Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WikiProject HOP Template:Troll warning

• Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 1

I removed two links from the article, both with specific rationales. User:KazakhPol reverted me, explaining only that he was doing so "for obvious reasons", and without addressing my rationale at all, so I have removed these again, pending discussion.

1. I removed the internal link Hizbollywood from the "see also" section. Note that Pallywood is linked, and while I find the term offensive, I have not challenged it. However, as I wrote when removing this, "If Hizbollywood is not simply a synonym for Pallywood, then it is off topic, if it is a synonym it is redundant." No one has even alleged that Hezbollah were in any way involved in this incident.
2. I removed Terrorists' 'poster boy' exposed as media fraud: 5 years late, Los Angeles Times reveals Palestinian hoax inspired 'bestial crimes', September 13, 2005, which, as I remarked above and remarked again in my edit summary, is a World Net Daily rehash conveying as gospel truth someone's column in the Los Angeles Times claiming that the incident was a fraud. It adds nothing except noise. It is a weak tertiary source. - Jmabel | Talk 00:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without answering me here, KazakhPol has again restored the latter link with the comment "rv whitewashing". I have no idea why he is questioning my motives, and, for what it is worth, I resent it. (For what it's worth, to the best of my memory, I have no significant history with this user, but I presume I do with some of the other contributors to this article, and I think they can vouch for me not being one to whitewash things.) I think this further reversion without discussion amounts to edit-warring. And I still think this link does not meet the standards of WP:EL. Will someone else please step into this situation so that this does not become a personal matter? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just in general am tired of you people trying to censor the theory of what happened that you dont like, since it puts into question your entire perspective on the overall issue. Since the article is already full of whitewashing, hence the TotallyDisputed template, I figure it's best to maintain its current, dissapointing state rather than make it worse. KazakhPol 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And I'm tired of being on the receiving end of your ad hominem remarks such as "…you people trying to censor …since it puts into question your entire perspective". I have not been responding in kind. I am asking you to stop. - Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel, I'm not keen on that website and I wouldn't use it as a source, but as an external link, I think it probably does meet the standards. However, I stand to be corrected or persuaded because I know very little about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You donät think it's a bit undue weight to add links that support fringe theories? // Liftarn

Can you find verifiable and reliable sources that support the notion that alternative viewpoints are fringe theories? I think such links are appropriate, provided that the current too-long list of external links gets separated into logical subsections, such as historical accounts, criticism, alternative viewpoints, whatever. If the "alternative viewpoints" subsection gets too long, then links should be cut out, especially redundant duplicate viewpoints, blogs, discussion forums, editorials in vanity publications, etc. -Amatulic 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think you have things in reverse. It is not necessary to provide reliable sources that establish alternative viewpoints are fringe theories. Rather it is necessary to establish that an 'alternative viewpoint' it not a fringe theory by providing multiple reliable sources of a resonable caliber. People can't be expected to look into every single wacky theory out there and write that it is a fringe theory. Nil Einne 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also while I haven't looked at the site extensively I think I agree with Jmabel on this one. If the site is simply mentioning a theory from a reliable source that we already discuss, and it is not suitable as a reliable source, it has no merit as an external link. If the site is about the theory we already discuss but covers it in significantly more detail, then there might be merit, the site would need to be analysed more carefully. If the site is discussing a theory we don't mention, there is no merit to include it in EL. Unless the theory is mentioned in the article, there is no merit IMHO to include external links which discuss other wacky theories unless the site is (resonably) unbiasedly summarising the theories that exist. Nil Einne 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:UNDUE we should not give undue weight to a handfull of far out theories regarding what happened. We should give the story and then have a breief mention about the controversies. Just as the article about Earth deals with the theory of the flat Earth. // Liftarn

When there is as much evidence that he was shot as there is that the earth i snot flat, you'll have a point. Until then, what we have is a highly questionable film, by a protagonist who has retracted parts of his accompanying testimony, contrasted with several serious documentaries by the likes of German Television. if anything, it is undue weight to claim he was shot based on specious propaganda claims. Isarig 15:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Liftarn. The article should reflect how this was debunked as a scam. The theory that Durrah is dead is a fringe theory. KazakhPol 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get real! A handfull of propagandaists have claimed it was staged. The rest of the world agrees he was shot dead. Don't let the tail wag the dog. // Liftarn

