn't either. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaakabou this is not about "including both perspectives" because these perspectives are not analogous, and that's why the text is out-of-sync and inappropriate. The Palestinian perspective is on the footage itself; but the Israeli perspective is on the Palestinian reaction. It's a false comparison. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You've actually found the reason why someone who doesn't undesrtand NPOV might prefer to keep a partial version that doesn't allow the Israeli perspective to be stated. The video was made by a Palestinian cameraman later charged with doctoring his material. To neglect the (highly notable) issue of the alleged doctoring and the relevant concerns and conclusions of the 'not anti-Israel' mainstream is not the right way of building a neutral article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The report is sourced to a French national TV broadcast journalist, who is Israeli, not a Palestinian cameraman (or a Japanese video camera). But it should be noted that many of those arguing the fraud/conspiracy/hoax position have pointed at the cameraman.

Anyway, this "both perspectives" idea remains a construction. Do you believe "perspective" means, more or less, "the position (mental) from which a thing is viewed"? We can start toward adding "perspective" after we agree on the "thing". What is the "thing", do you think? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RomaC,

The source of the report is one Palestinian cameraman at the scene. The French-Israeli reporter was not at the scene and, like many other journalists with a hole in their critical-thinking chips, took the word of a partizan without question. This is a main issue in the conclusions of the 'not anti-Israel' mainstream and the very issue that cannot be censored from a quality article.

p.s. last I checked there is a wide-range agreement that at least some of the reports by the Palestinian cameraman were staged. This is why this incident started to attract so much scrutiny and ended up reaching its current status (with France 2 appealing Karsenty's victory in the libel lawsuit).

p.p.s. apologies but I'm not really following what you want of me with the "thing" you're talking about. I'm trying to make sure articles are written with the mainstream views represented fairly.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The "mainstream view" is not that this is "blood libel." That is a position being represented here almost verbatim from The 2nd Draft and The Augean Stables websites. There have been a far greater number of websites positing MI5 responsibility for Princess Diana's death. These websites are compelling, and people who hear what they want to believe are likely to pump their fists and tap their keyboards in support. But the fact remains that while mainstream media will report on conspiracy theories be they related to Princess Diana, 9/11 or J.F. Kennedy, these theories are not in themselves "mainstream views". I hope you can see the distinction.

Also, the "thing" I refer to is the object of this "perspective" -- is it the shooting or the reaction? It can't be one for the Palestinians and another for the Israelis. And also, this "Israeli vs Palestinian sides" framing is also problematic, as some of hoax/conspiracy theorists are not Israeli, and some of their "bad guys" are Israeli. If we seek a "perspective" on reaction, then two sides could be "hoax" and "mainstream". Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

• Keep - these sentences are well sourced and notable enough to stay in the lead, as they depict the extreme emotional reactions in both sides towards this sad incident and its consequences. Noon (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Revise: Don't just say "the allegations": that lacks encyclopedic precision: which allegations? Especially in the context of the way the current article is written, this could be interpreted to mean the allegation that Israelis caused the death; but the majority of the sources don't seem to me to focus on this, but to mean whether it was intentional (or at least uncaring). I suggest The way the incident was portrayed in the media was denounced by some segments of Israeli society as "blood libel" – the centuries-old notion that Jews want to kill children. I find that this phrase "the way the incident was portrayed by the media" leans just a little more towards the intentionality aspect, thereby representing the preponderance of the sources better.

I apologize for my earlier remark, done in haste, about the definition of "blood libel": I see now that two of the quoted sources (Fallows and Philips) do give definitions of "blood libel". So it's OK for us to define it, sticking closely to these definitions by sources using it in this context. Remove the wikilink to the blood libel article, at least from the lead: the definition given at the top of it is irrelevant to this article (as pointed out above by others) and linking to it here is inflammatory and unencyclopedic. Remove the word "antisemitic" unless a source is found for it, describing "blood libel" in the context of the subject of this article: either it's obvious and therefore takes up unnecessary space, or it's OR. (Julius does say "anti-Zionist", but does not claim that centuries-old blood libel is anti-Zionist, rather that it has "taken on" an anti-Zionist character.) Fallows' "ancient" can be used to justify the wording "centuries-old". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi CT, how about "For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, the centuries-old notion that Jews are willing to kill other people's children"? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I explained why "the allegations" is too imprecise; if you prefer the phrase, please explain why. What allegations are meant? (E.g. the allegation that an Israeli bullet killed the boy? I don't think that's what's meant by most of the sources that mention blood libel.) The rest of your suggestion seems OK to me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep wikify to Blood libel#Modern world (and improve that section). It is properly sourced, and it is perception of many that this is what this story/incident is all about. Obviously it is the perception only of one side, but they have a right to have that perception included in this article which has basically only two sides. Stellarkid (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  No, don't wikilink to that section: it's about eating babies and stuff: irrelevant and inflammatory to link to. If that section is changed to be about something relevant, then maybe. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. This article has nothing to do with Blood libel and linking to such a controversial topic in the lede is incredibly inflammatory and gratuitously unnecessary. Factsontheground (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reword (outside view) - The problem wording is "For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities" - the "blood libel" link is used by some parties but it's not clear if it is representative in any way. Both "sides" are poorly represented. Try this:

"For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them and the indifference of Western countries to the deaths of Arab innocents.^CITE For the Israeli and Jewish communities, it showed the extent of the propaganda war in which their opponents were willing to fake or stage deaths of their own children; in some cases comparisons were drawn with ancient antisemitic accusations of blood libel (ritual child killing).^CITE "

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, FT. The problem is that it suggests that people who believe it's a blood libel also believe the incident was staged. But those two beliefs are not necessarily connected. You can argue that the allegation—that the IDF killed the boy without there being evidence to support it—was a blood libel, without arguing the incident was a hoax or that the boy didn't die. Also, we need to keep the wording as tight as possible because it's the lead. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Palestinians took it to mean X. Jews/Israelis took it to mean Y; in some cases comparisons were drawn with Z". There's no implication that the latter was the most widespread interpretation nor that people who believed Y also believed Z, merely that it was discussed enough ("in some cases comparisons were drawn") to be worth noting. We shouldn't "argue" anything. We report neutrally what significant views existed. The extra 30 words are tight. They cover the missing views in the original: - the Palestinian view that it showed the indifference of the West and the Israeli view that it showed the extent of the propaganda war. From the sources those look like perhaps two of the most significant piints about what it "showed". It's not wasted words. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The way you wrote it implied a link between "the incident was a hoax" and "the allegation that the IDF shot him based only on the word of the cameraman is a modern blood libel." We can't do anything to link those ideas because they're not invariably linked by the sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that "in some cases comparisons were drawn with ancient antisemitic accusations of blood libel" implies a link with between the two. It is the simple and the proper inference to be drawn from the sources. Stellarkid (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Revise: the "blood libel" statement is not very well sourced, at least considering it's in the lead. There is only a passing mention in an article on the "JTA", an opinion piece in Jerusalem Post and a comment by an employee of the Israeli government press office, with the Israeli government distancing itself from the view. Instead of using the slightly (frankly) bizarre "blood libel" term, couldn't we just say " (...) brutality toward them, ^[13] whereas some Israelis feel the footage is used as a propaganda tool against Israel." --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, "is not very well sourced?" [5];[6];[7];[8];[9] Any more?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, not well sourced which this rather colourful collection of yours only underlines. You have an interview in the website of "Global Jewish Affairs", a column by Melanie Phillips, a rant on "CAMERA"'s website, something from HonestReporting and finally something from a blog called "Seraphic Secret". You're only missing a piece from Alan Dershowitz to complete your series but there isn't even the first WP:RS.--Dailycare (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see you wanted me to present Non-Jewish, maybe even Islamic sources to describe what that propaganda meant to Jews. Interesting! No more questions. I am clear on your POV now. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi DC, some of the sources are listed here for convenience. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz, I'm afraid you don't see so let me explain: the sources you mention are not WP:RS since they are not published subject to editorial oversight. An article in Jerusalem Post is OK, but an opinion piece there is not. Similarly, texts by known advocates of one side of the divide (such as Melanie Phillips, HonestReporting or CAMERA) cannot be used as sources on third parties, the third parties in this case being "sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities". Now as to the list provided by SV, there are indeed WP:RS present, however I found only two (Arutz Sheva and the New York Sun, neither of which are exactly the brightest starts in the firmament but nonetheless). I don't know about Le Meilleur des Mondes, but there Taguieff doesn't say that "blood libel" would be a position of "Israeli or Jewish communities", but that Palestinians are exploiting the material in propaganda. Arutz Sheva and the NY SUN in fact also don't say that sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities would subscribe to the "blood libel" view, they just use the term in the context of the al-Dura incident. So even in view of SV's list, I don't see why the bizarre term "blood libel" should be in the lead, and I'd still prefer my suggestion. (note- I read SV's sources in a bit of a hurry so I may have missed something) Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

DC, some of the sources are quite solid, and this is just a selection. I spent months reading the al-Durrah sources and the blood libel issue is extremely prominent (on one side, of course). The list of sources includes people like Anthony Julius, whose work is widely regarded as scholarly, and Pierre-Andre Taguieff, the French philosopher. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep - well sourced, and important for WP:NPOV and WP:LEDE- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Break 2

I'd just like to register my agreement with Daily here. RS won't be found that links the "libel" idea to "sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities", because it was only forwarded by a select few commentators and journalists. Frankly, the "libel" thing thing is here at the moment, not because it is backed by RS, but because the supports the POV held by the cabal of editors controlling this article. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with noting that some people have argued that the shooting is a hoax or was staged or Muhammad is not dead. But to then premise a "blood libel" upon these conspiracy theories is going too far. Unless there are reliable sources which say Palestinians believe the IDF soldiers marched in and drank Muhammad al-Durrah's blood, then this fantastic accusation remains a construction serving to leverage a strong and emotive bias into the article lead. RomaC (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What an absurd statement! Blood libel is not about what Palestinians believe it is about what Jews and Israelis felt, and what resulted for Jewish communities around the world because of that blood-libel hoax. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen any Israeli or any other reliable source to confirm the reality of this image File:Humanshieldisrael.jpg, but apperantly nobody sees any problem with that.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your reaction Mbz1, I am not against saying that some regard it as a hoax. But isn't it also absurd to link an article on a shooting to "Blood libel against Jews are false accusations that Jews use human blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays."? Or would you say that a media report covering the Palestinian children killed, for instance, in the Gaza War, would also constitute a "blood libel" because it made Jews and Israelis feel a certain way or affected their communities around the world? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, you should try to understand that "Blood libel" here is not used in its literal sense. Please see here page 168. The author explains that the term "Blood libel" in Hebrew has taken the root to describe any false accusations against Jews shedding blood.Please see here "Giuliana Sgrena's Blood Libel Against the US"You should also remember that the hoax was staged on September 30, 2000 that happened to be Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year).--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's what's meant by "blood libel", when why not say that instead of using this bizarre term? For example as I suggested above: " (...) brutality toward them, ^[13] whereas some Israelis feel the footage is used as a propaganda tool against Israel." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre? Really? How about that cartoon by Palestinian cartoonist Omaya Joha that was published in the newspaper Al-Raya, Qatar? And here's her hard at work, and all over in blood--Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, bizarre. I estimate that 97% of Wikipedia readers have no idea what a "blood libel" is. And frankly, I don't see the connection to that cartoon of yours. --Dailycare (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's why the therm "blood libel" is linked to the article, that 97% of Wikipedians could educate themselves on the subject. This cartoon is not mine. I will never allow myself to draw such hateful stupidity. It was made by a famous Palestinian cartoonist, and, if you see no connection with this cartoon, which depicts an Israeli, who's eating a Palestinian boy, it means that you do not want to see the very obvious connection.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The cartoon doesn't use the term "blood libel", and does not say that sections of Israeli or Jewish communities would consider the al-Durrah tape a "blood libel". The cartoon does, however, lend support to my suggestion that the incident is used as a propaganda tool against Israel (assuming it was published in connection with the incident). --Dailycare (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have two suggestions:

1. The thrust of the RfC seems to be that we retain both sentences, perhaps with a rewrite of the blood libel one. We could use Anthony Julius as the source, as he and Taguieff are the mostly scholarly of the blood libel sources (Julius, Anthony. On blood libels, Engage, September 2006). So the section would read:

The footage has acquired what one writer called the iconic power of a battle flag. For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them. For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, the ancient claim that, as Anthony Julius puts it, Jews entertain homicidal intentions towards non-Jews. The scene has been evoked in other deaths. It was blamed for the lynching of two Israeli army reservists in Ramallah in October 2000, and was seen in the background when Daniel Pearl, a Jewish-American journalist, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in 2002. James Fallows writes that no version of the truth will ever emerge that all sides consider believable. Charles Enderlin has called it a cultural prism, its viewers seeing what they want to see.

2. Or we try something different, including the Julius point but without using the term blood libel, and adding this source: Haas, Peter J. "Moral Visions in Conflict: Israeli and Palestinian Ethics", in Leonard Grob and John K. Roth (eds.) Anguished hope: Holocaust scholars confront the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008m p. 21 ff. This is who Haas is. [10] We don't have an article on him.

