Trichome

thcscience_admin

Conditions for editing

I have requested that page protection be lifted for now, and I encourage people to resume editing. However, in my authority as an uninvolved administrator, I am placing some restrictions:

  • No reverts, except for obvious vandalism.
  • Keep comments and edit summaries very neutral and civil.
  • Ensure that any new material that is added, has a reliable source
  • If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't revert it, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.
  • If you see something added with a source, that you do not think is a reliable source, add a {{verify credibility}} tag next to it.
  • If you see a sentence that you don't think properly reflects what is in a source, change it so that it does. Or, add a {{verify source}} tag to it
  • If you see something that's added that is unsourced, but it's plausible, don't just remove it. Instead, add a {{fact}} tag to it. Then, if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be removed.
  • Do not remove reliable sources
  • If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot. Please use a clear edit summary such as "removing unsourced information, see talkpage"). If there is a source though, then use one of the other above steps instead.
  • Don't worry about sections, or the article, getting too long (for now). First I'd like to give everyone a chance to add the information that they think needs to be added, and then we can take a look later at putting things in the proper proportion, per WP:UNDUE

Bottom line: Stay civil. Don't revert other editors. If you disagree with an addition, don't delete it, change it.

Good luck, Elonka 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

This section is for the use of uninvolved administrators in managing the dispute on this page.

Uninvolved admins

  • Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • Jayvdb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • Wizardman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Editors under ArbCom restrictions

The following active editors on this page have been notified of restrictions, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Other frequent editors on this page

Note: Being listed here does not imply that these editors were disruptive. It is simply for reference, a list of those editors who have recently been actively engaged with this article.
  • Beit Or (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • CJCurrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (admin participating as involved editor)
  • JGGardiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Kauffner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Kelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Leifern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Moreschi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (admin participating as involved editor)
  • Nickhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Relata refero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (admin participating as involved editor)
  • Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • SJP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • 6SJ7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Admin log

  • Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) banned from article and talkpage for 90 days, by User:MZMcBride.[2] 10 June 2008
  • ChrisO (talk · contribs), for violating the editing conditions, has been banned from this talkpage for 1 week, and from editing the article for one month. --Elonka 01:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Julia1987 (talk · contribs) banned for one month from editing the lead section of the article (this includes any changes to the caption of the top image). She is still allowed to make other changes to the rest of the article, and to participate at the talkpage. She is also strongly encouraged to spend some time editing other articles than just this one.[3] --Elonka 15:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) ban modified, from 90-day total ban on article and talkpage, to only a ban on article-editing (this was after good contributions by Tundrabuggy on other articles, and discussion between administrators Elonka, MZMcbride, and Jayvdb). Tundrabuggy is allowed to resume participation at the talkpage, and is encouraged to continue editing other articles as well, trying to find at least a 50-50 balance between al-Durrah edits and other work. --Elonka 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) editing ban lifted, based on excellent work editing and creating other non-Durrah articles. He once again has full privileges to edit the article and participate at the talkpage, in accordance with the current conditions for editing. He is still strongly encouraged to maintain a 50-50 balance (or better) between al-Durrah edits and other work. --Elonka 01:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wizardman and I chatted about this off-wiki, and to summarize: Wizardman (talk · contribs) is now chief mediator for the dispute on this article. He is the point person for content issues, while I (Elonka) will remain as point person for user conduct issues, specifically as related to the Conditions for Editing and any needed discretionary sanctions. All editors are invited to post a statement at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah to help the mediation get going. --Elonka 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) banned from article and talkpage for one week. He is still allowed (and encouraged) to participate at mediation. --Elonka 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been violating the editing conditions by reverting and removing sources. He has been formally cautioned about ArbCom restrictions,[4] and if there are further violations, I recommend a page ban. --Elonka 01:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChrisO (talk · contribs) banned from editing the article for one month, until August 28. He may still participate at talk and mediation, and work on a rewrite in his userspace if he so chooses.[5] --Elonka 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MedCab mediation closed by Wizardman.[6] --Elonka 05:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Shahaf has "eccentric obsession" says Gideon Levy of Haaretz

It would seem that Shahaf's credibility is poor, because this is the second "Israel is innocent" theory that he's been pushing. And the first theory is incompatible with this one since, back then in 2002, the boy was killed right in front of the camera (by Palestinians who couldn't have missed).

Furthermore, some considerable portion (likely most?) of Israeli society has no respect for Shahaf, as Haaretz says: "In an eccentric obsession, Shahaf has devoted the past years to this affair, after previously having also obtained "amazing material" on the murder of Yitzhak Rabin." Our article is damaged by weasel words giving a quite different impression: "leaving his other work to concentrate full-time".

On top of these and other weasel words in the article, we can see a great deal of original research on these TalkPages - "It was the facts of the case as they leaked out that convinced people" - nobody except the usual suspects is convinced. We're seeing "It was the fact that there was no autopsy, no bullets recovered" when Gaza was being raked by 300,000 bullets in those first few days of the Al-Aqsa intifada (that's what Maariv apparently says) and the Israelis bull-dozed the wall where al-Durrah was almost certainly killed.

Finally, we've now got firm evidence of disruptive behavior, a report written in 2005 made to appear (and defended) as if it's talking about the 2000 investigation. Behavior like this has to stop, otherwise we're looking at yet another article that makes the whole project look ridiculous. The fuss being made here is a disruptive waste of the time of good-faith editors in order to push a dubious piece of denial.