A handfull of propagandists (including Liftarn) have claimed it was real. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid ad hominem attacks and stay civil. // Liftarn

telling other editors to "Get Real", and then complaining about civility is a case of WP:POT. ARD Television is not " A handfull of propagandists" Isarig 15:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARD Television is not used as a source in the article. Instead IsraelInsider is used as a secondary source. // Liftarn

Are you denying that ARD produced such a documentary? Are you alleging that the claims about the documentary source to IsraelInsider are false? Isarig 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they did or not. Anyway IsraelInsider are not claiming the whole thing was staged. Just that it is a "high probability" that he wasn't killed by an Israeli bullet. As far as I cen tell no reliable source have stated the boy wasn't killed. // Liftarn

You don't know ? Well how about doing some research, before making POV edits to the article, then?. Start here: [1] Isarig 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that Isarig should bring up the documentary that aired on German televesion, since the director of the documentary in question (Esther Shapira) has stated unequivocally that she believes al-Dura was killed that day. Granted, she believes he most likely killed by Palestinian, not Israeli, gunfire, but nonetheless she does not dispute that he was killed. Neither does James Fallows, or Denis Jeambar, or Daniel Leconte, dispute that al-Dura was killed. I don't believe the article should state as fact that al-Dura was killed by Israeli gunfire; there is room for reasonable doubt on that point. But all the serious journalistic accounts report that he was killed during an exchange of gunfire between IDF forces and Palestinian shooters. The theory that al-Dura was not killed, and the whole incident was staged, should be treated in Wikipedia in the same way as we do 9/11 conspiracy theories, that is, we can have an article that presents them without suggesting that they deserve as much attention as the consensus view. To say that al-Dura was "apparently" killed by gunfire, or put "alleged" in front of the word "shooting" wherever it appears, goes against the accepted WP:NPOV standards, since it suggests that there is serious doubt on the matter by journalists, when in fact there isn't. Sanguinalis 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it has to go as no reliable source say anything else than he was killed (exactly how is in dispute). We don't say "His alleged death" in the Elvis Presley article even if there are people who beleive he's alive. // Liftarn

Some people will believe anything but there is a huge difference here. In case of Elvis, I am sure there is some documentation. Is there a reliable source in case of al-Durrah? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty! What about BBC? "Muhammad al-Durrah was shot dead"[2] // Liftarn

A good example of an allegation by a biased, sensationalist and inaccurate news source that ate the crow too many times (see http://www.bbcwatch.com) Anything better? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC are a very reliable and much respected source. BBC have a strong integrety and doesn't swing with the popular opinion and it's only natural that some people have a problem with that. I don't think a peronal webpage (like http://www.bbcwatch.com ) is a reliable source, but I do think the BBC is. // Liftarn

The Atlantic also has a lengthy article about this issue, in which many questions are raised about the authenticity of the incident. This is a really tricky problem - if this boy was actually killed (under any circumstances) it would be horrible to deny it; if he wasn't killed, it would be horrible to perpetuate a falsehood. But this is one of those things where if one aspect is in question, everything could potentially fall apart. "Alleged" does not imply something is true or untrue. We should be able to work this out. --Leifern 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a reliable source states he lives (or never existed) the article should not say "alleged". We don't say "the Earth allegedly rotates around the Sun" or "Elvis is allegedly dead" even if some people have a different opinion. // Liftarn

We don't say "the Earth allegedly rotates around the Sun" becuase there is plenty of scientific evidence, including simple observations you can do at home, that show this is not the case. We don's say "Elvis is allegedly dead" becuase there is plenty of reliable evidence, including an autopsy report, that he is dead. When similar evidence - e.g, an autopsy report, becomes available for al-Durrah, we will drop the "alleged" part here. Until then, we have Palestinian propaganda that alleges his death without any proof. Isarig 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've read quite a bit about this matter, what I'm left with is a sense of bewilderment and confusion. It might be simpler for everyone if this were a tragic incident of a boy and his father caught in the crossfire and all that we were left with was a dispute over ballistics; but as it is, there are serious questions as to whether there really was a Mohammad al-Dura; whether the person on the film was killed at all; etc. There simply are too many reasonable questions about all this to simply assume that what was originally reported was true. I'm not saying that it wasn't true, but there's no reason to be confident one way or another. --Leifern 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a lot of people who have questions about the Hollocauset as well for simmilar (but opposite) reasons. So far no reliable source have stated the boy didn't die, nor that he never existed. // Liftarn