Peter J. Haas writes that both the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives express deeper truths. For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the widespread acceptance of the allegations that the IDF had shot the boy seemed to reflect a belief that, as Anthony Julius puts it, Jews harbour homicidal intentions toward non-Jews, while for the Palestinians, the footage represented what was actually happening to them and their children as a result of Israeli military activity. In that sense, Haas argues, the video perfectly reflects the narrative that both sides understand themselves to be in, and therefore its meaning persists, no matter the facts. Charles Enderlin has called it a cultural prism, its viewers seeing what they want to see.

Thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok SV. My general thoughts are this - Do you think either of these options are encyclopedic? Both these options seem far too analytical to me, and they go way above and beyond the relaying of basic facts that one expects from an encyclopedia. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not criticizing your writing, and I’m not arguing you’re POV pushing. I’m simply saying that this type of in-depth analysis is more appropriate for a essay/textbook/opinion piece than wikipedia. It seems to beg for the type of argument that initiated this Rfc! Though I acknowledge and accept that the Rfc has demonstrated I’m in a minority (all be it a large one!), I’m still for just deleting the section.

Given that you likely won’t accept deleting, I’ll say that I can live with the second option (as it eliminates the outlandish “blood libel” thing, removes the awkward “battle flag” and heavily qualifies the perspectives). Are you happy now? Can you quit giving me the silent treatment and arbitrating against me?

P.S. If I could also beg we allow the RfC to run another couple days before making changes, I’d be grateful. NickCT (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC should run at least a week, and then we can ask an uninvolved admin to close it. As for being "encyclopedic," a featured article should contain analysis, which is the reason for the final section of the article, and the final paragraph of the lead.

Nick, I'll quit the silent treatment and the dispute resolution when you quit the reverting and all the arguing. You'll find me a very cooperative editor if you come to me with good points and good sources (on either side). But I literally can't stand the back-and-forth time sink. I've even taken this page off my watchlist because of it, and just check in occasionally to see what I've missed. So, please, offer me fewer posts, more substance, good sources, an understanding of our content policies, and a willingness to see both sides, and you'll find me a pushover. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh SV.... I can't imagine you're a push-over for anyone. Do you not think a little WP:OWNing could have been even partly responsible for "the reverting and all the arguing"? Anyway, as I've mentioned before I'm not sure how FAs should differ from normal articles in regards to analysis. Can you cite policy re "a featured article should contain analysis, which is the reason for the final section of the article". And even if this is the case, you are offering analysis in the lede.

But regardless, I stand by what I said earlier. I will grudgingly accept the second rewrite offered. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

I protected the page for one week to stop the edit-warring. The proper place to discuss your disagreements is on this Talk page, not in the article itself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss the 'wrong version' issue but, being brutally honest, you've managed to protect a tag-team of non-contributors against well established editors, one of which was at the core of elevating this article to FA status. The system needs some leeway for newcomers, sure, but to give them allowance to lay down the law is ridiculous and a detriment to the project.

Side note, concerns about the recently removed 'see also' link were not discussed on the talkpage and it this link is inherently relevant (and was on article space through proper consensus building).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaak - You confuse "being long established" with having an unquestionable POV. While I grant that editors who have been around for a while deserve some reverence, I think you and Slim assume way too much. NickCT (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't assumed anything but I was involved in a very long and tedious effort on this article and it has been elevated to FA status after considerable review by editors who are not considered to have "an unquestionable POV". To have editorial-newbies lock a page on the "wrong version" of an FA, regardless if I were involved or not, seems silly beurocracy and is a (no offense intended Malik) momentary lapse in Common Sense. Arguments can occur after the elevation of the article's status but changes to high quality articles should be reviewed by a group of experianced editors. Sure, they should listen to small-contributors that wish to give input or raise concerns but small contributors usually do not understand the intricacies of producing a long-term long standing quality article. My concern is procedural really regardless if I tend to agree or disagree with one perspective or the other.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some serious POV editors that protect and WP:OWN this article in violation with Wikipedia policies. I've never had a problem with any article until I came across the likes of this one. All over three issues 1) Blood libel (questioning this is very legit), 2) putting the names the subject(s), the Al-Durrahs, AHEAD of journalists, and 3) removing an unencyclopedic/irrelevant comment about the child going to the beach and smearing him with teenage stone throwers. Personally, I'm disgusted with all the personal attacks and ridiculous WP:OWN over these minor issues. Hey, SlimVirgin: I don't care if this article was once a "FA", Wikipedia is open for the public to edit and improve. People are still discussing and revising and writing new books on the history on the Civil War. Do you think you own that too? Soledad22 (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fully following you. For example, the boy's mother stated herself that Muhammad loved "protest days". Have you seen that interview? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"do not understand the intricacies of producing a long-term long standing quality article" Hmmmm..... Very dubious Jaak. What we have here is a basic NPOV question. I think almost anyone can cast a worthwhile opinion here. "they should listen to small-contributors that wish to give input or raise concerns " You again seem to under the delusion that there is some type of entitlement for long standing editors. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.... wrong... I promise you that there are a whole bunch of excellent writers who aren't established Wikipedians whom could write circles around the so-called "established editors" controlling this article. You apparently would exclude them if they didn't hold the right POV. NickCT (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear NickCT,

You've suggested removing a "smear" that the boy's mother said about him in an interview. There's nothing here about established editors ignoring basic NPOV that I'm aware of and this doesn't have anything to do with how I see FA articles and beurocracy. New editors shouldn't lock up articles that were already reviewed - regardless of if I agree or disagree with them.

p.s I'd lay off the "dubious" terminology.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"You've suggested removing a "smear" that the boy's mother said about him" Not sure what this refers to. And regarding locking up articles, can you point me in the direct of a policy that say FA can't have POV issues that should be tagged?

P.S. I lay off the "dubious" terminology, when you lay off dubious terminology. NickCT (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

NickCT,

Have you seen the interview with the boy's mother?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Sorry. No idea what you're refering to. NickCT (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The first documentary by Esther Schapira has an interview with the mother. I suggest you try obtaining a copy or perhaps finding one online. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well stated NickCT.Soledad22 (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

People, al-Durrahs not in appropriate place in article

I'll try this again, and I'd appreciate discussion over edit wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident#People_section:_the_subject_victims_of_the_shooting_are_placed_AFTER_the_journalists.3F

I reordered the people section to put the subject: Muhammad al-Durrah at the top. SlimVirgin reverted this simple improvement without discussion. The subject victims should be listed ahead of the "journalists. Unless this article is retitled to "Post-shooting Analysis of the Muhammad al-Durrah killing", there is NO REASON that the victims shouldn't be placed above the bios of journalists. Again, to a first time reader looking for facts, why is Charles Enderlin placed above the topic subject and his father?? It flows horribly, poorly organized.Soledad22 (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This does seem a little awkward. In his revert Slim said having Al-durrah's bio at the bottom of the "people" section "improved flow". That seems dubious. I think this is more of Slim trying to WP:OWN this article. NickCT (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another comment; Is "People" really an appropriate title for this section. "Participants", "Primary Participants", "Involved Individuals" maybe? "People" seems a little nebulus. NickCT (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone who has any objection to this minor edit, please state why. It is distressing that people like Malik Shabazz cannot stop edit warring. Is it possible to block Malik Shabazz from undoing this edit without discssion? Thanks.Soledad22 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way it works, Soledad, and I'm disappointed you haven't got a clue after all this time. After your changes have been reverted repeatedly, you need to get consensus to make them. Not the other way around. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik, it seems to me that the argument of those who usually have no good argument is that thier opponent is in fact the one who needs to demonstrate consensus to get their version of an article allowed. Anyway, as I said on Sole's talk page, SlimV has successfully mired us frivilous arbitration to smite our attempt to restore NPOV to this page. I suggest we cease any edits untill the AE is over. NickCT (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik: LOL!!! Give us all a break, the edit is minor and not one person has given a justification for edit-warring over something so simple! It's very "telling" about extremely peculiar biases that are found with some editors on this page. Just think 1,000 lines of "Talk" and nobody can address the subject: Why are the journalists placed above the subject(s) of the article? It flows horribly. Maybe I need to review more of the featured articles. PS I googled SlimVirgin and it appears that this editor is very, very controversial on Wikipedia, so I guess it explains some of the bizarreness I've seen on this page. Weird.Soledad22 (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Muhammad al-Durrah alive or is Muhammad al-Durrah dead?

Which is it? RomaC (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead, obviously. The only reason this is still being discussed is because of the agitation of various right-wing conspiracy theorists and irresponsible journalists who see it as an opportunity for Arab-bashing. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Being a nitpick here, the dead issue has not been properly established (as was determined by the French court) and "irresponsible journalism" is a common theme among people criticizing the Palestinian-originated report. Esther Schapira, Richard Landes, Philippe Karsenty, Frida Ghitis, Andrea Levin, Luc Rosenzweig, Denis Jeambar, Nidra Poller, and others for example. I'm fairly certain they're not all out to do Arab-bashing (see WP:SOAP) but rather to get to the truth.

p.s. that's not to say that the boy is alive. The issue is more about journalism and how it created a situation where each side believes what they want to believe. This is why the lead should point this issue out.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it -- it's reported Muhammad al-Durrah was pronounced dead on arrival by the hospital. I understand that there are a handful of zealous conspiracy theorists who have been arguing for some years now the shooting was somehow staged, that the child was acting, moving a "red cloth" around to simulate blood, and that a second corpse was switched in at the hospital -- but how on earth has this hoax claim taken over the article, to the point where editors are saying the "dead issue has not been properly established"? And how preposterous is it to even suggest that a French judge has the power to "determine" whether a person in Palestine is really dead?

The style and format of this article are top-level, but the weight and premise are seriously skewed. There are thousands of conspiracy theorists who argue that Elvis is not dead, yet if I tried to remove his date of death from the Wiki article and say "the dead issue has not been properly established" I would be laughed at. This would be funny, if it were not a bit chilling: Wiki editors have resurrected a dead boy. RomaC (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ther's actually a notable number of respectable journalists who support that the original report was bogus (to varyous degrees). You should really give a deeper look to the sources presepted. Anyways, I don't think anyone has ressurected the boy though. That part is a little on the off-side of the mainstream 'not anti-Israeli' perspective. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Little of this article deals with Muhammad al-Durrah. Contrast that with another I-P icon, Gilad Shalit, whose age and background etc. are both up in an infobox and in the article. Is al-Durrah's death not stated as fact because Shahaf said he's alive? Or a French judge is considering libel vs freedom of speech? Ancillary. Support an al-Durrah infobox. (Or split, move all the hoax/conspiracy theories into their own article?) RomaC (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RomaC. This article should be entitled Muhammad al-Durrah. It should be about the boy, and what happened to him and his father, how the death was viewed, etc, etc. The information on Karentsky and Enderlin and the court cases should be in their own article, with a brief summary here. The information on the conpiracy theories that he is still alive should be dealt with in their own article, with a brief summary here. Tiamut^talk 22:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

@Roma I would echo Jaak’s suggestion for you to immerse yourself further in the sources. What happened on that day is absolutely, unequivocally, controversial. There are a number of competing and complimentary narratives about it, and the article properly notes this—not as a footnote, but as the main point of the article. The idea that event was staged and the boy still alive is not anything like the idea that Elvis is still alive an analogy that has already been soundly refuted in this page. And I don’t mean by that the analogy is not as compelling as it might be, I mean the two ideas have virtually nothing in common. I know of no respected journalists who have entertained the idea that the King yet lives—do you? The infobox idea was already nixed: it forces us to come to conclusions, which we shouldn’t be doing. And moving the “conspiracy” stuff out is a more or less textbook POV fork, i.e., thing that is not going to happen. IronDuke 23:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, there's actually almost nothing notable about the boy himself other than the incident and this incident cannot be told without proper examination of all the mainstream POVs. Karsenty's case, btw, is already in summary form. There's not much debate into all the details of the case and they are not that notable outside the main topic either -- its a POVFORK in the making to break it off. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

@Jaak, that's not a valid argument. For example, otherwise unremarkable luge racers and physicists don't get long Wiki articles until they are involved in "incidents". See Nodar Kumaritashvili and Nahum Shahaf. Then, they are the subject of the article, they are not marginalized.RomaC (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironduke yes no question it is controversial, particularly about which gun(s) in whose hands fired the bullets that killed Muhammad. But only the most extreme view portrays Muhammad as some sort of method acting prodigy who is still alive. As Derfner puts in in the Jerusalem Post, "all the (Muhammad is alive) conspiracy theories flying around the right-wing Jewish cyberspace are nothing but Arab-bashing nonsense" To wit::

