Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:06, 7 July 2008

Passing the torch

Just as a note, if a MedCab mediator would like to take over management of this article, I would have no trouble with handing over the torch and taking a step back. Or I could stay with it, either is fine. Just let me know how I can best be of assistance to the mediation process. :) --Elonka 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If I can't do it, you can always go for it. Wizardman 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so here's how it'll work: Wizardman is now chief mediator of this dispute. I'll still help out as an uninvolved administrator, primarily in terms of managing the Conditions for editing that are on the article, and imposing/lifting any editing restrictions involved. Or in other words:

• Wizardman (talk · contribs) is the point person for content issues, towards finding a compromise version of the article.
• Elonka (talk · contribs) is the point person for user conduct issues, specifically as relating to the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions.

Other uninvolved administrators are also welcome to participate, and of course all admins (including myself and Wizardman) will stay in communication with each other, to try and address any areas where things overlap. --Elonka 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Alright, here's what I would like done. Let's try to keep discussion here on this talk page. What I'd like each party member to do is give me an outline of where they stand on this issue, and what they would like to see happen in the Statements section below. Since there's twenty of you, keep them brief :) Then we can start on compromising and the like. Wizardman 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Statements

• I believe the intro needs a rewrite as it is clearly on the side of France 2 and Arab organizations. Plus the source used to verify is over 8 years old. The intro should be adjusted according to current findings, which as far as I know are near the "maybe" he was killed spectrum. The current intro gives the false impression that al-Durrah was murdered in all likelihood, and there is not a single chance he might still be alive. thanks Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the intro - and the body of the article - needs a rewrite as much has happened in the intervening years, in particular the recent high court France ruling.fr en While I can accept the possibility that the boy was killed, the bulk of the available evidence (or non-evidence, as there is no hard evidence either way) points to the probability of it being a hoax. In either case, it seems that the Israelis did not do it and the article should unambiguously reflect that. Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm kind of talked out on this one. To put it simply - there is doubt about the accuracy of the original report by France 2 that blamed the IDF for killing him. Mainstream reliable sources now seem to acknowledge that he could have been killed by Palestinian gunfire, although there is no definitive answer or proof one way or the other. The article should and does reflect this, without taking "sides" either way. There is a further position though, promoted mainly in marginal online pro-Israeli sources and the occasional op-ed, that the whole incident may have been a hoax or deliberately staged by Palestinians. This possibility is occasionally mentioned - usually without endorsement - in the mainstream media news reporting, primarily because of the court case. However it is a fringe view, based entirely on fairly vague, speculative questions about the original footage which are as likely to have other explanations, not on any positive evidence (eg someone involved in the hoax and subsequent cover-up coming forward). The latest court ruling itself has been misrepresented as giving backing to the hoax theory, when it did not and when no reliable mainstream source has interpreted it that way. Yes this aspect of the controversy also needs to be covered, but with even more focus on the issue of due weight, and with regard to BLP issues in respect of Charles Enderlin. The article, and especially the lead, should not certainly not lock into a minority view and suggest there is anything "supposed" or "alleged" about the fact of Muhammad Al Durrah's death. --Nickhh (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• My concern, simply, is with undue weight being given to conspiracy/fringe theories in this article. A select group of users is fundamentally misapplying and synthesizing a recent court ruling on the matter into giving more weight to the conspiracy theory, as well as trying to "source" the fringe POV to inherently reliable sources such as blogs, trivial local newspaper outlets, and the OpEd columns of major newspapers. At best, a casual mention of the conspiracy theories can be made, much as such issues are addressed in Apollo 11 in popular culture#Folklore and 9/11#Conspiracy theories. And I must say, that any suggestion here that evidence points to the "probability of it being a hoax" is an absolutely, unequivocable falsehood. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Note: I will be gone for a few weeks, with no intent or desire to be within a mile of a net connection. So unless this is still ongoing in mid-July, my participation will be pretty much limited to this statement Tarc (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• The key difficulty we're having with this article is a clash between two different approaches to editing. The subject of the article is the focus of an aggressive off-wiki campaign by a number of right-wing and pro-Israeli nationalist bloggers and activists, with support from a few op-ed columnists in ideologically sympathetic media outlets. A number of editors support the views put forward by this campaign and argue that the article should present what the campaigners regard as "the truth". Other editors are agnostic about the facts of the case and argue that the article should present the various POVs fairly, without undue weight being given to minority POVs, as required by Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. An additional complication is that the campaigners seek to impeach the personal reputation of the living persons involved in this affair, which has been reflected in personal attacks on those persons on Misplaced Pages (see e.g. ) We therefore need to address the following points, inter alia:

• How to represent the minority POV without giving it undue weight, given the insistence by some editors that the minority POV is "the truth";
• How to deal with BLP concerns, given the repeated attacks on living people's reputations;
• Which sources are compatible with Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies, given that blogs and op-ed columns are routinely being cited on the talk page (and in the comments above mine).

-- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• No reliable source have reported that Muhammad al-Durrah is any more alive now then when he was killed. // Liftarn (talk)
• All I want is for the intro to reflect current findings. The current reflects when the incident broke out in 2000. It's the year 2008 for those who are unaware, and thus the article should contain new (reliable of course) information. To say nothing new or relevant has come up since the year 2000 would be a lie. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are multiple, mainstream news sources who discuss the hoax theory, either supporting it, or taking the evidence for it very seriously. There are other mainstream sources who severely criticize the France 2 report as misleading to the point of dishonesty, though they fall short of calling it a hoax. There are no mainstream sources that I'm aware of who adhere to the view that the France 2 report was more or less accurate (not counting the flurry of reporting shortly after the incident itself). The story is what a Boston Herald editorial has called a "sordid 8-year-old affair," and an increasing number of individuals and groups in France are asking the French president to set up an independent inquiry. Our article must reflect the lack of clarity accurately, without implying that the hoax hypothesis is a tiny-minority or fringe POV, or a conspiracy theory. SlimVirgin 22:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The above statement is extremely misleading. There are no mainstream news sources on al-Durrah that take the line, or give any space to the conspiracy theory, that the shooting was a hoax. There are some op-eds claiming it, mostly from those closely associated with this conspiracy theory, and there are some news reports on a trial relating to it. Per WP:FRINGE, both those are irrelevant. I'm afraid that there's no compromise possible here unless our approach to fringe theories is changed, and no degree of articles focusing on the trial will change that. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about statements

(Tundrabuggy response to Nickhh) the article does take sides, as it stands, by insisting that the only possibilities to be given weight are that he was shot and killed, either by Israelis or Palestinians. As pointed out to the court by independent ballistics experts,there is as much or more evidence that the killing was staged, as there was that the Israelis or anyone else killed him. Maintaining the lead of this article based on the 2000 Enderlin account is to misrepresent the state of affairs today. If we want to put in a timeline, that's fine, but the lead should reflect the contemporary state of affairs. The language of the lead, as all journalists know, is critical.Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Since the mediator is currently absent, I have created this "discussion" section to keep replies separate from the statements. I still encourage all parties to include their own statement. You are also welcome to amend your statement, until the mediator's return, and then I'll pass the torch back to Wizardman.  :) --Elonka 18:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

For some sources discussing or reporting the view that the France 2 footage was misleading, or even a hoax, please see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/sources. SlimVirgin 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/sources

More accurately: these are op-eds arguing for the view, not news sources, or news reports on a trial peripherally related to the claim being used for political propaganda. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I need to do this, but the "source war" has started, so here are a couple of sources - dated after the libel case originally started - that continue to ridicule the "hoax" theory as being the preserve of "eccentrics" or "conspiracy theorists" etc. They are op-eds too, but in a sense though that's the point of course - mainstream news reporting isn't touching the hoax theory, at least in terms of giving it any credence. The lack of such reporting says more than the number of op-eds that are flung back and forth here. Anyway I haven't set up a separate page as there's only four so far. Happy to have someone add more and move them to a standalone page.

• David Langsam in the Australian Rationalist
• Larry Derfner in the Jerusalem Post
• Larry Derfner in the Jerusalem Post (follow up column)
• Gideon Levy in Haaretz.

Perhaps more importantly, even the pro-hoax theorists and campaigners have been complaining that, as mentioned above, the mainstream media aren't touching the hoax theory

• UPJF
• Melanie Phillips
• CAMERA
• Honest Reporting

--Nickhh (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to remind you that Larry Derfner doesn't accept the possibility of the incident being staged because he believes the Palestinians killed the boy? Either way, he doesn't accept the original France 2 version, ie that the Israelis shot him. As for Gideon Levy, it doesn't matter to him one way or the other. In fact he says: "But the question of who killed al-Dura is not important. And maybe he is even alive, as some eccentrics claim." There are more and more "eccentrics" around, these days. To the David Langsam articles, Langsam says of Nahum Shahaf and Yosef Duriel: "Despite their lack of qualifications, their report is relied on as proof of the conspiracy theory." In checking out their qualifications, besides that of being a physicist and an engineer respectively, it seems Shahaf has patents on a see-through wall which forms a barrier against penetration of projectiles, and a system for moving object detection. . If Langsam can call that "lack of qualifications," he can call the whole thing a "conspiracy theory" with equal justification. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who argues that the sources aren't reliable, or aren't relevant, hasn't read them. We have multiple mainstream sources who are casting doubt on the France 2 report — from the minimalist theory (that France 2 had no reason to blame the Israelis, and even had no reason to claim that the boy had died, though he may very well have done so) to the maximalist version (that the entire thing was staged). Anyone who doubts this, please spend some time reading what the sources say and checking how mainstream the publications and the writers are. SlimVirgin 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read them. SV, please address the points already made, rather than restating your position unchanged, please, if we are to progress. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that you've made any points. You simply keep saying that only op-eds and fringe sources are reporting the hoax theory, when even a cursory glance at the source list shows that you are wrong. You also seem not to realize that journalists write opinion pieces all the time about old news, rather than straightforward news accounts, because there is so much background to explain. They are still perfectly good sources, particularly if the writer is a well-known, mainstream one, as many are in this case. We also have a recent overview from the Columbia Journalism Review explaining that the hoax theory used to belong to the conspiracy-theory sector, but no longer does. My suggestion is that a serious journalist who has investigated this probably knows more about the issue than anyone on this page. SlimVirgin 08:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