So you think the evidence that the boy was shot is equivalent to the evidence of the Holocaust's existence? I think we're just about done here, then. Isarig 14:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that some people dubt thing, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen and per WP:UNDUE such fringe opinions should not be given undue weight. // Liftarn

And I've already explained to you the difference between a belief in Flat Earth, or a belief in "Elvis lives" (and now, denial), and a belief that Al-Durrah was not killed. These events do not stand on equal footing from an evidence perspective. Isarig 15:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a WP:RS standpoint we actually have better sources for that Elvis lives, the flat Earth and that nobody died during WW2 than we have for that he never dies. // Liftarn

Really? what would those WP:RS be, for the claim that 'nobody died during WW2'? Isarig 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a bit overstated, but you get my meaning. No reliable source says the boy didn't die (or never existed). There is some different opinions on exactly how he died, but nobody dubts he did die. // Liftarn

interesting related linkage

• http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/017/913.html (head investigator stating he believes the boy is alive)
• http://rotter.net/cgi-bin/forum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&forum=gil&om=5103&omm=26&viewmode= (co-investigator claiming that the statement was not backed up strongly enough (i.e. no smoking gun despite the fathers faltering) and that timing about the findings relating to the shooting being released was more important - scroll down, there's also english in there)
• http://stage.co.il/Stories/359928 open letter to first investigator about the timing effects of the pallywood defamation tactic and the way israel did not handle it well.
• http://www.faz.co.il/thread?rep=69221 (nachum shachaf explaining why he believes the boy is not dead.)
• on a side note, head investigator has been accused of a tendancy to believe in conspiracies, co-investigator hasn't been accused of such a thing.

• just linkage, i don't have a solid opinion (as of now) on the 'alleged' designation on the death. (i think it fits on the being shot though). Jaakobou 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Non English (or any other language I can read). Babelfish don't do Hebrew. Head investigator of what?

2) Looks like an online forum. Those are generally not very reliable sources for anything.

3) Non English (or any other language I can read). Babelfish don't do Hebrew. Open letter from who?

4) Non English (or any other language I can read). Babelfish don't do Hebrew. URL makes it look like an online forum.

So in conclusion thay re not to any use at all either way. // Liftarn

Liftarn, apparently you can't read much information on this event by any Hebrew sources, i.e. you cannot read the investigation reports (i did not find a link to them as of this moment) or any inside written commentary about them unless it was translated allready. perhaps you're not the most fitting editor for disputes on this article which is very much Israel related. Jaakobou 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people.". You should try to find a translation (or some online translator, I think I can handle a bit weird grammar) somewhere. // Liftarn

Sources in foreign languages can be used in Wikipedia if there is no English language alternative, but the editor introducing foreign-language sources should provide an Engligh translation (his or her own if necessary). If there is a dispute about the translation that can be handled later by requesting assistance from bilingual Wikipedians not involved in the current dispute. However, before we even get to that point, there is a more fundamental issue to address, which is whether any of web sites mentioned by Jaakobou meet the WP:RS standard in the first place, regardless of language. I'm not sure he is claiming that they do, he is just saying they are "interesting". By the way I would like to point out to Jaakobou, with regard to his comment about who is a "fitting editor", that this article is very much Palestinian related as well. Are all the contributers to this article fluent in Arabic? Sanguinalis 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable sources to consider:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/954703.stm "The Israeli army has admitted that it was probably responsible for killing a 12-year old-Palestinian boy /../ Muhammad al-Durrah was shot dead"
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/955499.stm "Muhammad was shot dead by Israeli soldiers"
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/952600.stm "Muhammad al-Durrah was shot dead"
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/galleryguide/0,6191,377275,00.html "Mohammed is dead and his father severely wounded"
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,376639,00.html "the evidence was pointing to a still more chilling conclusion: that the 12-year-old boy and his father were deliberately targeted by Israeli soldiers"
• http://www.time.com/time/pacific/magazine/20001225/poy_mohammed.html "In any case, Mohammed al-Durra already lay quietly with a fatal wound to his abdomen."
• http://web.amnesty.org/aidoc/ai.nsf/afec99eadc40eff880256e8f0060197c/64f59dc0b44c5fef80256aff0058b1b8/$FILE/ch2.pdf "Muhammad died and his father was severely injured."