I abandoned trying to improve this article at the end of last year when edit-warriors insisted on re-inserting a hate-blog called "pajamas media" which hosts comments from raving Islamophobes with such claims as "Silly Allah :I'm not surprised given the Islamic culture of dishonesty:" We don't tolerate antisemitic sources, it's ludicrous we use Islamophobic sources. The entire project is being dragged through the dirt by the kind of reckless editing we're seeing here. PRtalk 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a point to this? The fact that Shahaf's investigation was controversial and was treated with skepticism in Israel is already mentioned in the article, as are the allegations with regards to his role in alternate theories in the Rabin assassination. Is there a change you'd like to suggest to the current article contents? If so, why don't you actually make a suggestion? If not, kindly refrain from using this Talk page as yet another one of your endless soapboxes. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Palestine Remembered -- I get your point. Let me just add that Gideon Levy is not "Ha'aretz" -- he is Gideon Levy and he is entitled to his opinions. He may well represent a portion and even a considerable portion of Israeli public opinion but you really don't know, nor do I. However, if your read a little about the man you will see that he seems to have some fair ability and aside from his opinions on other matters (and even this one) he seems to be quite apt at a number of things and to paint him as an unqualified looney is not really fair. --I am willing to be convinced of your ideas if you have some accurate and valid sources (not "that's what Maariv apparently says") to put forward. In regard to the 2000 investigation re the 2005 summary: I think it is clear that the even though the article may have been written in 2005, it was a summary of the 2000 investigation. They were the same points that were used to describe their methodology in other articles. I will try to find evidence of that, if you want. I am sorry that you ran into "Islamophobic" edit warriors at this article, and that you quit the article on those grounds. But think what you like, I am not one. I just believe the article should tell the (unfolding)story in the most neutral and balanced way possible. I recognize that it is difficult because there are a lot of feelings and beliefs on both sides of the aisle. But if we stay intellectually honest and remain civil to one another we can go a long 'way. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we read even "a little" about Nahum Shahaf on the link you have provided, we shall of course discover that you wrote most of the Wikipedia article you are proudly pointing people to as if it were some sort of bold and unbiased narrative. Hence why I complained about what was going on there. Intellectual honesty indeed. --Nickhh (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to hide the fact that I started and wrote most of it. However, I did not make any of the material up. The fact is that you can't disprove what I have written and can't support the POV contention that he is "unqualified" or pathologically looney, as ChrisO has tried to suggest in his edits. Since you cannot, you attack me as intellectually dishonest. Tundrabuggy (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are directing people to the page, without mentioning it. A lot of readers will not go to the history page and make the connection. Nor have I suggested you have simply made content on the page up - you have however undoubtedly selectively chosen material, a lot of which is sourced to his own claims in interviews and/or to fringe organisations, to write a seemingly neutral article which paints him as some sort of uncontroversial expert and polymath who just happened to apply his expertise to the al-Durrah issue. This is what people will link to, whether you direct them there or not, and I am sure you were not unaware of that when you started the page. Furthermore, his reported lack of qualifications is not, as you have repeatedly been reminded, a POV issue. It is what has been reported in a source that clearly meets WP:RS and which has not been specifically contradicted by any alternative RS, nor even by Shahaf himself (despite his broader claims about his own general expertise). Oh, and you raised the "intellectual honesty" issue, so don't lay that one on me. --Nickhh (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it is clear". Precisely. You think it is clear. That's the definition of original research - presenting your own personal interpretation as fact. We simply don't do that. The abstract makes no claims to be the results of the 2000 investigation; it's altogether silent on that point. It might be, but based on what it says, we can't say that it is. All we can say definitively is that it's a presentation Shahaf gave in 2005, and leave it at that. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe it is clear. The results and conclusions in the article correspond to the results and conclusions of the original report, even if the article was written in 2005. It is also directly about this event, so it is certainly relevant enough. Nor did I pretend that the article was written in 2000. Nevertheless, your point on original research could easily have been dealt with without striking the material completely. I can think of any number of ways that you could have rewritten it to address your immediate issues, and then brought up your concerns on this talk page. Particularly since the article was under 0RR. You could even have changed it and moved it as you finally did, and then deleted the original material. Isn't that what you would have expected of others? Tundrabuggy (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not commenting on actual content, but Gideon Levy is not exactly a neutral reporter on I-P issues and certainly not a quality neutral source for making judgments on people within the conflict. If anyone wants to use his op-eds, they are usually accurate and reliable in explaining and describing Palestinian perspectives of events.[7],[8] With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC) clarify with ex. refs 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion

ChrisO has filed a Request for Comment concerning my administrative conduct, as regards my judgment in imposing editing conditions and managing articles in a state of dispute, especially this one. Anyone who wishes to offer an opinion, is welcome to do so: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. --Elonka 18:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Zionist racist propaganda intoxications"

I have reverted the alteration that removed a citation and put in "Zionist racist propaganda intoxications", which is quite inappropriate language for an article. I've encouraged the user to try again. After doing the revert, I thought that it is borderline "vandalism". My apologies if anyone thinks it doesnt meet the criteria for a revert, and I wont contest a page ban. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Jamal_and_Muhammad_al-Durrah&oldid=232357014

Leave a Reply