"I start with the basic facts. The father and son were at Netzarim Junction on the third day of the intifada; there was real shooting going on there between Palestinians and IDF soldiers. In the footage (which can be viewed on YouTube), you see bullets hitting the wall a foot or so from where the al-Duras were crouched. There is a blood stain on Muhammad’s midsection after he is hit. That’s staged? Boston University medieval history Prof. Richard Landes’s explanation for the bullets hitting the wall is that a "marksman" probably was brought in on the hoax. Physicist Nahum Shahaf, who pioneered the field of al-Dura conspiracy theory after cutting his teeth on the Rabin assassination, explains the blood stain as a "red cloth" that was concealed in the boy’s shirt and fell out on cue, giving the appearance on camera of blood. Dear God. People really believe this stuff. ANOTHER PLAIN and simple reason why the hoax theory is bunk came to mind from reading a quote from Enderlin, which reminded me of the kind of numbers of people who, after the shooting, were around Muhammad’s corpse and/or his father. How many people had to have been in on this conspiracy? How many people must still be hiding this explosive secret? Let’s see: The doctors at Gaza’s Shifa Hospital who pronounced Muhammad dead of multiple gunshot wounds, and the doctors, nurses and other staffers who treated Jamal for what the hospital said were also multiple gunshot wounds; The Jordanian ambassador to Israel, who brought Jamal from Gaza to Amman to be treated at a military hospital; The doctors, nurses and other staffers at the Amman hospital, where Jamal stayed for four months; The bystanders around the wall where the al-Duras were shot; The al-Dura family. ...A story like that would be kind of hard to keep under wraps."[11]

We need to clearly record Muhammad's date of death in the article. This is not about who shot the child, this is about reflecting reality instead of pandering to fantastic conspiracy theories. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Support RomaC's suggestion that we clearly record Muhammad's date of death. No serious source disputes that he died, and those who do represent a fringe minority, smaller even than those who think Elvis is still alive. Tiamut^talk 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How many times the Elvis comparison have to be debunked before people stop making it? The idea that MaD is still alive is not the fringiest view, IMO. I would say the fringiest view is that the Palestinians killed him on purpose. I don't see that as being a view worthy of inclusion here, as I've seen not one shred of evidence to support it. However, a number of credible RS's have seriously entertained the idea that MaD is alive. There are yet others who heap scorn on that idea. So what do we do? We illustrate the debate, trying as hard as we can to be neutral and balanced. IronDuke 17:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

When did you debunk the Elvis comparison? I must have missed that. Plus, I'm not the only one to make this comparison. Even writer in The Jerusalem Post do: Probably the most exotic theory, the one that appeals most to the conspiracy-monger's turn of mind, is that al-Dura was never killed at all, that he's walking around somewhere today. Like Elvis, or Hitler.

What credible RS's claim that Mohammad al-Durrah is still alive? How many comparatively say that he is dead? I'm willing to bet its about a 1000:1 ratio of those saying he's dead to those claiming he's alive. That makes it a fringe theory, unworthy of being held up as a reason not to include a date of death in this article. Tiamut^talk 17:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You did indeed miss it, and by a wide mile. That not particularly edifying comparison has been made numerous times on this very talk page. Among the reasons it won't hold water are 1) Nobody takes the idea that Elvis (or Hitler) is still alive, while many believe MaD may be and 2) there was never an autopsy of MaD. There was of Elvis. Clear? And I'd love to see a source for your 1000:1 figure. Your guesstimates are intriguing, but unpersuasive by themselves. IronDuke 21:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I missed nothing. There was no autopsy for Hitler either, (heck I don't even think they found his body) ... Does that count as evidence towards his still being alive?

You also failed to acknowledge that ths source I cited made the comparison with Elvis and called the idea that Durrah is still alive, "probably the most exotic theory" which appeals to the conspiracy-minded.

You also failed to answer the other (more relevant and important) question I posed: What credible RS's claim Muhammad is still alive? I don't know of any. I can produce the 1000 or so saying he is dead (there are about 150 plus listed in this article), but won't go about doing that until I know of one that says he is still alive. Please do direct me to it. Tiamut^talk 21:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sensing the Elvis comparison starting to crumble. Are we switching to Hitler now (whose body they did indeed find... or so they said)? I'm happy to take that up, if you're abandoning Elvis. Is it possible you found a source that made a silly comparison? Does it being an RS (is it an oped?) mean it can be quoted with impunity here? Would you accept that for any RS? I don't know if anyone is claiming he's still alive -- I can't think how one could claim that without actually having the boy alive and smiling today in front of a camera. I think the contention is that the boy may not have died that day, and that the incident was therefore staged. Some number of people believe this. More people (I think) believe that MaD did die that day. But the 1000 (or 10,000) who say MaD died that day all quote the same source; there's been little in the way of independent investigation verifying, for example, the initial conclusion that the Israelis shot him. IronDuke 02:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between RS saying Muhammad is still alive and RS reporting that there are some conspiracy theorists who say that Muhammad is still alive. Provide RS that say he is alive, or else drop this already.RomaC (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What? Anyway, you asked, I answered. You don't have to like it, or even reply. IronDuke 23:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Per WP:CITE, "A full citation is also required in a References section at the end of the article... There are a number of citation styles. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of [data]. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as each article is internally consistent".

The cites in this article don't contain the information they should. They are also somwehat misleading. Styles such as "Fallows 2007" are usually used for academic papers and books. In fact it's a quote by an Israeli press spokesman being quoted by the BBC (which is not made clear) and Fallows is the journalist's name. The reason the source is detailed in a reference is so that a reader can assess the significance of the source from the wiki page.

Cites probably need to be changed to proper {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} format, both to meet citation norms and to better inform the reader.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Name of author and year is called a Harvard reference. It's quite standard and is common on WP, especially in featured articles. It does not imply the author is an academic. You then include the full citation in the References section at the end, which is done here. Citation templates should not be added to articles that already use a consistent referencing system, per CITE. This page would become uneditable with templates in it, because there are so many references. The text would be unreadable in edit mode, and the page very slow to load.

And Fallows 2007 has nothing to do with the Israeli press spokesman or the BBC. Not sure where that comes from. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Crossfire?

Hi,

I realized that according to one of the BBC articles mentioned here, witnesses said that only the Israelis were firing weapons in this incident and not the Palestinians. Should we collate sources and investigate, whether it's appropriate e.g. in the lead to say the al-Durrahs were caught in a "crossfire"? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you tried to add that, and that Mbz1 simply reverted you [12], with no explanation or discussion here. It quite impossible to make this article NPOV (which despite its being a FA, its not) when people are intent on making it reflect their POV. Good luck and I'm sorry I can't be of more help. I'm not up for getting blocked for edit-warring again, and so for the time being, am staying far away from articles that are POV magnets, like this one.

As RomaC points out above, not adding a death date here is pandering to a conspiracy theory. And it would be funny, if it wasn't so disturbing. A little boy and his death have become a battleground for conspiracy theorists. And the sad thing is, they are winning. Tiamut^talk 21:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I explained why I removed it in the edit summary: "removed POV that was proven wrong later on" About the boy, let us hope that this particular boy is alive and well.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read your edit summary. Did you read the article cited? It states: "But witnesses say the Palestinian youths were armed only with stones, not guns, and the shooting was all from the Israeli side." No one has ever proven that the Palestinian youths were armed with anything but stones. Please restore DailyCare's edit and add "youths" after "Palestinian". Thanks. Tiamut^talk 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Even if subsequent sources stated that there was shooting from Palestinian policemen, the testimony of witnesses to the event is a significant POV and not one that has been cancelled out by any subsequent analysis. Per WP:NPOV, this viewpoint should be expressed in our article. Tiamut^talk 23:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

High quality RS's ignored by this article to give undue weight to conspiracy theorists

• Intifada hits the headlines: how the Israeli press misreported the outbreak of the second Palestinian uprising (2004) by Danny Dor, see pages 18, 20, 62-64, 69, 90, 106, 119. Sample excerpt:

  The IDF invested a huge effort, destined to fail from the start, to show that it did not spill the blood of the child Mohammad al-Durra. But who is examining the dozens of other deaths? "No one can convince me that we did not kill dozens of children unnecessarily," says the senior officer. There was no malice, most likely. But in may cases there was certainly a breach of guidelines as well as faulty judgement. (p. 69)

  • NB. I added this book's info to the bibliography and used it to add two minor pieces of info missing in the Israeli response section (i.e. the IDF commander's denial that Durrah was killed by IDF fire on Oct 2, and the PM's acceptance of Israel's responsibility for this death by Oct 4). There is a still a lot of information in this source that can be used to balance out the article. It focuses on anaylzing Israeli media coverage following his death. We should consider having a section on Israeli media coverage, since its discussed by other sources listed here and below as well. Tiamut^talk 13:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • NB. Despite my raising the edits here first for discussion, , the information I added was removed in these reverts by SlimVirgin [13] and Heptor [14]. Tiamut^talk 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• The Middle East and North Africa 2004 (2005), Europa Publications, see page 90, excerpt:

  From the perspective of the PLO, Israel responded to the disturbances with excessive force and illegal use of deadly force against demonstrators; behaviour which, in the PLO's view, reflected Israel's contempt for the lives and safety of Palestinians. For Palestinians, the widely seen images of the killing of 12-year old Muhammad al-Durra in Gaza on September 20, shot as he huddled behind his father, reinforced that perception.

• Censored 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories by Peter Phillips, page 291, excerpt:

  In the first three-and-a-half months of the current Palestinian uprising against Israel's continuing confiscation of Palestinian land and the suppression of human rights, Israeli forces killed 84 Palestinian children. The largest single cause of their deaths was gunfire to the head. During this period, not one Israeli child was killed. Not one suicide bombing against Israelis occurred. Of these 84 Palestinian children, only one received headline coverage in the Chronicle - Mohammaed al-Durra, the little boy whose murder while he ws cowering with his father was recorded for all the world to see by a French TV crew.

• Media studies: key issues and debates by Eoin Devereux, pages 125-126, sample excerpt:

  The circumstances of this killing were highly contested and became the focus of an extensive propaganda struggle [...] the Israelis issued a statement saying that the boy's death was unintentional. [...] The Palestinians rejected his account and stated that the targeting was deliberate. [...] 'They shot at us until they hit us', he [the father] told me, and 'I saw the man who did it - the Israeli soldier.' The two accounts of the events are therefore opposed, but it is the Israeli view that became dominant on the news. Most significantly, it is endorsed by journalists as the 'normal' account of events. It is referenced not simply as a viewpoint [...] but rather as a direct statement, as in 'the boy was caught in the crossfire'.

• This Heated Place: Encounters in the Promised Land by Deborah Campbell, pages 139-147. Interviews with Talal Abu Rahma, the surviving members of the Durrah family and Charles Enderlin. Lots of material that can be included here.
• Reproduction, childbearing and motherhood: a cross-cultural perspective by Pranee Liamputtong, page 218. Quick paragraph noting that two years after his death his mother gave birth to a son who she named Mohammad too. Tiamut^talk 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Side note: Discussions over the media/incident before France 2 released the "raw" tapes in 2007 seems futile and irrelevent - much like physicists talking about physics before Newton came up with his 3 basic laws. Talking about an incident without seeing the rushes is like barbershop gossip. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This article is not about the France 2 libel suit. Its about what happened to Muhammad al-Durrah. Most the reliable sources written on this subject ere written in the first five years after his death. Your opinion that the court case is the biggest and most important thing is well knon, but this incident is about much more than just that.

More sources and things to add

• With an iron pen: twenty years of Hebrew protest poetry (2009), by Tal Nitzan.
  • (p. 142) It is mentioned that Admiel Kosman, the Israeli poet, penned Poem for Muhammad. (Don't think he thinks its a "blood libel" to talk about his death.)
• An Anthropology of War: Views from the Frontline (2008), by Alisse Waterston
  • (p. 113) "became an icon for Palestinian suffering."
    • NB. Added to section on personal and political impact.
      • NB. Despite my raising the edits here first for discussion, the information I added was removed in these reverts by SlimVirgin [15] and Heptor [16]. Tiamut^talk 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Clash of identities: explorations in Israeli and Palestinian societies (2008), by Baruch Kimmerling, the Israeli sociologist
  • (p. 329) "the young martyr becomes a symbol of the renewed Palestinian struggle."
    • NB. Added to section on personal and political impact.
      • NB. Despite my raising the edits here first for discussion, the information I added was removed in these reverts by SlimVirgin [17] and Heptor [18]. Tiamut^talk 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Protection of children during armed political conflict: a multidisciplinary perspective (2006), by Daniel Dor, editors Charles W. Greenbaum, Philip E. Veerman, Naomi Bacon-Shnoor
  • (page 259)

    Ever since October 2000, a whole host of organizations and private citizens, including the IDF, invested an enormous amount of energy in trying to prove that al-Dura was indeed killed by the Palestinians. Some of these attempts actually made headlines, especially in the U.S., Germany and Israel. I have found these attempts not just highly unconvincing, but also totally irrelevant: al-Dura was hardly the only Palestinian child who was killed or injured in this Intifada. The actual numbers are quite alarming. Al-Dura's death came to symbolize this general fact, and no amount of tinkering with shooting angles can make it disappear.