and so on... Looking at the list os references I find some sources that are not very reliable like blogs, personal websites, biased political organisations and so on. // Liftarn

OMG!!! did you just cite both BBC, the Guardian as reliable sources in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict??? i'm beyond being unamused. will cite examples of media bias by those sources a little later.

small sample: the guardian: they found them huddled together.. more than 60 including 34 children .. final death toll of the event was 28 with 16 children but don't let that confuse the guardian who neglect even a retraction. (same with the BBC (4 out of 6 winner of HR bias media source between 2000-2006) and times.. you should really inspect honestreporting.com sometime).

In any event, what would they do other than to reiterate the same as everybody did disregarding factuality issues? see "jenin massacre syndrome". Jaakobou 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing that his death was reported, and you could find any number of media outlets that reported it that way in 2000. In fact, the IDF rushed to take responsibility for it, since they always get in trouble if they hesitate. It's the number of reliable sources since then that have raised unsettling questions. If the incident was staged, the boy was either killed deliberately by those who staged the incident, or else the death was fake. And if it was staged, and the boy was an actor, why would he appear under his own name? It's one of those things that if you poke a hole in one aspect of this, there's much more uncertainty about the whole thing. We're not claiming that he isn't dead; we're pointing out that there's much more uncertainty than anyone originally thought. --Leifern 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far no one has addressed the article from Time magazine that Liftarn found. So let's have it, Jaakobou, Leifern, Humus Sapiens, and Isarig: Is Time magazine a reliable source, or isn't it? A simple yes or no answer, please. Sanguinalis 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it has been answered- right above your post - Nobody is disputing that his death was reported, and you could find any number of media outlets that reported it that way in 2000. But, since then, many questions arose, and there's much more uncertainty about the whole thing. We're not claiming that he isn't dead; we're pointing out that there's much more uncertainty than anyone originally thought. Isarig 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my question has not been answered. I asked whether or not you consider Time magazine a reliable source. Not the Guardian, not the BBC, but Time magazine. Now please answer the question that was asked. Sanguinalis 16:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

time is for the most part reliable, on this al-dura event, everyone was fooled.. even israeli channel 1 aired that he was killed... however, things have changed since then and many different reports have been aired. in any event, i wouldn't take the words of either BBC or guardian on most any story... last note, i was confused for a bit with "time mag" and a few other sources with the word "times" in them.. for example: the Los Angeles Times giving space to Saree Makdisi to ask "Why does The Times recognize Israel's 'right to exist'?"... gotta love hidden agendas. Jaakobou 18:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is this: We have reliable sources saying he is dead. We have no reliable sources saying he is not dead. Ergo: The article should say he is dead. // Liftarn

Some news sources are sometimes reliable for reporting news. People thought this was news and then found that it is a hoax. There is a lot of confusion, deliberate and not, surrounding this tragedy. So far the evidence is inconclusive. Ergo: don't push one POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that says it was a hoax? If not it shouldn't be in the article. // Liftarn