SV, I have a dozen times said that no coverage of the entire Al-Durrah case in a mainstream source gives any weightage to the fringe theory, only those reporting on the conspiracy theorists or their trial does. Regardless of the op-eds or trial reports you keep on citing as sources, I have not seen a response to that point. I am also well-aware of newspaper policies on what is considered appropriate for an op-ed piece as opposed to straight news. I am surprised to discover that you do not, or wish to ignore it. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that there's a major difference between original reportage and op-ed coverage. Op-eds, by definition, are expressions of a single individual's opinion on a topic. They're sectioned off from the news coverage for a reason; most media outlets are strict about keeping the opinion and reporting separate. Thus (for instance) a news report by an on-the-scene correspondent has a higher news value as a statement of observed fact than an op-ed column by an armchair analyst, which is merely a statement of personal opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

No new relevant information has appeared. There have been further development of conspiracy theorists, but that is something very different from facts. Yes, a French court came to the conclusion it is not slander to promote the conspiracy theory, but that doesn't change anything. // Liftarn (talk)

Er, no. You are mischaracterising the court's decision. The court decided that, after looking at the 'evidence' provided by Karsenty, and listening to the witnesses, reading the reports and watching the rushes, that Karsenty's 'evidence' had weight and THUS his characterisation of the France 2 report could not be considered libelous. Read the report for yourself and notice all the "Considérant(s)...." in the verdict. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Liftarn - I've been watching this from the sidelines. I'd suggest not using the term "conspiracy theorists" if you're at all interested in a constructive conversation, as that term has a lot of negative connotations and is sure to anger or annoy good-faith editors who don't hold your point of view. Couldn't you use a more neutral term like "minority POV" or something similar, instead? Kelly 14:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Liftarn - go to talk page. Tundra, 67, many many others have demonstrated that the new findings are far from conspiracy theories. I'm really getting tired of having to repeat myself.Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When they are only supported by unreliable sources, then they really aren't very far at all. This is the essence of WP:FRINGE. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when are they unreliable? Because you disagree with them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, because they fail WP:RS. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Liftarn, I agree that the hoax "theory" (hypothesis, really) is a conspiracy theory in the strict dictionary-definition sense of the term - it certainly ticks all the boxes. However, I've noticed that people who believe in such things tend not to like being called conspiracy theorists, so it's probably best to avoid the aggravation that the term causes. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it incumbent upon those who claim that all of our new sources are unreliable; to demonstrate specifically which ones are unreliable, and what is unreliable about them. They can find thelist here: Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/sources, specifically. How about this from the Jerusalem Post in regard to the 2006 decision that went against Karsenty?

In October 2006 a French court decided in favor of France 2 and Enderlin, and against Karsenty.

The court acknowledged that Karsenty had submitted significant evidence indicating that the event had been staged. Still, in ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the judges said Karsenty's accusations lacked credibility because, they claimed incorrectly, he had based his accusations on a single source.

The JP is generally conceded to be reliable, no? And that was in 2006 before anyone had even seen the rushes, as France 2 had been eager enough to send out the edited version free to all takers but was highly resistant to letting anyone see the unedited film, even the Israeli government! Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the issues we need to work out: how much value do we put on sources that paraphrase things like court rulings, versus sources that quote from such rulings? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

JP can't be any less reliable than France 2. After all, in this particular incident France 2 is being challenged for integrity. XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The same source also says "Karsenty's accusations lacked credibility" and "no Israeli authority /../ has ever accorded the slightest credit to allegations". // Liftarn (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh? France 2 is the source being challenged, not JP. This article is using a dated report that is being accused of fabrication. This is something we cannot ignore. Smearing it as a hoax or conspiracy is unfair and ridiculous. We are bordering intellectual dishonesty, and as far as I know wikipedia does not support that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that some people have proposed... ahem... alternative theories is not realy relavant. Elvis is still dead. // Liftarn (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