    • NB. Added some of this to section on personal and political impact.
      • NB. Despite my raising the edits here first for discussion, the information I added was removed in these reverts by SlimVirgin [19] and Heptor [20]. Tiamut^talk 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that none of these sources (at least three of which are Israeli) and all but one of which are composed after the court case, even bother mentioning it. Its a sideshow, not considered worthy of serious consideration by serious scholarly sources that discuss the little boy. The Karensky crusade should have its own article, since the issue in the court case is libel, and not who killed Muhammad, or what happened to him, no matter how much people want to make interpret it that way. Tiamut^talk 12:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Expect the Israeli government to endorse the conspiracy theories in the next few days

• Israel to announce its opinion on the Al-Dura affair soon, official says. It look like Karentsky and Seaman will finally get their way. This article, which treated the claims of conspiracy theorists with a seriousness that they did not deserve (and were not given in high quality reliable sources), lays a nice groundwork for that announcement. Well done, Slim. Tiamut^talk 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just two questions, if I may please:

1. Are you suggesting that Slim is a part of conspiracy?
2. Please refresh my memory. Aren't you yourself asked me to discuss the article content, not you? Of course you asked me this right after you yourself discussed SV yet another time.

BTW she happened to be right about at least some socks, didn't she :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Which socks were those? NickCT (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

[21]. I know you will say, that they were created after SV was talking about them, but isn't this great to be able to predict the feature:) --Mbz1 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the update Tiamut. I had no idea that this was coming but its about time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome Jaakobou.

@MBz1, I'm not suggesting Slim is part of a conspiracy. Your question does. Tiamut^talk 12:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

@ MBZ - That's called self-forfilling prophecy. Calling, treating, and acting against someone like they are a criminal leads to them becoming a criminal. Nothing perdictive here. NickCT (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's way out of order to accuse Slim of "laying the ground" for a forthcoming announcement. If it does materialise, which it probably will, it will be the result of three things - the far-right nature of the current Israeli government, the propagandist campaigning of Seaman and France 4's upcoming appeal to the Cour de cassation against Karsenty's acquittal, which I believe is due to be heard in the next few months. This announcement is an obvious and rather blatant attempt to intervene in the French litigation and undercut Enderlin and France 4's case. It's generally considered bad practice for a sovereign government to intervene in a foreign legal case of this kind, but considering it's coming from a government that includes an overtly racist proto-fascist party, it's hardly surprising that such conventions would be tossed aside. This article is insignificant in the overall scheme of things. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

@NickCT, were you talking to me? Oh well....

@ChrisO, What "racist proto-fascist party" are you talking about?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to put words into ChrisO's mouth, but I'm sure the party in question is Yisrael Beiteinu. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then it looks to me that ChrisO just repeats hateful Arab propaganda, which has an afoul stink.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you consider the Israeli and world media "hateful Arab propaganda", then I agree with you. In any event, I think this discussion is growing increasingly off-topic. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What world media are you talking about? Antiwar? Israeli media? Really? How about that one:

Lieberman is neither a racist nor a fascist, and depicting him as such does an injustice to his voters and harm to Israel.
What's racist is denying the Jewish people a state of their own. Certain Arab Knesset members talk incessantly about the Palestinian people's rights, including their own state. But in the same breath they refuse to acknowledge Israel as the state of the Jewish people and deny the very existence of a Jewish people as a nation with national rights...
[22], and this is by a very, very, very left-wing Haaretz
BTW I forgot to mention that with his comment ChrisO violated WP:BLP--Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it didn't. He described the party as racist and proto-fascist, not Lieberman himself. Tiamut^talk 22:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. One calls a single anti-Semite an "anti-Semite" and gets blocked on wp:BLP, the other calls the whole bunch of people (because a party is the people, who are members of a party) racist and proto-fascist, and does not violate wp:BLP. Oh well, Wikipedia is just one amazing place! --Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely Mbz1. You nailed it. At the very very least, ChrisO is guilty of soapboxing. I wonder if we could call Hamas"racist" and "proto-fascist" and get away with it? Perhaps I should try it on the talk page. I think ChrisO would do well to strike his comments. Stellarkid (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that I contacted ChrisO on his talk page and he told me to go away, from which I came to conclusion that he is not suffering from being polite and civil either, which was no wonder to me at all after the comment he made above. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hamas is racist and proto-fascist. One would think, though, that embracing one kind of extremism is not an effective way to deal with an opposing kind of extremism. That has been tried before, with unhappy results. If the al-Durrah case really is going to be reopened, it's clearly going to be an attempt to play to the anti-Arab peanut gallery at home and abroad. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Writing

A featured article can't have this kind of writing in it:

On October 1st, a BBC1 reporter interviewed Jamal al-Durrah in the hospital, noting that there were 8 bullet holes in his body, and conveying his testimony that, "They shot at us until they hit us [...] I saw the man who did it - the Israeli soldier.

• October 1st is not consistent with the rest of the date formatting.
• Why BBC1 specifically? It might have been broadcast on any BBC channel.
• How do you know he was interviewed by a reporter specifically—unless the term is being used generically, in case case why mention it?
• What is the source?
• The reporter didn't "note" that there was eight bullet holes; he said it. Noting implies that we know it is correct.
• The reporterdidn't convey his own testimony, which is what the sentence says.
• We shouldn't say that Jamal's "testimony" was "conveyed" either, because it implies we know it is correct; and it would be an odd way to say it even if we did know that. Makes it sound legalistic, even religious.

The sentence was fine as it was: "Jamal was reported to have been struck by twelve bullets, some of which were removed from his arm and pelvis." Passive tense is appropriate here because we want Jamal to be the subject, not whoever reported it.

People are making changes here for the sake of it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. I'd like to propose to prohibit making few major changes to the article one after another at the same day without discussing the changes before. Such changes are difficult to revert.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you reverted of all my changes to the article in this edit. Many of these changes were proposed in the sections above, where I listed bunch of sources and relevnt information that should be included in the article. I'd appreciate you explaining why these changes are inappropriate, one by one.

Furthermore, your assertions above that the sentence was fine as it is, are wrong. The source cited for that information does not mention 12 bullets (Check it yourself). the source I added, explicitly mentions BBC1, eight bullet holes, and wht Jamal al-Durrah said in an interview with the BBC reporter. [23]. Your reflexive revert is more evidence of your WP:OWN tendencies at this article, which are so pervasive as to result in the restoration of unsourced, incorrect material. Please try to improve upon the additions of your fellow editors. We are trying to improve upon yours. FA status does not mean an article can never be edited again. Tiamut^talk 21:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Then please make your suggestions on talk one by one. Proposed edit = X. Proposed source = Y. This is an improvement because Z. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you've reverted over objections, [24] including the material where the source is unclear. This is disruptive. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Slim, the source is not unclear. I gave you the link [25] and there is a footnote right after the text in question which references a book by devereux. Tiamut^talk 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

All you gave was author, year, page. No book title and it wasn't at all obvious what it might be. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave the link to the article here, but you are right that I forgot to add the biblio information. I added it just before someone reverted out the changes again. You can see it in the history of the article, but the link above provides you direct access to the text anyway. Tiamut^talk 22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence was "Jamal was reported to have been struck by twelve bullets, some of which were removed from his arm and pelvis." The source was [26]. They have now removed the word "12" so we need to remove that too unless it can be resourced.

And in more detail: [27] [28]

Your source is someone who has written a media studies book. How could they know who had said what, unless they have cited their sources, in which case we must use those sources. What does your source say exactly? And note that the person who interviewed Jamal in hospital was the France 2 cameraman. I'm not aware of the BBC conducting a separate interview with him in Gaza. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Its a reliable secondary source Slim. We are encouraged to use those at Wikipedia. The author cites it to BBC1, main news, 1 October 2000. Its a broadcast, not something we can look up, but we don't need to since the author is a reliable source herself. That's good enough for it to be used here. Tiamut^talk 22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have changed 12 to "several". The sentence is now "Jamal was reported to have been struck by several bullets, some of which were removed from his arm and pelvis." The source is the BBC. It says, "Eventually both were hit - Mummahad four times. Jamal al-Durrah survived but was also critically wounded. From his hospital bed in Jordan where he underwent surgery to remove bullets from his arm and pelvis, he gave his first reaction to the killing of his son." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Tiamut, please explain what " ...he said, "They shot at us until they hit us [...] I saw the man who did it - the Israeli soldier" has to do with Jamal's injuries. That section is about the injuries and the funeral. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know where else to put Jamal's eyewitness account of who shot him. Where would you suggest it be added instead? Tiamut^talk 22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, could you please address the other issues? I've had to read my edit, read yours, read my sources, try to find yours (still can't), post here, post again, ask you to answer, and post again. Please reply in full. I would like to know what your source said, and whether your source cites his or her sources. The thing about BBC1 makes me wonder what was said. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Slim, I gave you the link and I excerpted most of this text in the sections above, where I proposed source by source, excerpt by excerpt, information that should be added to the article. You didn't respond there. Since you are having difficulty reading my posts, here is the link again [29]. Its a book by Eoin Devereux, entitled Media studies: key issues and debates. On page 126, it states:

The circumstances of this killing were highly contested and became the focus of an extensive propaganda struggle [...] the Israelis issued a statement saying that the boy's death was unintentional. This was reported on TV news as follows:
Israel says the boy was caught unintentionally in crossfire. (ITV, lunch-time news, italics added, 2 October 2000)
The Palestinians rejected his account and stated that the targeting was deliberate. This view appears on the news in an interview from hospital with the boy's father, who is reported as follows:
Miraculously his father survived but his body is punctured with eight bullet holes. 'They shot at us until they hit us', he told me, and 'I saw the man who did it - the Israeli soldier.' (BBC1, main news, 1 October 2000)
The two accounts of the events are therefore opposed, but it is the Israeli view that became dominant on the news. Most significantly, it is endorsed by journalists as the 'normal' account of events. It is referenced not simply as a viewpoint [...] but rather as a direct statement, as in 'the boy was caught in the crossfire'.

Now, can you please answer my question about where you think information on who Jamal said shot him should be added? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Tiamut, as you're not familiar with this story, I'd urge caution in quoting Jamal. He has seriously contradicted himself on several occasions, about bullets, and who was hit when, how long it lasted, how and when they got to the junction. If we quote him once (except for non-contentious issues, and his own feelings), it raises the issue of cherry-picking. But if we quote everything he said, we risk making him look bad. This is one of the many reasons that jumping into this article with both feet is not a good idea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this story Slim. I'm quite sure that a lot of people have made statements where they have contradicted themselves. I'm not into censoring information because it might make people look bad. What Jamal al-Durrah said in the hospital the day after the shooting is what he said. He was a victim of the shooting, and a main eyewitness and I don't see why we should not include this quote, among others, if they are relevant and reported in reliable scholarly sources. This is a high quality RS. There is no reason to ignore its contents. Tiamut^talk 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, please, this is very time-consuming. Can you please type here what your source says? It is not online (at least not for me), so per V I am asking you to post it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh you did, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is not a reliable source. The source clearly doesn't know anything and isn't paying attention to detail. The BBC1 main news, Oct 1, doesn't mean anything. T, if you want to add that, can you please track down the original report? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The material posted above seems to come word for word from an article by Greg Philo, [30] but Tiamut cited Devereux 2007. Could it be a Philo article in a book edited by Devereux? Also so far as I know, the only person who interviewed Jamal on Oct 1 was Talal Abu Rahma. I could be wrong about that, but we do need to see the original report, or a BBC News summary of it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a chapter in the book, authored by Greg Philo (I missed that he ws the author and Deverux is the editor). Ten articles by Philo are cited in the references section for this chapter in Devereux's book, among other references. If the interview was or was not conducted by Talal Abu Rahma seems irrelevant here. Devereux states only that it appeared on BBC1, main news, she does not say who authored the report. Tracking down the broadcast (its not a written report, but a TV broadcast), is an unreasonable request. The book itself is an RS. However, don't take my word for it. I've opened a request at WP:RSN about this here. Tiamut^talk 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is happening here is that you're trying to edit a complex article without any prior knowledge of it, and doing it to introduce a specific POV. If this was the Talal Abu Rahma interview, it's controversial, and we would have to say that was the source. Not to do so would be dishonest. Plus, if we do establish that Jamal said this, we then have to decide separately whether to use it, because he likely did not see the soldier from that distance and angle, so it opens up how to treat his evidence in general—something I've tried to avoid, because it's a can of worms. And it would play into the conspiracy theories, which focus on Jamal's inconsistent testimony. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) That's funny. What I see happening here, is that an editor in good-standing is trying to make additions to this page, using what she believes to be reliables sources. Another editor, who brought this article up to FA status, and thinks she is the only person qualified to edit the page, is telling her that she has no business doing so.

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion, both about me, my edits, and the sources I use. I'm going to wait what RSN has to say about the question I've asked them. I'm quite sure a media studies book is reliable source for the contents of a news broadcast and I don't think we need to know who carried out the interview in order to use the material quoted in the book. I don't think media scholars make up what they hear in the broadcasts they anaylze.