Concerns regarding another Pallywood hoax definitely exist. A few links at the top of this section may help. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for reliable source, not conspiracy theories posted on online forums. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. // Liftarn

here's another RS, backing up the other links i gave [3] this one is from a respectable israeli news site. I think we should keep the issue of his death without any phrasing that's conclusive... i don't like either "killed" or "allegedly killed"... "reported as" is a phrasing i can live with. Jaakobou 14:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't managed to find a transation or translator? "reported as" could be a sollution altough I would prefer a source (in English) for the claim that he's not dead. // Liftarn

offtopic, please don't push guardian articles as "WP:RS" per my link from above (there's more blatant examples)... it would be hard to find an english source on this matter because the guy (head researcher) waited so long until he finally published his piece that no news source gave a rat's ass (pardon the language) about something more than 6 months ago... however, there seems to be allready enough linkage in hebrew to show validity to the researchers POV (he doesn't have cutting proof, apart from the father fumbling saying the boy isn't dead and later saying "he meant that he's not dead because he's with allah" (lol?)... and people in the market calling some kid "al dura" for looking spot on like the boy). Jaakobou 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An automatic translation would do, but yes, an English newspaper source would indeed be better. // Liftarn

Ah, I found http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,403831,00.html that is usable. It says the second investigation "casts serious doubts that the boy was hit by Israel defence forces' fire". // Liftarn

my lord, this woman calls herself a journalist? everything about that article screems of "i decided allready who's the good guys and who's the bad guys... and israel clearly "washes its hands" from something it has done".

in my opinion we should have no more usage of the guardian without stating "the guardian, an anti-israel magazine claims" that... i suggest we use it as an example to standard pro-palestinian reaction, disregarding the investiagtion matter and accusing anyone who doesn't support the cause of being bais to a fault.

we should probably just not use it at all. Jaakobou 09:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that The Guardian is "an anti-israel magazine"? // Liftarn

go read the The Guardian article, see what refs you come up with (I think a journalist who quits stating that as his reason is a good start). Jaakobou 11:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any honest publication reporting on the middle east situation has at one time or another been accused of anti-Israel bias. It really says more about the acuser than the acused. // Liftarn

Please don't disregard how a few certain publications have recieved far more criticism than others, i.e. BBC, The Guardian, Robert Fisk and The Independentand and Adnan Hajj and Reuters. Jaakobou 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and? They may be criticised becasue they are right, not because they are wrong. Thet Robert Fisk is criticised is no wonder. He have stated he doesn't believe in being unbiased. He sais that is he reported about a bus of Israeli civilians being blown up by a suicide bomber he would make the story about the victims, not give half of the article to allow the terrorists to give their side of the story. // Liftarn

In this case they are criticised for numerous times of getting things wrong *shrug*. Jaakobou 21:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:External links external links should be kept to a minimum, but this article has a long list. I intend to cut it down a bit. First all the sites used as references could be cut. Also some sites are linked more than once. Again an opportunity for some cuts. Then we'll see how many are left. // Liftarn

start with the guardian and move on to the BBC. Jaakobou 09:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. Some links may also be moved to ODP so we have one link instead of plenty. // Liftarn

placing of 6 bias links in one to hide them is unnaceptable. Jaakobou 10:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's more than acceptable, it is reccomended per Wikipedia:External links where it says "Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) that is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics.". So please stop deleting valid content. That may be considered as vandalism. // Liftarn

This is ridiculus, the first link in that biased array is some artistic letter written by a blogger(!) in the name of "Palestinian martyrs". I'm not interested in a revert war here, and I request you remove this link from external links. Jaakobou 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? It's a list of links and you can add links to it if you want. Using ODP for external links is in a Wikipedia guideline so it should definitely stay. Anyway, I've added a tag as well. // Liftarn

Could we leave the tag off, please? The article was tagged for ages by someone who believed the boy was alive, and who felt this article didn't represent that well enough, and it was only removed recently. Now it's back on from someone who believes the boy is dead. Maybe that means we're getting something right, I don't know, but please work on the article rather than disfiguring it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the tag will not make the controvery go away. // Liftarn

What is the controversy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty! Undue weight to unreliable sources, unsourced statements, serios POV issues... // Liftarn

Can you list the particular issues? This should be a relatively easy article to write up. Stick closely to what the sources say; and use only good, mainstream sources wherever possible, and if not mainstream they must be very credible. Which bits exactly are the sticking points? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First as far as I can tell no reliable source says the boy is alive (as opposed to reliable source saying that some people beleive he is alive) so the entire article should be rewritten with that in mind. A sizable minority thinks the lunar landing were a hoax (see Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations#Opinion polls) yet the Apollo 11 article isn't dominated by that view by writing "alleged landing" everywhere. Then it's the use of unreliable and/or dubious sources. Using Occam's razor the simplest explenation would be that the boy indeed is dead. Otherwise it would be a rather complex conspiracy including the boy's family, the cameraman, staff at the hospital, some IDF soldiers and so on... // Liftarn

The article actually needs a complete rewrite. For example, if you look at the section called Incident as reported (or whatever the exact words are), we don't actually talk much about the incident at all. Each section seems to consist of just a chronological mixture of whatever we noticed in the media at the time of editing. It probably needs to be completely restructured. The difficulty with doing this is that certain editors revert almost any changes that are made.