this mediation is going nowhere. clearly opinions and blatantly poisoned sources trump logic. yeah, i tried being cordial. cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The central point is that the kid is obviously still alive, moving around, and without blood on him when he last appears in the unedited version of the France 2 video, i.e. after the section where France 2 claims he was shot and killed. I haven't seen anyone argue that this isn't true. But if you point out, you're "fringe" and a "conspiracy theorist." The arguments I see offered by the pro-France 2 side are just endless variations on this sort of sneering and name calling. Kauffner (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of fantasy interpretation (ie `the kid is still obviously alive`) that is and should still remain on the periphery of the subject matter. Goodness, this is like reading the testimonies of the people who say they can look at the WTC implosions and conclude `yup, that thar is a demolition not an explosion`. 70.242.121.61 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

that is ridiculous. equating the legitimate accusations against france 2 (which have been HEAVILY sourced) to silly conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 is unfair and downright insulting. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not as far-fetched as you think. I've just been watching a BBC documentary about the controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, specifically concerning the collapse of 7 WTC, and I was struck by the similarities between the "truthers" on the programme and the hoax "theorists" in the al-Durrah case. We have the same sort of cherry-picking of evidence, picking out statements, video clips and photos that support the "truther" case while ignoring or ridiculing any counter-evidence; the same pattern of dubious extrapolations from limited evidence; the same sort of speculation based on, apparently, nothing more than the belief that the party involved (the government in this case) is a habitual liar and can't be trusted; the same implicit or explicit claim that hundreds or thousands of people must have been involved in the conspiracy, though strangely without any leaks or confessions from anyone in the past seven years; the same sort of frenzied speculation on the Internet on websites and blogs that act as self-reinforcing echo chambers for like-minded "theorists"; the same hounding of individual journalists and experts whom the "truthers" believe are part of the conspiracy, including denunciations and death threats against such individuals. In other words, the same panoply of pathological thinking, faulty logic, hopeless credulity and belief-based speculation.

The programme made it very clear that the "truthers" are seeing only what they want to see and that they're not rational or impartial inquirers. They have a basic preconceived belief - essentially that the Bush administration is evil - and they're interpreting everything they see through the lens of that belief. Of course, the major difference between the "truthers" and the al-Durrah hoax "theorists" is that a segment of the American conservative commentariat has latched onto the al-Durrah hoax "theory" for reasons of political convenience. I suspect that says rather more about the values of American conservatism than the merits of the al-Durrah hoax "theory". -- ChrisO (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris0, there are plenty of sites that debunk the myth of 9/11 being an inside job. I'm one of the many here that believe credibility is essential on controversial topics in wikipedia. Appealing to silly conspiracy theories is not very productive nor is it enlightening. Second, there is PLENTY of evidence indicating al-Durrah's status (dead or alive) as unknown. No body has been found and the tape released was cut from an estimated 20 minutes to 30 seconds for reasons not said. If in fact al-Durrah was killed, it is still not clear who killed him. Recent ballistic reports (which have been sourced by Tundra, 6S, me and others in the talk page) attribute the fighting to neither side. This is what we know: France 2 has had a blatant bias against Israel from the get-go. Investigations with the al-Durrah case is still going on. From all this we can say there is no definite answer as to what actually happened, and thus the article should reflect that. Currently, the introduction is being verified by an 8 year old source which is under intense scrutiny and analysis. For an informative, neutral, no-political-allegiance website like wikipedia, we must take great care in ensuring balance and fairness. al-Durrah has yet to meet these standards. Do you agree? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because again you're displaying some of the pathological thinking I described above. Cherry-picking of evidence: a body was "found" - the boy was taken to hospital, certified dead and then buried publicly in a filmed funeral at a Gaza cemetery, so plenty of people saw (and recorded) the body. Dubious extrapolations: news organisations do not normally redistribute the full rushes of a particular set of footage but offer the key scenes as a "package", without a commentary, to which a voiceover can be added by whichever agency picks it up. That's standard practice. Prior belief of wrongdoing: your claim that "France 2 has had a blatant bias against Israel from the get-go", which is little more than a standard partisan complaint put forward whenever someone broadcasts something that's ideologically inconvenient. Speculation in echo-chamber conspiracy theory websites: there are no "ongoing investigations" other than the ongoing frenzy of speculation by the hoax "theorists". At least the 9/11 conspiracy theorists can look forward to the publication of the official report into the collapse of 7 WTC; the al-Durrah conspiracy theorists are trying to rewrite a closed case. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice

I'm going to be on wikibreak (for the most part) from the 6th to the 13th. As a result, while I will probably be able to be online and make occasional edits, I won't be able to mediate the case and help you guys out. I've finally brought myself up to date with what's been going on, but until I get back try to hold of on edits and the like (though you can try and make compromises amongst yourselves, I encourage that). Sorry I haven't done more as a mediator thus far, this is a compliated situation and I'm making sure I understand all aspects of it. Wizardman 21:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)