In other words, its clear Jamal al-Durrah did say this. I think what he said about who he thinks shot him is relevant to an article where the views of people like Karentsky and Schapira on who shot him are given paragraphs and paragraphs of space.

While we wait to see wht RSN has to say about the source. I'd appreciate you responding as to why you've rejected every single other change I've proposed. I went to the trouble of making a list, even though I made one above too. If you're going to control every piece of information that goes into this article, then yes, its going to be time-consuming. For both you and me. Tiamut^talk 00:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not answering the questions, and you don't understand the issues. One of the conspiracy theorists' focus is what Jamal said because he has contradicted himself a lot. If you want to start quoting him, you'd better be ready to go down that path. Here you have him saying that he saw the soldier, at a steep angle, from 80-200 yards, with lots of dust, and the soldier firing through a tiny slit in the wall. But first, you need to find the BBC source so we can determine if it's the Talal Abu Rahma interview. If it was that interview, that has to be included. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere, it is not a reliable source.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Media studies: key issues and debates, by Eoin Devereux is not a reliable source? Tiamut^talk 22:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Slim & Tiamut, if I may interject. Can I paraphrase the issue like this "Jamal's account/reflections on the incident are probably notable, but some of Jamal's comments have been contradictory, hence we can't simply cherry pick individual statements or else we raise POV issues"? Is this accurate? Slim, isn't there a potentially simple answer for this? Can we just say, something like "In hospital on Oct 10 immediately after the shooting, Jamal was quoted as saying X though in a later interview he said Y which caused some to question his account."? NickCT (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. Jamal has made many, many statements about this, not just two, and they contradict each other in very fundamental ways, which is why I avoided the issue in the article. Plus, we have no evidence that he said this on Oct 1; if the BBC reported it, I'd expect to be able to find it somewhere but I can't. The only interview with Jamal on Oct 1 that I'm aware of is with Talal Abu Rahma, though I'm willing to be proven wrong about that. So the place to start is by finding the BBC report, or a summary of it on their website, so we can see exactly what the BBC said Jamal said, not what someone else is claiming the BBC said he said. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Jamal "has made many, many statements about" the shooting, and that they may have been contradictary. I still think though that we can maintain NPOV in a single sentence by briefly mentioning just one contradiction, which in essence lets the reader know that contradictory statements were made. If you don't like the sentence I offered above, how about something like "Jamal expressed outrage towards the Israeli military over the shooting and was quoted as saying X. Later he offered seemingly contradictry statements about the course of events on the day of the shooting, which lead some to question his account." This way we don't even mention what the contradictions were, but just alert the reader that there's a notable dispute regarding the account.

Additionally, I'm not familair with the background re "Talal Abu Rahma", but I find the questioning of the BBC reference a little awkward. The BBC is a RS, and frankly the best RS there is! (though being part Brit I may be subject to bias here). If the BBC says those quotes came from Jamal in his hospital bed in Jordan, they came from Jamal in his hospital bed in Jordan. I'm not going to say that a solidly reliable RS like the BBC is beyond questioning SlimV, but if you do question, I think the huge burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why we shouldn't just take the source at its word. NickCT (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinions about Jamal

The gist of the referenced article is that Jamal himself laid the blame for the shooting at the feet of the Israelis. Currently the reference is used as a source for

• The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) accepted responsibility within three days, saying the shots had apparently been fired by their soldiers

  Jamal was reported to have been struck by twelve bullets, some of which were removed from his arm and pelvis

Neither of these really cover the substantive content from this reference. Is the ONLY quote in the current article from Jamal "I raised my right hand to signal to stop shooting at my son and me. They were shooting at us with fully automatic weapons."? If it is, there should be more. Jamal's account/reaction of the event would seem like the most important/notable of any account/reaction (given as he was the only surviving victim). I think what Tiamut was trying to do, was to get this reference better represented. Can we prehaps offer the quotes from this reference somewhere in the article? Doesn't seem appropriate in "Jamal and Muhammad's injuries". What do ya say Slim? New spirit of friendship and cooperation in editing or... more edit warring? NickCT (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no way Jamal's account could be considered a reliable source.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying his account is RS. I'm saying his account is NOTABLE. Rodney King's account of the Rodney King beating may not be reliable. It is however, notable. NickCT (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Following Tiamut's comment; Obviously I don't think Slim is going to suddenly change her mind here, but I might as well mention that Tiamut is absolutely correct when she says "FA status does not mean an article can never be edited again.", and SlimV's assertion that one must "make your suggestions on talk one by one." or else face offhand reversion is not supported by policy. It's not even the case that substantive changes to policy pages must be talked about before editing It is somewhat incumbent on SlimV though to explain why she is reverting an edit done in good faith. Blanket reverts are bad. NickCT (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut,please get consensus first, this is an FA after all.-- Heptor _talk 21:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Heptor - Still waiting on someone to point to policy saying that what you are suggesting is appropriate. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hector, please, Tiamut, stop it not even because it is featured article, but because it is a very sensitive article. Nobody own it, but your edits had way too many absurd, badly sourced claims. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Heptor, Mbz1, per your requests, per see the section below. I'd appreciate it if people rejecting the changes take the time to respond to each of the proposed changes. Tiamut^talk 22:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I will, but I am busy at the moment. Will try to this tonight.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Explaining changes one by one

These changes are not "for the sake of it". I'm going to explain them one by one though, in response to Slim's request.

1. In the "People" section, I've moved the paragraph on Jamal and Mohammad al-Durrah to the top of the section. As mentioned by other editors previously, this makes more sense given that the title of this article is Muhammad al-Durrah incident, and not Charles Enderlin and Talal Abu Rahma's reporting.
2. In the section on "Jamal and Muhammad's injuries", I changed the first sentence from, "Muhammad was reported by the BBC to have been shot four times," to "The BBC reported that Muhammad was shot four times." This formulation is more straightforward and avoids the passive tense. Issue addressed with change to "Muhammad sustained multiple gunshot wounds," as per result of discussion in Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah incident#Change #2; Update: Jaakobou, and then SlimVirgin change the sentence to read "Muhammad was reported that have sustained mutliple gunshot wounds", claiming consensus for that version. Tiamut^talk 18:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Further down in the same section, I changed this sentence: "Jamal was reported to have been struck by twelve bullets, some of which were removed from his arm and pelvis." The reasons for this change is that the BBC source cited mentions nothing about 12 bullets. I also found a nother scholarly source that analysed the reporting of this incident and used it to write the following instead: "On October 1, an interview with Jamal al-Durrah aired on BBC1 news. It was reported that Jamal al-Durrah had 8 bullet holes in his body, and that he said, "They shot at us until they hit us [...] I saw the man who did it - the Israeli soldier."" I retained a sentence sourcing the BBC source first cited that says simply: "Jamal underwent surgery to remove bullets from his arm and pelvis."
4. In the section on "Israeli response", I changed this sentence: "The position of the Israeli government and IDF changed over time, from accepting responsibility in October 2000 to retracting that admission in September 2007." to this: "The position of the Israeli government and IDF changed over time from initially claiming that al-Durrah was not hit by IDF fire to accepting responsibility in October 2000, and then to retracting that admission in September 2007." This more accurately reflects the Israeli response in the first two days following Durrah's shooting tried to evade responsibility, then accepted, and later retracted.
5. To further support the above change, I added this sentence: "On October 2, Ma'ariv reported that the commander of the Gaza division said that the boy was not killed by IDF fire." This is sourced to a book by Daniel Dor, an Israeli communications professor who analysed Israeli media coverage in the wake of the shooting. I also added this sentence from the same source: "The prime minister of Israel officially accepted Israel's responsibility for the death by October 4."
6. In the section on Nahum Shahaf, I removed this sentence: "According to Anat Cygielman in Haaretz, Shahaf was involved in some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995." I then changed this sentence: "He suggested that he and Doriel—they knew each other from previous discussions about the Rabin assassination, according to Cygielman—be engaged to conduct an investigation, free of charge." to read like this instead: "He suggested that he and Doriel — both known in Israel for their role in perpetuating some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 — be engaged to conduct an investigation, free of charge." I based this change on the fact that it is not only Cygielman who writes of Shahaf and Doriel's relationship to the Rabin conspiracy theories. Daniel Dor does too, and I added his book as a cite for this as well.
7. The biggest change I made was to the section on "Personal and political impact". I added the following as the first paragraph to that section: "Al-Durrah's death at the beginning of the Second Intifada made him, in the words of Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling, "a symbol of the renewed Palestinian struggle." Alisse Waterston, an American anthropologist, writes that the videotaped images of al-Durrah "crouching behind his helpless father," rendered him, "an icon for Palestinian suffering." According to Israeli communications professor Daniel Dor, "a whole host of organizations and private citizens, including the IDF, invested an enormous amount of energy in trying to prove that al-Dura was indeed killed by the Palestinians." Noting his personal opinion that these efforts are both unconvincing and ultimately irrelevant, Dor recalls that he was not the only Palestinian child to be killed or injured in the Intifada: "Al-Dura's death came to symbolize this general fact, and no amount of tinkering with shooting angles can make it disappear."" The reason for this change is that this significant POV is expressed by mutliple reliable sources and was not represented in the article previously (a huge oversight).
8. In the same section, I also added to the sentence on the views of the Arab street, "and that the Western world was largely indifferent to Palestinian deaths." This is cited to Fallows, and it was suggested by FT2 for inclusion in the intro. I thought putting in the body at the very least would be a good step forward.
9. I made the information on the images being blamed for the lynching in Ramallah and other violent acts its own paragraph, but I changed none of the text.
10. Further down, I changed "From the Arab perspective", to "In the extreme Arab perspective" to better reflect what the source actually says.
11. I also added bibliographical information for about five books used to add this new information to the references section. Tiamut^talk 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • IMO it will be easier to read and to comment, if every section had its own section, but as right now I could say that your Phillipsp reference looks more than bogus. It actually claims that IDF deliberately kill Palestinian kids. To have something like that in the article, you should present much, much, much more reliable, and many, many, many more sources. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I numbered them for your responding convenience. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut should have proposed her changes on Talk: first, because this is a FA.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bad" is a vague and general value judgement. Could you be more specific? Tiamut^talk 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

NB. I see Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has since edited his comment, making my response rather unintelligible. For the records, his original comment was: Tiamut's changes were bad, and that she should propose changes on Talk: first, because this is a FA. Tiamut^talk 12:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, could you please address the issues in the Writing section? The only way to address these changes it to approach them one by one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed your comments there. The changes here are numbered now. Please feel free to explain your rejection of them, one by one. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How about you start with 2-3 proposed changes (not on article space) instead of 20? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, it is really hard to read and to comment. IMO it will be better, if you are to do a new section for every change. IMO readability will be much better, and the changes and the comments about them will be kept together. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As below no double standards please. Jaak in 2008-9 when you and (since indefinitely blocked sockpuppet) Tundrabuggy were making 20+ edits a day, many of them contentious, there was no slowing you down. This new "start with 2 or 3" and we'll look at them idea is perhaps less than totally consistent with your own approach. "Ditto" Mbz1 with a one-at-a-time-in-unique-sections suggestion... Seriously let's deal with edits if and when they come up and not try to dictate a rate and format to which others should comply, this is Wiki and Tiamut is an experienced editor addressing issues many editors see in this article. RomaC (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for preservation of sanity

If anyone wants to make a substantive change, a change that might reasonably attract an objection, please consider doing the following:

1. Post the proposed edit on this talk page exactly as you would like to make it, and say where in the article you're proposing to place it.

2. Post details of the source (name, title, publication, date, page number if appropriate), and if it's offline, type up here what it says. Consider posting what the source says even if it's online.

3. Explain why you feel the edit would improve the article.

4. Post only one such suggestion at a time, and wait until it's accepted or not before posting another.

It would also be appreciated if people could keep their responses succinct, so that we have a good signal-to-noise ratio. The above would help us keep what's left of our minds. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Slim, respectfully, could you remind me why you get to dictate how substantive changes are made to this article? NickCT (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody dictates anything. It is a suggestion, as it is stated in the section's name, and I Support it,and not only because it's featured article, but mostly because it is very sensitive article--Mbz1 (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem, Mbz1, is any edits outside SlimV's proposed style of editing this article, is blanket reverted. That's "dictation". Many FAs that could be called "sensitive" are editted just fine without one editor dictating the method in which it is editted. NickCT (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This applies to me just as it does to anyone else. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What applies to you? NickCT (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built by consensus. It's not a race to see who can bulldoze the most crap into articles the fastest, with controversial edits slipping through the cracks unreviewed. The best way to achieve consensus is to separate out the controversial edits from the rest. Implement those improvements which editors agree aren't controversial, and discuss those that are—one at a time—to come to some agreement on how to implement them. SlimVirgin merely suggested a way for editors to improve this article without as much friction and reverting. If one's goal is trutly to improve the article, I would suggest heeding her advice. ← George ^talk 02:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi George. I don't think my edits tried to bulldoze the most crap into the article. That's how I felt about Slim's editing during the FA process though. I didn't have time to respond to the fast pace of the changes she was making, and I tried to raise some concerns here, only to be told that neutral FA reviewers were giving feedback, and now wasn't the time. Now tht its a FA, its not the time either it seems.