Also, could whoever is changing refs to citation templates, please stop. See WP:CITE: templates shouldn't be added without prior consensus and especially not to refs that are already formatted, as these were. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this article's entry on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard which I posted yesterday. If there's a dispute over whether the subject is still alive, the article needs to be treated in accordance with WP:BLP principles. I've asked for BLP noticeboard regulars to take a look at the article and provide some feedback. I'm not going to be able to get involved myself due to an imminent vacation, but it could do with some input from neutral outsiders. -- ChrisO 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are neutral editors here, Chris, and please don't imply otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some extremely un-neutral editors (see Jaakobou's comments above for a case in point) and a dispute that's been ongoing for a while. I simply think that this article could do with some input from people who haven't been involved previously in this article. -- ChrisO 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat that there are neutral editors here already, and your implication that there aren't isn't helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, i consider that a personal attack, perhaps some type of response to my reaction to your "occupation" image editing.^{WP:AV/I related discussions} I request you keep your future remarks on a more neutral basis as I don't see the problem/bias with my unhappyness about a blog talking in the name of the dead boy... or is it that you think the Guardian and BBC have not been criticised more than others in their coverage of this conflict? regardless, you should not point fingers (repetatively i might add^{reply to ChrisO's accusation of assuming bad faith.}) like this, it is seriously counter productive. Jaakobou 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn, could you list here which sources you think aren't reliable? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many are obviously biased like Jewish World Review, Seconddraft.org, eretzyisroel.org, WorldNetDaily, CAMERA and so on. Some are clearly not reliable sources like eprsonal websites and blogs of persons with an agenda. I noticed that soem of your cleaning seems to have introduced more POV instead of less. // Liftarn

Which of my edits introduced more POV?

Bear in mind that some of the links are merely courtesy links, not the actual sources. For example, you changed an LA Times citation to Jewish World Review, but the latter was only hosting the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the link (and thus the source) was Jewish World Review, not LA Times so it should say so. It is very confusing when it says it is one source and then you follow the link and end up somewhere you wasn't expected. Either find the LA Times link or change it to Jewish World Review as they are the source used. // Liftarn

No, the source was the LA Times. Jewish World Review provided a courtesy link. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, please check it again. Read the URL. Go to the link. See what it says on the top. // Liftarn

See what it says on the bottom: "© 2005, Los Angeles Times. Distributed by Los Angeles Times Syndicate". It was first published in the L.A. Times on September 9, 2005. The original link was www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gelernter9sep09,0,7325494.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions, since archived. Other sources on the web also attribute it to the L.A. Times. Care to revise your opinion? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noticed that, but that doesn't change that the source used is not LA Time. LA Times is the source of the source. If you want to say the source is LA Times you should use the LA Times link. // Liftarn

The source is the article. The article was first published in the LA Times. The website we link to isn't the source, but just a courtesy link. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then give the real source instead. // Liftarn

The real source is given. It's not even required that we link to the Jewish World Review reproduction, we only do so as a courtesy to the reader who might not have access to the L.A. Times archives. Please desist from WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know of a good article describing the initial broadcast and what the roles of Abu Rahma and Enderlin were exactly? We call Abu Rahma a cameraman but he says he was a correspondent. Enderlin provided the voiceover, but says somewhere that it was Abu Rahma who said on the tape that the IDF had killed the boy. Abu Rahma says he interviewed the father on camera the next day in hospital, an interview that was broadcast, which normally a cameraman wouldn't do alone. It would be good to clear up the confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started trying to tidy this. Not finished yet, so it may look a bit upside-down at the moment. There's too much unnecessary detail about who said what, and who's connected to whom, and a lot of it is unsourced, but I've done as much as I can for today. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THe diagram image page says it was provided by Rahma in his affidavit to blah blah... Wasn't this the affidavit that he denied giving? In which case we should caveat the diagram. Rich Farmbrough, 10:37 5 April 2007 (GMT).

He didn't deny explicitly that he had given the affidavit, but France 2 denied on his behalf that he had made one of the statements within it. It's confusing, but that's all we know at the moment. We should say something in the cutline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn, please don't engage in WP:POINT with fact templates. You're asking for sources for things that are obviously correct. For example, if none of the footage contained a death scene (none of it, including the rushes), then obviously none of the distributed footage did. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLease don't accuse me of engaging in WP:POINT with fact templates. I'm aking for sources where it seems like they are missing. Please excuse me if I missed it somewhere.

It's just that some of the requests seem a little pointless. You want a source saying that the 59 seconds shown did not include the scene of the boy's death. Well, you can look at it and see that it doesn't, or you can read the article and see the scores of articles that have been written about the controversy; clearly, if the first report had shown the boy's death, there would be no controversy. You asked that just over three minutes of footage was provided to other news organizations. Okay, I can find a source, but you could have found one too; this is a well-known fact. France 2 provided the footage for free; I can provide a source for that. None of the distributed footage showed the boy being killed; see my first point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you repeating links in Further reading that are already included in the Notes section? Why have you added the cameraman's statement to the Guardian to the reported shooting section, and not the cameraman's story section? Why did you add that only "some" people doubt the affidavit's authenticity, when the cameraman is reported to have denied making at least one of the statements within it? Who doesn't doubt its authenticity after that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was by Suzanne Goldenberg, not the cameraman. As for repeating links I think you can understand why it's easy to miss and I thought it was better to be safe than sorry. // Liftarn

As for repeating links, why did you repeat only those and not all of them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the statement was by the cameraman. How would Suzanne Goldenberg know? She wasn't there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She watched the evidence and draw her own conclusions? Look, I only put in what the article says. // Liftarn

Actually, she didn't; you drew conclusions for her. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn, would you mind not adding citation templates, please? It makes the text harder to read in edit mode, and they're fiddly to change; for example, if the byline needs to be added, or anything else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they makes the reference list soo much better. // Liftarn

I don't see how, especially when the syntax is too complex to use; that's why you messed up reference 7. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the syntax is that complex. But if you don't like it then you don't have to use it. All I ask is that you do not change them back to simple refs. // Liftarn

If you don't think the syntax is that complex, why did you mess it up? And what do you mean by "simple refs"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To err is human... Why not fix it instead of reverting it. It reminds me of an editor who deleted an entire section because there was a spelling error in it. Simple refs like [URL title]. // Liftarn

WP:CITE says templates shouldn't be added without consensus, so please don't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. // Liftarn

Thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to something on the funeral, but I haven't been able to find much about it. Does anyone know of any articles that talk about it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn, please don't keep adding the tag instead of discussing. Instead, please list in detail what you think needs to change for the article to become neutral. Bear in mind that any suggestions must be actionable within the policies. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so, see above. // Liftarn

Can you say where specifically? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under Tag for instance. // Liftarn

All you said was:

First as far as I can tell no reliable source says the boy is alive (as opposed to reliable source saying that some people beleive he is alive) so the entire article should be rewritten with that in mind. A sizable minority thinks the lunar landing were a hoax (see Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations#Opinion polls) yet the Apollo 11 article isn't dominated by that view by writing "alleged landing" everywhere. Then it's the use of unreliable and/or dubious sources. Using Occam's razor the simplest explenation would be that the boy indeed is dead. Otherwise it would be a rather complex conspiracy including the boy's family, the cameraman, staff at the hospital, some IDF soldiers and so on...

(1) The article doesn't say he's alive. We only repeat what the sources say. (2) Which sources are unreliable? (3) The last two sentences are your original research.

Are these your only objections? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) No, the problem is that the article doesn't repeat what the sources say it goes to great lenghts to use words like "was reported", "appears", "reportedly" and so on instead of saying directly what the sources say. The article also give way to much space and credibility to conspiracy theorists.