I've listed the changes I want to to make one by one. If SlimVirgin wants me to add the biblio info for the books (which were in the edits she reverted, and she can simply look up) I'm willing to do that too. However, every time I meet one of her requests, she finds another to make, and I feel as though she simply doesn't want to make any of the changes I've proposed, as she views her work to be perfect and beyond improvement.

I think a sober look at the changes I'm proposing will reveal some worthwhile additions (some maybe not). Clearly, the prose and placement could always be improved, nobody is erfect after all. I'd appreciate people taking the proposed edits seriously. I tried to outline them one by one before I even made them, and again after they were made, when Slim said what I did wasn't sufficient. :Now, I'm reading her message above telling me to space out my request and add more details? So should I be proposing one change per week or something like that? I'm sorry, but if Slim doesn't want anyone to edit this article, than she should apply to have full protection added. That would make it clear to those of us who think the article can still be improved, that we shouldn't waste our time by even bothering. Tiamut^talk 10:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My comment wasn't aimed specifically at you, but at any (and all) attempts to put controversial material into the article with a battering ram. I've seen editors on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict using such tactics, and I think it's part of the reason these articles are so unstable in general.

I actually agree with some, or even most, of your edits. However, the structure for proposing them is hard to work with. You gave us 11 bullet points, each with a paragraph explaining your reasoning, and 20 sources that support them. If anyone wants to respond to you, they would have to review the 20 sources, and reply with 11 more paragraphs, at the very least. We have a lot of editors here, and even if only a handful of them chose to take part in the discussion, it would quickly grow into dozens or even hundreds of paragraphs of text. A discussion that long will dissuades more casual editors from getting involved, which means only zealots on both sides will weigh in, limiting the discussion to two polar opposite views and making consensus impossible.

If your goal is really to improve the article, which I fully believe, you need to be willing to work with other editors on a more reasonable scale. Go through your list, and pick out the least controversial edit. Make a new section, and propose that change. If you get consensus for it, great, it gets implemented; if not, move on to the next one. Breaking them down into a series of smaller, separate discussions will allow editors time to review and comment, and archive them as they get resolved so that the talk page doesn't become insanely long(er). Think of it like eating a hamburger. No matter how much I may like the hamburger, trying to eat the whole thing in one giant bite is impossible. That's why we eat hamburgers in several bites, one at a time. I'd suggest proposing the second edit from your bullet list above, in a new section. It's an edit that's pretty straight forward, with no sources to review, and one which I agree with. Once consensus is reached for that (for, or against), then move on to the second bite. ← George ^talk 11:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, no double standards please. SlimVirgin has made a whopping 1,399 edits to this article, sometimes at the rate of 50+ per day, and they are overwhelmingly balanced, well-written and policy-compliant edits. No bulldozing of crap. So let's not accuse other editors (Tiamut has but a handful of edits here) of bulldozing crap into this article. There may be some problems that need attention to improve the article. Anyway I see some problems and other editors seem to as well. This is not a manuscript heading to the printer, it's a Wiki article and Wiki articles change, that's what they do. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

George, I hate to say this, but the piecemeal approach you're suggesting is entirely in contratdiction to Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. When Tiamut made those initial edits, SlimV or Mbz or you or anyone was perfectly welcome to go through them 1 by 1 reverting anything they/you felt to be contraversial, hopefully explaining thier revert on the talk page. SlimV chose to blanket revert. Given as we are all assuming Tiamut was approaching in good faith, blanket revision was inappropriate. NickCT (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

NickCT - have you even read the policies you cite? The first bullet point from the bold point from the Bold section of WP:BRD states: "Only make the changes you absolutely need to. Bold doesn't have to be big, and keeping your edit focused is more likely to yield results than making an over-reaching change." From the last bullet point in the Bold (again) section: "If you can find consensus on some parts, make those changes, and let them settle. This will give everyone a new point to build from. Having completed one successful cycle, you may also find it easier to get traction for further changes, or may find you have reached a reasonable compromise and can stop."

If editors disagree with all Tiamut's edits, there's nothing that says they can't blanket revert the whole thing. If I were to actually spend the time to review Tiamut's edits, I would probably agree with between 80% and 100% of them. However, because of the format in which he suggested them, I won't have time to review them all, so I'll probably review none. There goes one vote in favor of his changes. Is making granular changes a requirement? No, but proposing his edits one by one would be a good way to build consensus and avoid long, drawn out edit wars that lead nowhere. If editors don't want to discuss his edits in a more reasonable fashion, then by all means stick to having a wall of text discussion that nobody reads, and see how long it takes for consensus to emerge on any of them. ← George ^talk 18:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RomaC - I didn't propose a double standard, nor did I accuse anyone of anything. SV's suggestion is a way to get thing done effectively. If editors choose to continue to revert war over this article instead, then they can enjoy the impotent circle jerk. ← George ^talk 18:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, which definition of circle jerk are you refering to? NickCT (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"A pointless group activity performed for personal gratification." ← George ^talk 20:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... oh well.... thought this conversation might be heading somewhere interesting. NickCT (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

George, Perhaps we aren't reading the same policy, but the BRD policy I see says, Be Bold (i.e. make good faith changes), Revert (i.e. let contentious changes be reverted), Discuss (i.e. discuss why those changes were contentious and try to reach consensus).

There is a logical fallacy in saying "I don't have time to go through the edits 1 by 1 so it's ok if I blanket revert b/c I think some might be contentious, but I do have time to discuss all proposed contentious changes on the talk page. NickCT (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that? No. I said that "If editors disagree with all Tiamut's edits, there's nothing that says they can't blanket revert." Please don't misquote me. Did I blanket revert anyone? No. I said that I wouldn't be able to support Tiamut's wall of proposed changes above because I don't have the time to review all 11 bullet points and read his 20 sources, before that discussion itself gets too long to keep up with. By (inadvertently) forcing others to abstain from the discussion, because of the format chosen in the Discuss phase of the BRD cycle, Tiamut lost my support, even though a cursory glance would suggest that I agree with most, if not all, of his edits. If he discussed the same issues in serial, one after another, it would have been far more conducive for discussion, allowing editors time to review his sources, and the ability to weigh in without being instantly drowned out by how many words per minute other editors can type on other, unrelated edits. I suggest reading the Details section of WP:BRD, and not just the Overview. ← George ^talk 20:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with George.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"If editors disagree with all Tiamut's edits, there's nothing that says they can't blanket revert the whole thing" - Tell me George.... you really think SlimV went through all those edits, and found something objectionable with each one before reverting? NickCT (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe she felt that Tiamut's edits "broke an established consensus", one of the bullet points listed at WP:BRD as a reason for reverting? I don't know, and I don't purport to be a mind reader. Besides, it's irrelevant. SlimVirgin's suggestion was meant to make the Discuss phase of the WP:BRD cycle more manageable. I merely suggested heeding the advice as a way to garner support for edits. If editors aren't interested in methods that foster discussion, and don't mind losing support for their edits in the process, then they can choose to ignore the suggestion. ← George ^talk 21:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How is the reason SlimV reverted "irrelevent"? If you don't know, it's because she didn't take the time to explain herself, which is sorta required. NickCT (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to this discussion because this discussion is about a proposed mechanism to promote discussion. If you feel she violated Wikipedia policies when reverting, then you can discuss that issue with her on her talk page, or discuss it in a section about her reverting on this talk page, or report her at the relevant noticeboard. But that discussion is a separate one, and is irrelevant to whether addressing items one at a time is beneficial for consensus building. ← George ^talk 21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. AGF. Anyway, above, George says he agrees with most, if not all, of Tiamut's edits. Mbz1 dittoed George, I will also say I agree with most if not all of Tiamut's edits and it appears NickCT does, and we can count the proposer Tiamut as well. So why not put the edits in the article, we can always go in and tweak for flow and style and so on. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Re "It's irrelevant to this discussion because this discussion is about a proposed mechanism to promote discussion". If the "proposed mechanism" is enforced by blanket reversion, it seems particularly relevant. George, you can essentially look at this two ways, 1) SlimV is trying to make the process of editing this page less contentious and prone to edit warring by requesting discussion before editting, or 2) SlimV is trying to make sure that no edits but her own, and those she explicity agrees with, are made and is willing to ensure this by insisting every proposed change is discussed, and then miring any potential change in endless debate. George, I'd agree with you that if 1) were the case, it would certainly be a noble and supportable sentiment. However, having watched this article for quite a while now, I'd be more inclined to believe that 2) is infact what's going on. NickCT (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that everyone is editing in good faith, which means I assume #1 (or some derivative thereof, whereby SlimV reverts things she disagrees with, and requests discussion before they are reinserted). If you believe that #2 is the case, then that would qualify as article ownership, and you're free to report it. However, based on the (lengthy) discussions she's taken part in in the past on this page, including numerous compromises she's made and helped create, I just don't think that #2 is the case. ← George ^talk 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Again George, WP:AGF is a good sentiment, but I think you take it a tad too far. Reviewing the history here, SlimV only tends to compromise when she is clearly outnumbered. There are no examples you can point to where a lone editor has come along and said "I think we should reword this to X" and Slim has said simply "I agree" or "Well how about we compromise with Y?".

You take her "(lengthy) discussions" as compromise? I take them as attempts to obstruct what are ultimately really, really minor, non-contraversial changes. I think the discussion below is evidence to that. We are going to talk for 2 weeks to pass 80% of Tiamut had put up in 2 minutes. SlimV could have simply reverted the 20% that she did find contraversial, and we wouldn't now be wasting our time.

Anyway George, don't think we'll come to consensus here. I think you are overly willing to provide Slim with the benefit of the doubt (i'm presuming b/c of some predijuice you have for long established editors). Perhaps if she'd accused you of sock puppetting, and launched arbitrations against you, you'd feel differently. NickCT (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it may be the case that you just haven't been involved in this article long enough. There have been cases where I myself have suggested changes to SV, and she has either agreed or suggested a compromise. She's worked with other editors on this page to achieve compromises and stop edit wars, even when she wasn't one of the parties involved in the dispute.

The lengthy discussions weren't "hers", and I didn't say that they were. I was talking about cases where two other editors would be bickering for days or weeks, and she would step in and try to help broker a workable solution—often successfully. I have no "prejudice" for long established editors, though I do appreciate editors who are willing to compromise, as both she and Tiamut did below.

If we take two weeks and pass 80% of Tiamut's suggestions, I think that would be great progress, and a strong indicator that SV's suggestion is a good one. If Tiamut had stuck with just the wall of suggestions above, it would have taken even longer to accomplish less. Or if he had tried to forcefully push the changes into the article by edit warring, I guarantee you that other editors, not SlimVirgin, would start edit warring over them too, and the article would quickly destabilize. ← George ^talk 22:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

George, just a quick note since you've called me "he" a couple of times now. I'm a "she". Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I'll try to remember that. If I forget please understand that I don't mean to offend, I just don't have a great memory, and feel free to correct me again. ← George ^talk 03:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why, but for some reason I feel a little offended. Could I get an apology too?

"If we take two weeks and pass 80% of Tiamut's suggestions" - George, I just don't understand your logic here. How could you think it better that we chatter for 2 weeks to achieve what a little restraint on SlimV's part would achieve in 2 seconds? Anyway Georgio, in comparison to behaivor I've observed from other editors in my experience (albeit limited) this does seem a tad extraordinary. If you have no inkling as to how I could arrive at this viewpoint, perhaps it's best if we cease wasting space on this talk page? Again though, I want to emphasis that I appreciate you willingness to at least explain your viewpoint. Something some editors (not naming names) choose not to do. NickCT (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is the fundamental difference between our views. You view SlimVirgin as an obstacle to the changes Tiamut tried to implemented. I view her as someone trying to keep edit wars at bay, stabilizing the article, and helping foster meaningful discussion. I guarantee that if she hadn't reverted Tiamut's changes, someone else would have. Let me say that again - even if SlimVirgin did nothing, there is absolutely no chance that someone else wouldn't have reverted Tiamut's edits. Many, more minor edits have been edit warred over on this page, so it's not the difference between two seconds and two weeks, but between two weeks with something to show for it, and two weeks of edit warring and nothing to show for it. Look at the blood libel RfC. You can blame SV if you like, but look at how many people voted to keep the current wording. Any one of them, and others who didn't vote, would have likely reverted Tiamut's change if SlimVirgin hadn't. That RfC lasted almost two weeks - from February 19th to March 3rd. And what was changed? A few words in a single sentence, based in part on SlimVirgin's willingness to compromise, despite heavy support to keep the existing wording. So yes, resolving 80% of Tiamut's suggestions in two weeks would be great progress, in my opinion.