That isn't a problem. That's how we're supposed to write, especially when the issue is contentious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which conspiracy theorists does the article give too much space to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Richard Landes as a source for this article is like using David Irving as a source for an article about the Holocaust.

That's an absurd thing to say. He's an academic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Seconddraft.org and Augean Stables are personal websites, WorldNetDaily.com and CAMERA have an obvious bias... (3) WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. // Liftarn

Most of the sources have a bias. What matters is whether they're reliable enough. I agree that WorldNetDaily isn't a good source, but I can't see where we use it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please state explicitly which factual errors you feel are in the article? Also, please do not equate respected university professors like Richard Landes with convicted and jailed Holocaust deniers like David Irving; it is an egregious violation of WP:BLP and you could be blocked for it if you continue. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn, when you add a citation, could you please give all the information: byline, headline, place of publication, date of publication? Also, could people please watch the writing? Sentences like "At the day school was closed due to a general strike" need to be fixed. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really significant enough to merit inclusion in the article?

"Muhammad was in fifth grade and enjoyed school. His English teacher said he was an excellent English student. He also enjoyed swimming at Gaza beach and looking after his pet birds. On the day of the incident, the school was closed because of a general strike." KazakhPol 03:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's background about his life. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does his swimming at Gaza matter, much less his pet birds? It seems obscure. KazakhPol 03:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know much about him, and this is what The New York Times said, so we may as well include it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the TNYT should determine what is and is not notable. The fact that it was mentioned does not mean it automatically matters. KazakhPol 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also question the neutrality of entitling the section "Al-Durrah's life" as this implies he has died. Since the only part of the section that is worthing noting deals with his family I would suggest the title "Al-Durrah's family." KazakhPol 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does talking about his life imply that he died? Also, bear in mind that he probably did die. It's a minority POV that he didn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content I quoted above talking about his life is not notable to merit inclusion. The argument I am making against the current section title is a different point based on the pov-implication that he died. The argument you are making, that the view that the incident was staged and he is still alive is a minority view, is valid but irrelevant because the section primarily talks about his family. I also argue that the other content in that section is, again, irrelevant. KazakhPol 03:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KP, this article is swinging back and forth between your POV (the boy is alive and the incident as filmed was staged) and Liftarn's (the boy is dead and the incident as filmed was real). In fact, reliable sources indicate that the majority POV is somewhere in the middle: that the boy is dead, and that the incident was not staged but that his death was not actually filmed either; and that the journalists who filed the initial report seem not to have explained that clearly, to put it diplomatically. Therefore, all we can do is carefully report who said what.

Please bear in mind that there are BLP issues involved here. His family are real and alive, and it is very insulting to them to imply that he isn't dead. We can report reliable sources who say this, but we can't write the article as though we agree. The writing therefore has to be very careful. (And the last-but-one section isn't and need to be rewritten.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I take your concerns about insulting his family very seriously. I would hate to have them read English Wikipedia and find that we do not mention al-Durrah's love for his pet birds and which beach he swam at. I can only pray they have not already looked. KazakhPol 04:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That attitude isn't helpful. Please bear in mind that, if you are wrong and this incident happened as reported, it is absolutely heart-breaking, and we have to write this article with that in mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KP, this — "Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman who recorded the shooting incident on tape, received the interview" — doesn't actually mean anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating that it is a sentence fragment or that the content value is meaningless? It is not a sentence fragment. If it is of no value then remove it. Another user posted it. KazakhPol 03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote it. [4] It is wrong gramatically and was fine the way it was. Your tidying is actually introducing errors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was unclear. I did not add the following sentence:

"This interview was given to Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman who recorded the shooting incident on tape."

I did change that sentence to:

"Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman who recorded the shooting incident on tape, received the interview."

The first sentence is in passive voice, the second is not. If my tidying is introducing errors, factual or grammatical, please identify them here so I can rectify my mistakes. How is it wrong grammatically? Are you asserting that it is a sentence fragment? I would disagree if that is what you are saying. KazakhPol 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with using the passive voice. I've explained this to you many times before. The correction you made introduced an error — people don't receive interviews. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]