I can understand that you're upset that SlimVirgin mistook you for a sock puppet, and felt you were destabilizing the article. I wasn't paying attention to the edits that were taking place at the time, so I didn't see the pattern that made her think you and Soledad22 were the same person. I don't know if she apologized or not to you, though I would have had I made the same mistake. However, it's also not fair to constantly hound her in an accusatory tone, because without her, and neutral editors like her, willing to listen to reason and compromise, this article will quickly descend into an all out edit war. If you don't think so, then yes, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree, and find out when it happens. ← George ^talk 09:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

“absolutely no chance that someone else wouldn't have reverted Tiamut's edits” - Really? That's an awfully definitive statement. You psychic? ““despite heavy support to keep the existing wording.” Looking at the Rfc it’s about 50% Keep 50% revise or delete. I was a little surprised that SlimV suggested a “compromise” here instead of just claiming we hadn’t demonstrated consensus for change. However, you’ll note the “compromise” she suggested hasn’t been put in. And I’m guessing she happy just to leave the controversial material there. ““I would have had I made the same mistake.” – Is my English really so bad that it could be confused with Sole’s gibberish? ““know if she apologized” – No. Infact, she continued to cast aspirations as to my identity. “. However, it's also not fair to constantly hound her in an accusatory tone” – While she continues to do what I see as WP:OWNing, I will continue to hound “without her, and neutral editors like her,” - Obviously I don’t need to tell you that calling Slim “neutral” is POV. She’s certainly not as shamelessly POV pushing as some of the other editors around, but I perceive a definite inclination towards one side of the debate. ““willing to listen to reason and compromise” – Again, I think this is a little POV, and I think you are being unduly generous. Again, I suggest we cease wasting space on this discussion page. May I polite suggest that if you’d like to reply, you do so on my talk page? NickCT (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Change #2

In the section on "Jamal and Muhammad's injuries", can we change, "Muhammad was reported by the BBC to have been shot four times," to "The BBC reported that Muhammad was shot four times." This formulation is more straightforward and avoids the passive tense. Tiamut^talk 21:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I support this change. It sounds more readable to me. ← George ^talk 21:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave it as it is. The point of using the passive voice (which is perfectly fine and doesn't need to be avoided; see MoS) is to emphasize Muhammad as the subject of the sentence, not the BBC. If it's changed, someone will want to change the start of the para about Jamal to "The BBC reported that Jamal" which means we have repetition, and again we want the subject of that sentence to be Jamal, not the BBC. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see some value in trying to start the sentence with Muhammad's name, but the current version actually reads like it's emphasizing the BBC to me. What do you think about just "Muhammad was shot four times"? We could cite the sentence to the BBC. Do other reliable sources dispute the number of times he was shot? ← George ^talk 21:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember; there were so many reports, so many inconsistencies, so I just picked a reliable neutral source and used in-text attribution. I don't mind saying "The BBC reported that..." But the next sentence begins with "Time said that .." and then someone will want to change the next para to "The BBC reported that Jamal" etc. These are all small points, but piecemeal fiddling destroys the flow. This is the problem with people wanting to make changes for the sake of it; changes in one place impact the article in others. But if people really want to change that sentence, it's not something I'd get worked up about, though I do think we need in-text attribution if we're going to say four bullets. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick search, and it appears that the four bullets was first brought up by the BBC, and it has been repeated a few times in other sources, but there doesn't really seem to be anything that contradicts it. As an alternative, what about "Muhammad was reported to have been shot four times"? It still uses the passive voice, but I think it's more readable than the current version too. For me, the location of "by the BBC" in the current wording just sounds forced. I mean, wrap it with commas or parentheses, and I think it reads more easily. I'm not suggesting actually doing that, but I think it shows how the inclusion of "by the BBC" can trip up the reader, in its current location. ← George ^talk 23:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, George, I don't want to bog this down with objections, so if you want to change it, and it can be done without losing the attribution or making the writing seem odd, please go ahead. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your flexibility is appreciated. :) I'm trying to see if there's some version we can all agree on, so if anyone has a better suggestion, that's great too. Tiamut made a suggestion, you disagreed; I'm just trying to find a compromise that everyone can be happy with. ← George ^talk 23:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If lots of sources are saying four bullets, then I'm fine with your suggestion: "Muhammad was reported to have been shot four times." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Support "Muhammad was shot four times" linking to the BBC source. To weasel with "...was reported to have been shot" seems to pander to the fringe position that Muhammad employed a little red cloth prop to suggest blood as Palestinian marksmen fired into the wall above him, and that hundreds of people have hidden this hoax for 10 years. We can cover this elsewhere in the article. For first ref, "was shot four times" is well sourced and for neutrality, does not say who fired the bullets. And, SlimV I honestly feel for you, you carefully crafted an article and now people are messing with your flow and style and so on. But this is Wiki, and collaboration naturally places content over form. Sometimes one has to just let go ;-) Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose no reliable source for such a statement.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean no reliable sources, besides the BBC article currently cited in the article? ← George ^talk 04:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

RomaC - If multiple reliable sources reported him as being shot four times, I would fully support using the blanket statement. But while multiple reliable sources reported that he was shot and died, we really only have one reliable source that says he was shot four times. And because this is a wiki, built on consensus, we'll never get the article perfect, but if we can make these incremental changes based on collaborative discussions, the article's content can get better without ruining its flow. If, for instance, you can find multiple other reliable sources that independently (ones that don't quote the BBC) verify the number of times he was shot, then we can look at changing this sentence again. ← George ^talk 15:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

SV - So all I've been able to find is the BBC article, an op-ed in the LA Times from 2000, and a piece in The News International from 2008. All the other sources, be they articles or books, seem to be almost direct quotes of the BBC article. So I'm fine to attribute it to the BBC, but I'm hoping we can find something that reads more easily while still flowing with the rest of the paragraph. ← George ^talk 04:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with "Muhammad was reported by the BBC to have been shot four times"; "Muhammad was reported to have been shot four times"; or "Muhammad was shot four times, according to the BBC". My preference is the first, but I'm fine with the other two. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support George's suggestion of simply, "Muhammad was shot four times", cited to the BBC in the footnote, or the compromise suggestion that is acceptable to SlimVirgin of "Muhammed was reported to have been shot four times." While it is still passive voice, it reads less awkwardly than what is currently there. Tiamut^talk 12:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with "Muhammad was shot four times". Simple. Clear. Concise. Referenced. What every tidbit should be. Slim, read you explination re "The point of using the passive....the BBC." Not sure I understand. Can you elaborate on "someone will want to change the start of the para about Jamal"?

I might also point out that the passive voice is really the dubious voice. Starting a sentence with "it was reported" insinuates that there may be reason to disbeleive the following fact. Do we have any reason to believe he wasn't shot four times?NickCT (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think SV's concern is that someone will want to change the lead of the next paragraph, "Jamal was reported to have been struck by several bullets..." to something like "It was reported by the BBC that Jamal was struck by several bullets...". And I would agree that making these sentences too choppy could destroy the flow. I read her comment about "The point of using the passive voice is to emphasize Muhammad..." as saying simply that starting the sentence with Muhammad's name, rather than with "It was reported by the BBC", puts the emphasis on Muhammad instead of on the BBC.

In all, I don't think SV's concerns differ greatly from your own (or from that of other editors), she's just also considering the change in the bigger scheme of the article's flow. Since Tiamut (the one who proposed the change) and SV (the one who reverted) both supported the compromise wording "Muhammed was reported to have been shot four times", I'm going to be bold and change the sentence to that. It's not anyone's favored wording, but that's what compromise is about. ← George ^talk 15:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The problem with "Muhammad was shot four times" is that he wasn't shot 4 times. The attending doctor spoke of 3 bullets (though they did not extract any of them). So did the boy's father and many other sources. George, you've seen the documentary. No? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which documentary you're talking about (there were at least three). Do you have a link, or a published source of the doctor, Jamal, or other sources mentioning 3 bullets? ← George ^talk 15:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The title is "Three bullets and a child" for a reason. The Beeb is known to make silly errors whenever Israel is involved (e.g. blaming Israel for a Palestinian bulldozer attack). I'm not even sure their clearly faulty report merits mention... perhaps in the footnotes! The bullet report should come from the origins - the doctors, cameraman, and father. Those are the ones spreading the message and others are only propagating it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I wasn't clear. Do you have a link, or a published source of the doctor, Jamal, or other sources mentioning 3 bullets? After finding a link, can you give me a minute marker in the documentary when someone says the boy was shot by three bullets? And what is "The Beeb"? ← George ^talk 16:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, "Muhammad suffered several bullet wounds" with links to three bullets and links to four bullets, is that ok? RomaC (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest "Muhammad sustained multiple gunshot wounds." And George, the beeb, is shorthand for the BBC. Tiamut^talk 16:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. I object totally to using Schapira's documentary or the conspiracy theory docs as sources here. The BBC will be just fine. Tiamut^talk 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I've never heard that shorthand before. Both suggestions are fine with me. I'd still like to see the link for the source that says three bullets though, as, to the best of my recollection, the documentary Jaakobou mentioned claimed that the boy the doctor was discussing was not Muhammad, and I don't remember the doctor himself even mentioning bullets (I believe that the was part of the conspiracy theory itself - that they never removed any bullets from the boy, so couldn't say how many were in him). ← George ^talk 16:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

'Several/multiple' would fall under WP:WTA. Tiamut, if the doctor and father say the same thing (three bullets) on the documentary - that seems like the documentary is more accurate and more fitting than the Beeb and their misprint. We use the best sources here - not the least accurate ones. George, please lookup the documetnary. I've no time to watch it again at this moment to give you the exact minute.

p.s. there's no conspiracy in the note that they did not extract any bullets or trace the bullet route - the doctor himself addresses the issue. Jeez! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my French, but BS Jaakobou. Nowhere in WP:WTA does it mention not being ble to use a general quntifier like "multiple". Its currently used in the article in this sentence: "Jamal received multiple wounds from high-velocity bullets striking his right elbow, his right thigh, and several locations in the lower part of both legs ..." Its an acceptable descriptor that can cover the four bullets mentioned by BBC or the three you claim are mentioned in the documentary.

If you can't be bothered to provide a time code for the doc info, we can't consider it. We shouldn't anyway, because it is not an RS. I suggest that go with "multiple gunshot wounds", per RomaC, George, and myself above. Tiamut^talk 17:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I see nothing in WP:WTA that says not to use either term, and the words "several" and "multiple" are already used two dozen times in this article—including three times in this section alone. I reviewed the documentary. I don't see the father ever mentioning how many bullets hit Muhammad (his Israeli friend & employer Moshe discusses Jamal telling him how many bullets he himself had been hit with). The doctor doesn't mention the number of bullets explicitly, but lists three "injuries":

Narrator: Whilst Jamal is undergoing treatment, his son's body is being prepared next door. Time is running short for the pathologist, as Mohammad is due to be buried the same day as a martyr.

Doctor: Following the examination, it was clear that the bullets entered the body from the front, and above. The bullet entered the body in the abdomen, and exited the body here. This wound was fatal. The second injury lies just beneath the chest, and the bullet exited through the left hip bone. This wound was also fatal, because it shreded major blood vessels. The third injury in the left leg was relatively harmless.

Narrator: The conclusions of the pathologist are based on his external investigations of the body. A full autopsy is not performed, the paths of the bullets are not mapped, and the internal injuries are not examined.

Nonetheless, the documentary is named "Three bullets and a dead child", so I've changed the wording to the slightly more vague "Muhammad was reported to have sustained multiple gunshot wounds", which doesn't give a specific number. ← George ^talk 17:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your research George. If I may though, I'd like to ask that you remove "was reported". The passive voice is not necessary here. No one disputes that Mohammed was shot several times. Tiamut^talk 17:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added the Schapira documentary as a source for the statement, and removed the passive voice. I don't think we need to state that the number of bullets "was reported" now that we have a slightly vaguer wording, attributed to multiple sources. ← George ^talk 18:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

George, we can't state it as a fact. We need "X reported," or "it was reported that." That was agreed a long time ago (years ago) on this article, and it was made clear during the FAC that the whole article had to be worded neutrally; see Ling.Nut's comments as an example. It was also agreed that we wouldn't use Schapira as a general source, or use her unnecessarily. And Schipira doesn't say that anyway. She is careful to distance herself.SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SV - so I was actually thinking that we might be able to merge this sentence and the next, while keeping the "was reported" structure. Something along the lines of "Muhammad was reported to have sustained multiple gunshot wounds,[1] two of which were deemed fatal by the pathologist who examined his body at Al-Shifa Hospital, Dr Abed El-Razeq El Masry." I think the source [1] would be the BBC article, and the second half of the statement would be substantiated by the interview he gave Schapira in her film (see the transcript of his interview above where the doctor says two of the shots were fatal), though I'm fine not putting an actual citation to Schapira's interview if you think it's unnecessary. Thoughts? ← George ^talk 02:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and made this change. I think it really helps the readability of these two sentences, but if others disagree I'm always open to further discussion/suggestions. Cheers. ← George ^talk 03:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Still don't think Schapira is a reliable source (particularly her analysis), but given that I take it you are basing this assessment on the doctor's own words and he conducted the examination of Mohammad's body, I'll let it slide this time. Just want to make clear that I don't view her conclusions to be in any reliable enough to be stated in Wikipedia's netural voice. Tiamut^talk 18:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop reverting people and using language like you'll "let it slide." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Only SlimV "let's things slide" on this article. What were you thinking Tiamut!? NickCT (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'll try to be more rigidly inflexible from now on. Tiamut^talk 11:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And Slim, I reverted Jaakobou's edit [31], which was a revert of George's edit [32], itself based on the discussion in this talk page section, in which four editors supported the wording he added. You reverted to restore Jaakobou's edit [33], claiming "consensus". I gather from your comments that I am the only one who is not allowed to revert. Thank you for your one-sided attention. Tiamut^talk 11:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Change #1

In the "People" section, I would like to see the paragraph on Jamal and Mohammad al-Durrah moved to the top of that section. As mentioned by other editors previously, this makes more sense given that the title of this article is Muhammad al-Durrah incident, and not Charles Enderlin and Talal Abu Rahma's reporting. The key players in this incident, without whom there would be nothing to write about, are its two primary victims: Muhammad and his father. Tiamut^talk 18:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I tepidly support such a change. One nice thing about the current order is that the last sentence of the section on the al-Durrahs does flow nicely into the next section. I think they could be ordered as you suggest, however, and the last sentence of the Abu Rahma section could be made to flow better instead. But I don't consider it a big deal, either way. ← George ^talk 18:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, this should not even require discussion, al-Durrah is the subject of the article. RomaC (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Last sentence of people section - "Father and son decided instead to go to a car auction, according to an interview Jamal gave Abu Rahma in the Al-Shifa Hospital on October 1, 2000.[40]"

First sentence of "scene the day section - "The Netzarim junction is a right-angle intersection of two roads. At the time of the shooting, in the lower right/north west quadrant (see below), there was an abandoned warehouse, two six-story office or apartment buildings known locally as the "twins," or "twin towers," and a two-story building that the IDF was using as a military outpost called Magen-3, which guarded the approach to the Nezarim Israeli settlement, where 60 Jewish families lived"

I fail to see the flow here. Definately move per Roma's comments. NickCT (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest, in terms of flow, possibly adding a sentence on how Talal Abu Rahma was the only journalist at the Netzarim Junction that day to capture the shooting of al-Durrah on tape.

By the way, as I was re-reading the people section and the following sections to see what could be added for flow, I noticed a misrepresentation of Abu Rahma's testimony that I have since corrected in these edits. I hope that edit meets with everyone's approval. If people feel the need to include more the detail of his testimony in the body of the article, by all means go ahead. Tiamut^talk 18:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You were asked above not to make substantive edits without gaining consensus on talk first. Please stick to that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Gross misrepresentations of the sources cited should not be subject to that rule. That the article managed to be promoted to FA with such mistakes in it means that people did not check the source material cited to make sure you faithfully represented it. They assumed there was no need. Now we know better. Tiamut^talk 11:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I object to the change in the flow. It starts with the less important players and moves toward the important sections, with the al-Durrahs and their journey described, and the reason they weren't at work or school that day, just before we describe the scene on the day and what happened to them. I wrote it that way for a reason.

People are wanting to make changes here for POV reasons, or for the heck of them, with no attention being paid to the writing. You may think each of your tweaks is too minor, but it won't need many before the flow is lost. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Slim, what POV issues could be involved here? I'm pushing this b/c it seems logical. When we think about the credits in movies, or anykind of "list of characters" in a story/documentry/movie, convention has it that the important character go first. Even if there was a flow issue (which I'm not sure there is), the break with convention here would seem to override that. NickCT (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the way the discussions over proposed changes are going to be held? With Slim insisting her version is perfect and everyone advocating for change is doing so for POV reasons or just for the heck of it?

Four editors here think it is more logical for Muhammad and Jamal to be placed first in the section, since they were the victims and are the primary actors in this incident. You disagree, for "style" reasons. I'm not convinced by that argument, sorry. I think your hesitance to initiate the change reflects your view of what this article is about. To you, its more about Charles Enderlin, and Talal Abu Rahma, and the callenges to their credibility mounted by the conspiracy theories put forward by Karentsky and Schapira. But that's not what its about. Its about a little boy and his father who were shot at in the first couple of days of the intifada, a videotaped image of the boy's death that was circulated worldwide, and the impact that incident had on Palestinians, Israelis and the world. Try to keep things in proper perspective and respect consensus. Tiamut^talk 11:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Coupla quick comments. First, strong agreement this is not about Charles Enderlin, and Talal Abu Rahma, and the challenges to their credibility mounted by the conspiracy theories put forward by Karentsky and Schapira; but rather a little boy and his father who were shot, a videotaped image of the boy's death that was circulated worldwide, and the impact that incident had on Palestinians, Israelis and the world. Scandals in France and conspiracy theories are engrossing but let's not let them take over the article.

Second, again, SlimV almost single-handedly crafted a fine article here, but this topic area gets plenty of attention, few editors are writers and many are not native English speakers. The Wiki process will upset the order of things. In some regards that's a shame because the the structure, style and transitions are very good. Some editors are suggesting there are ownership issues, it seems to me more like good faith attempts at safeguarding the level of quality. But in my opinion content takes priority over form on Wiki. Don't pull your hair out SlimV, please. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Writing again

Someone is posting above in a way that suggests the passive voice is inappropriate. It isn't. That's a myth. See the MoS and every good style guide. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. "Someone"? I still feel a cold shoulder. But seriously SlimV, I'm not saying passive voice is always innappropriate, I'm just saying it should be avoided unless there is rational to use it. For instance, why say "It has been reported that the melting point of iron is xxxx degrees celius". "Iron's melting point is xxxx degrees celius" seems so much simpler. Using the "passive voice" seems to suggest doubt, or reason to disbelieve. Take for example "It was first reported by the BBC that no one had survived, but later two passengers were found in a life raft".

For facts around which there is little or insignificant doubt, I think the passive voice ought to be avoided.

P.S. I'm sure you'll grant me that the MoS doesn't detail every aspect of good English? NickCT (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree fully with NickCT here. Reinserting "was reported" in the sentence about Muhammad sustaining mutliple gunshot wounds makes it sound like there is reason to believe he wasn't shot. I'm quite sure that's the intention in sticking to that wording; i.e., to give greater credence to the conspiracy theory position. That's undue and not called for here. No credible reliable source disputes that he was shot. The passive voice should not be used. Tiamut^talk 11:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Said this before, add it again, "Muhammad was reported to have sustained multiple gunshot wounds" is weaselly and vague, implies maybe he wasn't shot. Reliable sources say he was shot and only a fringe say elsewise, so drop "was reported to have" per NickC's illustrative examples above. And yeah see "was reported" phrasing elsewhere in the article, but don't let's be slavish to style at the expense of clarity here. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a couple of minor edits, one removing the mention of Rahma's nationality/status in the lead; another removing the inline citation for Shahaf's work on Rabin assassination theories. The first seemed selective, there is for example no corresponding mention in the lead that Enderlin is Israeli, and the "freelance" qualification is not supported by RS, which generally say he was a France 2 cameraman; the second stood out as a selective inline citation in a string of otherwise not inline-cited information about Shahaf, there are in fact numerous sources that say this so I see need to have a special inline citation just here, it implies there is something contentious or an opinion. Feel free to revert and discuss, respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. NickCT (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It can happen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

That's enough from both sides. No more deleting comments of others, and I think the point has been made by both sides. Dreadstar ☥ 21:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Palestinian teen allegedly killed by IDF returns home alive Not so far fetched after all. Stellarkid (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(@those who keep deleting the above) I think this is well within allowable talk page norms. There have been many editors here who have expressed the idea that MaD being alive is utterly far-fetched, fringe, extreme, etc. Whether this new bit of information sheds any light on that issue is certainly up for debate. Which, as we come full circle, is what this page is for. IronDuke 23:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that I really understand the correlation between the Haaretz article and the al-Durrah incident. Could you explain the connection? And how is Stellarkid's statement not using this page "as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic"? ← George ^talk 23:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I would have thought it was flamingly obvious, but I'm either just that smart or just that dumb. ;) The connection is the idea that, contrary to what has been suggested on this page before, it is possible that the death of a given Palestinian by Israeli hands might have been misrepresented by official sources. This would (and I'm possibly imputing something to Stellarkid he doesn't mean and he should correct me if I am wrong) dovetail with the idea that it is not entirely beyond the realm of sensible opinion that someone in a position of authority may have lied about details regarding the MaD incident. Thus, it would buttress the notion that, while the idea that MaD is alive is a minority view, it is not akin to the idea that, say, Elvis alive. IronDuke 00:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess there's a few problems with that line of thinking:

1. The most obvious is the loose connection between the two events you've outlined. In one case, a boy is reported killed - no videotape, no pictures, no funeral - just a report. In the other, the boy is videotaped being shot, his wounds are photographed at the morgue, and there is a funeral procession with thousands of people, aired worldwide.
2. There's also the counter examples to consider. For instance, a boy is reported to have been killed in a house fire in Florida. The next day, to his parent's amazement, he comes home, having slept over at a friend's house without their knowledge. Does that have any bearing on another boy reported killed in a house fire? Of course not.
3. I think we can agree that there's no possible way that this link will get added to the current article. Unless this article were completely changed to cover all children allegedly killed by Israeli soldiers, trying to insert it into the article would have severe WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. So then, if we agree that the article Stellarkid linked isn't useful for improving this page, what is the point of Stellarkid's statement? How does linking to this article help improve this page? ← George ^talk 00:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Nailed me there. I am unable to defend my assertion that the two events are exactly the same, and not merely because I haven't made it.
2. It would indeed have bearing if, in a WP article on the "other" boy, it was suggested on talk that the idea that any boy could ever survive a fire after it was reported he hadn't was preposterous.
3. This is probably going to go down as one of my favorite sentences of all time. "So then, knowing that this article has nothing to do with this page..." May I paraphrase? "So, knowing that I, George, am right, do you not agree that I am right?" Against all logic, I do not agree. Your final question's already been answered. IronDuke 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right about that sentence; I've rewording it to better express what I was thinking. I just don't see any way this article will ever be used to improve the article. At best, it seems like an attempt to sway the opinions of editors reading the talk page, which sounds very soapboxy to me. I don't have any plans to remove Stellarkid's comments (nor did I before), but I would suggest that other editors considering doing so instead archive this discussion, per WP:TALK. ← George ^talk 00:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

On this we agree. In the fullness of time, when this conversation has petered out and older conversations which are also moribund have been archived, so too should this one be. IronDuke 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:TALK actually allows for faster archiving than normal, though I can't say I particularly care if that happens; I'll leave it up to other editors. Honestly, I find this whole issue of editors removing each others comments, even when technically correct under policy, is often more inflammatory than useful. ← George ^talk 00:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You force me to agree again. This is a situation where removal would be needlessly inflammatory. IronDuke 01:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should start discussing where al-Durrah is hiding out and how we can work this into the article instead of wasting time discussing Wikipedia policies that have nothing to do with the article. Breein1007 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

it can happen, vol.2

"Amal Samuni and the seven slivers of shrapnel," Haaretz, Wednesday, March 31, 2010.

On January 4, a force from the Givati Brigade stormed into Zeinat Samuni's house - where 18 people had been gathered, most of them children, the youngest a two-week-old baby girl. The father, Attiyeh, a 46-year-old farmer and laborer, approached the soldiers and tried to talk to them in Hebrew. For reasons still being clarified by the Israel Defense Forces, or maybe not, the soldiers shot Attiyeh at close range, killing him as his children and two wives, one of whom is Zeinat, looked on. Her son Ahmad, 4, was also wounded in the shooting. The soldiers allowed them all to leave the home (without Attiyeh's corpse) and move into one of the houses at the far end of the neighborhood. But the soldiers did not allow Palestinian and Red Cross teams to enter the neighborhood to treat the wounded. Little Ahmad bled to death in his mother's arms on the morning of January 5.

(my personal opinion is that neither this section nor the one immediately above relates in any way to this article. Listing the people who Israel was accused of killing and turned up alive is as useful is listing the nearly 1300 Palestinian minors the IDF has killed since the start of the second intifida. Both have exactly the same amount of relevance to this article. Guess what that amount is). nableezy - 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Autoarchiving

I've added auto-archiving by Mizabot to this talk page, please let me know if there were any current, ongoing discussions that may need to be moved back, refactored or linked to. Feel free to start new ones below this section. Dreadstar ☥ 22:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strong objection - there is lots of very relevant discussion and evidence of strong POV editting apparent in the discusion archived. Other pages reach 250kb and more with minimal problems to editors - no reason to cut discussion short here. 94.116.0.198 (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving is a routine process. People have difficulty loading pages when they get too long, or negotiating them when there are too many threads. Dreadstar ☥ 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Who is hiding what?12.50.177.2 (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Object. Discussions here tend to concern a few questions that were semi-ongoing in threads. RomaC (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific about any "semi-ongoing" threads that were still being discussed, it's been six weeks since the page was archived, and almost two months since the last apparent productive discussion ended. It might be best to start new discussions below, providing links to the archives of any relevant prior discussions. Dreadstar ☥ 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)